Revision of Certification Requirements: Mechanics and Repairmen

Part II

Department of Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

Federal Aviation Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

14 CFR Parts 65, 66, and 147

Revision of Certification Requirements: Mechanics and Repairmen;

Proposed Rules

Proposed Advisory Circulars, 66-XX: Aviation Maintenance Personnel

Certification Regulations, Recurrent Training Requirements, and

Aviation Maintenance Technician Training Program Providers Approval;

Notice

Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 65, 66, and 147

[Docket No. 27863; Notice No. 98-5]

RIN 2120-AF22

Revision of Certification Requirements: Mechanics and Repairmen

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the Federal Aviation

Regulations (FAR) that prescribe the certification and training

requirements for mechanics and repairmen. Current regulations

prescribing these requirements do not reflect the extensive differences

in the maintenance skills required of currently certificated personnel,

the significant technological advances that have occurred in the

aviation industry, and the enhancements in training and instructional

methods that have affected all aviation maintenance personnel. The

proposed rule would consolidate and clarify all certification,

training, and experience requirements for aviation maintenance

personnel in a newly established part of the Code of Federal

Regulations. The proposed rule would create additional certificates and

ratings, and would modify the privileges and limitations of current

certificates to respond more closely to the responsibilities of

aviation maintenance personnel

date and clarify all certification,

training, and experience requirements for aviation maintenance

personnel in a newly established part of the Code of Federal

Regulations. The proposed rule would create additional certificates and

ratings, and would modify the privileges and limitations of current

certificates to respond more closely to the responsibilities of

aviation maintenance personnel. In addition, the proposal would

establish new training requirements that would enhance the technical

capabilities of, and increase the level of professionalism among,

aviation maintenance personnel. Further, as current rules do not

provide the FAA with an accurate assessment of active aviation

maintenance personnel, the proposal also would provide the FAA with

essential demographic information that could be used to disseminate

vital aviation safety and training information, thereby enhancing

aviation safety. All of the proposals in this document have been

extensively researched for the FAA by the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee (ARAC) Part 65 Working Group, and all proposals made in this

document are based on the ARAC's recommendations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule should be delivered or

mailed, in triplicate, to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of

the Chief Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 27863, Room

915G, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments

submitted must be marked: ``Docket No. 27863.'' Comments also may be

submitted electronically to the following Internet address: 9-NPRM-

[email protected]. Comments may be examined in Room 915G on weekdays,

except Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Vipond, AFS-350, Continuous

Airworthiness Maintenance Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal

Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC

20591, telephone (202) 267-3269.

Internet address: 9-NPRM-

[email protected]. Comments may be examined in Room 915G on weekdays,

except Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Vipond, AFS-350, Continuous

Airworthiness Maintenance Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal

Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC

20591, telephone (202) 267-3269.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy,

federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the

proposals in this notice also are invited. Substantive comments should

be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments should identify the

regulatory docket or notice number and should be submitted in

triplicate to the Rules Docket address specified above.

All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each

substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this rulemaking, will

be filed in the docket. The docket is available for public inspection

before and after the comment closing date.

All comments received on or before the closing date will be

considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed

rulemaking. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent

practicable. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in

light of the comments received.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice must include a pre-addressed,

stamped postcard with those comments on which the following statement

is made: ``Comments to Docket No. 27863.'' The postcard will be date

stamped and mailed to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

his notice may be changed in

light of the comments received.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice must include a pre-addressed,

stamped postcard with those comments on which the following statement

is made: ``Comments to Docket No. 27863.'' The postcard will be date

stamped and mailed to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Using a modem and suitable communications software, an electronic

copy of this document may be downloaded from the FAA regulations

section of the FedWorld electronic bulletin board service (telephone:

(703) 321-3339), the Government Printing Office's electronic bulletin

board service (telephone: (202) 512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation

Rulemaking Advisory Committee bulletin board service (telephone: (800)

322-2722).

Internet users may reach the FAA's webpage at http://www.faa.gov/

avr/nprm/nprm.htm or the Government Printing Office's webpage at http:/

/www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to recently published rulemaking

documents.

Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request

to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1,

800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)

267-9860. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.

Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future

NPRMs should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular

(AC) No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System,

which describes the application procedure.

Background

Statement of the Problem

shington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)

267-9860. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.

Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future

NPRMs should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular

(AC) No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System,

which describes the application procedure.

Background

Statement of the Problem

In keeping with the FAA's policy of reviewing and upgrading

regulations to ensure that they are consistent with changes in the

aviation environment, the FAA has conducted a multiphase regulatory

review to amend subparts D and E of 14 CFR part 65, which pertain to

mechanics and repairmen. Since the recodification of the Civil Air

Regulations into the FAR on August 10, 1962, a complete regulatory

review of the certification requirements for these airmen has not been

accomplished, and few significant revisions to these subparts have been

made. However, numerous technological advances in the aviation

industry, recent FAA and international regulatory activities, concerns

over aging aircraft, and enhancements in training methods have

significantly affected all aspects of aviation maintenance operations.

Additionally, various and often conflicting interpretations of the

existing regulations have resulted in confusion among the airmen for

whom this part was intended. Based on these factors, the FAA has

instituted this complete regulatory review of part 65, subparts D and

E.

History

nd enhancements in training methods have

significantly affected all aspects of aviation maintenance operations.

Additionally, various and often conflicting interpretations of the

existing regulations have resulted in confusion among the airmen for

whom this part was intended. Based on these factors, the FAA has

instituted this complete regulatory review of part 65, subparts D and

E.

History

In November 1989, a joint industry/FAA part 65 review group was

formed to evaluate and review certification requirements for mechanics

and repairmen. The review group's objective was to develop and present

a unified position on recommended changes to part 65. The group was

composed of representatives from several aviation associations and was

coordinated by the Professional Aviation Maintenance Association

(PAMA). FAA interests were represented by the Aircraft Maintenance

Division (AFS-300) of the FAA.

The review group conducted a series of panel discussions throughout

the United States and, as a result, drafted the ``Industry/FAA Part 65

Review Group Working Paper,'' which was completed on January 31, 1991.

This paper presented the issues of general agreement within the review

group and issues that the group believed would require further

discussion.

In support of this regulatory review, the FAA also completed a

historical review of part 65, subparts D and E, on October 22, 1991.

This review revealed that, as of October 1991, there had been 17

amendments (1 of which was rescinded), 3 petitions for rulemaking, and

100 exemption actions to these subparts since recodification in 1962.

In addition, one accident, the Aloha Airlines Boeing 737 structural

failure on April 28, 1988, generated National Transportation Safety

Board (NTSB) recommendations related to amending these subparts

w revealed that, as of October 1991, there had been 17

amendments (1 of which was rescinded), 3 petitions for rulemaking, and

100 exemption actions to these subparts since recodification in 1962.

In addition, one accident, the Aloha Airlines Boeing 737 structural

failure on April 28, 1988, generated National Transportation Safety

Board (NTSB) recommendations related to amending these subparts.

The three petitions for rulemaking addressed issues associated with

establishing certificates and ratings for avionics and instrument

technicians, recertifying mechanics, and allowing applicants for

mechanic certificates who have not graduated from an aviation

maintenance technician school approved under 14 CFR part 147 to take

the oral and practical tests for a certificate or rating before

completing the required written tests.

The majority of the requests for exemption, FAA policy letters, and

legal interpretations regarding mechanics pertained to issues affecting

inspection authorization renewal or to general eligibility and

experience requirements. The majority of requests for similar actions

concerning repairmen involved issues pertaining to certificate

privileges and limitations.

During 1991, the FAA conducted a survey of FAA regional offices on

the certification of mechanics, holders of inspection authorizations,

and repairmen. A copy of this survey has been placed in Docket No.

27863.

The survey questions were derived from issues that were raised

during FAA participation in listening sessions with aviation industry

associations and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Licensing Panel and from issues

identified in legal interpretations, petitions for exemption, petitions

for rulemaking, and enforcement actions

ocket No.

27863.

The survey questions were derived from issues that were raised

during FAA participation in listening sessions with aviation industry

associations and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Licensing Panel and from issues

identified in legal interpretations, petitions for exemption, petitions

for rulemaking, and enforcement actions.

Results of this survey showed clear support for: (1) replacing the

term ``mechanic'' with ``aviation maintenance technician''; (2)

developing a system for granting additional privileges and limitations

for mechanics; (3) encouraging additional FAA participation with ICAO

and other aviation authorities to standardize training and

certification of maintenance personnel; (4) using aviation maintenance

instructor experience to satisfy recent experience requirements; (5)

clarifying Sec. 65.75(b), regarding written test requirements; (6)

adding the term ``facsimile'' to Sec. 65.16; and (7) developing a

separate certificate or rating for balloon repairmen. The majority of

the respondents supported changes in the English-language requirements

for mechanics and repairmen, the continued acceptance of military

aircraft maintenance experience as the basis for airframe and

powerplant mechanic certification, and changes in the units of time

(from months to hours) used in current Sec. 65.77 to measure experience

requirements for mechanics.

Further impetus for the part 65 review came with the establishment

of the ARAC. The ARAC charter became effective on February 5, 1991 (56

FR 2190, January 22, 1991). It was most recently renewed on February 5,

1997 (FAA Order 1110.119C, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee;

March 3, 1997). The ARAC was established to assist the FAA in the

rulemaking process by providing input from outside the Federal

Government on major regulatory issues affecting aviation safety

ARAC. The ARAC charter became effective on February 5, 1991 (56

FR 2190, January 22, 1991). It was most recently renewed on February 5,

1997 (FAA Order 1110.119C, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee;

March 3, 1997). The ARAC was established to assist the FAA in the

rulemaking process by providing input from outside the Federal

Government on major regulatory issues affecting aviation safety. The

ARAC includes representatives of air carriers, manufacturers, general

aviation, labor groups, colleges, universities, associations, airline

passenger groups, and the general public. The ARAC's formation has

given the FAA additional opportunities to solicit information directly

from significantly affected parties, who meet and exchange ideas about

proposed rules and existing rules that should be revised or eliminated.

The FAA has received significant assistance from the ARAC in this

review and in the formulation of the proposals in this NPRM.

At its first meeting on air carrier/general aviation maintenance

issues on May 24, 1991 (56 FR 20492, May 3, 1991), the ARAC established

the Part 65 Working Group. The ARAC tasked this Working Group to

conduct a review of the certification requirements for mechanics,

mechanics holding inspection authorizations, and repairmen. At that

time, these requirements were in part 65, subparts D and E. Because the

scope of the Working Group's task was extensive, the group divided its

review of the certification requirements for aviation maintenance

personnel into two phases.

Once the first phase of this review was complete, the ARAC analyzed

the efforts of the Working Group and made a series of recommendations

to the FAA, which resulted in the FAA's issuance of Notice No. 94-27 on

August 17, 1994 (59 FR 42430)

the Working Group's task was extensive, the group divided its

review of the certification requirements for aviation maintenance

personnel into two phases.

Once the first phase of this review was complete, the ARAC analyzed

the efforts of the Working Group and made a series of recommendations

to the FAA, which resulted in the FAA's issuance of Notice No. 94-27 on

August 17, 1994 (59 FR 42430). That NPRM proposed: (1) Establishing a

separate part 66 for aviation maintenance personnel; (2) removing

gender-specific terms from the original regulation; (3) changing the

term ``mechanic'' to ``aviation maintenance technician''; (4) changing

the term ``repairman'' to ``aviation repair specialist''; (5)

establishing the equivalency of the aviation maintenance technician

certificate and the aviation repair specialist certificate with current

mechanic and repairman certificates; (6) allowing facsimiles to be used

in the process of replacing lost or destroyed aviation maintenance

technician and aviation repair specialist certificates; (7) requiring

applicants to demonstrate English-language proficiency by reading and

explaining appropriate maintenance publications and by writing defect

and repair statements; (8) discontinuing the certification of aviation

maintenance personnel who are employed outside the United States and

who are not proficient in the English language; (9) requiring all

aviation maintenance technician applicants to pass a written test that

would examine their knowledge of all applicable maintenance

regulations; (10) clarifying the requirement that each applicant for an

aviation maintenance technician certificate pass all written tests

before applying for oral and practical tests; (11) recognizing

computer-based testing methods; (12) specifying all experience

requirements in hours instead of months for initial certification; (13)

establishing a basic competency requirement for aviation maintenance

technicians; (14) allowing aviation maintenance technicians to use

equipment-specif

chnician certificate pass all written tests

before applying for oral and practical tests; (11) recognizing

computer-based testing methods; (12) specifying all experience

requirements in hours instead of months for initial certification; (13)

establishing a basic competency requirement for aviation maintenance

technicians; (14) allowing aviation maintenance technicians to use

equipment-specific training as an additional means to qualify for the

exercise of certificate

privileges; (15) permitting aviation maintenance instructors to use

instructional time to satisfy currency requirements; (16) establishing

training requirements for aviation maintenance technicians who desire

to use their certificates for compensation or hire; (17) extending the

duration of an inspection authorization from 1 to 2 years; and (18)

expanding the renewal options available to the holder of an inspection

authorization.

After further work by the Part 65 Working Group and the rapid

completion of the second phase of the Working Group's review of the

certification requirements for mechanics and repairmen, the ARAC

recommended that the FAA consolidate the proposals made in Notice 94-27

with those proposals made by the ARAC at the completion of the second

phase of the regulatory review. This decision was based on the ARAC's

evaluation that the proposals made in the second phase of the Part 65

Working Group's review of the certification requirements for aviation

maintenance personnel would cause significant changes to the format and

content of proposed part 66, as set forth in Notice No. 94-27, which

proposed the changes recommended by the ARAC and the FAA after the

completion of the first phase of the review

's

evaluation that the proposals made in the second phase of the Part 65

Working Group's review of the certification requirements for aviation

maintenance personnel would cause significant changes to the format and

content of proposed part 66, as set forth in Notice No. 94-27, which

proposed the changes recommended by the ARAC and the FAA after the

completion of the first phase of the review. As a result of the

creation of new subparts in proposed part 66 for the aviation

maintenance technician (transport) (AMT(T)) certificate and the

inspection authorization, the addition of a separate rating for

aviation maintenance instructors, and the creation of an additional

aviation repair specialist certificate, the ARAC determined that the

general organization of part 66, as previously proposed, would be

greatly altered.

The FAA, in an effort to avoid confusion in the implementation of

the final rule, agreed with the ARAC's recommendation and determined

that the changes proposed in the earlier NPRM and the additional

changes proposed as a result of recommendations made at the completion

of the second phase of the regulatory review should be reconciled and

consolidated into a single NPRM containing both sets of proposals.

Therefore, the FAA is withdrawing the initial NPRM in a document

published elsewhere in this separate part of the Federal Register. The

FAA contends that the creation of part 66, as set forth in the earlier

proposal, followed by a series of sweeping changes to implement the

additional proposals set forth in this NPRM, would have been confusing

to the aviation maintenance community and would have hindered the

implementation of the changes that the Working Group has set out to

accomplish.

The proposals developed during both phases of the part 65

regulatory review, and set forth in this NPRM, cover a broad range of

issues affecting the certification of aviation maintenance personnel

s set forth in this NPRM, would have been confusing

to the aviation maintenance community and would have hindered the

implementation of the changes that the Working Group has set out to

accomplish.

The proposals developed during both phases of the part 65

regulatory review, and set forth in this NPRM, cover a broad range of

issues affecting the certification of aviation maintenance personnel.

This NPRM reconciles the proposals made in the earlier NPRM with the

proposals made as a result of the completion of the second phase of the

ARAC's review of the certification requirements for aviation

maintenance personnel. As stated previously, all of the proposals in

this NPRM have been extensively researched for the FAA by the Part 65

Working Group, and all proposals made in this NPRM are based on the

ARAC's recommendations.

General Discussion of the Proposal

Modification of the Previous Proposal

A majority of the proposals developed during the first phase of the

regulatory review and set forth in Notice No. 94-27 also have been set

forth in this proposal. Of those 18 specific proposals previously noted

as being set forth in the earlier NPRM, fewer than half have been

significantly modified in this NPRM.

Many of the discrepancies between the current proposal and the

earlier NPRM resulted from the previous proposal to equate a mechanic

certificate to an aviation maintenance technician (AMT) certificate. As

a result of the completion of the second phase of this review, the FAA

proposes the creation of AMT and AMT(T) certificates. The current

mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings would be

equivalent to the proposed AMT(T) certificate with an aircraft rating

(with no loss of privileges) and not the AMT certificate, as stated in

the earlier NPRM. The original proposal to change the term ``mechanic''

to ``aviation maintenance technician'' has, therefore, been modified to

reflect the proposed change

s. The current

mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings would be

equivalent to the proposed AMT(T) certificate with an aircraft rating

(with no loss of privileges) and not the AMT certificate, as stated in

the earlier NPRM. The original proposal to change the term ``mechanic''

to ``aviation maintenance technician'' has, therefore, been modified to

reflect the proposed change. All privileges granted to an AMT(T) with

an aircraft rating, as set forth in this notice, would apply to the

holder of a current mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant

ratings. The holder of the proposed AMT certificate with an aircraft

rating would not possess the full approval for return-to-service

privileges of the holder of either the current mechanic certificate

with an airframe and powerplant rating or the proposed (and equivalent)

AMT(T) certificate with an aircraft rating.

This proposal also would combine the current airframe and

powerplant ratings into a single ``aircraft'' rating. The FAA would not

issue any proposed certificates with airframe and powerplant ratings as

stated in the previous NPRM.

In the earlier NPRM, information pertaining to inspection

authorizations was found solely in the subpart of proposed part 66 that

would pertain to AMTs. The current proposal, however, would create two

certificates (the AMT and AMT(T)), both of whose holders would be

eligible for inspection authorization privileges. Therefore, the

proposal would remove those sections that pertain to inspection

authorizations from the subpart, proposed in the earlier NPRM, that was

applicable solely to the AMT certificate and place this information in

a separate subpart applicable to AMT and AMT(T) certificates.

Additionally, the proposal would not permit participation in current

inspection programs recommended by the manufacturer or other inspection

programs established by the registered owner or operator under 14 CFR

Sec

ubpart, proposed in the earlier NPRM, that was

applicable solely to the AMT certificate and place this information in

a separate subpart applicable to AMT and AMT(T) certificates.

Additionally, the proposal would not permit participation in current

inspection programs recommended by the manufacturer or other inspection

programs established by the registered owner or operator under 14 CFR

Sec. 91.409(f)(3) or (4), as a means of satisfying inspection

authorization renewal requirements.

By establishing a new type of aviation repair specialist

certificate based on proficiency in a designated specialty area but not

linked to employment, this proposal significantly reorganizes the

subpart of previously proposed part 66 applicable to aviation repair

specialists. Although Notice No. 94-27 states that a valid repairman

certificate would be equal to an aviation repair specialist

certificate, under the proposal contained in this notice, the current

repairman certificate would only be equivalent to the aviation repair

specialist certificate issued on the basis of employment (ARS-II) and

not to the aviation repair specialist certificate issued on the basis

of proficiency in a designated specialty area (ARS-I) (unless the FAA

issued the current repairman certificate based on compliance with a

recognized national standard, such as that established for

nondestructive inspection).

Additionally, as a result of comments received on the earlier NPRM,

the proposal to specify practical experience requirements in hours for

the issuance of an AMT certificate would be retained; however, the time

interval in which recent experience requirements would be measured

would continue to be stated in months. Also as a result of comments

received, this proposal would propose a mandatory recurrent training

requirement for AMTs and AMT(T)s who use their certificates for

compensation or hire; however, this NPRM would not propose that this

recurrent training consist of a minimum of 16 hours of recurrent

training every

nt experience requirements would be measured

would continue to be stated in months. Also as a result of comments

received, this proposal would propose a mandatory recurrent training

requirement for AMTs and AMT(T)s who use their certificates for

compensation or hire; however, this NPRM would not propose that this

recurrent training consist of a minimum of 16 hours of recurrent

training every

24 months, as stated in the previous NPRM. To afford aviation

maintenance personnel greater latitude in the types of training that

could be used to qualify for the exercise of certificate privileges,

this proposal would change the more restrictive term ``equipment-

specific training,'' as set forth in the earlier proposal, to

``appropriate training.'' The proposal also would permit training on

the ``tasks to be performed'' to be used to qualify a person for the

exercise of certificate privileges, rather than require training to be

on the ``equipment on which the work is to be performed.'' Therefore,

completion of training sufficient to permit the exercise of certificate

privileges would not need to be conducted on the identical make and

model of an item on which subsequent work would be performed.

Maintenance personnel would be permitted to complete training by

performing similar maintenance tasks on different makes and models of

equipment. This would provide maintenance personnel with increased

opportunities to obtain qualifying training without causing any

decrease in safety.

To decrease the possibility that a certificate holder would have to

make any additional requests for a telegram or facsimile to be used as

proof of certification after a replacement certificate has been

requested, this NPRM also would increase the period of validity of

telegrams and facsimiles used as proof of certification from 60 days to

90 days

ing without causing any

decrease in safety.

To decrease the possibility that a certificate holder would have to

make any additional requests for a telegram or facsimile to be used as

proof of certification after a replacement certificate has been

requested, this NPRM also would increase the period of validity of

telegrams and facsimiles used as proof of certification from 60 days to

90 days.

Additionally, the FAA has revised the certificate eligibility

requirements relating to English-language proficiency to permit

aviation maintenance personnel who are deaf, hard of hearing, speech

impaired, or possess similar medical conditions, yet have a command of

the English language, to meet certificate eligibility requirements.

Therefore, the FAA has added a provision to the proposed certificate

eligibility requirements that would permit an individual who has a

demonstrated proficiency in the English language, but who may not be

able to meet the proposed requirements because of a medical condition,

to have limitations placed on his or her certificate that would permit

the exercise of certificate privileges.

New Proposals Based on the Completion of the Second Phase of the

Regulatory Review of the Certification Requirements for Mechanics and

Repairmen

Additional proposals developed during Phase II of the regulatory

review and set forth in this NPRM would: (1) establish AMT and AMT(T)

certificates; (2) establish additional training requirements for

individuals seeking the AMT(T) certificate with an aircraft rating; (3)

consolidate current airframe and powerplant ratings into a proposed

aircraft rating; (4) provide for the registration of holders of AMT and

AMT(T) certificates; (5) establish an aviation maintenance instructor

rating; (6) permit AMTs and AMT(T)s to perform maintenance on

horizontal card liquid-filled compasses; (7) grant inspection

authorization privileges based on the type of certificate held by an

individual; (8) require applicants for the inspection authorization to

success

) provide for the registration of holders of AMT and

AMT(T) certificates; (5) establish an aviation maintenance instructor

rating; (6) permit AMTs and AMT(T)s to perform maintenance on

horizontal card liquid-filled compasses; (7) grant inspection

authorization privileges based on the type of certificate held by an

individual; (8) require applicants for the inspection authorization to

successfully complete an inspection authorization refresher course

before application; (9) establish an aviation repair specialist

certificate that may be issued independent of employment (ARS-I), based

on proficiency in designated specialty areas; (10) require the holder

of any certificate issued under proposed part 66 to notify the FAA of a

change of address to continue to exercise the privileges of the

certificate; (11) establish procedures for the approval of AMT(T)

training providers; (12) permit certain aviation maintenance technician

schools to test applicants for the AMT certificate; (13) establish

procedures by which the Administrator would be able to grant, by

waiver, certificates to applicants who have not met certain

requirements of proposed part 66; and (14) replace the term ``written

test'' with ``knowledge test''.

The remainder of this preamble addresses the proposed changes

resulting from both phases of the FAA's review of the certification

requirements for mechanics and repairmen through a discussion of the

principal issues and in a section-by-section analysis of the proposed

rule.

Principal Issues

Establishment of a Separate Subpart for Aviation Maintenance Personnel

est'' with ``knowledge test''.

The remainder of this preamble addresses the proposed changes

resulting from both phases of the FAA's review of the certification

requirements for mechanics and repairmen through a discussion of the

principal issues and in a section-by-section analysis of the proposed

rule.

Principal Issues

Establishment of a Separate Subpart for Aviation Maintenance Personnel

Current part 65, in addition to regulating the certification

requirements for aviation maintenance personnel, regulates the

certification of airmen such as aircraft dispatchers, air traffic

control tower operators, and parachute riggers, whose certification

requirements and duties differ markedly from those of aviation

maintenance personnel. Current industry estimates indicate that there

are more than 145,000 certificated mechanics and repairmen. Among

personnel certificated by the FAA, the number of certificated aviation

maintenance personnel is second only to the number of certificated

pilots. Aviation maintenance personnel work in all aspects of the

aviation environment, perform tasks vastly different from those

performed by other airmen, and are affected by training and recent

experience requirements that are substantially more extensive than

those affecting other airmen currently regulated by part 65. The

aviation maintenance sector is one of the most complex sectors of the

aviation community, and all aviation maintenance personnel must possess

many technical skills. Therefore, the FAA proposes to establish a new

part 66 under the title ``Certification: Aviation maintenance

personnel.'' This new part would be created by removing subparts D

(Mechanics) and E (Repairmen) from current part 65 and by using these

existing subparts as the nucleus for the newly created subpart B

(Aviation Maintenance Technicians), subpart C (Aviation Maintenance

Technicians (Transport)), subpart D (Inspection Authorizations), and

subpart E (Aviation Repair Specialists) under proposed part 66

nel.'' This new part would be created by removing subparts D

(Mechanics) and E (Repairmen) from current part 65 and by using these

existing subparts as the nucleus for the newly created subpart B

(Aviation Maintenance Technicians), subpart C (Aviation Maintenance

Technicians (Transport)), subpart D (Inspection Authorizations), and

subpart E (Aviation Repair Specialists) under proposed part 66. The

sections of current subpart A (General) of part 65 that apply to

aviation maintenance personnel would be included in subpart A of

proposed part 66.

The addition of this new part to the FAR is warranted because of

the proposed creation of additional certificates and ratings for

aviation maintenance personnel, the expansion of current certification

requirements, and the increasing complexity of the training and

experience requirements affecting aviation maintenance personnel.

Redesignation of the Term ``Mechanic''

Because of changes in aircraft technology, the amount of

specialized training required to perform aviation maintenance has

increased significantly since the introduction of the term

``mechanic.'' The highly complex and technical field of contemporary

aviation maintenance requires substantially more than the manual skills

typically associated with individuals classified as ``mechanics.'' The

FAA asserts that the term ``aviation maintenance technician'' more

completely describes the types of skills necessary to maintain today's

complex aircraft and more accurately reflects the level of

professionalism found in the aviation maintenance industry.

Additionally, adoption of the term ``aviation maintenance technician''

would standardize terminology throughout the aviation industry and make

part 66 consistent with part 147 (which regulates aviation maintenance

technician schools), aviation maintenance trade publications, and the

aircraft and more accurately reflects the level of

professionalism found in the aviation maintenance industry.

Additionally, adoption of the term ``aviation maintenance technician''

would standardize terminology throughout the aviation industry and make

part 66 consistent with part 147 (which regulates aviation maintenance

technician schools), aviation maintenance trade publications, and the

civil aviation regulations of many ICAO member states. Accordingly, the

FAA proposes not to use the term ``mechanic'' to designate certificates

issued under proposed part 66.

Establishment of Aviation Maintenance Technician (AMT) Certificates and

Aviation Maintenance Technician (Transport) (AMT(T)) Certificates

The Pilot and Aviation Maintenance Technician Blue Ribbon Panel, in

its report titled ``Pilots and Aviation Maintenance Technicians for the

Twenty-First Century: An Assessment of Availability and Quality,''

noted that current FAA certification requirements do not give aviation

maintenance personnel the entry-level experience and skills necessary

for work involving transport-category aircraft that employ new

technology. The panel further noted that because of the rapid

acceleration of technological advances, the ability of AMTs to master

this new technology without enhanced training is becoming exceedingly

difficult. The Blue Ribbon Panel concluded that more preparation and

training are required to meet the higher levels of qualification that

the aviation maintenance industry demands.

The Blue Ribbon Panel strongly recommended that the FAA develop the

means necessary to train aviation maintenance personnel to a level of

expertise beyond the level currently required. The FAA agrees that this

training must be accomplished to ensure that aviation maintenance

personnel possess the necessary skills to maintain the sophisticated

aircraft that are in service today

ustry demands.

The Blue Ribbon Panel strongly recommended that the FAA develop the

means necessary to train aviation maintenance personnel to a level of

expertise beyond the level currently required. The FAA agrees that this

training must be accomplished to ensure that aviation maintenance

personnel possess the necessary skills to maintain the sophisticated

aircraft that are in service today.

In recognition of the increasing complexity and integrated nature

of the systems found in transport-category airplanes and transport-

category rotorcraft, and as a result of the Blue Ribbon Panel's and

ARAC's recommendations, the FAA proposes the creation of the AMT

certificate and the AMT(T) certificate.

Under the proposal, the holder of an AMT(T) certificate with an

aircraft rating would possess full approval for return-to-service

privileges for all types of aircraft, including those transport-

category aircraft certificated under 14 CFR part 25 or 14 CFR part 29.

Individuals obtaining this certificate and rating after the effective

date of the rule would be required to complete additional training in

those systems and procedures of critical importance to the maintenance

of sophisticated transport-category aircraft. Holders of current

mechanic certificates with airframe and powerplant ratings would not be

required to obtain this additional training.

The holder of an AMT certificate with an aircraft rating would

possess all the privileges of the AMT(T) certificate (and the

equivalent mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings)

except for full approval for return-to-service privileges of aircraft

certificated under part 25 or part 29.

The proposal would, however, provide approval for return-to-service

privileges, for any aircraft certificated under part 25 or part 29, to

the holder of the proposed AMT certificate under certain limited and

specified circumstances

nic certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings)

except for full approval for return-to-service privileges of aircraft

certificated under part 25 or part 29.

The proposal would, however, provide approval for return-to-service

privileges, for any aircraft certificated under part 25 or part 29, to

the holder of the proposed AMT certificate under certain limited and

specified circumstances. The proposal recognizes that an AMT may

occasionally be called on to perform relatively uncomplicated

maintenance on aircraft certificated under part 25 or part 29. The

holder of an AMT certificate would be permitted to approve these

aircraft for return to service only after the performance of those

preventive maintenance tasks specified in paragraph (c) of appendix A

to 14 CFR part 43, or after the performance of certain tasks specified

by the Administrator. Those additional tasks specified by the

Administrator would be published in advisory material. These exceptions

to permit the approval for return to service of an aircraft

certificated under part 25 or 29 by an AMT recognize that in certain

limited circumstances an AMT may be required to perform preventive

maintenance (or other tasks specifically approved by the Administrator)

on a transport-category aircraft and approve that aircraft for return

to service. This need could arise at a remote location where an AMT(T)

would not be available.

An AMT would be permitted to perform maintenance and preventive

maintenance on transport-category aircraft but would be permitted to

approve for return to service only the airframe, or aircraft engine,

propeller, appliance, component, or part of the aircraft. The AMT

certificate holder would not be permitted to approve the transport-

category aircraft for return to service following the completion of

tasks that are not specified in paragraph (c) of appendix A to part 43,

or those tasks that have not otherwise been specified by the

Administrator

service only the airframe, or aircraft engine,

propeller, appliance, component, or part of the aircraft. The AMT

certificate holder would not be permitted to approve the transport-

category aircraft for return to service following the completion of

tasks that are not specified in paragraph (c) of appendix A to part 43,

or those tasks that have not otherwise been specified by the

Administrator.

In formulating this proposed rule, the ARAC and the FAA considered

requiring certificate holders operating under 14 CFR part 121 to ensure

that any person approving its aircraft for return to service,

regardless of the aircraft's certification basis, possess a current and

valid AMT(T) certificate. This restriction would not apply, however, to

approval for return to service of an aircraft after the performance of

those tasks specified in paragraph (c) of appendix A to part 43 or

other tasks approved by the Administrator. The FAA solicits comments on

including the provisions of this proposal in part 121. Based on the

comments received, the FAA may adopt such provisions in a final rule.

Under the proposed rule, current limitations pertaining to the

approval of items for return to service after the completion of major

repairs or major alterations would be retained for holders of the

proposed AMT(T) certificate and the AMT certificate with an aircraft

rating.

As a result of the regulatory changes to the certification

requirements in this portion of the proposal and in the section of this

proposal pertaining to the issuance of aviation repair specialist

certificates (discussed below), the proposal would result in a

certification process that would be compatible with that recommended by

ICAO. The proposed certificate structure also would more closely

reflect Transport Canada's proposed technician certification structure

and would, therefore, facilitate the implementation of the fairly

comprehensive provisions that pertain to the reciprocal acceptance of

maintenance actions by U.S

posal would result in a

certification process that would be compatible with that recommended by

ICAO. The proposed certificate structure also would more closely

reflect Transport Canada's proposed technician certification structure

and would, therefore, facilitate the implementation of the fairly

comprehensive provisions that pertain to the reciprocal acceptance of

maintenance actions by U.S. and Canadian entities that operate under

the terms of the U.S.-Canadian Bilateral Airworthiness Agreement.

Any current and valid mechanic certificate with airframe and

powerplant ratings would be equivalent to an AMT(T) certificate with an

aircraft rating. Therefore, any individual who possesses a mechanic

certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings before the effective

date of the rule would possess the same approval for return-to-service

privileges as the holder of the proposed AMT(T) certificate with an

aircraft rating. A valid mechanic certificate with an airframe and

powerplant rating could be exchanged for an AMT(T) certificate with an

aircraft rating. However, such an exchange would not be necessary

because both certificates would continue to be recognized by the FAA

and the privileges and limitations of the certificates would be

identical.

After the effective date of the rule, the FAA would cease issuing

and no longer recognize mechanic certificates with aircraft and

aircraft engine ratings. Mechanic certificates with these ratings have

not been issued since 1952. Individuals who hold valid mechanic

certificates with aircraft and aircraft engine ratings and who intend

to exercise the privileges of the AMT(T) certificate are encouraged to

exchange

date of the rule, the FAA would cease issuing

and no longer recognize mechanic certificates with aircraft and

aircraft engine ratings. Mechanic certificates with these ratings have

not been issued since 1952. Individuals who hold valid mechanic

certificates with aircraft and aircraft engine ratings and who intend

to exercise the privileges of the AMT(T) certificate are encouraged to

exchange

these certificates for mechanic certificates with airframe and

powerplant ratings, as specified in current Sec. 65.73(b), before the

effective date of the rule. If these individuals exchange their

mechanic certificates with aircraft and aircraft engine ratings for

mechanic certificates with airframe and powerplant ratings before the

effective date of the rule, these individuals would hold the privileges

of the AMT(T) certificate after the effective date of the rule. After

the effective date of the rule, a mechanic certificate with aircraft

and aircraft engine ratings could not be exchanged for a valid mechanic

certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings or an AMT(T)

certificate with an aircraft rating.

In addition, after the effective date of the rule, the FAA would

cease issuing mechanic certificates with airframe and powerplant

ratings. However, mechanic certificates with airframe and powerplant

ratings issued before the effective date of the rule would continue to

be recognized by the FAA. The proposal would not require holders of

valid mechanic certificates with airframe and powerplant ratings to

exchange their certificates for the proposed AMT(T) certificate. If the

holder of a valid mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant

ratings wished to exchange his or her certificate for an AMT(T)

certificate after the effective date of the rule, that individual could

do so without having to receive any additional training

d mechanic certificates with airframe and powerplant ratings to

exchange their certificates for the proposed AMT(T) certificate. If the

holder of a valid mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant

ratings wished to exchange his or her certificate for an AMT(T)

certificate after the effective date of the rule, that individual could

do so without having to receive any additional training. In the event

of a lost or destroyed certificate, the holder of a valid mechanic

certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings would be issued an

AMT(T) certificate with an aircraft rating. A mechanic, however, would

not be precluded from completing the AMT(T) training curriculum (or

obtaining credit for previous equivalent training).

Establishment of Additional Training Requirements for Holders of the

Aviation Maintenance Technician (Transport) Certificate

An essential prerequisite for an individual to obtain the proposed

AMT(T) certificate would be the completion of an AMT(T) training

program. Successful completion of this program would ensure that a

person approving transport-category aircraft for return to service

would possess the requisite level of expertise necessary to accomplish

such tasks.

All aviation maintenance personnel must possess a basic level of

knowledge and skill to maintain an aircraft properly and approve that

aircraft for return to service. Therefore, the FAA contends that the

complexity of large transport aircraft systems and the enhanced level

of safety required in air carrier operations, where transport-category

aircraft are primarily used, necessitate that aviation maintenance

personnel approving these aircraft for return to service possess

additional specialized skills and training.

The FAA recognizes that acquiring these skills is a time-consuming

process and that today's mechanics often learn the requisite skills

while working for an air carrier or repair station

ations, where transport-category

aircraft are primarily used, necessitate that aviation maintenance

personnel approving these aircraft for return to service possess

additional specialized skills and training.

The FAA recognizes that acquiring these skills is a time-consuming

process and that today's mechanics often learn the requisite skills

while working for an air carrier or repair station. However, whether a

current mechanic has these skills cannot be readily discerned through a

review of an individual's current certification record. The proposed

AMT(T) certificate would ensure that all aviation maintenance personnel

certificated after the effective date of the rule who approve

transport-category aircraft for return to service possess these skills.

The AMT(T) certificate also would provide the individual with a readily

available, FAA-sanctioned recognition of a level of proficiency that

previously could not be determined by reference to the individual's

certificate.

Through the creation of this certificate, operators of aircraft

certificated under part 25 or part 29 could be assured that the holder

of an AMT(T) certificate issued after the effective date of the rule

possesses the requisite knowledge and skill to approve these aircraft

for return to service. This would enable operators to employ aviation

maintenance personnel who could more rapidly meet the needs of their

specific operating environment without having to participate in

extensive operator-sponsored training programs before performing

maintenance on these aircraft. Therefore, operators would be able to

focus their training resources on aircraft type and difference training

rather than on primary aircraft maintenance skills for transport-

category aircraft. Aviation maintenance technician training schools

also would be able to apply their training resources more efficiently

and could spend more time training their students in the fundamental

concepts and basic skills of aviation maintenance

focus their training resources on aircraft type and difference training

rather than on primary aircraft maintenance skills for transport-

category aircraft. Aviation maintenance technician training schools

also would be able to apply their training resources more efficiently

and could spend more time training their students in the fundamental

concepts and basic skills of aviation maintenance.

Under the proposal, an applicant for an AMT(T) certificate who does

not already possess the equivalent mechanic certificate with airframe

and powerplant ratings would only be required to possess a current and

valid AMT certificate and present evidence that he or she has completed

an AMT(T) training program, administered by an approved training

provider, that meets specific curriculum requirements. These training

requirements would be designed to ensure that the holder of the

certificate is competent to approve these aircraft for return to

service.

The proposed training requirements for the issuance of the AMT(T)

certificate with an aircraft rating would place no burden on current

mechanics with airframe and powerplant ratings. Currently certificated

mechanics possess approval for return-to-service authority for aircraft

certificated under part 25 and part 29. Any holder of a current and

valid mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings would,

therefore, possess the privileges of the AMT(T) certificate with the

aircraft rating. The proposal would not require a certificate exchange,

and the FAA would recognize a current mechanic certificate with

airframe and powerplant ratings as being equivalent to the proposed

AMT(T) certificate with the aircraft rating. As stated previously, if

the holder of a valid mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant

ratings wished to exchange the certificate for an AMT(T) certificate

with an aircraft rating, the individual could do so after the effective

date of the rule without having to receive any additional training

t ratings as being equivalent to the proposed

AMT(T) certificate with the aircraft rating. As stated previously, if

the holder of a valid mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant

ratings wished to exchange the certificate for an AMT(T) certificate

with an aircraft rating, the individual could do so after the effective

date of the rule without having to receive any additional training.

After the effective date of the proposed rule, individuals

intending to obtain an AMT(T) certificate would have to possess a

current and valid AMT certificate and attend and successfully complete

an AMT(T) training program, given by an approved training provider,

that consists of 573 hours of training in subjects of critical

importance to individuals who maintain aircraft certificated under part

25 or part 29. Training would be provided in subject areas such as

electronics, composites, publications, safety and environmental

concerns, structural repair, and powerplants and systems. Inclusion of

these specific subject areas and the determination of the specific

amount of training time that would be devoted to each individual

subject area were specifically recommended by the ARAC after extensive

consultations with aviation maintenance personnel, aviation maintenance

educators, and operators of transport-category aircraft.

The FAA, in conjunction with the ARAC and the Part 65 Working

Group, has developed a detailed list of those individual subjects that

it recommends should be required for inclusion in each subject area.

The FAA has not, however, proposed that these individual subjects be

included in the proposal, as their inclusion would require that any

future proposal to change the subjects taught would have to be

accomplished through rulemaking or through the grant of a petition for

exemption. The FAA would publish, before the effective date of the

ds should be required for inclusion in each subject area.

The FAA has not, however, proposed that these individual subjects be

included in the proposal, as their inclusion would require that any

future proposal to change the subjects taught would have to be

accomplished through rulemaking or through the grant of a petition for

exemption. The FAA would publish, before the effective date of the

final rule, a detailed list, in advisory material, of those subjects to

be taught in an AMT(T) training program. By publishing this subject

list in advisory material, the FAA could inform AMT(T) training

providers of those subjects that should be taught in an AMT(T) training

program and, in response to future developments in aviation technology,

rapidly revise the list of subjects that are taught.

Because much of this training also can be obtained in aviation

maintenance training programs used by certificate holders operating

under 14 CFR part 121 or part 135, or repair stations certificated

under 14 CFR part 145, individuals currently employed by these

operators would be permitted to use the training gained in such

programs to satisfy the requirements for the proposed AMT(T)

certificate. However, these training programs would be required to meet

the same standards as those of an AMT(T) training program administered

by an approved training provider. The FAA contends that the flexibility

provided by these training programs would enable the operator to tailor

its training programs to meet current organizational maintenance

requirements.

To refrain from unduly penalizing individuals currently possessing

a mechanic certificate with a single rating, the effective date of the

final rule is proposed for 18 months after its publication. This would

permit these individuals to acquire either the airframe or powerplant

rating, as appropriate, and facilitate the issuance of an AMT(T)

certificate with an aircraft rating and its associated privileges and

limitations

ng individuals currently possessing

a mechanic certificate with a single rating, the effective date of the

final rule is proposed for 18 months after its publication. This would

permit these individuals to acquire either the airframe or powerplant

rating, as appropriate, and facilitate the issuance of an AMT(T)

certificate with an aircraft rating and its associated privileges and

limitations. An individual possessing a mechanic certificate with a

single rating would still be permitted to exercise the current

privileges of that individual rating and those specified under proposed

Sec. 66.109, except as noted in proposed Sec. 66.105.

Under the proposed rule, an individual holding a mechanic

certificate with a single rating would be considered to hold the

equivalent of an AMT(T) certificate limited to the privileges of the

single rating. If the holder wished to exchange the certificate for an

AMT(T) certificate, the AMT(T) certificate would include a specific

endorsement limiting the certificate holder to the exercise of

privileges identical to those of the current certificate and rating. In

either case, the holder would not be permitted to approve for return to

service the powerplant or propeller of any aircraft certificated under

this chapter (or any related appliance, component, or part thereof) if

the individual possessed only an airframe rating, or the airframe of

any aircraft certificated under this chapter (or any related appliance,

component, or part thereof) if the individual possessed only a

powerplant rating. To have the limitation removed before the effective

date of the rule, the individual would have to meet the knowledge,

experience, and skill requirements necessary to obtain either the

aircraft or powerplant rating, as appropriate. After the effective date

of the rule, to have the limitation removed, the individual would have

to receive the 573 hours of training required for the AMT(T)

certificate

e the limitation removed before the effective

date of the rule, the individual would have to meet the knowledge,

experience, and skill requirements necessary to obtain either the

aircraft or powerplant rating, as appropriate. After the effective date

of the rule, to have the limitation removed, the individual would have

to receive the 573 hours of training required for the AMT(T)

certificate. Therefore, the FAA strongly encourages anyone who holds a

mechanic certificate with a single rating interested in obtaining an

AMT(T) certificate without a limitation to obtain both the airframe and

powerplant ratings before the effective date of the rule.

Additionally, certain individuals currently enrolled in aviation

maintenance training programs may have enrolled in these training

programs with the intent to apply only for one rating when they apply

for the current mechanic certificate. To give these individuals the

opportunity to complete their intended training without the additional

expense of training for an unwanted rating, the FAA will continue to

issue mechanic certificates and their associated ratings until the

effective date of the rule. After that period, the FAA will only accept

applications for, and issue, the proposed new certificates and ratings.

Most individuals currently enrolled in aviation maintenance

training programs have enrolled in these programs with the intent of

obtaining the approval for return-to-service privileges of the current

mechanic certificate with both airframe and powerplant ratings. The FAA

recognizes that some of these individuals may have only limited

resources and may have enrolled in current mechanic training programs

without notice of the proposed additional training requirements for the

AMT(T) rating

ese programs with the intent of

obtaining the approval for return-to-service privileges of the current

mechanic certificate with both airframe and powerplant ratings. The FAA

recognizes that some of these individuals may have only limited

resources and may have enrolled in current mechanic training programs

without notice of the proposed additional training requirements for the

AMT(T) rating. The FAA contends that by establishing an effective date

for the final rule as 18 months after its publication, these

individuals would be provided with an adequate period of time to

complete their training objectives and obtain mechanic certificates

with airframe and powerplant ratings. Additionally, the FAA contends

that the aviation maintenance training industry would require 18 months

to develop adequate programs to train applicants for the AMT(T)

certificate; therefore, a proposed effective date of 18 months after

publication of the final rule is warranted.

Although the holder of a current mechanic certificate with airframe

and powerplant ratings would possess the same privileges as the holder

of an AMT(T) certificate with an aircraft rating and could exchange

that mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings for an

AMT(T) certificate with an aircraft rating without having to receive

additional training, the FAA would encourage all current mechanics to

complete the proposed training requirements for the AMT(T) certificate

and aircraft rating.

Creation of an Aircraft Rating To Replace Current Airframe and

Powerplant Ratings

d exchange

that mechanic certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings for an

AMT(T) certificate with an aircraft rating without having to receive

additional training, the FAA would encourage all current mechanics to

complete the proposed training requirements for the AMT(T) certificate

and aircraft rating.

Creation of an Aircraft Rating To Replace Current Airframe and

Powerplant Ratings

In view of the integrated nature of today's aircraft and their

associated systems, the FAA recognizes that the differences between the

privileges and limitations conveyed by the current airframe and

powerplant ratings are becoming less distinct. The FAA contends that

the demands of current and future aviation technology require that

aviation maintenance personnel have a broad-based level of knowledge.

These demands frequently require the concurrent use of expertise

associated with the disciplines of both airframe and powerplant

maintenance.

Therefore, the proposal would require an applicant for an AMT

certificate to possess the knowledge currently required of an applicant

for the current mechanic certificate with both airframe and powerplant

ratings at the time the individual applies for the proposed AMT

certificate. The FAA contends that, by establishing an aircraft rating

encompassing both the current airframe and powerplant ratings and by

requiring an applicant to possess the training for both disciplines at

the time of application for an AMT certificate, aviation maintenance

personnel will better understand the nature and interrelationship of

aviation systems as opposed to the individual maintenance disciplines.

Such knowledge should lead to a greater understanding of how individual

components affect other components within an aircraft and to a

subsequent increase in the quality of aviation maintenance

e of application for an AMT certificate, aviation maintenance

personnel will better understand the nature and interrelationship of

aviation systems as opposed to the individual maintenance disciplines.

Such knowledge should lead to a greater understanding of how individual

components affect other components within an aircraft and to a

subsequent increase in the quality of aviation maintenance.

Similarly, an applicant for an AMT(T) certificate would be required

to complete additional training that would encompass the disciplines of

airframe and powerplant maintenance for transport-category aircraft and

systems. After completion of this training, an applicant for an AMT(T)

certificate would be awarded the AMT(T) certificate with an aircraft

rating.

The proposal also would provide aviation maintenance technician

schools with greater flexibility in developing their individual course

curriculums. By requiring an applicant to apply for the consolidated

aircraft rating, aviation maintenance technician schools would have the

incentive to integrate the training requirements for each of the

current ratings into a single consolidated program. This integration

should result in a more productive and less costly use of the resources

of these schools. It also should eliminate any duplication of training

requirements found in separate airframe and powerplant rating training

programs.

As a result of the issuance of the aircraft rating to new

applicants for the AMT certificate, the differentiation of tasks

between current holders of the airframe rating or the powerplant rating

would gradually diminish. To give the FAA the opportunity to develop

new types of testing procedures to facilitate this change, the proposal

would remove current regulatory language stating that the installation

and maintenance of propellers is covered on the powerplant test and

that an applicant for a powerplant rating must show the ability to make

satisfactory minor repairs to, and minor alterations of, propellers

. To give the FAA the opportunity to develop

new types of testing procedures to facilitate this change, the proposal

would remove current regulatory language stating that the installation

and maintenance of propellers is covered on the powerplant test and

that an applicant for a powerplant rating must show the ability to make

satisfactory minor repairs to, and minor alterations of, propellers.

Although the FAA will continue to certificate applicants using these

procedures, removing this language would permit the FAA to develop

testing procedures that are more flexible and more appropriately suited

to the integrated aviation maintenance environment.

Establishment of Recurrent Training Requirements for Certificated

Aviation Maintenance Personnel

Under current part 65, there are no specific provisions that

require recurrent training for certificated mechanics. Current

Secs. 121.375 and 135.433 require that an operator have a training

program to ensure that persons performing maintenance or preventive

maintenance functions be informed fully about procedures, techniques,

and new equipment in use. Additionally, Sec. 145.2(a) requires that

repair stations performing maintenance for a part 121 operator comply

with part 121, subpart L (which includes the requirements of

Sec. 121.375).

In an effort to ensure that all AMTs and AMT(T)s are fully informed

of current maintenance practices in the rapidly changing aviation

maintenance environment, the FAA proposes the adoption of recurrent

training requirements for AMTs and AMT(T)s who use their certificates

for compensation or hire. The proposal would particularly benefit AMTs

and AMT(T)s who support operations conducted under part 91 and who do

not receive training comparable to that received by AMTs and AMT(T)s

who support operations conducted under part 121, part 135, or

Sec. 145.2(a)

FAA proposes the adoption of recurrent

training requirements for AMTs and AMT(T)s who use their certificates

for compensation or hire. The proposal would particularly benefit AMTs

and AMT(T)s who support operations conducted under part 91 and who do

not receive training comparable to that received by AMTs and AMT(T)s

who support operations conducted under part 121, part 135, or

Sec. 145.2(a). This proposal would ensure that all holders of AMT or

AMT(T) certificates who exercise the privileges of their certificates

for compensation or hire, and who have the sole responsibility for

ensuring the airworthiness of the equipment on which they perform

maintenance, meet training requirements similar to those in place for

AMTs and AMT(T)s supporting operations under part 121, part 135, or

Sec. 145.2(a). In addition, this proposal also would ensure that all

AMTs and AMT(T)s who support U.S.-certificated repair stations that do

not have maintenance and preventive maintenance training programs

receive comparable training.

Under the proposed rule, an AMT or AMT(T) who meets the prescribed

work experience requirements and wishes to exercise, for compensation

or hire, the privileges of the certificate or rating would be required

to complete recurrent training.

Individuals who participate in currently required maintenance and

preventive maintenance training programs provided by a certificate

holder would meet the proposed recurrent training requirement.

Individuals who do not receive recurrent training through a training

program provided by a certificate holder could use a number of methods

to meet the proposed requirement. An AMT refresher course, inspection

authorization refresher course, or a series of such courses that are

appropriate to the duties of an AMT or AMT(T) and acceptable to the

Administrator could be used to satisfy the proposed recurrent training

requirement

rrent training through a training

program provided by a certificate holder could use a number of methods

to meet the proposed requirement. An AMT refresher course, inspection

authorization refresher course, or a series of such courses that are

appropriate to the duties of an AMT or AMT(T) and acceptable to the

Administrator could be used to satisfy the proposed recurrent training

requirement. The FAA notes that by including a specific reference to

the inspection authorization refresher course, the proposal seeks to

encourage completion of this course by an AMT or AMT(T) who does not

hold a current inspection authorization and, thereby, enhance that

individual's understanding of the regulations relevant to the

inspection authorization.

As an alternative to training provided in the form of an AMT,

AMT(T), or inspection authorization refresher course, an AMT or AMT(T)

who wishes to comply with the proposed recurrent training requirements

and to exercise, for compensation or hire, the privileges of the

certificate, may complete other training appropriate to the duties of

an AMT or AMT(T). This training may be broad-based and would consist of

any course, or series of courses, of instruction acceptable to the

Administrator. A description of those additional types of courses that

would be considered acceptable to the Administrator would be published

in advisory material accompanying the publication of the final rule.

For example, the completion of courses dealing with general maintenance

practices or regulations applicable to maintenance operations would

satisfy the intent of this proposed rule.

The FAA recognizes that many current mechanics who support part 91

operations, or other maintenance facilities without maintenance or

preventive maintenance training programs in place, receive periodic

maintenance training. For example, these mechanics may receive training

through aviation training centers or manufacturers' courses

e operations would

satisfy the intent of this proposed rule.

The FAA recognizes that many current mechanics who support part 91

operations, or other maintenance facilities without maintenance or

preventive maintenance training programs in place, receive periodic

maintenance training. For example, these mechanics may receive training

through aviation training centers or manufacturers' courses. The

proposed rule would permit this type of maintenance instruction to be

credited toward completion of the proposed recurrent training

requirement, provided the instruction is acceptable to the

Administrator.

The proposal also would include specific provisions applicable to

individuals exercising the privileges of their certificates while

employed by an operator under part 121 or part 135, or by a repair

station performing work for an operator under part 121. Such

individuals would be considered to meet the recurrent training

requirements set forth in the proposed rule.

In addition, an aviation maintenance instructor providing

instruction for an aviation maintenance training program acceptable to

the Administrator, or serving as the direct supervisor of individuals

providing aviation maintenance instruction for an aviation maintenance

training program acceptable to the Administrator, would meet the

proposed recurrent training requirements. As a result of their position

as aviation maintenance instructors, these individuals are continually

exposed to current maintenance practices and often disseminate

information about new practices, techniques, and equipment to the

aviation maintenance community. These individuals would be considered

fully informed about current maintenance practices

e

proposed recurrent training requirements. As a result of their position

as aviation maintenance instructors, these individuals are continually

exposed to current maintenance practices and often disseminate

information about new practices, techniques, and equipment to the

aviation maintenance community. These individuals would be considered

fully informed about current maintenance practices.

The FAA notes, however, that an aviation maintenance instructor

could meet the requirements for the exercise of the privileges of the

aircraft rating but might not be able to exercise the privileges of the

aviation maintenance instructor rating if the instructor has provided

less than 300 hours of instruction or served as a supervisory

instructor for less than 300 hours during the preceding 24 months.

However, recent experience requirements for the aviation maintenance

instructor rating could be met if the individual successfully completed

an AMT refresher course (or other course of instruction acceptable to

the Administrator and appropriate to the duties of an aviation

maintenance instructor) or if the Administrator specifically determined

that the individual met the standard prescribed for the issuance of the

rating.

Although the FAA considered establishing a requirement that

recurrent training consist of a minimum of 16 hours every 24 months for

AMTs and AMT(T)s supporting operations under part 91 and working for

compensation or hire, the FAA has not proposed such action in this

NPRM. The inclusion of a 16-hour recurrent training requirement for

these individuals had been recommended by some participants in the Part

65 Working Group; however, it was the general consensus of the group

that the specific number of hours for any proposed recurrent training

requirement should be determined at a later date

compensation or hire, the FAA has not proposed such action in this

NPRM. The inclusion of a 16-hour recurrent training requirement for

these individuals had been recommended by some participants in the Part

65 Working Group; however, it was the general consensus of the group

that the specific number of hours for any proposed recurrent training

requirement should be determined at a later date. Although written

comments were solicited from all members of the group to provide

justification for a specific recurrent training requirement, the FAA

did not receive written comments providing such justification.

Currently, the FAA is engaged in a number of studies and activities

to determine the appropriate level of recurrent training for aviation

maintenance personnel. Specifically, the FAA is conducting an expanded

job task analysis of those tasks performed by all aviation maintenance

personnel to determine the appropriate focus and depth of recurrent

training. The FAA also is analyzing accident data and airmen violations

in which maintenance elements were a causal factor and is surveying its

field inspectors in an effort to develop recurrent training

requirements. The FAA also is sponsoring an ongoing study to determine

the feasibility of forming a national training council that is composed

of individuals, representatives of the aviation maintenance industry,

and the FAA to determine proposed training requirements for aviation

maintenance personnel. As a result of these efforts, the FAA is

evaluating the appropriateness of consolidating all maintenance

training into a single future NPRM and issuing detailed advisory

material to provide specific guidance for the completion of training

requirements. The FAA strongly supports the concept of recurrent

training for aviation maintenance personnel and has proposed a

recurrent training requirement in proposed part 66 that would establish

a basic recurrent training for aviation maintenance personnel

training into a single future NPRM and issuing detailed advisory

material to provide specific guidance for the completion of training

requirements. The FAA strongly supports the concept of recurrent

training for aviation maintenance personnel and has proposed a

recurrent training requirement in proposed part 66 that would establish

a basic recurrent training for aviation maintenance personnel.

The recurrent training required under this proposal, as set forth

in proposed Secs. 66.65 and 66.111, encompasses more types of training

than the types of training that may be used to satisfy the provisions

of proposed Secs. 66.63 and 66.109 for the exercise of specific

privileges granted to AMTs and AMT(T)s with an aircraft rating.

``Training acceptable to the Administrator on the tasks to be

performed,'' as set forth in proposed Secs. 66.63 and 66.109, is

encompassed within the concept of training ``appropriate to the

duties'' of an AMT or AMT(T), as set forth in proposed Secs. 66.65 and

66.111, and may be used to satisfy both requirements. However,

compliance with the proposed recurrent training requirements of

Sec. 66.65 or Sec. 66.111 does not automatically authorize the AMT to

perform a specific task. For example, an AMT who received maintenance

training on a specific make and model of aircraft, which enabled the

AMT to perform work on that specific aircraft under proposed Sec. 66.63

or Sec. 66.109, also may credit the instruction received as satisfying

the recurrent training requirements in proposed Sec. 66.65 or

Sec. 66.111. The completion of a course in general maintenance

procedures would not, however, provide the specialized level of

training required by the proposal to permit an AMT or an AMT(T) to

perform work on a specific make and model of aircraft

ed Sec. 66.63

or Sec. 66.109, also may credit the instruction received as satisfying

the recurrent training requirements in proposed Sec. 66.65 or

Sec. 66.111. The completion of a course in general maintenance

procedures would not, however, provide the specialized level of

training required by the proposal to permit an AMT or an AMT(T) to

perform work on a specific make and model of aircraft. (The use of

training to qualify for the exercise of certificate privileges is

discussed more thoroughly below.)

An individual who exercises the privileges of an AMT certificate or

an AMT(T) certificate, but not for compensation or hire, would not need

to complete the proposed recurrent training requirements. These

individuals perform only limited work on aircraft that they own or on a

limited range of aeronautical equipment. In such cases, knowledge of a

broad range of current maintenance technologies is not necessarily

required. Although the FAA encourages these personnel to attend

recurrent training, the FAA has determined that a mandatory recurrent

training requirement for these individuals is not currently warranted.

The proposal also sets forth a provision that would permit an AMT

or AMT(T) who has not met the work experience and proposed recurrent

training requirements of the certificate within the preceding 24 months

to exercise the privileges of the certificate (including for

compensation or hire) by completing requalification training acceptable

to the Administrator. A specific minimum time requirement and course

content for requalification training has not been specified in the

proposed regulation to provide instructors and examiners with greater

flexibility in assisting noncurrent AMTs and AMT(T)s to achieve the

required proficiency. To be considered acceptable to the Administrator,

any requalification training would need to include a review of those

regulations applicable to the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or

alteration of aircraft under the provisions of the FAR

regulation to provide instructors and examiners with greater

flexibility in assisting noncurrent AMTs and AMT(T)s to achieve the

required proficiency. To be considered acceptable to the Administrator,

any requalification training would need to include a review of those

regulations applicable to the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or

alteration of aircraft under the provisions of the FAR.

The holder also may continue to exercise all of the privileges of

the certificate and associated ratings if the Administrator finds that

the AMT or AMT(T) is competent to exercise those privileges. Passing an

oral and practical test with a designated examiner (currently, a

designated mechanic examiner (DME)) also would satisfy all recent

experience requirements.

In recognition of enhancements in training technology, the proposed

rule also requires successful completion of these courses, rather than

attendance and successful completion. Therefore, the Administrator may

find self-study courses acceptable for fulfilling the requirements

specified in proposed Sec. 66.65 or Sec. 66.111.

This proposal for continued aviation maintenance training addresses

concerns such as those expressed in recent proposals to require formal

training for all aircraft mechanic applicants. In conjunction with the

issuance of a final rule, the FAA will develop policy on the content

and conduct of any AMT refresher course, AMT(T) refresher course, the

range of training considered appropriate to the duties of an AMT or

AMT(T), and requalification training. Any AMT refresher course or

AMT(T) refresher course should also include a substantial review of

those regulations pertinent to the exercise of the privileges of the

AMT certificate or AMT(T) certificate, as appropriate.

Registration of Holders of Aviation Maintenance Technician (AMT)

Certificates and Aviation Maintenance Technician (Transport) (AMT(T))

Certificates

requalification training. Any AMT refresher course or

AMT(T) refresher course should also include a substantial review of

those regulations pertinent to the exercise of the privileges of the

AMT certificate or AMT(T) certificate, as appropriate.

Registration of Holders of Aviation Maintenance Technician (AMT)

Certificates and Aviation Maintenance Technician (Transport) (AMT(T))

Certificates

The FAA currently has no accurate means to determine the number or

location of active aviation maintenance personnel. Without this

demographic information, the FAA is unable to make

accurate assessments of the status of the current mechanic population

or provide currently active mechanics with essential safety and

training information.

Based on the number of certificates issued, the FAA estimates that

the number of certificated mechanics is second only to the number of

certificated pilots. However, pilots (other than those of gliders or

free balloons) are required to obtain a medical certificate issued

under 14 CFR part 67 to exercise the privileges of their certificates.

As a result of this process, the FAA is able to update its airman

records effectively and make accurate assessments of the size of the

active pilot population. Because no similar form of recurrent medical

testing is required for current mechanics, the FAA is unable to assess

accurately the number of active mechanics or delete deceased, inactive,

or ineligible mechanics from its records. Therefore, any estimate of

the current and active mechanic population is solely a matter of

conjecture. Lack of this vital demographic information seriously

hinders the FAA's ability to make accurate predictions of future

industry requirements and to communicate important safety information

to active mechanics.

In its report, the Blue Ribbon Panel expressed its concern about

the FAA's aviation maintenance personnel records

urrent and active mechanic population is solely a matter of

conjecture. Lack of this vital demographic information seriously

hinders the FAA's ability to make accurate predictions of future

industry requirements and to communicate important safety information

to active mechanics.

In its report, the Blue Ribbon Panel expressed its concern about

the FAA's aviation maintenance personnel records. The panel noted that,

although the FAA issues approximately 20,000 mechanic certificates

annually, the FAA has no procedures to identify the current number of

active mechanics or to obtain other necessary demographic information

pertaining to these individuals. In view of this finding, the panel

recommended that the FAA conduct periodic registration of mechanics to

obtain vital information about FAA-certificated aviation maintenance

personnel and to ensure that these individuals could be provided with

safety and training information whenever necessary. The Part 65 Working

Group made a similar proposal to the ARAC, which concurred with the

recommendation.

The FAA has accepted the ARAC and Blue Ribbon Panel

recommendations; therefore, the FAA proposes to establish a periodic

registration requirement for each holder of an AMT or AMT(T)

certificate. In an effort to obtain a valid initial assessment of the

current number of active aviation maintenance personnel, the FAA

proposes that each AMT and AMT(T) be required to notify the FAA of his

or her current address within 12 months after the effective date of

this rule. The FAA contends that a 12-month period is sufficient to

obtain a basic estimate of the current and active AMT and AMT(T)

population and that any deviations from the estimate of the current

population, as a result of changes to the AMT and AMT(T) population

during the 12-month period, would be statistically insignificant. A 12-

month period also would give all current certificate holders adequate

notice of this proposed requirement and time to comply with the

requirement

of the current and active AMT and AMT(T)

population and that any deviations from the estimate of the current

population, as a result of changes to the AMT and AMT(T) population

during the 12-month period, would be statistically insignificant. A 12-

month period also would give all current certificate holders adequate

notice of this proposed requirement and time to comply with the

requirement.

After completion of this initial registration period, AMTs and

AMT(T)s would be required to provide similar registration information

during every subsequent 48-calendar-month period. The FAA considers

that a 48-month continuing requirement is necessary to provide an up-

to-date record of current and active AMTs and AMT(T)s. The FAA contends

that changes to the AMT and AMT(T) populations, which occur as a result

of the death of certificate holders or of personnel entering inactive

status and not complying with current change of address requirements,

would become statistically significant after a 48-month period. To

ensure an accurate record of the size of the AMT and AMT(T) population,

a reassessment would be required during each consecutive 48-month

period.

In an effort to eliminate the repetitive submission of current

address information to the FAA, an airman who notifies the FAA of a

change of address, obtains an additional certificate, rating, or

inspection authorization issued under this (or any other) part, or

provides the FAA with current address information as a result of the

application for an airman medical certificate during this period would

be considered to have fulfilled the registration requirement.

The FAA has not proposed a periodic registration requirement for

holders of aviation repair specialist certificates because holders of

an aviation repair specialist certificate (except experimental aircraft

builders) cannot exercise the privileges of that certificate without

being employed by a certificated entity

his period would

be considered to have fulfilled the registration requirement.

The FAA has not proposed a periodic registration requirement for

holders of aviation repair specialist certificates because holders of

an aviation repair specialist certificate (except experimental aircraft

builders) cannot exercise the privileges of that certificate without

being employed by a certificated entity. Because the FAA could obtain

any required demographic information pertaining to the holders of

aviation repair specialist certificates from the operator or repair

station under which an aviation repair specialist is exercising

privileges, the proposal would not require the submission of

registration information from aviation repair specialists. Therefore,

the FAA contends that requiring the registration of aviation repair

specialists would place an unnecessary burden on these individuals.

The responsibility for complying with the proposed registration

requirement would rest solely on AMT and AMT(T) certificate holders. To

simplify the proposed registration requirement for individual

certificate holders, the FAA would only require AMT and AMT(T)

certificate holders to provide their names and current addresses. The

submission of any additional information would not be required, nor

would the submission be required to be made on any specific form. To

encourage compliance with these proposed requirements, an AMT or AMT(T)

certificate holder who does not provide current address information to

the FAA during the registration period would not be permitted to

exercise the privileges of the certificate until that individual had

complied with the proposed registration requirement.

The FAA specifically requests comments on its proposed registration

of AMT and AMT(T) certificate holders. Based on its analysis of

comments received, the FAA may adjust the lengths of the proposed

initial and recurring registration periods.

riod would not be permitted to

exercise the privileges of the certificate until that individual had

complied with the proposed registration requirement.

The FAA specifically requests comments on its proposed registration

of AMT and AMT(T) certificate holders. Based on its analysis of

comments received, the FAA may adjust the lengths of the proposed

initial and recurring registration periods.

Establishment of Training as an Additional Means for Aviation

Maintenance Personnel To Qualify for the Exercise of Certificate

Privileges

Through the use of training, the proposal would provide holders of

AMT certificates and AMT(T) certificates with an additional means to

remain qualified to approve for return to service any aircraft,

airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, component, or part and

to supervise the maintenance, preventive maintenance, alteration, and

approval for return to service of these items.

Under current Sec. 65.81, a certificated mechanic may supervise

maintenance operations or approve and return to service an aircraft,

appliance, or part if the certificate holder has: (1) Previously

performed the work, (2) performed the work to the satisfaction of the

Administrator, or (3) performed the work under the direct supervision

of a certificated mechanic or repairman who has had previous experience

with that specific task.

The proposal would allow AMTs and AMT(T)s to use appropriate

training to obtain the competency necessary to supervise these

operations or approve an item for return to service without previously

having performed the work that is anticipated. Through the adoption of

appropriate training to satisfy this experience requirement, the FAA

recognizes enhancements in aviation maintenance training, which can

provide the AMT with technical

)s to use appropriate

training to obtain the competency necessary to supervise these

operations or approve an item for return to service without previously

having performed the work that is anticipated. Through the adoption of

appropriate training to satisfy this experience requirement, the FAA

recognizes enhancements in aviation maintenance training, which can

provide the AMT with technical

knowledge equivalent to knowledge gained in the work environment.

However, in allowing training to replace actual work experience, the

FAA would require an appropriate level of specificity between the

training and the actual work to be performed or supervised. Therefore,

the proposal would require that the training used to satisfy this

requirement be appropriate to the equipment on which the work is to be

performed. For example, a course of instruction detailing the

maintenance tasks for the same make and model aircraft on which an AMT

will perform work, or a course of instruction detailing the maintenance

tasks for a part or appliance on which the individual will perform

work, would satisfy the provisions of the proposed rule and permit the

exercise of certificate privileges under proposed Sec. 66.63 or

Sec. 66.109. Such courses may be provided by any manufacturer,

individual, or organization whose training has been found acceptable to

the Administrator.

Training of a more general nature, which may be used to satisfy

recent experience requirements as proposed in Secs. 66.65 and 66.111,

may not be sufficiently specific to allow an AMT or AMT(T) to perform

work on a specific aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller,

appliance, component, or part. For example, a course in the FAR that is

applicable to maintenance procedures would not satisfy the provisions

of proposed Sec. 66.63 or Sec. 66.109 but could be used to satisfy the

provisions of proposed Sec. 66.65 or Sec. 66.111, respectively.

The FAA also proposes to clarify the intent of current Sec

a specific aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller,

appliance, component, or part. For example, a course in the FAR that is

applicable to maintenance procedures would not satisfy the provisions

of proposed Sec. 66.63 or Sec. 66.109 but could be used to satisfy the

provisions of proposed Sec. 66.65 or Sec. 66.111, respectively.

The FAA also proposes to clarify the intent of current Sec. 65.81

by proposing language in part 66 that would allow AMT and AMT(T)

certificate holders who desire to exercise supervisory, return-to-

service, or approval responsibilities, to demonstrate, to the

satisfaction of the Administrator, the ability to perform the work. The

current regulation requires actual performance of the work.

An additional change to the current rule would enhance the ability

of noncurrent AMTs and AMT(T)s to meet the recent experience

requirements to exercise the privileges of their certificates and

ratings. The proposed rule would allow these individuals to credit the

time they work under the supervision of a certificated AMT or AMT(T)

toward recent experience requirements. The FAA considers that work

performed by a certificated but noncurrent AMT or AMT(T) under such

circumstances would provide the individual with a level of experience

equivalent to actual performance of the work.

Use of Instructional Time by Aviation Maintenance Instructors To

Satisfy Recent Experience Requirements

rvision of a certificated AMT or AMT(T)

toward recent experience requirements. The FAA considers that work

performed by a certificated but noncurrent AMT or AMT(T) under such

circumstances would provide the individual with a level of experience

equivalent to actual performance of the work.

Use of Instructional Time by Aviation Maintenance Instructors To

Satisfy Recent Experience Requirements

The purpose of recent experience requirements is to ensure that all

aviation maintenance personnel are familiar with current maintenance

practices and the applicable FAR. The aviation maintenance instructor

must keep abreast of current maintenance practices in a wide variety of

disciplines to provide high-quality instruction. Aviation maintenance

instructors perform a critical function in the aviation maintenance

education process, and the FAA believes that the changes set forth in

the proposed rule would recognize this importance.

Under current Sec. 65.83, there are no provisions for allowing

individuals involved in aviation maintenance instruction to use that

experience for maintaining the recent experience required to exercise

the privileges of their certificate and ratings. The FAA recognizes

that the experience gained while providing aviation maintenance

instruction or directly supervising other aviation maintenance

instructors is commensurate with the experience obtained while directly

performing aviation maintenance. The FAA already recognizes

instructional experience for holders of an inspection authorization in

current Sec. 65.91(c)(2). Within that section, the phrase ``actively

engaged'' includes instructors who are exercising the privileges of

their certificate and ratings at an aviation maintenance technician

school certificated under part 147. Therefore, the FAA proposes to

allow the use of instructional time to satisfy recent experience

requirements for holders of the AMT and AMT(T) certificates

urrent Sec. 65.91(c)(2). Within that section, the phrase ``actively

engaged'' includes instructors who are exercising the privileges of

their certificate and ratings at an aviation maintenance technician

school certificated under part 147. Therefore, the FAA proposes to

allow the use of instructional time to satisfy recent experience

requirements for holders of the AMT and AMT(T) certificates.

Under the proposed rule, the holder of an AMT or AMT(T) certificate

with an aircraft rating could meet recent experience requirements by

serving as an aviation maintenance instructor or by directly

supervising other aviation maintenance instructors. The instruction

concerned would have to be directly related to aviation maintenance and

acceptable to the Administrator so that the time an individual spends

providing instruction or directly supervising other instructors is

equivalent to the experience gained while performing aviation

maintenance tasks. For example, instructional time provided for a part

147 aviation maintenance technician school, an approved air carrier

maintenance training program, an approved training provider, or a

manufacturer's training program would be acceptable and would meet the

intent of the proposed rule.

AMT(T) Recent Experience Requirements

Because the AMT(T) certificate would upgrade the level of

maintenance proficiency of those individuals performing maintenance on

aircraft certificated under part 25 or part 29, or on any airframe,

aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part thereof, the

FAA would require that all work experience necessary to meet recent

experience requirements for retention of the privileges of this

certificate be maintained through work performed or supervised, or

through instruction given or supervised, on aircraft certificated under

part 25 or part 29, or on any airframe, aircraft engine, propeller,

appliance, component, or part thereof

part thereof, the

FAA would require that all work experience necessary to meet recent

experience requirements for retention of the privileges of this

certificate be maintained through work performed or supervised, or

through instruction given or supervised, on aircraft certificated under

part 25 or part 29, or on any airframe, aircraft engine, propeller,

appliance, component, or part thereof. The holder of an AMT(T)

certificate who does not meet recent experience requirements on

aircraft certificated under part 25 or part 29 could exercise the more

limited privileges of the AMT certificate if the holder complies with

the AMT certificate's corresponding recent experience requirements.

Approval of AMT(T) Training Providers

To ensure that applicants for the proposed AMT(T) certificate

possess the necessary knowledge and skill to approve aircraft

certificated under part 25 and part 29 for return to service, the FAA

has proposed that applicants for this certificate be required to

complete an AMT(T) training program. For this program, the proposal

would set forth a curriculum that would be specifically geared to the

needs of individuals performing maintenance on transport-category

aircraft. Although the proposed curriculum would be comprehensive in

nature, it also would be flexible enough to be modified easily to

respond to changes in aviation maintenance practices and techniques.

To determine the subject areas in the proposed AMT(T) training

curriculum and the amount of training to be provided in each subject

area, the Part 65 Working Group conducted a survey of 13 air carriers.

The survey requested that its participants specify the depth and

breadth of skills that aviation maintenance personnel must possess to

perform work on transport category aircraft and approve these aircraft

for return to service. The results of this survey were reviewed by

aviation maintenance educators within the Part 65 Working Group and

consolidated into the AMT(T) training curriculum proposed in this

notice

d that its participants specify the depth and

breadth of skills that aviation maintenance personnel must possess to

perform work on transport category aircraft and approve these aircraft

for return to service. The results of this survey were reviewed by

aviation maintenance educators within the Part 65 Working Group and

consolidated into the AMT(T) training curriculum proposed in this

notice. The proposed

AMT(T) training curriculum would require that 573 hours of training be

offered in the six broad subject areas of advanced electronics,

composites, structural repair, powerplants and systems, safety and

environmental concerns, and publications. The specific amount of

training required in each individual subject area is specified in

appendix A to proposed part 66.

The basic requirements for approval of training providers

administering this AMT(T) training program are similar to those

specified for the approval of other training course requirements

specified in this subchapter. In its administrative requirements, the

program established by this proposal would correspond to other training

courses referenced in this subchapter; however, it will differ most

significantly from other training courses in that, under the proposal,

the FAA may approve the provider of the training program and not

specifically approve the training curriculum, as is currently the case

with training programs developed to satisfy the requirements of part

147. By approving the training provider, as opposed to the training

program itself, the FAA contends that the training provider would have

the necessary flexibility to modify the curriculum of the training

program rapidly to respond to advances in aviation maintenance

technology, while continuing to ensure that acceptable standards of

training are met.

To ensure that these programs meet current industry standards, the

FAA would require that an outline of the training program be provided

for review

training provider would have

the necessary flexibility to modify the curriculum of the training

program rapidly to respond to advances in aviation maintenance

technology, while continuing to ensure that acceptable standards of

training are met.

To ensure that these programs meet current industry standards, the

FAA would require that an outline of the training program be provided

for review. In recognition of the diversity of current information

retrieval systems, this outline could be submitted in paper or

electronic format, or in any other format acceptable to the

Administrator. The outline would contain information specifying those

subject areas to be taught and the number of hours of instruction

required. Additional subject areas also could be included.

Facilities, equipment, and material requirements would be similar

to those found in other course requirements specified in this

subchapter; however, the training provider would ensure that all

instructors in a training program meet the requisite standards of

technical competency.

Revisions to the training program outline would be submitted in a

manner identical to that required for initial approval of the training

provider. Based on the improved effectiveness of training methods, the

FAA may permit training program revisions that would offer fewer than

the specified number of hours of instruction in the complete training

program or in a designated subject area. The training provider would be

required to provide justification for such a reduction. A reduction

would be permitted only if the quality of training provided did not

decrease. Sufficient indicators of student participation and progress

in the program would be required to be reported; however, if an

approved training provider already provided this information to the FAA

as a result of reporting requirements specified in another part, a

duplicate submission of this information would not be required

permitted only if the quality of training provided did not

decrease. Sufficient indicators of student participation and progress

in the program would be required to be reported; however, if an

approved training provider already provided this information to the FAA

as a result of reporting requirements specified in another part, a

duplicate submission of this information would not be required.

The FAA notes that an aviation maintenance technician school

certificated under part 147 also could offer a combined AMT and AMT(T)

training program. In such a circumstance, the school would be required

to obtain approval as an AMT(T) training provider under proposed part

66. Instruction used to satisfy AMT course curriculum requirements also

could be used to satisfy AMT(T) training program requirements resulting

in a combined AMT and AMT(T) training curriculum with significantly

fewer hours of training than required to obtain the AMT and AMT(T)

certificates separately. Instruction used to satisfy both AMT course

curriculum requirements and AMT(T) training program requirements would

be specified in the training curriculum approved under part 147 for use

by the aviation maintenance technician school. The approved training

curriculum also would be required to meet the provisions of proposed

appendix A to part 66.

The proposal also would require approved training providers to

provide each student who successfully completes the training program

with a statement of graduation. Those students who complete only a

portion of a training program could, upon request, receive a record of

the training completed.

Although the proposal would permit training providers to contract

for services to assist in the provision of the required training,

records of any such contracts would have to be forwarded to the FAA.

The proposal also would reiterate that the training provider, not the

party providing contract services, would ultimately be responsible for

the conduct of the training program

ining completed.

Although the proposal would permit training providers to contract

for services to assist in the provision of the required training,

records of any such contracts would have to be forwarded to the FAA.

The proposal also would reiterate that the training provider, not the

party providing contract services, would ultimately be responsible for

the conduct of the training program.

The proposal would permit a training provider, other than a

certificate holder operating under part 121 or part 135, an aviation

maintenance technician school certificated under part 147, or a repair

station that performs work under Sec. 145.2(a), to retain approval for

a period of 24 months. Because the training programs of these

certificate holders are routinely surveilled, a training provider that

also is a certificate holder under any of these parts would retain

approval for the duration of that certificate. However, approval may be

canceled at any time by the FAA or, voluntarily, by the training

provider, or as a result of change of ownership. Like other training

courses specified in this subchapter, the proposal would require that

applications for a training provider's renewal of approval be submitted

60 days before the expiration of the current approval.

Performance of Repairs and Alterations by AMTs and AMT(T)s on

Horizontal-Card Liquid-Filled Compasses

The current rule prohibits the repair or alteration of instruments

by mechanics. However, the aviation maintenance industry has recognized

that aviation instruments vary significantly in complexity. A commenter

to the short-term FAA regulatory review initiated in response to a

recommendation from the Clinton Administration's ``Initiative To

Promote a Strong Competitive Aviation Industry'' noted that the fairly

simple task of replenishing magnetic compass fluid and changing the

expansion diaphragm in a compass could be accomplished by a mechanic

with no adverse effect on safety

mplexity. A commenter

to the short-term FAA regulatory review initiated in response to a

recommendation from the Clinton Administration's ``Initiative To

Promote a Strong Competitive Aviation Industry'' noted that the fairly

simple task of replenishing magnetic compass fluid and changing the

expansion diaphragm in a compass could be accomplished by a mechanic

with no adverse effect on safety. The commenter stated that these

instruments must often be sent to instrument repair shops for

maintenance that mechanics can readily accomplish. This action

frequently results in increased and unnecessary costs to the user and,

for certain operators, an unwarranted loss of use of the aircraft.

The ARAC and the FAA concur with this assessment and contend that

an AMT or an AMT(T) can readily perform maintenance on horizontal-card

liquid-filled compasses. Therefore, the FAA proposes that an AMT or an

AMT(T) be permitted to perform all maintenance actions on horizontal-

card liquid-filled compasses and that the limitations of the current

rule prohibiting the performance of repairs and alterations to these

instruments be removed.

Establishment of an Aviation Maintenance Instructor Rating

Under the provisions of the current rule, persons providing

aviation maintenance instruction are not required to demonstrate any

degree of teaching proficiency. Flight instructors certificated under

part 61 are currently required to pass a knowledge test on the subjects

in which instruction is required by Sec. 61.185(a). These subjects

include: the learning process, elements of

uctor Rating

Under the provisions of the current rule, persons providing

aviation maintenance instruction are not required to demonstrate any

degree of teaching proficiency. Flight instructors certificated under

part 61 are currently required to pass a knowledge test on the subjects

in which instruction is required by Sec. 61.185(a). These subjects

include: the learning process, elements of

effective teaching, student evaluation and testing, course development,

lesson planning, and classroom training techniques. Ground instructors

certificated under subpart I of part 61 also are required to show a

practical and theoretical knowledge of the subjects for which a rating

is sought by passing a similar knowledge test.

Because it is necessary that the subject material taught by

individuals providing aviation maintenance instruction be completely

understood and adequately applied by students to the maintenance

problems that they will eventually encounter in the aviation

maintenance industry, the FAA, based on the ARAC's recommendation,

proposes to create an aviation maintenance instructor rating that may

be obtained by the holder of the AMT certificate or the AMT(T)

certificate. The FAA contends that creation of this rating would serve

to enhance the quality of aviation maintenance instruction that is

provided in aviation maintenance programs. This enhancement would be

accomplished by ensuring that aviation maintenance instructors possess

not only technical proficiency in the subject material taught but also

the requisite teaching competence to ensure that their students

understand the material. Adoption of this proposal also would quantify

and recognize the special skills required of an aviation maintenance

educator, and would improve the images of aviation maintenance

educators and aviation maintenance education.

The Blue Ribbon Panel also recognized these deficiencies

material taught but also

the requisite teaching competence to ensure that their students

understand the material. Adoption of this proposal also would quantify

and recognize the special skills required of an aviation maintenance

educator, and would improve the images of aviation maintenance

educators and aviation maintenance education.

The Blue Ribbon Panel also recognized these deficiencies. In its

report, the panel noted that the instructional standards and the

quality of aviation maintenance instruction often are questioned. It

also noted that there was no certification, beyond that of a current

mechanic certificate, needed to teach in an aviation maintenance

technician school certificated under part 147. Therefore, the Blue

Ribbon Panel recommended that qualification, certification, and

recurrent training requirements be established for instructors who

teach in part 147 schools.

Under the proposal, an applicant for an aviation maintenance

instructor rating would be required to: hold a current and valid AMT

certificate or a current and valid AMT(T) certificate for at least 3

years before application; present evidence that he or she has been

actively engaged in the maintenance of aircraft for at least the 2-year

period before application; and pass a knowledge test on instructional

proficiency. The proposal recognizes the widespread use of computer-

based testing in the administration of FAA examinations and, therefore,

would require that a ``knowledge test'' rather than a ``written test''

be passed.

The FAA contends that the possession of an AMT certificate or an

AMT(T) certificate is necessary to ensure the basic technical

proficiency of the aviation maintenance instructor. The specific time

period proposed for the possession of either certificate and the amount

of time that the individual would be required to have been actively

engaged in the maintenance of aircraft also are identical to the

eligibility requirements for the issuance of an inspection

authorization

ate is necessary to ensure the basic technical

proficiency of the aviation maintenance instructor. The specific time

period proposed for the possession of either certificate and the amount

of time that the individual would be required to have been actively

engaged in the maintenance of aircraft also are identical to the

eligibility requirements for the issuance of an inspection

authorization. The FAA contends that this minimum amount of actual work

experience is required to give the aviation maintenance instructor the

requisite practical experience necessary to explain the application of

aviation maintenance concepts satisfactorily.

The proposed areas of educational theory and instructional

techniques in which the prospective aviation maintenance instructor

would be required to pass a knowledge test are the same areas that are

currently tested on the fundamentals of instruction knowledge test for

the flight instructor and ground instructor certificates. In

recognition of other training that a prospective aviation maintenance

instructor could receive, which would provide proficiency in

educational theory and instructional techniques, an applicant would not

be required to take this test if the applicant possesses a recognized

degree in education or holds a current and valid State teaching

certificate issued in the United States.

Under the proposal, any person providing or supervising aviation

maintenance instruction within 12 months after the effective date of

the rule at an aviation maintenance technician school certificated

under part 147 would not be required to pass a knowledge test on those

subjects specified in proposed Sec. 66.69 to obtain the aviation

maintenance instructor rating

ssued in the United States.

Under the proposal, any person providing or supervising aviation

maintenance instruction within 12 months after the effective date of

the rule at an aviation maintenance technician school certificated

under part 147 would not be required to pass a knowledge test on those

subjects specified in proposed Sec. 66.69 to obtain the aviation

maintenance instructor rating. To retain the ability to exercise the

privileges of the proposed rating and maintain a high degree of

instructional proficiency, the holder would be required to provide 300

hours of aviation maintenance instruction or serve as the supervisor of

aviation maintenance instructors for a period of 300 hours within the

preceding 24 months. For aviation maintenance instructors holding an

AMT(T) certificate, this instruction would not need to be provided in

transport-category aircraft or their associated systems. Recent

experience requirements also could be maintained if the individual

completed a refresher course acceptable to the Administrator and

appropriate to the duties of an aviation maintenance instructor or if

the Administrator determined that the aviation maintenance instructor

continues to meet the standards prescribed for the issuance of the

rating.

Current rules pertaining to the training of individuals at aviation

maintenance technician schools certificated under part 147 require 1

instructor for each 25 students in a shop class. Because the current

rule already recognizes the importance of qualified instructors in

these classes, the FAA proposes that the best qualified providers of

aviation maintenance education be available in these classes. Proposed

Secs. 147.23 and 147.36 would, therefore, require that these

instructors also possess an aviation maintenance instructor rating. To

enable instructors at these schools to acquire this rating, this

requirement would not become effective until 12 months after the

effective date of the rule

at the best qualified providers of

aviation maintenance education be available in these classes. Proposed

Secs. 147.23 and 147.36 would, therefore, require that these

instructors also possess an aviation maintenance instructor rating. To

enable instructors at these schools to acquire this rating, this

requirement would not become effective until 12 months after the

effective date of the rule.

The FAA also notes that certain subjects taught at aviation

maintenance technician schools do not require the technical knowledge

required of instructors who possess the AMT certificate or AMT(T)

certificate. Therefore, the proposal would not require instructors who

teach basic subjects (such as mathematics, physics, basic electricity,

basic hydraulics, drawing, or similar subjects) at AMT schools that are

certificated under part 147, to obtain an AMT or AMT(T) certificate and

aviation maintenance instructor rating.

Establishment of Basic Competency Requirements for AMT Certificate

Holders

Currently, Sec. 65.79, which sets forth the skill requirements for

a mechanic certificate, requires an applicant for a mechanic

certificate to pass an oral and practical test covering the applicant's

basic skills in performing practical projects covered by the written

test. Because of the complexity of current aviation maintenance

operations, the FAA proposes to establish a broad-based competency

requirement for AMT certificate applicants under proposed Sec. 66.59,

which would encompass more than the skill requirements included in the

current regulation.

Current interpretations of the existing regulation tend to

emphasize the evaluation of basic skills that solely involve tasks

requiring manual dexterity. Although mastery of these basic skills is

invaluable, the FAA asserts that a more comprehensive level of

competency, based on current

ed Sec. 66.59,

which would encompass more than the skill requirements included in the

current regulation.

Current interpretations of the existing regulation tend to

emphasize the evaluation of basic skills that solely involve tasks

requiring manual dexterity. Although mastery of these basic skills is

invaluable, the FAA asserts that a more comprehensive level of

competency, based on current

aviation maintenance practices, is required of AMTs. The proposed rule

would expand the evaluation of AMT applicants to include a

demonstration of competency in technical tasks and aircraft maintenance

more appropriate to the current aviation environment and the

certificate and rating sought. Therefore, all training provided to an

applicant for any certificate, rating, or inspection authorization

issued under the proposed part should be conducted to a proficiency-

based standard evidenced by demonstrated competency to perform required

tasks.

Specification of Practical Experience Requirements in Hours

The FAA proposes that the practical experience requirements for a

mechanic seeking airframe and powerplant ratings, currently expressed

in Sec. 65.77 as 30 months, be expressed as the equivalent number of

hours (5,000 hours) in proposed Sec. 66.57, for an applicant seeking

the AMT certificate with an aircraft rating. The FAA also proposes that

the practical experience requirements for a repairman seeking a

certificate, currently expressed as 18 months in Sec. 65.101, be

expressed as its hour equivalent of 3,000 hours in proposed

Sec. 66.203, for Aviation Repair Specialist-II (ARS-II) certificate

applicants.

A change to the hourly experience requirements would give the FAA

and the aviation maintenance industry a simpler method to measure and

verify the amount of practical work experience that the individual

applicant possesses. The proposed revision also would enable aviation

maintenance personnel working in part-time positions to quantify their

work experience more easily

rtificate

applicants.

A change to the hourly experience requirements would give the FAA

and the aviation maintenance industry a simpler method to measure and

verify the amount of practical work experience that the individual

applicant possesses. The proposed revision also would enable aviation

maintenance personnel working in part-time positions to quantify their

work experience more easily. FAA Order 8300.10, ``Airworthiness

Inspector's Handbook,'' currently permits the practice of measuring

part-time experience requirements in hours. The proposed rule would

expand this current practice by measuring part-time and full-time

experience in hours.

The FAA, in the previous NPRM, proposed that all experience

requirements, as stated in current Sec. 65.77; all recent experience

requirements, as stated in current Sec. 65.83; and all eligibility

requirements, as stated in current Sec. 65.101, be expressed in hours

instead of months. In response to comments received detailing the

difficulties that such a proposal would impose on the ability of part-

time aviation maintenance personnel to meet proposed recent experience

requirements for the exercise of certificate privileges, the FAA

proposes only that the practical experience necessary for the AMT

certificate with the aircraft rating and the eligibility requirements

for the ARS-II certificate be expressed in hours. Proposed recent

experience requirements for the exercise of certificate privileges,

however, would be expressed in months.

As the proposed rule would eliminate the issuance of individual

airframe and powerplant ratings, the provisions currently stated in

Sec. 65.77(a), which require 18 months of practical experience,

appropriate to the rating sought, with the procedures, practices,

tools, machine tools, and equipment generally used in constructing,

maintaining, or altering airframes or powerplants, would be eliminated

under the proposal.

eliminate the issuance of individual

airframe and powerplant ratings, the provisions currently stated in

Sec. 65.77(a), which require 18 months of practical experience,

appropriate to the rating sought, with the procedures, practices,

tools, machine tools, and equipment generally used in constructing,

maintaining, or altering airframes or powerplants, would be eliminated

under the proposal.

Establishment of a Requirement for Aviation Maintenance Technicians To

Pass a Knowledge Test on All Applicable FAR

Current regulations require an applicant for a mechanic certificate

to pass a written test that includes the applicable provisions of part

43 and part 91. Because contemporary maintenance operations require the

applicant to understand certification and maintenance regulations other

than those found solely in part 43 and part 91, the FAA proposes that

the knowledge requirements for the AMT certificate with an aircraft

rating require an applicant to pass a knowledge test on the applicable

provisions of the entire chapter. The proposal recognizes the use of

computer-based testing by replacing the term ``written test'' with

``knowledge test''.

Clarification of Requirement To Pass All Knowledge Tests Before

Applying for the Oral and Practical Tests

There has been some confusion among applicants for the current

mechanic certificate who are not enrolled at aviation maintenance

technician schools approved under part 147 with regard to the language

of current Sec. 65.75(b). The current section requires an individual to

pass each section of the written test before applying for the oral and

practical tests prescribed by Sec. 65.79. The FAA believes that it is

essential that the applicant display knowledge of the equipment and

procedures to be used by the applicant before the oral and practical

tests are given

with regard to the language

of current Sec. 65.75(b). The current section requires an individual to

pass each section of the written test before applying for the oral and

practical tests prescribed by Sec. 65.79. The FAA believes that it is

essential that the applicant display knowledge of the equipment and

procedures to be used by the applicant before the oral and practical

tests are given. The applicant must possess adequate knowledge before

being permitted to take the oral and practical tests because it is this

knowledge that enables an applicant to solve practical problems and

demonstrate the ability to perform the work of a certificated AMT. In

addition, when taking an oral or practical test, an applicant for a

certificate must handle complex equipment; a lack of knowledge about

the use of that equipment could injure the applicant or others.

Therefore, the FAA has clarified the current requirement by proposing

language that would require all applicants for the AMT certificate,

except students enrolled at an aviation maintenance technician school

approved under part 147, to pass all knowledge tests before applying

for the oral and practical tests.

Demonstration of English-Language Proficiency

The proposal would require all applicants for an AMT certificate,

AMT(T) certificate, or aviation repair specialist certificate to read,

write, speak, and understand the English language.

The current rule requires only those applicants desiring to

exercise the privileges of current certificates within the United

States to comply with English-language proficiency requirements. It

does not specify an appropriate means for the applicant to demonstrate

this proficiency nor does it provide a mechanism for the Administrator

to issue a certificate to an individual who may not meet these English-

language proficiency requirements solely because of a medical

condition

of current certificates within the United

States to comply with English-language proficiency requirements. It

does not specify an appropriate means for the applicant to demonstrate

this proficiency nor does it provide a mechanism for the Administrator

to issue a certificate to an individual who may not meet these English-

language proficiency requirements solely because of a medical

condition.

The proposal would require the applicant to demonstrate English-

language proficiency by reading and explaining appropriate maintenance

publications and by writing defect and repair statements. This proposal

recognizes the highly technical nature of aviation maintenance in

today's aviation industry. Proficiency with the general terminology of

the English language is not sufficient to ensure the competency of an

FAA-certificated AMT or aviation repair specialist. The individual must

be able to understand and master the complex and often very specialized

language of airworthiness instructions and other terminology associated

with the maintenance of highly sophisticated aviation equipment.

In addition, the current airframe, powerplant, and general written

tests for mechanics are administered in the English language.

Applicants taking these tests must be proficient in the English

language to complete these examinations successfully. Although

currently certificated repairmen are not required to take written

tests, these individuals also work in environments that require more

than mere proficiency in the English language. Because the

ral written

tests for mechanics are administered in the English language.

Applicants taking these tests must be proficient in the English

language to complete these examinations successfully. Although

currently certificated repairmen are not required to take written

tests, these individuals also work in environments that require more

than mere proficiency in the English language. Because the

FAA does not certify repairmen working under U.S.-certificated foreign

repair stations and because of the need for all certificated repairmen

to understand technical material written in English, the FAA proposes

that all aviation repair specialists demonstrate proficiency in the

English language.

In operations conducted at certificated U.S. air carriers,

certificated U.S. commercial operators, and U.S.-certificated repair

stations, the vast majority of technical information is conveyed in the

English language. The FAA has determined that the proposed rule would

guarantee a level of competency that would ensure that an applicant for

either certificate is able to use all relevant maintenance publications

effectively.

The proposal also would revise the current rule to permit the

Administrator to issue certificates to applicants who are deaf, hard of

hearing, speech impaired, or possess other similar medical conditions,

yet have a demonstrated proficiency in the English language. Under the

proposal, an applicant could be issued a certificate with specific

limitations necessary for the safe maintenance, preventive maintenance,

or alteration of aircraft if the applicant has a command of the English

language, yet is unable to meet the proposed requirements solely

because of a medical condition.

The FAA also proposes that exceptions found in current Secs. 65.71

and 65.101, which permit the certification of mechanics and repairmen

who are employed outside the United States but who are not proficient

in the English language, be deleted from the proposed rule

nt has a command of the English

language, yet is unable to meet the proposed requirements solely

because of a medical condition.

The FAA also proposes that exceptions found in current Secs. 65.71

and 65.101, which permit the certification of mechanics and repairmen

who are employed outside the United States but who are not proficient

in the English language, be deleted from the proposed rule. The FAA

proposes the inclusion of provisions in the proposed rule that would

permit the Administrator to waive compliance with the proposed English-

language proficiency requirement, in certain limited circumstances. The

waiver provisions are discussed in more detail below.

Current holders of a mechanic certificate or repairman certificate

who do not meet the English-language requirement but who are employed

outside the United States by a certificated U.S. air carrier or a

certificated U.S. repair station would continue to exercise the

privileges of their certificates without a further showing of

competency. Their certificates would remain endorsed, ``Valid only

outside the United States.''

Waiver of Specific Certificate Requirements

The FAA recognizes that in certain distinct and special

circumstances, deviations from compliance with the requirements of the

FAR may be in the public interest. To afford the FAA with a means to

respond rapidly to requests for deviations when such requests are in

the public interest, the FAA proposes that certain provisions of the

certification rules, contained in proposed part 66, be subject to

waiver. The FAA has specifically identified two sets of circumstances

where a waiver of the proposed certification requirements may be in the

public interest. Therefore, the FAA proposes to include provisions in

the proposed rule that would permit the issuance of certificates and

ratings in deviation from the requirements of proposed Secs. 66.51(b),

66.57, 66.201(b), and 66.203(b)

subject to

waiver. The FAA has specifically identified two sets of circumstances

where a waiver of the proposed certification requirements may be in the

public interest. Therefore, the FAA proposes to include provisions in

the proposed rule that would permit the issuance of certificates and

ratings in deviation from the requirements of proposed Secs. 66.51(b),

66.57, 66.201(b), and 66.203(b).

Although the FAA has proposed that all applicants for certificates

issued under proposed part 66 be able to read, write, speak, and

understand English, the FAA recognizes that in certain circumstances

the issuance of an AMT, AMT(T), or aviation repair specialist

certificate to an individual who does not meet this requirement may be

necessary to ensure the continued airworthiness of U.S.-registered

aircraft operating outside the United States. Only in such limited

instances where no FAA-certificated AMT, AMT(T), or aviation repair

specialist who can read, write, speak, and understand English is

available to maintain a U.S.-registered aircraft overseas, will the FAA

consider the issuance of a certificate. Any certificate issued in

accordance with the proposed waiver provisions would contain an

endorsement specifying that the certificate is valid only outside the

United States and that the certificate holder may exercise the

privileges of the certificate only while employed by a specific

operator or certificate holder. Such restrictive endorsements would

preclude any expansive use of the certificate's privileges to perform

work outside the United States.

The FAA also recognizes that applicants for an AMT certificate may

complete a significant portion of the required training at an aviation

maintenance technician school certificated under part 147 but may be

unable to complete the remaining portion of the required training

endorsements would

preclude any expansive use of the certificate's privileges to perform

work outside the United States.

The FAA also recognizes that applicants for an AMT certificate may

complete a significant portion of the required training at an aviation

maintenance technician school certificated under part 147 but may be

unable to complete the remaining portion of the required training. This

situation frequently occurs as a result of the closing of an FAA-

certificated aviation maintenance technician school or the relocation

of a student to a portion of the country where an aviation maintenance

technician school certificated under part 147 is not readily available.

In such circumstances, the proposal would permit the FAA to issue an

AMT certificate in deviation from the AMT training requirements

specified in part 147 and, therefore, recognize an equivalent

combination of formal training and work experience. The Administrator

would, however, require the applicant to demonstrate specifically that

he or she has received an amount of experience equivalent to that

required of an applicant for the proposed certificate who has completed

the training specified in part 147 for the issuance of the AMT

certificate.

Issuance of any certificate under these provisions would be based

on a demonstrated need and a finding that the applicant is able to

safely exercise the privileges of the certificate and rating. An

applicant also would be required to provide evidence sufficient to

indicate that work experience used to satisfy part 147 training

requirements that have not been completed is of equivalent scope and

detail to ensure proficiency in those tasks specified in the training

curriculum.

Recognition of New Testing Methods

is able to

safely exercise the privileges of the certificate and rating. An

applicant also would be required to provide evidence sufficient to

indicate that work experience used to satisfy part 147 training

requirements that have not been completed is of equivalent scope and

detail to ensure proficiency in those tasks specified in the training

curriculum.

Recognition of New Testing Methods

In the area of testing administration, the FAA recognizes recent

developments in training and testing technology and, therefore, has

proposed to replace the term ``written test'' with ``knowledge test''.

Because the results of some tests, such as those from recently approved

computer-based testing, can be made immediately available to the

applicant, the FAA proposes that a report of the knowledge test results

be made available, as opposed to being sent, to an applicant who has

taken an examination using computer-based testing.

Replacement of Lost or Destroyed Certificates by Facsimile or Telegram

The proposal would revise current procedures by permitting an

airman who has lost a certificate issued under proposed part 66 to

request a facsimile of the certificate from the FAA as confirmation of

the certificate's original issuance. The proposal also would allow any

request to the FAA to be made by facsimile and would permit the FAA to

send directly to the airman a facsimile that the airman may carry as

proof of the original certificate's issuance, for a period not to

exceed 90 days. Adoption of the proposed changes would make the rule

consistent with current practices implemented by the Airman

Certification Branch (AVN-460) at the Aviation Standards National Field

Office in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Current regulations specify the use

of telegrams only and limit their validity to a 60-day period.

The proposed use of facsimiles, in addition to telegrams, reflects

advancements in communications

ed changes would make the rule

consistent with current practices implemented by the Airman

Certification Branch (AVN-460) at the Aviation Standards National Field

Office in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Current regulations specify the use

of telegrams only and limit their validity to a 60-day period.

The proposed use of facsimiles, in addition to telegrams, reflects

advancements in communications

technology and would speed access to FAA services by permitting the use

of other means, such as telephone facsimile or computer modem, to

obtain a replacement certificate. The use of these means would speed

the replacement of a lost certificate to an airman, thereby decreasing

the time during which an airman may not exercise the privileges of a

certificate or rating. Increasing the period of validity of telegrams

and facsimiles used as proof of certification also would decrease the

possibility of a certificate holder having to make any additional

request for a replacement certificate. Similar provisions are under

consideration for adoption in other parts of the FAR.

Extension of the Duration of an Inspection Authorization

Under the proposed rule, the duration of an inspection

authorization would be extended, from the current 12-month period

ending in March of each year, to a 24-month period ending on the last

day of the 24th month after the date of issuance of the inspection

authorization. Extending the duration of the inspection authorization

would make the authorization consistent with FAA practices regarding

the issuance of other renewable certificates, such as the flight

instructor certificate. A 24-month renewal cycle would relieve the

public of a significant regulatory burden and FAA Flight Standards

District Offices of a considerable administrative burden, without

compromising safety. Modifying the existing training and recent

experience requirements to coincide with the adoption of a 24-month

renewal cycle would give holders greater flexibility in meeting

regulatory requirements.

24-month renewal cycle would relieve the

public of a significant regulatory burden and FAA Flight Standards

District Offices of a considerable administrative burden, without

compromising safety. Modifying the existing training and recent

experience requirements to coincide with the adoption of a 24-month

renewal cycle would give holders greater flexibility in meeting

regulatory requirements.

Granting of Inspection Authorization Privileges Based on the Type of

Technician Certificate Held by an Applicant

In view of the creation of the proposed AMT and AMT(T)

certificates, the FAA proposes to delineate the privileges and

limitations of the inspection authorization in a manner similar to that

provided for by the AMT and AMT(T) certificates. Under the current

rule, the FAR sections pertaining to the issuance of an inspection

authorization are found in subpart B of part 65, which pertains solely

to currently certificated mechanics. With the creation of the new

certificates, the holder of an AMT certificate or the holder of an

AMT(T) certificate can apply for an inspection authorization. The FAA,

therefore, proposes to create a new subpart, solely applicable to the

issuance of inspection authorizations to holders of either AMT or

AMT(T) certificates. The FAA contends that the retention of the current

regulatory structure for inspection authorization privileges and

limitations, which is based on the possession of a single certificate,

would be inconsistent with a certification structure that provides for

two different types of certificates with different privileges and

limitations.

An inspection authorization holder's privileges would be dependent

on the privileges of the type of certificate held by the individual

possessing the inspection authorization

imitations, which is based on the possession of a single certificate,

would be inconsistent with a certification structure that provides for

two different types of certificates with different privileges and

limitations.

An inspection authorization holder's privileges would be dependent

on the privileges of the type of certificate held by the individual

possessing the inspection authorization. Under the proposal, the

privileges of an individual possessing an inspection authorization and

holding a current and valid AMT(T) certificate with an aircraft rating

would not be any different from the privileges of the holder of an

inspection authorization possessing a current and valid mechanic

certificate with airframe and powerplant ratings as specified in

current Sec. 65.95.

An individual possessing an inspection authorization with an AMT

certificate that has an aircraft rating, however, would not be

permitted to approve aircraft certificated under part 25 or part 29 for

return to service after the completion of a major repair or alteration.

This individual also would not be permitted to perform an annual

inspection nor to perform or supervise an annual inspection on any

aircraft certificated under part 25 or part 29.

The general eligibility requirements for an individual holding an

AMT or AMT(T) certificate to obtain an inspection authorization would

be the same as those specified under the current rule, with the

exception that an individual seeking the more comprehensive privileges

conferred on the holder of an inspection authorization with an AMT(T)

certificate would be required to satisfy all eligibility requirements

through the performance of work on aircraft certificated under part 25

or part 29, or on the airframes, aircraft engines, propellers,

appliances, components, or parts of these aircraft

exception that an individual seeking the more comprehensive privileges

conferred on the holder of an inspection authorization with an AMT(T)

certificate would be required to satisfy all eligibility requirements

through the performance of work on aircraft certificated under part 25

or part 29, or on the airframes, aircraft engines, propellers,

appliances, components, or parts of these aircraft. An individual

intending to obtain these inspection authorization privileges would be

required to have been actively engaged in this type of work for 2 years

before application for the authorization and possess a current and

valid AMT(T) certificate for at least 3 years before application.

Current eligibility requirements and proposed eligibility requirements

for the issuance of an inspection authorization to the holder of a

mechanic certificate only require that the applicant have been actively

engaged in the maintenance of any type of aircraft for 2 years before

the date of application and hold a current and valid mechanic

certificate for a period of at least 3 years. Essentially, the proposal

would require that an individual intending to exercise the approval for

return-to-service privileges of an inspection authorization with

respect to aircraft certificated under part 25 or part 29 obtain the

requisite experience for the inspection authorization through the

maintenance of aircraft certificated under these parts. An AMT(T) with

an inspection authorization who does not meet this requirement but

meets the requirements for the holder of a AMT certificate with an

inspection authorization would be permitted to exercise the privileges

of the holder of an AMT certificate with an inspection authorization

ience for the inspection authorization through the

maintenance of aircraft certificated under these parts. An AMT(T) with

an inspection authorization who does not meet this requirement but

meets the requirements for the holder of a AMT certificate with an

inspection authorization would be permitted to exercise the privileges

of the holder of an AMT certificate with an inspection authorization.

Renewal requirements would not change under the proposed rule, with

the exception that an individual possessing an AMT(T) certificate who

intends to obtain an inspection authorization and exercise the complete

range of privileges available under the authorization must perform the

requisite inspections on aircraft certificated under part 25 or part

29.

Because the inspection authorization has become the subject of a

separate subpart, references to the inspection authorization in Subpart

A `` General have now been included in the proposed rule. Inclusion of

references to the inspection authorization in this subpart would not

affect any current privileges or limitations of an inspection

authorization.

Requiring Applicants for the Inspection Authorization To Complete an

Inspection Authorization Refresher Course Before Their Initial

Application

The proposal would establish a requirement that all applicants for

an inspection authorization successfully complete an inspection

authorization refresher course during the 12 months before application

for an inspection authorization. The current rule does not impose this

requirement. Current renewal options available to the holder of an

inspection authorization permit the holder to renew the inspection

authorization indefinitely without having attended an inspection

authorization refresher course. Therefore, the holder of a current

inspection authorization may have never attended an inspection

authorization refresher course.

FAA surveys indicate that standardization of inspection procedures

and the proper completion and submission of required

ation permit the holder to renew the inspection

authorization indefinitely without having attended an inspection

authorization refresher course. Therefore, the holder of a current

inspection authorization may have never attended an inspection

authorization refresher course.

FAA surveys indicate that standardization of inspection procedures

and the proper completion and submission of required

documentation are consistent problems among holders of inspection

authorizations. Successful completion of an inspection authorization

refresher course before initial application would ensure that all

future holders of an inspection authorization were instructed in the

uniform interpretation of regulatory and advisory material before

exercising the privileges of the inspection authorization.

Expansion of Inspection Authorization Renewal Options

The proposal would permit the holder of an inspection authorization

to use a combination of annual inspections, inspections of major

repairs or major alterations, and complete progressive inspections to

satisfy the renewal requirements for the inspection authorization. Such

a provision would give the holder of an inspection authorization much

greater flexibility in meeting renewal requirements. To facilitate the

combination of these inspections with other inspection periods

currently designated in months for the purpose of certificate renewal,

the proposal would change the currently specified 90-day periods for

inspections to 3-month periods.

Notice No. 94-27 proposed that the holder of an inspection

authorization be permitted to use participation in current inspection

programs, which are recommended by the manufacturer, or other

inspection programs established by the registered owner or operator

under Sec. 91.409(f)(3) or (4), to satisfy renewal requirements. This

proposal is not being included in this NPRM

s to 3-month periods.

Notice No. 94-27 proposed that the holder of an inspection

authorization be permitted to use participation in current inspection

programs, which are recommended by the manufacturer, or other

inspection programs established by the registered owner or operator

under Sec. 91.409(f)(3) or (4), to satisfy renewal requirements. This

proposal is not being included in this NPRM. Although the experience

gained through participation in such inspection programs may be

commensurate with the experience currently accepted to obtain the

inspection authorization renewal, an inspection authorization is not

required to participate in these inspection programs. The FAA deems it

inappropriate to permit the holder of an inspection authorization to

use participation in an inspection program that does not require an

inspection authorization as a means (and possibly the sole means) of

satisfying inspection authorization renewal requirements.

Under the current regulation, the holder of an inspection

authorization may renew the inspection authorization by attending and

successfully completing a refresher course, acceptable to the

Administrator, of not less than 8 hours during the 12-month period

preceding the application for renewal. The previously published NPRM

would permit the holder to renew an inspection authorization by

attending and successfully completing a refresher course, or series of

courses, acceptable to the Administrator, of not less than 16 hours

during the proposed 24-month period preceding the application for

renewal. The FAA considered modifying the previously published NPRM to

permit the holder to renew the inspection authorization by successfully

completing an 8-hour course of instruction during the expanded 24-month

renewal period

refresher course, or series of

courses, acceptable to the Administrator, of not less than 16 hours

during the proposed 24-month period preceding the application for

renewal. The FAA considered modifying the previously published NPRM to

permit the holder to renew the inspection authorization by successfully

completing an 8-hour course of instruction during the expanded 24-month

renewal period. Comments made on this proposal by the ARAC on air

carrier/general aviation maintenance issues, however, indicated that

acceptance of this change would effectively halve the amount of

recurrent training that the holder of an inspection authorization would

receive when renewing the inspection authorization through the use of

this option. After reviewing the ARAC's concerns, the FAA has

determined that completion of a 16-hour inspection authorization

refresher course, or series of courses, acceptable to the

Administrator, during the expanded renewal period is necessary to

provide a level of recurrent training equivalent to that currently

required of individuals seeking to renew an inspection authorization

through the use of this training option. Therefore, this NPRM retains

the language of the earlier proposal.

Redesignation of the Term ``Repairman''

In view of the specialized nature of aviation maintenance tasks

performed by currently certificated repairmen, the FAA proposes that

the term ``aviation repair specialist'' replace the term ``repairman''.

The FAA contends that the term ``aviation repair specialist'' more

accurately reflects the level of expertise required to maintain today's

highly complex aviation systems. In addition, the use of the term

``aviation repair specialist'' would serve to increase the level of

professionalism among aviation maintenance personnel. Adoption of the

term would also be consistent with the FAA's policy of implementing

gender-neutral regulations

epair specialist'' more

accurately reflects the level of expertise required to maintain today's

highly complex aviation systems. In addition, the use of the term

``aviation repair specialist'' would serve to increase the level of

professionalism among aviation maintenance personnel. Adoption of the

term would also be consistent with the FAA's policy of implementing

gender-neutral regulations. The term ``aviation repair specialist''

would be used to describe the three types of aviation repair specialist

certificates that could be issued under the proposal: (1) the aviation

repair specialist certificate issued on the basis of proficiency in a

designated specialty area (ARS-I), (2) the aviation repair specialist

certificate issued on the basis of employment (ARS-II), and (3) the

aviation repair specialist certificate issued to experimental aircraft

builders (ARS-III).

The aviation repair specialist certificate issued on the basis of

employment (ARS-II) would be the equivalent of the current repairman

certificate, and the aviation repair specialist certificate issued to

experimental aircraft builders (ARS-III) would be the equivalent of the

current repairman certificate-experimental aircraft builder.

The aviation repair specialist certificate would not be issued to

holders of the AMT or AMT(T) certificate because an AMT or AMT(T)

certificate holder does not require an aviation repair specialist

certificate to exercise approval for return-to-service authority.

However, the AMT or AMT(T) may still require additional training to

obtain the necessary competency to perform work on certain items and to

approve these items for return to service

t be issued to

holders of the AMT or AMT(T) certificate because an AMT or AMT(T)

certificate holder does not require an aviation repair specialist

certificate to exercise approval for return-to-service authority.

However, the AMT or AMT(T) may still require additional training to

obtain the necessary competency to perform work on certain items and to

approve these items for return to service. Completion of training

equivalent to that required for the issuance of an aviation repair

specialist certificate in a designated specialty area (ARS-I) would

provide an AMT or AMT(T) with the qualifications necessary to perform

work in that specialty area and would also serve as an indication that

an AMT or AMT(T) possesses the qualifications necessary to exercise

approval for return-to-service privileges in the specialty area.

Establishment of an Aviation Repair Specialist Certificate Based on

Proficiency in Designated Specialty Areas That May Be Issued

Independent of Em

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.