# 63 FR 37172: Revision of Certification Requirements: Mechanics and Repairmen

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-17589

## Section

- **Citation:** 63 FR 37172
- **Heading:** Revision of Certification Requirements: Mechanics and Repairmen
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 63 / 63 FR 37172

## Text

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 school

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [63 FR 176 Aluminum in Large and Small Volume Parenterals Used in Total Parenteral Nutrition](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-76.md)
- [63 FR 446 Federal Employees Health Benefits Program: Removal of Minimum Salary Requirement](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-102.md)
- [63 FR 456 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-241.md)
- [63 FR 714 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Alabama: Revisions to Several Chapters of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) Administrative Code for the Air Pollution Control Program](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-358.md)
- [63 FR 1074 Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace (Jetstream) Model 4101 Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-475.md)
- [63 FR 1396 Notice of Meeting](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-588.md)
- [63 FR 1807 Endangered and Threatened Species; Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon and Fall Chinook Salmon as Endangered](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-622.md)
- [63 FR 2353 General Regulations and Standards for Certain Agricultural Commodities](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-920.md)
- [63 FR 2916 Kansas Regulatory Program and Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Plan](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-1216.md)
- [63 FR 3052 Peter G. Crane; Receipt of an Amended Petition for Rulemaking, Extension of Comment Period](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-1379.md)
- [63 FR 3057 Withholding on Interest in the Case of Sales of Obligations Between Interest Payment Dates; Hearing Cancellation](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-1403.md)
- [63 FR 3070 Closed Captioning of Video Programming](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-1394.md)
- [63 FR 3272 Airworthiness Directives; Saab Model SAAB 2000 Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-1425.md)
- [63 FR 3275 Airworthiness Directives; CFM International CFM56-2, -2A, -2B, - 3, -3B, and -3C Series Turbofan Engines](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-1484.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-17589. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.