Last week MARPA filed comments with the FAA in response to two policy documents that directly affect PMA manufacturers. As we previously explained on this blog, both of these documents speak directly to the PMA approval process.
Draft revision D to FAA Order 8110.42 Parts Manufacturer Approval Procedures. Two notable changes made in the revision was the removal of guidance to PMA applicants (released as a stand-alone document as draft AC 21.303-PMA) and the inclusion of a section directing ACOs to apply the FAA Risk Based Resource Targeting (RBRT) tool. It also made certain technical changes to the Order to update citations and keep up with rule changes.
MARPA observed that the inclusion of RBRT in the Order creates the risk of unequal treatment across—or even within—different offices. This is because the RBRT tool attempts to create the appearance of objectivity by assigning numerical values to what are essentially subjective evaluations by FAA personnel. Because the tool offers no metric, rubric, or guidance to aid FAA personnel in assigning values, it is possible for even identical projects to be assigned different risk values based on the subjective assessments of personnel. The ultimate result is that highly similar projects could be allocated markedly different resources.
Draft Advisory Circular 21.303-PMA updates the FAA guidance to applicants for PMA of articles submitted on the basis of test and computation or identicality without a license agreement. This guidance is for the most part a recast of the guidance that formerly appeared in Order 8110.42C. MARPA offered suggestions for improving the guidance related to sample sizes required for test and computation analysis, as well as general comments seeking to clarify the guidance.
In both documents, MARPA commented that the FAA should include a section describing use of the Streamlined PMA application process.
We plan to meet with representatives from the FAA in person to further discuss these comments. FAA personnel will also be at the MARPA Conference in Las Vegas, October 23-25, and available to discuss PMA guidance and other initiatives. MARPA will continue to work with the FAA to ensure that the guidance enhances safety while limiting burden to our members and the industry.
We previously wrote in this space that MARPA will be attending the 2013 Aerospace Industry Exhibition Tokyo (ASET). As a benefit to our members, MARPA plans to feature member-company literature in our booth to allow you to make connections with the Japanese aerospace manufacturing market. This is just one of the benefits of MARPA membership. ASET offers an excellent opportunity get in front of a substantial segment of the Japanese aerospace manufacturing community; at the last conference over 23,000 people attended!
In order to help us feature member companies in the MARPA booth, members must ship their literature to us in Tokyo. To ensure we are able to showcase your literature, you must follow these steps:
1. Act quickly! ASET runs October 2-4. You should plan to have your literature arrive absolutely no later than Monday, September 23. This will allow adequate time to ensure your package clears customs.
2. Ship your package to:MARPA (Booth No. G-01) c/o AEROSPACE INDUSTRY EXHIBITION TOKYO 2013 2013 Management office Tokyo Big Site 3-11-1 Ariake, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135-0063, Japan
3. Email Katt Brigham at MARPA with your package tracking information. This should include the date the package was shipped and the estimated date of arrival. You should also include the contents of your package so we know what to look for.
4. Confirm your package arrives in Tokyo. When you have confirmed arrival email Katt to let us know as well.
Remember it will take about a week for your shipment to clear customs upon arrival in Japan. It is therefore vital that you ship your literature in time to ensure arrival by September 23.
MARPA is excited to be able to offer this opportunity to its members. If you have any questions about shipping, please contact Katt at (202) 628-6777 or by email at email@example.com.
MARPA continues to work diligently in support of the FAA’s Part 21 ARC. One of the ARC working groups is focused specifically on performing a cost benefit analysis of the ARCs proposals. We previously posted on the blog a request for our members’ input on what data we should be tracking in order to best estimate costs. Although we have received a handful of responses to date, we still need your feedback to ensure we have an accurate cost assessment as possible!
Our members have reported the following measurable data points
The data your company is able to measure may be similar, or may be different. In either case, we want to hear from you to provide a useful and usable data survey. Remember, at this time we are NOT collecting actual numbers, but merely attempting to determine what data we can reasonably expect to collect in the future to help with our cost benefit analysis. Future data will be collect anonymously to protect our members’ competitive interests while also guarding against costly regulation.
This information will help us to develop metrics for measuring industry costs of regulatory compliance. We will then have a baseline to which we will compare the costs and benefits of the ARC’s proposals. This is industry’s opportunity to provide detailed feedback regarding the costs of FAA regulations. The FAA will be joining us at the MARPA Conference in October, so it is important that we have investigated and reviewed this data prior to that time.
If you have not yet taken the opportunity to respond with what sort of cost data your company tracks, please take a few minutes and let us know. This will go a long way to helping us ensure the Part 21 ARC develops sound and cost effective proposals to deliver to the FAA. Email responses to MARPA Associate Counsel Ryan Aggergaard at firstname.lastname@example.org.
MARPA is pleased to announce that we have been invited to exhibit and present at the 2013 Aerospace Industry Exhibition Tokyo. MARPA will have an exhibitor booth for the three day event, October 2-4, 2013, and MARPA President Jason Dickstein will give a keynote address discussing all things PMA. This is an excellent opportunity to further raise industry awareness about the value and benefits of PMA and about MARPA itself.
The Aerospace Industry Exhibition Tokyo (ASET) is the only exhibition held in Tokyo dedicated to specialized aerospace technologies. In addition to the unique business opportunity, ASET also features programs and lectures from key industry figures, as well as business and social networking events.
ASET is very excited to continue to develop its PMA sessions and exhibitors. The Exhibition has asked for our help in getting the word out about this opportunity, as ASET seeks PMA companies to join their PMA session. The PMA companies would be asked to introduce their business to the attendees and participate in a PMA panel. As inducement for participation, ASET is offering to provide exhibition booth space (three-day exhibition required) and potentially other inducements to PMA companies who are willing to present at the exhibition.
The city of Tokyo’s event planning subsidiary specifically requested the presence of PMA manufacturers at ASET 2013. This is a great opportunity for our members to exhibit their products in front of a large audience in one of Asia’s key business hubs. It is also a chance to further educate the aerospace community on the advantages of PMA.
If your company is interested in taking advantage of this opportunity, please contact ASET advisor Jay Kato via email at email@example.com. ASET 2013 runs October 2-4, so it is important to act quickly. MARPA hopes to see you there.
On July 2, MARPA filed comments with the FAA in response to the draft Standard Operating Procedure Aircraft Certification Service Project Prioritization and Resource Management. The SOP, commonly referred to as “sequencing,” is intended to assist the FAA in prioritizing certification projects submitted for FAA approval in order to get the most out of its limited resources. The goal of sequencing is to give priority to those projects that should have the most significant and immediate effect on safety.
Unfortunately, the policy as written misses out on clearly offering additional safety benefits, and disproportionately favors large businesses over small businesses, while offering no sound policy or safety rationale for this favoritism.
MARPA’s comments identified a number of problems with the policy. The factors and criteria established by the FAA and used to determine a ranking for the purposes of prioritization appear in many ways to be arbitrarily established, with no identified methodology or basis for the calculation of the assigned values. Additionally, the determination of the safety impact of a given project (a significant factor in calculating priority) appears to be left to the subjective evaluation of individual FAA offices or even individual employees. Such subjectivity creates the possibility that identical projects may be assigned a higher or lower priority based on the opinion of an individual employee.
Even when evenhandedly applied, the policy may negatively affect the ability of small businesses to compete with large companies and OEMs, based not upon the safety benefits of their projects, but almost entirely upon the resources available to the companies.
MARPA understands and appreciates the FAA’s efforts to optimize the use of their resources to provide the greatest possible safety benefit to the industry and the flying public. MARPA consistently works with the FAA to optimize its resources and enhance safety, through initiatives such as the Streamlined PMA Process, and participation on rulemaking committees. MARPA looks forward to continuing to work with the FAA to better improve aviation safety and resource commitment.
As regular readers of this blog undoubtedly know, two of MARPA’s many accomplishments over the last year were the development of the MARPA 1100 Standard and successfully assisting the FAA in its issuance of Order 8110.119: Streamlined Process for Parts Manufacturer Approval. Last week, MARPA sat down with FAA staff to update them on the progress of the program and discuss feedback–both positive and negative–that we have received from our members regarding the implementation of this new program.
The MARPA 1100 Standard is a recommended format for demonstrating that a PMA part is appropriate for the streamlined approval process. The goal of that process–outlined in Order 8110.119–is to allow approval of non-safety significant (NSS) PMA parts within 30 days of application by companies with safety records that demonstrate that the FAA may reasonably rely on their systems to ensure quality.
The experiences reported by members has varied. Some members have reported great success with the streamlined process. A solid relationship with their ACO proved to be of great benefit in drafting a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and initiating the streamlined process. Continuous communication was also very important.
Each ACO is given a certain amount of discretion in the implementation of the streamlined process. It is therefore important to work cooperatively and patiently with your ACO in developing an MOU that works for both of you and in commencing the streamlined process.
Some larger members originally reported that they would continue to rely on their ODA processes rather than taking advantage of the streamlined process. However, as the benefits of the streamlined process became apparent, those members decided that they too would take advantage of the rapid turnaround for NSS PMAs.
Other members have reported that their ACOs have been resistant to implementing the streamlined process. The FAA suggested a couple of reasons for this resistance. One reason is that the purpose of the streamlined process is to more efficiently allocate resources. If the applicant cannot demonstrate that establishment of an MOU and initiation of the streamlined process is going to result in resource savings, the ACO may be hesitant to travel down the streamlined path. Another reason the ACO may hesitate to implement the process is that it may already have a turnaround time for PMA applications that is very near to the 30-day goal established by the streamlined process. If there is no time or resource benefit to be realized, the ACO may view the process with skepticism.
It will be important in such cases for those companies seeking to implement the streamlined process to demonstrate to their ACO that use of the process will result in measurable time (and corresponding cost) savings. Cooperation and a strong relationship with the ACO will help the applicant in moving the MOU and streamlined process forward.
One of the most frequent comments to both MARPA and the FAA has been that the MOU process is confusing or difficult to start from scratch. Therefore, to better assist our members, MARPA plans to draft and make available guidance to assist businesses in developing their own MOUs.
The Streamlined Process for PMA is still in its infancy, and there will inevitably be growing pains. MARPA wants to hear about all your experiences, both positive and negative, so that we can continue to refine the MARPA 1100 Standard, develop guidance to address challenges, and work with the FAA to present the PMA industry’s perspectives on the program. If you have taken advantage of the streamlined process, if you have hit sticking points with your ACO, or if you have for any reason struggled to initiate the process, email your experiences to MARPA Associate Counsel Ryan Aggergaard at firstname.lastname@example.org. MARPA will work diligently to address challenges in the streamlined process to ensure that the PMA community is best able to take advantage of this growing initiative.
On July 1 the FAA released for comment drafts of revisions to two policy documents of great importance to PMA manufacturers. Both documents speak directly to the PMA approval process.
The first is revision D to FAA Order 8110.42 Parts Manufacturer Approval Procedures. Among other changes, the revision updates the regulatory citations from the latest Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 21 rule changes, introduces risk based resource targeting (RBRT) with management options, incorporates directive feedback and clarifies certification office responsibilities under the FAA’s quality management system.
This order describes the internal responsibilities and procedures for approving replacement and modification articles for installation on type-certificated products. The order addresses only the requirements for issuing a PMA; FAA Order 8120.22, Production Approval Procedures, contains the procedures addressing the production activities of manufacturers who produce articles under PMA.
The proposed revision also removes applicant guidance from Order 8110.42D. The applicant guidance removed from the draft of revision D has been relocated to the other draft document released on July 1: FAA AC 21.303-PMA.
AC 21.303-PMA updates the FAA guidance to applicants for PMA of articles submitted on the basis of test and computation or identicality without a license agreement. The AC also provides an application and compliance checklist, adds a certifying statement of compliance, provides guidance for assessing an article’s impact on safety and describes how the FAA approves replacement parts for TSO articles. The AC describes one way, but not the only way, to comply with subpart K of Part 21 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
Comments on both of these drafts are due September 1, 2013. Comments on Draft Order 8110.42D should be sent to email@example.com. Comments on Draft AC 21.303-PMA should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. Whether you file formal comments or not, please share your thoughts and concerns with MARPA Associate Counsel Ryan Aggergaard at email@example.com. MARPA will make every effort to address our members’ concerns in our comments to the FAA.
We have written recently on this blog about the important SMS/Part 21 Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) and corresponding Working Groups in which representatives of MARPA are now participating. The result of this ARC promises to affect each and every manufacturer of PMA in some way or another. MARPA will therefore be there every step of the way, working to ensure that the interests of PMA community are protected. But in order to ensure that we guard our members’ interests, we will need your assistance and feedback! We are therefore asking MARPA members to tracks and share with us the cost of regulatory compliance.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to attempt to fit the burdens of a proposed regulation to the scale of businesses. This recognizes the fact that the same regulatory burden that may simply be the cost of doing business to a large multinational corporation may be crippling to a small company. Recognizing the extreme importance of scalability in the promulgation of the new Part 21, one of the four Working Groups is dedicated solely to undertaking a Cost-Benefit Analysis of the proposed regulatory changes.
This is where MARPA member feedback will be of extreme importance. The Cost-Benefit Analysis Working Group needs data to better understand what the current cost of compliance to small business actually is. This will function as a baseline from which to determine the benefits and costs of the proposals generated by the other three Working Groups. As the Working Groups craft the new regulations they will turn to industry to obtain data demonstrating the effects of the proposed changes.
It is vital that MARPA members participate in providing data to the Working Groups as the new proposals are developed and those assumptions tested against hard data. Hidden costs of compliance with regulations, under-estimations of costs, and over-estimations of benefits have the potential to result in an overly burdensome regulation. The participation of MARPA members in providing data to the ARC Working Groups will go a long way toward shaping an effective regulation while minimizing the burden on small businesses.
Input from members helps MARPA to more effectively advocate for policy changes that benefit the PMA community. Responses to requests for information such as this—or for data regarding the Streamlined PMA Process—helps MARPA to focus its resources to optimize benefit to the membership.
MARPA looks forward to the participation of its members in shaping the future of Part 21. Although the Working Groups have not yet begun to approach industry with requests for data, MARPA would like to get started early. If your company tracks the cost of regulatory compliance, whether in dollars, personnel, man-hours, paperwork, or any other metric, we want to hear from you. Your confidentiality is important to us, so MARPA will only report data in the aggregate; no individual data will be released and no company names will be revealed. You can send this data to MARPA Associate Counsel Ryan Aggergaard at firstname.lastname@example.org. Please also send Ryan an email if you have any questions or would like to start tracking compliance costs.
Has your company taken advantage of the FAA’s streamlined process for PMAs on Non-Safety-Sensitive (NSS) parts, yet? If so, MARPA wants to hear from you.
As we have previously posted on this blog, the streamlined process—detailed in FAA Order 8110.119—involves following the MARPA 1100 Standard for PMA applications for NSS parts. The MARPA 1100 standard is available on our website. Applicants who follow the standard (and confirm that they meet the elements of the FAA Order) are entitled to expedited processing of their applications. The FAA has established a goal to turn-around NSS PMA applications that meet the MARPA standard within 30 days.
A 30-day turn-around would provide NSS PMA applicants with an improved ability to make commitments to customers about expected production and delivery times when those times hinge upon PMA issuance. This should also encourage companies to seek PMA for NSS parts.
The process does not alleviate the applicant of their obligation to ensure compliance with all relevant regulations (remember, you must certify compliance as part of your PMA application); but it does provide a standardized format that should make it easier for FAA ACO engineers to review and approve such applications, consistent with the FAA’s commitment to using risk-based tools to assign resources. This is particularly important as budgets for federal agencies continue to be scaled back.
As with any new initiative, there is likely to be growing pains and some resistance to the adoption and implementation of the streamlined process. We have received some reports from various corners about ACOs that were skeptical of, or unwilling to participate with, the streamline process.
In order to assist MARPA members navigating the streamlined PMA process, we are seeking to issue a set of Best Practices to help guide PMA manufacturers through the new procedure. For this we’d like to hear from you regarding your experiences using the streamlined process. What techniques have been helpful? How did you navigate the MOU process? How closely did you work with your ACO? Do you have any suggestions or words of caution for other PMA manufacturers seeking to take advantage of the streamlined process?
MARPA will compile these responses into a Best Practices guide that will be made available exclusively to MARPA members. We look forward to hearing about your experiences and helping the PMA industry benefit from this new process.
Email your responses to Ryan Aggergaard at Ryan@washingtonaviation.com.
The FAA has released a new draft Advisory Circular that is intended to describe acceptable statistical methods for developing substantiating data for comparative test and analysis compliance findings to support FAA approval of turbine engine and APU parts produced under a PMA, TC, STC, repair or alteration. The guidance is intended to help generate substantiating data to support compliance with the airworthiness requirements of 14 C.F.R. 21.303 as well as parts 33, 43 and TSO C77.
Several members have brought this AC to our attention and expressed their concerns about the details of this guidance. We welcome specific comments from members about problems and/or ways to improve this document. Based on member comments we have received so far, the proposed guidance appears likely to discourage applications to produce replacement parts. One reason for this is the large suggested sample size, and associated high costs, necessary to satisfy the proposed statistical analysis metrics.
The proposed AC discusses statistical principles and methods in an effort to explain appropriate approaches of determining proper sample sizes and population specimens for the purpose of showing equivalency and discrepancies between sample populations of parts.
The AC primarily attempts to address two separate problems: (1) the use of statistical tests designed to show difference rather than equivalency and (2) the use of small sample sizes.
The guidance observes that applicants frequently submit data based on a simple t-test, which is designed to determine difference, rather than equivalency. This is a problem because failure to show a statistically significant difference is not the same as demonstrating the equivalence between an approved part and a replacement part. The guidance states that a methodology for demonstrating equivalency must instead be used.
The guidance also explains the procedure for determining the sample sizes of approved and replacement parts necessary to demonstrate equivalency. This test for determining sample size yields a large sample-size requirement, based on the needs of the statistical test for equivalency as well as the importance of accounting for lot-to-lot variance.
The practical effect of compliance with the suggested sample size would appear to make the cost of conducting the required testing incredibly cost-prohibitive. MARPA seeks comments from its members to determine whether compliance with the sample sizes indicated by the suggested procedure are economically feasible.
The FAA appears to acknowledge the burden of the sample sizes indicated by the formula by including in the proposed guidance a section titled “Practical alternative for sample size requirements.” The section offers alternative suggestions to using the statistically derived sample sizes and methods for analyzing small samples.
The proposed AC also appears to take an unrealistic view of the nature of part procurement when procuring approved parts for the purpose of comparison. The guidance repeatedly emphasizes the importance of drawing sample parts from different lots to account for variance. Determining the source lots of a series of approved parts seems to be an unrealistic burden without substantial compliance from the manufacturer.
It is important that the engine PMA community examine this guidance to determine whether it offers any benefit to safety and whether compliance would even be practicable.
You can find this proposed AC, Statistical Analysis Considerations for Comparative Test and Analysis Based Compliance Findings for Turbine Engine, at http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/media/AC_33-X.doc.
Comments are due to the FAA by July 11, 2013. Comments can be emailed to Marc Bouthillier at Marc.Bouthillier@faa.gov or faxed to (781) 238-7199. We would appreciate copies of your comments, so we can make sure that MARPA‘s own comments supports the industry’s comments and needs.