Contact Us Payment Portal

ICA Efforts

Since its inception, ARSA has worked to ensure that basic safety information (i.e., Instructions for Continued Airworthiness [ICA], including component maintenance manuals [CMM]) is made available at a fair and reasonable price to operators, maintenance providers, and any other person required by 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to comply with those instructions.

Title 14 CFR § 21.50(b) requires holders of design approvals to prepare information essential to continued airworthiness (euphemistically, ICA) and “make it available” to persons required to comply with the terms of the instructions. Under part 91, owners are required to ensure the information is followed and recorded; under part 43, maintenance providers are required to perform maintenance and record maintenance in accordance with the information.

Notwithstanding the clear language of § 21.50(b), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been slow to enforce the DAHs’ obligation. On the other hand, the agency has vigilantly enforced the requirement that those performing maintenance do so in accordance with the ICA (see §§ 43.13, 145.51 and 145.109).

The association has taken numerous steps to combat this “double standard” of enforcement. Notably, ARSA took aim at the FAA and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in an attempt to hold the agencies accountable for the enforcement anomaly. Between 2003 and 2008, ARSA filed four complaints with the aviation authorities. While EASA’s response acknowledged the type certificate (TC) holders’ obligation to provide ICA to persons required to comply, including repair stations holding EASA approvals, it stopped short of taking any action. The FAA has yet to respond to the complaints and ARSA has formally withdrawn one for staleness.

Two recently-released FAA documents are a step in the right direction and, in certain circumstances, assists repair stations to obtain ICA—

  • In 2009, ARSA asked the FAA to issue an interpretation that CMMs referenced in the Airworthiness Limitations section (ALS) of the ICA were part of the ICA. In August 2012, the FAA responded, confirming that all CMMs referenced in an ALS are part of the ICA and that modifications to the ALS trigger § 21.50(b) requirements. The ALS and any changes must be made available to properly rated repair stations that need to comply with the ALS. However, the FAA declined to extend CMM availability to all properly rated repair stations absent a statement of need (e.g., possession of component, contract, work order), thus ignoring the absolute requirement in 14 CFR 43.16.
  • A March 29, 2012 FAA ICA Policy (PS-AIR-21.50-01) addressed “prohibitions” on distribution. Specifically, it states that “the FAA will not accept restrictive statements or terms in ICA documents, or restrictive access or use agreements that limit the appropriate availability or use of the ICA.” The policy makes it inappropriate for DAHs to distinguish the use of the ICA between the product owner and the maintenance provider, or place any limitations on such use. While this policy was certainly a step in the right direction, it did not include many ARSA recommendations that would have aligned the proposed policy with existing regulations.

The legal interpretation and ICA policy were important steps in the continued fight to ensure the availability of safety information. But, it remains to be seen whether the FAA will give teeth to the policy and/or interpretation by taking enforcement measures against DAHs who fail to provide the necessary information upon request.

Other International Efforts

In September 2009, EASA issued the Terms of Reference (ToR) task MDM.056, relating to the issues surrounding instructions for Continuing Airworthiness (ICA). The ToR established a working group, which continues to work on the task. As part of this larger effort, the agency published on Jan. 29, 2018 a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA 2018-01). The proposal would:

(1) Make ICA part of the EASA type certificate although not all changes to the ICA would be considered changes to type design.

(2) With respect to components installed on the aircraft, engine or propeller, make maintenance information ICA if it related to:
(a) The Airworthiness Limitations;
(b) The accomplishment of scheduled maintenance referenced in the product ICA, such as the periodic removal of a component for an inspection or test (e.g., hydrostatic test of a fire extinguisher in the shop); or
(c) If the supplier’s data does not relate to 2a or 2b but includes a maintenance instruction identified in the product ICA.

(3) If removal and replacement of the component was identified in the product ICA and the ICA did not reference the supplier’s maintenance instructions as necessary for continued airworthiness, the CMM/OHM would not be considered ICA. However, the DAH could still reference those manuals as additional or optional maintenance information without them becoming part of the ICA.

The initial meeting of the working group took place at the end of 2009, the result of which was a workshop held in January 2010 to receive feedback from industry and national authorities (ARSA contributed as a participant in the workshop). After the workshop was held, three more working group meetings were held; among the participants in these meetings were EASA, the FAA, Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), the European Union (EU) National Aviation Authorities (NAAs) and several industry participants including manufacturers, airlines, and maintenance organizations.

In January 2011, the working group was put on hold until EASA, FAA and TCCA held a specific meeting to determine a harmonized approach to the issue. Several meetings took place, after which a Status Report was published on March 10, 2012. In June 2012 industry and EU NAAs were informed about the outcome of these agency meetings at the 2012 US/Europe International Aviation Safety Conference.

The report offers the following definition of ICA:

“Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness are the instructions and information that are necessary for the continued airworthiness of the aircraft, engine, propeller, parts and appliances, which must be developed and/or referenced by the Design Approval Holder in accordance with the applicable Certification Basis or Standard.”

One notable section of the report states that “It was clear for EASA, FAA and TCCA that as soon as a certain document (such as a Component Maintenance Manual), or part of the document is referred in the ICA, it becomes an ICA,” after which the report called for more guidance to support this conclusion. Despite this mention of CMMs in the report, CMMs are not considered an issue of common interest, and are ultimately left to the agencies to deal with for themselves. The report goes on to address each agency’s current understanding and status of a number of other issues related to ICA.

The report concludes with a recitation of the steps to be taken during “Phase 2.” It identifies five subtasks of issues of common interest for each agency to address: (1) definition and identification of ICA, (2) availability of ICA, (3) MRB scheduling information, (4) acceptance/approval of ICA by other than the authority, and (5) performing a review of the validation process for ICA approved/accepted by another authority (within the existing bilateral agreement activities). The report clarifies that EASA, FAA and TCCA already have pre-agreed positions on each of these subtasks, and that the goal of the working group is to provide harmonization to those positions. That harmonization seeks to assure coordination of any activity falling into these issues of common interest.

So what happens now?

On May 15, 2013 ToR Issue 4 for MDM.056 was released, along with a document publishing the rulemaking group compositions for subtasks 1, 2, 4 and 5 (discussed above).  The ToR explains the next steps by outlining the issue and reason for regulatory change, stating the objectives, designating specific tasks for the rulemaking process, detailing the profile and contributions of the rulemaking group, and identifying the affected regulations and decisions.

ARSA Works ICA Timeline

May 29, 2018: On May 29, ARSA submitted comments in response to EASA’s Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2018-01 pertaining to Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA). The association praised the agency’s effort, then critiqued the proposal against decades of industry frustration with regulatory treatment of maintenance data.
ARSA Comments

December 1, 2017: A US court ruling determined the FAA is not obligated to force a manufacturer to supply maintenance instructions to a repair station, noting that it is the agency’s discretion if and how it enforces its own rules – in this case related to 14 CFR § 21.50’s requirements related to ICA.
Court ruling document

May 24, 2017: ARSA completes multi-session training series on ICA. Series available on demand.
Training Information

November 9, 2015: ARSA filed comments analyzing Draft Order 8110.54B, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness Responsibilities, Requirements, and Contents and Draft Advisory Circular 20-ICA, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. ARSA’s comments reiterate that aviation products are only as airworthy as their constituent components. The applicable airworthiness standards emphasize that ICA requirements apply to all articles that are eligible for installation on all type-certificated products and therefore must be made available by all design approval holders (DAHs).
ARSA Comments

November 5, 2014: FAA releases a legal interpretation responding to a letter asking whether the provisions in 14 CFR § 21.50(b) require design approval holders (DAH) to furnish complete Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) to the owner of each type aircraft, engine, or propeller apply to the Lockheed Martin C-l 30J aircraft operated by NAVAIR.
FAA legal interpretation

March 31, 2014: FAA releases a legal interpretation in response to a Piedmont Propulsion Systems request regarding the responsibilities of a DAH to make ICA available for mandatory inspections and repairs.
FAA legal interpretation

April 19, 2013: ARSA sends a letter to two members of the European Parliament commending their recent inquiries to the European Commission regarding original equipment manufacturers making maintenance manuals available to MROs.
ARSA letter

October 4, 2012: The Supreme Court decides not to hear ICA case.
ARSA article

August 9, 2012: FAA responds to three-year old ARSA request for legal interpretation, confirms that all CMMs referenced in an ALS are part of the ICA and that modifications to the ALS trigger § 21.50(b) requirements.
FAA legal interpretation

June 11, 2012: ARSA asks Supreme Court to intervene on ICA availability.
Amicus curiae brief

March 29, 2012: FAA releases ICA policy stating that the agency will “not accept” restrictive statements or terms in ICA documents, or restrictive access or use agreements that limit the appropriate availability or use of the ICA.
Policy statement

March 10, 2012: EASA issues a status report on ICA working group activities.
Status Report

January 4, 2012: ARSA comments on draft policy.
ARSA comments

October 6, 2011: FAA releases draft policy, “Inappropriate Design Approval Holder Restrictions on the Use and Availability of Instructions for Continued Airworthiness”.
Draft policy

January 26, 2010: ARSA delivers joint industry policy committee comments (see Aug. 20, 2004, below) to EASA for consideration.
Email to EASA

January 19, 2010: EASA provides a presentation on its ICA Terms of Reference during a public workshop on the subject.
EASA Terms of Reference Presentation | Minutes and presentations

September 28, 2009: EASA adds ICA to its Terms of Reference in anticipation of rulemaking.
EASA ICA Terms of reference

May 18, 2009: ARSA requests FAA legal interpretation.
ARSA interpretation request

November 6, 2008: ARSA sends rebuttal to EASA letter.
ARSA rebuttal letter

July 3, 2008: ARSA receives second response from EASA regarding the agency’s position on the availability of maintenance data.
EASA second response

May 30, 2008: ARSA receives response from EASA on ICA requirements.
EASA response | ARSA article

March 5, 2008: ARSA files complaint with EASA on the availability of maintenance manuals.
Rolls-Royce and Airbus EASA complaint

February 29, 2008: ARSA files third complaint with the FAA on the availability of maintenance manuals.
Parker-Hannifin complaint

April 18, 2007: ARSA’s files comments to part 145 NPRM, including a request to remove language requiring repair stations to have ICA to become certificated (see page 8).
Part 145 comments

August 3, 2006: ARSA comments on Baker Botts memo regarding ICA strategy options.
ARSA comments

June 13, 2006: ARSA-hired law firm delivers memo outlining strategic options for pursuing long-term ICA policy objectives.
Baker Botts Memo

February 28, 2006: Rolls-Royce responds to ARSA complaint.
Rolls-Royce response

November 23, 2005: ARSA files second complaint with the FAA on the availability of maintenance manuals.
Rolls-Royce complaint

July 1, 2005: FAA issues Order 8110.54; the Order did not incorporate joint industry policy committee suggestions.
FAA Order 8110.54

August 20, 2004: The ARSA-formed joint industry policy committee, composed of manufacturer, repair station, and air carrier representatives, submit comments to the FAA on draft Order 8110.54, Instructions for Continued Airworthiness Responsibilities, Requirements, and Contents.
Joint industry policy

December 10, 2003: Airbus responds to ARSA complaint.
Airbus response

October 3, 2003: ARSA files first complaint with the FAA on the availability of maintenance manuals.
Airbus complaint

April 14, 2003: FAA issues legal opinion detailing when component maintenance manuals are considered part of ICA.
FAA/McCurdy legal interpretation

March 30, 2002: Research reveals how other agencies carry out requirements to make maintenance information available.
 Other agency actions (.pdf)

January 10, 2001: Research shows that the regulations have long required that ICA be provided.
 History of U.S. ICA regulations, 1941-1980

December 13, 1999: FAA issues legal opinion (“the Whitlow Letter”) supporting ARSA’s position that instructions be made available.
Whitlow letter

The latest ARSA news regarding ICA’s is below; click here for archived content.

Another Parts Documentation Extension

Effective Aug. 7, the FAA again explained a repair station’s authority to inspect and issue FAA Form 8130-3 with a right-side signature for new articles received without documentation required by…Read More

FAA, Industry Connect on Remote Connectivity

On Aug. 7, the FAA confirmed it would finalize and publish the industry-produced draft advisory circular providing “guidance for using remote connectivity technology and tools.” “The Aircraft Certification Service (AIR)…Read More

AMS Update – Corporate Members & Continuous Improvement

Bear with us! ARSA is continuing the phased rollout its new association management system (AMS): Contacts from the 17 corporate members have been uploaded – all individuals from paid member…Read More

Quick Question – Engaging Elected Officials

While ARSA’s legislative team works hard for the industry every day (with great success), it depends on the personal engagement of the maintenance community. By investing personally in the political…Read More

Hotline Highlight: Education (and Entertainment) On the Hill

The hotline – ARSA’s premier member newsletter – contains news, editorial content, analysis and resources for the aviation maintenance community. All members should ensure they receive their edition the first week of…Read More