June 2014

One call to ARSA can be worth years of membership dues.

Let’s take this scenario—a United States foreign repair station received articles overhauled in Canada and installed them on engines destined for the United States. A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector mistakenly claimed that the foreign repair station cannot use parts from Canada for installation on the U.S. airline’s engines. Until resolution is reached, the foreign repair station does not feel it can ship engines.

Both foreign repair stations (the one using the parts and the one in Canada) as well as the air carrier are members of ARSA—all call for assistance within hours of each other. The association gets the facts, researches the regulations and presents the misunderstanding to the policy division of the FAA; within a business day, a note is sent to the agency’s regional offices clarifying the requirements of the bilateral between the United States and Canada vis-a-vis 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 43. The clarification merely restated the language of part 43 and the U.S./Canadian Maintenance Implementation Procedures (MIP), but it put the words into context. (There is, by the way, continuing confusion among and between countries with multiple but not coordinated bilateral aviation safety agreements. Unfortunately, these issues will continue because we do not [and probably never will have “world aviation regulations”—do you still wonder what WAR is good for?]).

Admittedly, the ability to quickly solve an issue with the correct information and the proper people is rare. Normally, the situation festers for days, months and years before the association is called; both parties have mixed facts with opinion and have misread, misunderstood or misapplied the regulations. Unwrapping those types of issues becomes a long-term commitment for the association and its members rather than providing almost instant gratification.

Nevertheless, consider membership in this association as an insurance policy; if you have a regulatory compliance question, you call the place with resources and quick answers. Even when the response isn’t what you want to hear, ARSA’s experts usually still help you attain an acceptable business solution. If the agency is dead wrong on your issue, the association can usually obtain quick resolution by providing the facts and regulations. In either event, you don’t waste time or money obtaining an evaluation – those resources are a call away.

Return to Top of Page

Latest News

Take Action: An International Voice on D&A Testing

Floridians in Flight: ARSA in Miami

EASA Launches Applicant Portal

FAA Resources: Aviation History

Marshall Filler, ARSA managing director and general counsel, joined with other international aviation representatives on Wednesday, June 18, at the 2014 FAA-EASA International Aviation Safety Conference. Filler and fellow stakeholders focused on various aspects of the U.S. and EU Safety Agreement along with its Technical Implementation Procedures (TIP) and Maintenance Annex Guidance (MAG).

Filler spoke on a panel entitled “Annex 2 of the US/EU Safety Agreement: Updates to the Maintenance Annex Guidance and What to Expect in Sampling Inspections.” The panel also included representatives from the FAA, EASA and MTU Maintenance Hannover.

FAA and EASA representatives updated participants on the changes that have been made to the MAG based on lessons learned since its implementation. They also briefed attendees on the Sampling Inspection System (SIS). The SIS is an effort by the two agencies to consult and share information on quality assurance and standardization activities. Its objective is to ensure that each authority can be confident in the surveillance conducted by the other. Consistent implementation of this system, combined with dependable education addressing MAG procedures and changes, are essential if we are to move forward in today’s international landscape.

ARSA focused on issues and compliance challenges that have not yet been resolved—specifically part tagging requirements, acceptance of a common release certificate and the need to heighten the awareness of the U.S. air carrier industry about the mutual acceptance of most repair data. MTU, while citing its own frustrations with U.S. operators on the repair data issue, echoed a common theme among industry representatives attending the conference: inconsistent regulatory standards and their application do not promote safety and efficiency in the aerospace industry.

ARSA’s leaders work tirelessly to engage with government and industry representatives through public events and engagement. For more information, please visit our industry events page.

On June 9, the House passed the America’s Small Business Tax Relief Act (H.R. 4457), which permanently increases Sec. 179 expensing levels. The bill is awaiting Senate action.

Under current law, beginning in 2014, a taxpayer may immediately expense up to $25,000 of Sec. 179 property annually, with a dollar for dollar phase-out of the maximum deductible amount for purchases in excess of $200,000. H.R. 4457 would permanently increase the maximum amount and phase-out threshold to the levels in effect from 2010 through 2013 ($500,000 and $2 million respectively).

Additionally, the proposal includes adjustments for inflation, repeals the exclusion of air-conditioning and heating units from qualified expenses, and eliminates the $250,000 limit on real property qualifying for expensing.

“ARSA commends Congressman Tiberi and the bill’s bipartisan supporters for introducing a proposal benefitting the 244,000 American aviation maintenance workers,” said Daniel Fisher, ARSA’s vice president of legislative affairs. “Last March, the jointly released ARSA and TeamSAI Consulting report confirmed that more than 84 percent of U.S. repair stations have fewer than 50 employees. That means more than 3,300 small businesses need rapid returns on investments to remain competitive.

“The America’s Small Business Tax Relief Act will help those independent repair stations invest in their companies as well as the country’s economic health. Now is time for the Senate to act by passing the legislation as soon as possible to spur economic growth and job creation.”

In a June 19 letter, the FAA addressed ARSA’s request for guidance regarding the identification that should be referenced in maintenance records when more than one production approval holder number is applied to a part.

While the FAA issued a partial response to the association’s request, it did not address the requirements that a maintenance provider understand and know the part it is receiving vis-à-vis the data needed to ensure work is performed properly. It is commendable that the agency’s guidance in Order 8130-21H partially addresses the issue; however, the responsibility of a maintenance provider is contained in part 43 (and for repair stations, part 145). Those regulations requires appropriate actions by the maintenance provider in spite and despite “instructions from the customer.” The association will work with the agency to ensure the interrelated regulatory responsibilities and nuances are understood and addressed.

Stay tuned for further coverage.

FAA Response – Agency to Clarify Final Inspection Guidance

Former House Speaker Tip O’Neill used to say, “all politics is local”; representatives must attend to and address their constituents issues in order to win election.

In June, Capitol Hill was shocked by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s loss in his Richmond, Va., area district.  Denied a seventh congressional term, political pundits were looking for answers.  Was it the beginning of a Tea Party wave?  No. Was Cantor too liberal for the district?  No.

Cantor, while campaigning across the country and working hard on behalf of the national GOP, lost touch with his district.  And he paid the ultimate political price as his constituents realized there was an alternative.  Current lawmakers and congressional candidates have taken note.

Every week, on behalf of ARSA, I meet with House and Senate members, senior staff, and candidates.  Since Cantor’s defeat, both Democrats and Republicans got the message loud and clear – be active and present in the district or you won’t be sent back to Washington.  The aviation maintenance industry must take advantage.

Lawmakers and candidates have never been more willing to touch businesses and their employees.  In Washington, I recently met with Tony Strickland.  Strickland, a Republican congressional candidate, is the frontrunner to be California’s 24^th congressional district’s next congressman.  In May, ARSA coordinated a facility visit and ARSA PAC check presentation for Strickland at Fortner Engineering in Glendale, Cal.  During our meeting, Strickland expressed his gratitude to ARSA for introducing him to a family-owned business that’s creating jobs, economic growth, and ensuring aviation safety in Southern California.  And, he wanted to know if we had more maintenance companies for him to visit!

Strickland’s not alone.  And never has there been a better time to have your lawmakers or candidates visit your facility.  We’re standing by to make it as easy as possible on you.

It’s a small investment of time that can pay major dividends for your company and the broader industry.  At best, Fortner Engineering and ARSA have a new ally fighting for our top policy priorities; at worst, we have a policymaker educated on the impact of the aviation maintenance sector in his area.  Seems like a win-win for everyone.

Let’s take advantage of the realization that all politics is indeed local.  Contact me to learn more about setting up a facility visit.

Return to Top of Page

By Andrew Langer, President, Institute for Liberty © 2014 Andrew Langer ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

In the first two articles on regulatory burdens, we discussed the direct impact of federal regulations on the American economy, as well as the how those direct costs actually understate the true impact, given the lost “opportunity costs.”  We also discussed the tremendous gains that could be made by even the most meager attempts at regulatory reform.

In this third article, we will take the next step: to talk about new ways in which to assess burden and offer some further reform suggestions.

It should be noted that when it comes to regulatory reform, there are no silver bullets – no all-encompassing solutions.  The problem is multifold – some solutions simply don’t actually get to the problems they are trying to address, while others are limited by federal bureaucrats who pay mere lip service to the reform laws.  Other solutions just create more workarounds for regulators to try and sidestep.

For example, federal regulators are supposed to assess and minimize regulatory burdens in theory.  But when these rules become too restrictive, regulators sidestep them by issuing administrative guidance documents or letters, pronouncements that (debatably) have the force of law but didn’t go through the usual “notice and comment” process of public review and input required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

Whether it is President Reagan’s Executive Order on Regulatory Takings, or agency adherence to the Paperwork Reduction Act, or any one of a number of rules put into place to assess and/or minimize the impact of federal rules, in too many cases the agencies simply go through the motions at compliance, resulting in a regulatory state that continues to grow—somewhat checked but growing nevertheless.

Since, as was demonstrated in the second article in this series, “opportunity costs” are a far more accurate depiction of regulatory burden, I suggest that we consider placing a greater emphasis on time burdens in regulatory impact assessment.  To recap – an opportunity cost is the productivity lost when a regulation forces a business to have its employee spend his or her time dealing with regulatory compliance, as opposed to engaging in the firm’s business.  We discovered, using the research of economists at North Carolina State University and Appalachian State, that there is a $19 multiplier between direct cost and opportunity cost (i.e., that for every dollar in direct regulatory burden, there are $19 lost in opportunity cost).

“Time” is a limited resource — there is only so much of it in the universe.  And while the forces of those in favor of ever-increasing amounts of regulation can always use the “people are more important than profits” argument, while stating that a business can simply eat the profits or try to make more money (as if that were possible), stating burden in terms of time makes this more difficult.

A poet, Delmore Schwartz, wrote that time is the fire in which we all burn — and when it comes to your business, you certainly know this to be true.  A full-time equivalent position is 2,000 hours per year (40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year).  Every eight-hour day that your employees are spending doing tasks mandated by a federal rule is nearly a half a percentage point of their annual productive time – time that they (and you) will never get back (“burned up,” as it were) doing what someone else considers a higher priority than what you hired that person for.

What I suggest is that a greater emphasis be placed on measuring, reporting, and reforming these time burdens.  When we focus on the overall monetary costs in rules, at the very least we become mired in the discussion (mentioned above) of “people versus profits”. This is not to say that assessing monetary impact isn’t important –it is, but it only gets us so far.

Time is a constant, the value of the dollar (especially in this day and age), not so much.  So when we create laws that focus on burdensome regulations that cost “X”, that value can change over time (and thus the rules that fall under it) can change over time.  Moreover, we also know two things about rules (and the agencies that create them).  First, we know that it’s almost never the biggest rules that cause the biggest headaches.  They do cause them, but it’s the cumulative impact of the smallest rules that really create the burden (the so-called “death by a thousand pinpricks”—tiny burdens that eat away at a business).

Second, we know that if we do create restrictions on agencies with massive new rules, the agencies will merely assess their impact at below that threshold, thus not triggering the new restrictions.

So I suggest that we require agencies to start assessing their annual cumulative impact in terms of the time burden that their rules place on the businesses they regulate.  Then, taking that cumulative number, assessing the number of firms that fall under their framework and averaging that number will give an average annual time burden (AATB).

We then institute a system called “no net loss of time,” initially setting that AATB as a baseline that agencies cannot exceed.  For every 15 minutes of AATB that the agency wants to add, they have to subtract minutes from someplace else.  The agencies have to annually assess this burden and report on it to Congress.  Then, after five straight years of AATB constancy, the agencies will then be mandated to start reducing the AATB.

One of the great problems in the past with regulatory reform statutes is the lack of accountability to Congress.  With the “no net loss of time” law, I suggest a different approach.

Not only does Congress hold the “purse strings,” given the constitutional relationship between the Senate and the executive branch’s senate-approved appointees, Congress has greater powers when it comes to these staffers.  I suggest that “no net loss of time” come with the added caveat that Senate-approved executive branch employees will have their salaries “docked” if they fail to live up to these requirements. (While it is constitutionally questionable to personally single out such appointees, I believe that a rule that focuses on these individuals based upon the job they hold would withstand constitutional muster.)

With personal (as opposed to agency) accountability, I believe we could achieve tremendous gains — and again, given the multiplier effect of opportunity costs, marginal gains in productive time could produce tremendous economic benefits overall.

There are no easy answers to regulatory burdens and no quick fixes.  It has taken us more than four decades to get us into the regulatory mess we find ourselves in.  It will take some time to get us out of it.  But knowing where the problem is, and taking meaningful steps to deal with that problem, will get us out.

Andrew Langer is the President of the Institute for Liberty, a Washington, DC-based advocacy organization focusing on the American regulatory state.  He has testified before Congress nearly two dozen times on regulatory issues.

Return to Top of Page

Acting in an official capacity on behalf of a certificated repair station is a serious matter.  Improper use of authority can result in violations of the law that risk assessments of civil and/or criminal penalties – notwithstanding the real possibility that aviation safety may be compromised in the process.  Understanding the sources and limits on your authority can aid in reducing the chance for unintended violations. Take a few minutes to check your authority and refresh your understanding of your role and obligations.

Depending on your role within the part 145 organization, you may be authorized by the regulations to take certain specific actions and make particular representations. For example, technicians have a particular role and a related set of authorized actions that guide their work and decision-making. Likewise, inspectors have a unique role, must meet specific qualifications under part 145 and their own related limits of authority. Specific roles are designated by the repair station to specifically qualified individuals – to understand your specific roles and responsibilities see your Repair Station Manual (RSM) and Quality Control Manual (QCM).

The authority to perform most of these “operational” roles comes from the regulations and flows to the individual by express actual authority from, and at the discretion of, the company. The RSM/QCM’s organizational chart should depict each role and the chain of command from top to bottom. Needless to say the RSM and QCM should be consistent with the latest regulatory guidelines and requirements of the regulatory authority (FAA, EASA, TCCA, etc.).

In addition to the “operational” roles of those who are directly involved in the maintenance, preventive maintenance, alteration and inspection process, or provide direct supervision, each repair station also has a designated “authorized representative”. The definition for this term has been modified slightly over time but the current version makes it clear that the company must designate a:

Person “responsible for, and having authority over all repair station operations conducted under part 145. This person’s duties include ensuring that repair station personnel follow the regulations and serving as the primary contact with the FAA.”

For those Certificated Repair Stations that also comply with EASA requirements the definition of the term is more specific but equally relevant to this discussion:

Accountable Manager [EASA]: The accountable manager is normally intended to mean the chief executive officer of the organization, who by virtue of position has overall [including in particular, financial] responsibility for running the organization. When the accountable manager is not the chief executive officer, he must have direct access to the chief executive officer and have a sufficiency of maintenance funding allocation.

In summary the authorized representative means that person who will be held accountable for compliance with the dictates of part 145. This individual will be the point of contact with the government regarding official communications, such as letters of investigation and notices of proposed (or final) civil penalty. More importantly, that person must have authority to buy or fix necessary housing, facilities, equipment, data and materials; hire and fire personnel and ensure personnel are trained, and/or do any other thing that is required for compliance with the applicable regulations.

Similar to the specific grants of authority for the operational roles set out in the RSM and QCM, the repair station’s corporate records should reflect the specific grant of authority for the Chief Executive Officer or other designated individual to serve in this official capacity. If you have been “designated” the accountable manager without the authority to perform the necessary corporate functions, violations can result.

Steven counsels businesses operating in high-risk industries – including aviation – he provides templates, tools and training that will improve contracting efficiency, close deals faster and control costs.

Return to Top of Page

I Need a DER – Or Do I?

By Peter Lauria, Principal, JT Consulting, LLC  © 2014 Peter Lauria ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Choices to be Made

What can a repair station do with articles that require repairs beyond those listed in the manufacturer’s documents? The article received for maintenance has one or more conditions that individually, or in combination, exceed the existing reusable/repairable parameters due to erosion, wear, cracking, loss of plating, handling damage, burning and delamination.

Well, your choices are to replace the part, or to find or develop a new repair that addresses the condition. Replacement is usually the easier, although more costly, approach. Replacement with a new part from a production approval holder (PAH) creates certainty that the article will be returned to its original (or properly altered) condition. The manufacturer will sell a new part (with an appropriate markup); the repair station’s task is simplified and the customer is reassured because there are original equipment manufacturer (OEM) parts being used.

Replacement, however, may not be the best approach—for either the repair station or the customer.

A Look at Repair and Inspection Limits

When repair station inspectors are faced with a part exhibiting damage or wear, the first step (after disassembly and cleaning) is a dimensional check against the limits in the applicable maintenance documents. The manual or service bulletin will usually have specific pass/fail criteria for all “nonstandard hardware” or parts. The criteria could be as simple as minimum material thickness remaining, or could be more complex with crack length, numbers of cracks and combined crack length, delaminated area, and erosion or oxidized (burned) area limits. If the part meets the criteria the decision is simple – reuse or repair the part as directed by the maintenance instructions.

If the inspection result falls “outside” the stated limits, you are faced with the replacement or repair development decision.

A Look at the Options

(1)    Replacement with a new OEM PAH part– This is straightforward, especially if your repair station contract requires it. However, cost, timing and/or availability of new parts might not make this a viable or desirable option. Even if it is a good short-term solution, it may not be a viable long-term option.

(2)    Replacement with an independent Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) article– If usage is high enough and you have, can develop or find the capability to produce a replacement part, you could produce it yourself. The “independent” PMA may need to be approved by your airline customer and may be prohibited by your contracts. The development of owner-operator or maintenance fabrication may be against your contractual obligations and/or will need approval from your airline customers. While this option may be inconvenient or costly at the outset, it certainly can be considered for long term viability and capability.

(3)    Replacement of a used part from searching the marketplace — This option will require additional inspection and/or repair by your repair station or another repair station (if you do not have the capability for the internal article). This may be a short-term option and it can be as costly as OEM-PAH replacements depending upon timing and availability. If the articles are becoming scarcer the continual search for maintainable articles will not provide a long-term solution; eventually other options will need to be explored.

(4)    Replacement by way of new “repairable limits”– You could develop new repair procedures, and with those procedures, establish new limits. Repair stations have looked to this option as the most cost-effective choice that also assures long-term capabilities. Unfortunately, this option is the least straightforward of the choices.

Do I Call a DER Now?

When you make the decision to develop a repair, the first couple of steps are critical. To save time and energy in the long haul, this is the time to contact an FAA-Designated Engineering Representative (DER) to help you through the process.

Since not all repairs require FAA DER approval, there are some steps you can take before calling a DER that will limit costs:

(1)     Gather all applicable information about the original article and the proposed repair:

(a)    Description of the part (P/N, S/N (if applicable); function; location in the component, engine, or airplane; modification status; service bulletin incorporation level and so on)

(b)   Description of damage (type, size and location) that you wish to repair—establish your own new limits, since all damage cannot be “repaired.”

(c)    Reference material (all maintenance or overhaul manuals and/or Illustrated Parts Catalogue (IPC) number, chapter, page, item number, all service bulletins, airworthiness alerts and airworthiness directives).

(d)   Potential failure modes and effects for the original article and for the article as repaired.

(2)    Outline the potential result to determine if the repair should be considered major or minor. If the repair is classified as minor, the data developed to substantiate the action will not need to be approved by the FAA DER. If the end result of the repair is determined to be major, you must have the substantiating data FAA-approved through the FAA directly or with the assistance of a DER.

Peter Lauria has over 30 years’ experience with aircraft manufacturers, test equipment manufacturers, repair stations and airlines. He is the owner and principal of JT Consulting, LLC., providing engineering consulting, DER services, and ODA guidance.

Return to Top of Page

The Five Priorities for Critical Decision Making

Return to Top of Page

The S3 Story: Due Diligence as a Business Advantage

Return to Top of Page

Q: Three ARSA members (two repair stations and an air carrier), contacted the association within hours of each other. Their issue: a United States foreign repair station received articles overhauled in Canada and installed them on engines destined for the United States. A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector mistakenly claimed that the foreign repair station cannot use parts from Canada for installation on the U.S. airlines’ engines. Until resolution is reached, the foreign repair station does not feel it can ship the engines.

A: It is clear from the regulations and the MIP that any repair station, foreign or domestic, working under the authority of its Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-issued part 145 air agency certificate may use persons to perform maintenance in Canada under Transport Canada-issued approved maintenance organization certificates (AMO).

In other words, 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) authorizes Canadian AMO’s to perform and approve for return to service maintenance, preventive maintenance and alterations in Canada on and/or for U.S. aeronautical products.

The applicable regulations are:

§ 43.3   Persons authorized to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, and alterations.

(a)  Except as provided in this section and § 43.17, no person may maintain, rebuild, alter, or perform preventive maintenance on an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part to which this part applies. Those items, the performance of which is a major alteration, a major repair, or preventive maintenance, are listed in appendix A.

§ 43.7   Persons authorized to approve aircraft, airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts for return to service after maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.

(a)  Except as provided in this section and § 43.17, no person, other than the Administrator, may approve an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part for return to service after it has undergone maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, or alteration.

(c)  The holder of a repair station certificate may approve an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part for return to service as provided in Part 145 of this chapter.

§ 43.17   Maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations performed on U.S. aeronautical products by certain Canadian persons.

(a)  Definitions. For purposes of this section:

Aeronautical product means any civil aircraft or airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, component, or part to be installed thereon.

(b)  Applicability. This section does not apply to any U.S. aeronautical products maintained or altered under any bilateral agreement made between Canada and any country other than the United States.

(c)  Authorized persons.

(1)  A person holding a valid Transport Canada Civil Aviation Maintenance Engineer license and appropriate ratings may, with respect to a U.S.-registered aircraft located in Canada, perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section and approve the affected aircraft for return to service in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section

(2)  A Transport Canada Civil Aviation Approved Maintenance Organization (AMO) holding appropriate ratings may, with respect to a U.S.-registered aircraft or other U.S. aeronautical products located in Canada, perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section and approve the affected products for return to service in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section.

(d)  Performance requirements. A person authorized in paragraph (c) of this section may perform maintenance (including any inspection required by Sec. 91.409 of this chapter, except an annual inspection), preventive maintenance, and alterations, provided—

(1)  The person performing the work is authorized by Transport Canada Civil Aviation to perform the same type of work with respect to Canadian aeronautical products;

(2)  The maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration is performed in accordance with a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement between the United States and Canada and associated Maintenance Implementation Procedures that provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the provisions of this chapter;

(3)  The maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration is performed such that the affected product complies with the applicable requirements of part 36 of this chapter; and

(4)  The maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration is recorded in accordance with a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement between the United States and Canada and associated Maintenance Implementation Procedures that provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the provisions of this chapter.

(e)  Approval requirements.

(1)  To return an affected product to service, a person authorized in paragraph (c) of this section must approve (certify) maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations performed under this section, except that an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer may not approve a major repair or major alteration.

(2)  An AMO whose system of quality control for the maintenance, preventive maintenance, alteration, and inspection of aeronautical products has been approved by Transport Canada Civil Aviation, or an authorized employee performing work for such an AMO, may approve (certify) a major repair or major alteration performed under this section if the work was performed in accordance with technical data approved by the FAA.

(f)   No person may operate in air commerce an aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance on which maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration has been performed under this section unless it has been approved for return to service by a person authorized in this section.

In this case, the work was performed and approved for return to service in Canada under the provisions of the U.S./Canadian bilateral. Both the work on the component in Canada and the engine in Brazil are specifically authorized by part 43 (see, sections 43.3 and 43.7 above). Further, the Brazilian repair station must follow sections 145.201(a), 145.217 and 145.219(a).

The confusion may be that the part was installed in Brazil; however, the bilateral contemplates that by stating its terms apply to articles that transfer from the jurisdiction of one authority (TCCA, in this case) to the other (in this case FAA). When the Brazilian-located U.S. part 145 foreign repair station performs work, it must do so under part 43, just like any U.S.-located repair station. In other words, when it exercises the privileges of its FAA-issued part 145 air agency certificate, it is under the jurisdiction of that authority! See, U.S./Canada Maintenance Implementation Procedures, Chapter 2, Paragraphs 2.0(b) and (c) (page 5 (or 7 of 17 if reading in Adobe mode)).