----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----Info I have saved from the list on Owner produced parts.
Harry
Subject:
owner produced parts article
Date:
Fri, 13 Mar 1998 22:10:52 -0800
From:
vic steelhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Cy Galley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cy,
thanks for sending along the article on owner produced parts. that just
about sums it up, huh! this should give everyone something solid to
refer to when it comes time to explain to your IA and the local
inspector just how you came by those brand new Franklin exhaust valves!
i've forwarded a copy to cmdr joe dexter for a possible tech notes
topic.
once again, many thanks. it's this kind of participation that will help
us all keep our Stinsons flying safely for the next 50 years!
tailwinds!
vic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I got this off the net and since your talked about owner produced parts, I
thought I'd pass it along.Ê It is in the current B-C Contact just being
mailed.
Ê
"Owner" Produced Parts
(All)
Cy Galley and the FAA
I have heard and been told for years that "owners" could have parts made for
their airplanes and there was an FAR which permitted you as a owner to
produce a necessary part for use on your airplane. I never spent much time
researching for the particular line and verse, but since I own a plane that
is an orphan, a Bellanca 14-13-2, I have to make many bearings and bushings
on my lathe to keep the old bird flying. My AI was surprised I had the
drawings for these parts. Where did I get them? Through the Bellanca
Champion Club and Larry D’Attilio. Even after the work was approved
and signed off, I always wondered what FAR granted this benevolent
permission. When I found this article on the Internet, I was overjoyed. Here
is in black and white with every thing explained. Even names and phone
numbers of real people are included if you have further questions.
Here's the letter, verbatim. Spelling errors, if any, are mine. Also,
the "Memorandum" is signed and dated as noted, but "Attachment A" is
neither signed nor dated.
====================================================================
[US Department of Transportation -- FAA letterhead]
Memorandum
Date: Aug 5 1993
Subject: INFORMATION: Definition of "Owner Produced Part," FAR
21.303(b)(2)
From: Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200
To: Manager, General Aviation and Commercial Branch, AFS-340
This responds to your memorandum, dated April 8 to Senior Attorney Mardi
Thompson, in which you asked for a definition of "owner [or operator]
produced part," [brackets "[", "]" in original - Alan] as described in
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Section 21.303(b)(2). You asked
several question in your memorandum. We answer your questions in the
order you asked them. Attachment A provides a background foundation for
our answers. The answer should frame a workable definition of how to
determine if the exception in FAR 21.303(b)(2) applies.
We answer your questions as follows:
First question: Does the owner have to manufacture the part himself, in
order for the part to be considered an "owner produced" part?
Answer: No. An owner would be considered a producer of a part if the
owner participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of
the part. We would look at many factors in determining whether a person
participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of a
part. The following would tend to indicate that a person produced a
part:
1. The owner provided the maufacturer with design or performance
data from which to manufacture the part. (This may occur, for instance,
where a person provided a part to the manufacturer and asked that the
part be duplicated.)
2. The owner provided the manufacturer with materials from which
to manufacture the part.
3. The owner provided the manufacturer with fabrication processes
or assembly methods to be used in the manufacture of the part.
4. The owner provided the manufacturer with quality control
procedures to be used in the manufacture of the part.
5. The owner supervised the manufacturer of the part.
We would not construe the ordering of a part, standing alone, as
participating in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of a
part.
Second question: Can the owner contract for the manufacture of the
part, and still have a part that is considered an "owner produce" part?
Answer: Yes, in certain circumstances. The owner would still be
considered a producer of the part if he participated in controlling the
design, manufacture, or quality control of the part. Note that, as
explained in Attachment A, the person with whom the owner contracted
would also be a "producer."
Third question: Can the owner (merely) supervise or assume
responsibility for a mechanic manufacturing the part for the owner, and
still have a part that is considered an "owner produced" part?
Anwer: Yes, with respect to supervision. Owner supervision would
indicate that the owner participated in controlling the design,
manufacture, or quality of the part. A common example would be where an
air carrier mechanic manufactured a part for installation on the air
carrier's aircraft; the part produced would be owner or operator
produced. We are not sure what you meant by the owner "assuming
responsibility" for manufacture of a part. If your reference was to
something other than participating in controlling the design,
manufacture, or quality control of the part, our opinion is that the
owner probably would not be determined to have produced the part.
Fourth question: Can an owner contract with a non-certificated
individual to manufacture a part for use on the owner's aircraft, and
still have a part that is considered an "owner produced" part?
Answer: Yes, in certain circumstances. If the owner participated in
controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the part, the part
would be considered to be produced by the owner. However, as explained
in Attachment A, the non-certificated person would also be considered a
"producer."
Fifth question: If a mechanic manufactured parts (e.g., wing ribs) for
an owner, and the parts were associated with a repair the mechanic was
performing, would manufacture of the parts be considered maintenance
associated with the repair, or production of a part by the owner for
maintaining the owner's aircraft?
Answer: It could be one or the other; in neither case, however, would
there necessarily be an FAR violation. If it was concluded that the
owner participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of
the part, he would be a producer, and the exception in FAR 21.303(b)(2)
would apply. Therefore, the mechanic would not be in violation of
21.303(a). If it was concluded that the mechanic produced the part for
the purpose of effectuating the repair, the question would remain
whether the mechanic would be in violation of 21.303(a). We submit that
the mechanic would NOT [emphasis in original, as are all following,
including Attachment A - Alan] be in violation of 21.303(a), because as
explained in Attachment A, the mechanic did not produce the part FOR
SALE for installation on a type certificated product.
We hope the above answers respond to your needs. For further
discussion, please telephone Carey Terasaki, AGC-210, at (202) 267-8018.
(signed)
Donald P. Byrne
Attachment
====================================================================
Attachment A
BACKGROUND
Section 21.303(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) states:
"Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
produce a modification or replacement part for sale for installation on
a type certificated product unless it is produced pursuant to a Parts
Manufacturer Approval issued under this subpart."
Section 21.303(a) appears to contemplate that more than one person can
"produce" a modification or replacement part. We base this observation
on the following:
1. The regulation proscribes certain behavior unless the PART is
produced pursuant to a PMA; it does NOT specifically state that each
person who is producing the part must hold a PMA. In fact, prior to
Amendment 21-41, FAR 21.303(a) prohibited each person producing a
replacement or modification part for sale for installation on a type
certificated product from doing so without holding a PMA. In Amendment
21-41, the FAA amended 21.303(a) to allow a PMA holder to contract with
a subcontractor or supplier to manufacture a modification or replacement
part under the holder's PMA. That amendment recognized that more than
one person can participate in the production of a part.
2. The only meaningful interpretation of FAR 21.303(b)(2)
accommodates the view that a modification or replacement part can be
"produced" by more than one person. Section 21.303(b)(2) excepts from
the PMA requirement of 21.303(a) "[p]arts produced by an owner or
operator for maintaining or altering his own product." [brackets "[",
"]" in original - Alan] If the 21.303(b)(2) exception were to apply
only when the owner or operator produces the part, it would only except
from 21.303(a) the production of a part produced by the owner or
operator for sale TO HIMSELF. This result would be illogical. Thus,
21.303(b)(2) must be interpreted as addressing the situation where a
part is produced by an owner (or operator) and also is produced by
another person.
As noted above, prior to Amendment 21-41, FAR 21.303(a) prohibited each
person producing a replacement or modification part for sale for
installation on a type certificated product from doing so without
holding a PMA. In Amendment 21-41, the FAA amended FAR 21.303(a) to
allow a PMA holder to contract with a subcontractor or supplier to
manufacture a modification or replacement part under the holder's PMA.
In that amendment, the FAA recognized that a modification or replacement
part can conform to the approved design data and be safe for
installation on a type cerificated product, as long as the part is
produced under an approved fabrication inspection system (FIS).
Amendment 21-41 did not specifically address who "should have held the
PMA" where the part was produced in the absence of a PMA. However, any
interpretation of FAR 21.303(a) should be consistent with the focus in
that amendment on the establishment and maintenance of the FIS;
therefore, we submit that 21.303(a) creates liability for production of
a modification or replacement part for sale for installation on a type
certificated product for each person who:
1. Participates in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality
of the part.
2. And does so with the intent that the part be sold for
installation on a type certificated product.
We would look at many factors in determining whether a person
participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of a
part. The following would tend to indicate that a person participated
in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of a part (i.e.,
"produced" the part):
1. The person provided the manufacturer with design or performance
data from which to manufacture the part. (This may occur, for instance,
where a person provided a part to a manufacturer and asked that the part
be duplicated.)
2. The person provided the manufacturer with materials from which
to manufacture the part.
3. The person provided the manufacturer with fabrication processes
or assembly methods to be used in the manufacture of the part.
4. The person provided the manufacturer with quality control
procedures to be used in the manufacture of the part.
5. The person supervised the manufacturer of the part.
We would not construe the ordering of a part, standing alone, as
participating in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of a
part.
One other issue needs to be addressed. Section 21.303(a) prohibits a
person from producing a part for sale for installation on a type
certificated product when the part is not produced pursuant to a PMA.
The general intent of the proscription in FAR 21.303(a) is to prevent
the introduction of an unapproved part into the aviation stream of
commerce, where it could be subsequently installed on a type
certificated product(s). The terms of 21.303(a), including "for sale,"
are defined in that context.
Notwithstanding that repair stations and mechanics bill their customers
for parts, along with the labor of installing the parts, those entities
produce the parts for THE PURPOSE of accomplishing maintenance on
products, limited to those products brought in by their customers. As
described in Order No. 8000.50, a repair station may produce a
replacement or modification part, under FAR Parts 43 and 145, for an STC
modification or a field-approved repair or alteration, given certain
circumstances that assure quality control of the part produced.
Compliance with Part 43 gives the assurances of the quality control for
a part produced by a Part 65 mechanic. In addition, compliance with the
maintenance recordkeeping requirements memorializes the circumstances of
production and installation of the part. Accordingly, the objectives of
Subpart K are achieved when a part is produced by a repair station or
mechanic for installation on a customer's product: the installed part is
introduced into the aviation stream of commerce with the necessary
evidence of the part's suitability. Thus, one can conclude, as a matter
of law, that a repair station or mechanic has not produced the
above-described part "for sale" for installation on a type cerificated
product, as defined in the context of 21.303(a).
Back to SWSC Homepage
========================== To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm Search the archives on http://escribe.com/aviation/coupers/
