Ghassemi-Turbo Technologies 2015

Page 1

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration JUN 3·0 2015 Cyrus Gha-;semi Turbo Technologies, LLC 5310 South 3211d Street Phoenix, AZ 85040

Re: Legal Interpretation of"Overhaul" in 14 CFR § 43.2

Dear Mr. Ghassemi:

This letter responds to your February 25, 2015 request for a legal interpretation of the term "overhaul" in§ 43.2 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In yom letter, you ask whether an aircraft component part may be recorded as overhauled if it is not subjected to "disassembly, repair, assembly, [or] testing." More specifically, you ask whether "a component part is deemed ' [o ]verhauled' if it is processed [only] to the extent .. . [of] the requirements of the . . . Overhaul Manual, or other approved data, even if it is only cleaned and inspected." For the reasons described below, we agree that under some circumstances aircraft parts may be considered overhauled after being only cleaned and inspected. Section 43.2(a)(1)&(2) sets out the requirements for describing a part as "overhauled." Under§ 43.2(a)(l), a part may be described as overhauled when, "[u]sing the methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, [the part is] disassembled, cleaned, inspected, repaired as necessary, and reassembled . . . ." Section 43.2(a)(2) further requires a part to be "tested in accordance with approved standards and technical data, or in accordance with technical data acceptable to the Administrator ...." As you note in your request for interpretation, in 1991 we published a legal interpretation addressing the logical and practical limitations of§ 43.2-namely, that not all component parts can be disassembled. At the time, a member of the public requested clarification of "the term overhaul as it applies to items or parts that are incapable of nondestructive disassembly."2 In our response, we noted that, for example, an engine can be disassembled, but not all of an engine's component parts can be further disassembled. We stated, "a part, component, or subassembly of [a] larger assembly or product should ... be deemed overhauled if it can be shown to be airwo1thy by inspection, examination, or tests that do not require disassembly beyond [the part's] normal state."3 Jn other words, if disassembly is illogical or impossible, for example because it would destroy the part, and if a mechanic can both perform the required maintenance and confirm the adequacy of that maintenance, then disassembly is not required.

1 Legal Interpretation to J.E. Murdock III, 1991 WL 11663129 (Nov. 26, 1991). 2 Id. (Emphasis in original.)

3 Id

Page 2

A similar rationale guides our analysis here. You ask whether § 43.2 requires disassembly or repairs if the design approval holder's overhaul instructions or other approved data expressly require only cleaning and inspection. The answer is that, just as a mechanic is not required by the term " disassembly" in§ 43.2(a) to destroy an aircraft part, neither is a mechanic required by the phrases "disassembly," "reassembly," etc., to take maintenance action beyond what is provided in FAA-approved overhaul instructions. Of course, this interpretation assumes that a mechanic follows the entirety of the approved instructions and that, during the overhaul, does not discover that additional repairs are necessary. In all cases, a mechanic may not label a patt as overhauled if that mechanic performs less than the entirety of the approved maintenance process.

This response was prepared by Benjamin Jacobs, an attorney in the Regulations Division of the Office of the Chief Counsel, and was coordinated with the Aircraft Maintenance Division (AFS-300) of the Flight Standards Service. If you need further assistance, please contact our office at (202) 267-3073.

Sincerely,

DJ~I:orelei Peter Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations