What's Really Up?

I have just read that the FAA has withdrawn its proposed rule making changing Part 145, rules governing repair stations. What’s up?  The FAA started the process of amending 145 with the idea of revising the system of ratings and requiring that repair stations implement a quality system that included the establishment of a mandatory capability list, appointing a chief inspector, and setting up permanent housing for equipment, facilities, personnel, and materials. This NPRM has its roots going back to the nineties with public meetings, ARAC reviews, and several NPRMs for comment, the last being issued in December of 2006 with the comment period extending to April of 2007. Now they have withdrawn the NPRM because “it does not adequately address the current repair station environment and because of significant issues commenters raised.” What about Advisory Circulars, the usual rule modification method?  Here is the catch … by withdrawing the NPRM the FAA has indicated it does not preclude it from issuing another proposal on the subject. “In fact we have initiated rulemaking to update and revise the regulations for repair stations to more fully address the significant changes in the repair station business model,” it says. Paraphrasing, the new proposal will incorporate the concerns of the 2006 NPRM as well as other issues related to bringing repair station regulations up-to-date with industry practice.  Why, after so many years, time, and resources spent, have they done this? I admit to a rhetorical question because I suspect the real reason is to get our 145 more in line with EASA’s 145 and the current bilateral agreements that exist. This will serve to strengthen the agency’s position in its battle with congress related to the approval of foreign repair stations. Congress is insisting in its current FAA reauthorization bill that FAA inspectors inspect approved foreign repair stations twice a year, just as they do in the States and that foreign repair station personnel be subject to the same alcohol and drug testing that personnel in the States undergo.   Think about it. Does the FAA want to see us risk scrubbing our bilateral safety agreements because we need to protect jobs in the United States? Just today I read another bilateral aviation safety agreement has been executed with Japan. Does the FAA want to make it more costly for U.S. carriers to do business by requiring the same standards for approved foreign repair stations as it does here at home?   This is a hot political football so each of you needs to stand up for what you believe should happen here. I am looking forward to hearing from you.