The FAA has informed industry organizations that it is issuing a stay of its recently issued Moss letter of interpretation. In a letter dated October 15, 2024, the FAA responded to industry requests and “…is issuing a stay of the Legal Interpretation of 14 CFR § 43.3(d) dated September 3, 2024, while the Agency reviews its policies and regulatory options.” The Agency goes on to say that, “This stay does not represent a conclusion on the contents of that interpretation and will be effective until such time as the Agency issues new or supplemental guidance.”
EAA had joined with 15 other general aviation organizations in a letter asking the FAA to suspend a recently issued legal interpretation, known as the “Moss Interpretation,” and engage with industry on potential solutions. The interpretation addresses the application of the terminology in 14 CFR 43.3(d), which significantly changes the industry practice of supervising maintenance trainees, shop apprentices, and aircraft owners working on aircraft.
The rule, whose original language predates the founding of the FAA in 1958, states the following:
A person working under the supervision of a holder of a mechanic or repairman certificate may perform the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations that his supervisor is authorized to perform, if the supervisor personally observes the work being done to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly and if the supervisor is readily available, in person, for consultation. […]
“Readily available, in person” has been applied in a variety of ways in practice over the past few decades by the maintenance community, especially since the regulation also contains the qualifier “to the extent necessary to ensure that it is being done properly.” That ensures that the work meets quality standards that can be signed off by the certificated supervisor who is overseeing the work. This has included the recent rise of electronic video communication that enables effective remote supervision in the modern maintenance shop.
In 2022, a Flight Standards District Office requested a legal interpretation on the ability to use remote means to provide remote supervision. The FAA’s Office of the Chief Counsel (AGC) offers a very broad interpretation in response, including the statement “The certificated mechanic must be available, not just to answer questions, but to notice mistakes and take over if necessary.” This, coupled with the initial question asking about the term “in person,” appears to require the person supervising the maintenance to be physically present at all times. This is different from the decades-long industry practice and understanding.
The industry letter that EAA joined highlights the industry’s concern that the FAA’s interpretation “goes beyond the simple questions asked” and “…is contrary to the plain language of the regulation…”
If not rescinded or amended, this interpretation will have long-lasting negative effects on all aspects of the aviation industry. This interpretation is an example of an interpretation, enforcement, or litigation from the agency that significantly disrupts operational practice and requires years of work from other FAA departments to correct – work that does little to increase safety and efficiency in the national airspace system.
