Statement of

The Honorable Don Fuqua

President

Aerospace Industries Association

1250 Eye Street NW

Washington, DC

Before

Committee on Science

Subcommittee on Technology

Comments on the Implementation of the Fastener Quality Act

May 7, 1998

Madame Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee

On behalf of the nation’s leading manufacturers of transport aircraft, jet engines and related components, AIA welcomes the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to discuss provisions of the Fastener Quality Act (FQA) as they relate to Original Equipment Manufacturers in the aerospace industry.

First, we commend the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for its progressive approach in recognizing systems which are equivalent to the regulations implementing the FQA. We see in the final implementing regulations under 15 CFR Part 280 a recognition that where equivalent procedures are in place that NIST is willing to consider acceptable alternatives. Unfortunately this recognition has not been extended to the quality systems of aerospace. We feel strongly that the Federal Aviation Regulations under 14 CFR Part 21 which set forth strict requirements for aerospace quality systems equal or exceed the provisions of 15 CFR Part 280. The aerospace manufacturing industry as in the case of airframe, engine and equipment production is strictly regulated under the aforementioned 14 CFR Part 21, Certification Procedures for Products and Parts. These regulations are comprehensive in specifying the requirements which will assure approved design and conforming parts for every component of airplane and engine assembly.

They include the requirements for a quality assurance system, the conformity of product and parts to an FAA approved design, supplier control, part marking and traceability and related record keeping. There is a certain redundancy in having to meet the Part 280 requirements while still subject to FAA oversight. We sincerely hope that the House will take appropriate action similar to the Senate Commerce Committee approval of legislation that acknowledges the equivalency of NIST and FAA regulations.

We would like to address three specific areas wherein industry has major concerns with the provisions of the FQA regulations.

First, under 15 CFR 280.2, Definitions, NIST has expanded the regulations by adding language to the definition of fastener to include under the scope of the FQA fasteners produced to any proprietary standard that references standards or specifications published by a consensus standards organization. This is contrary to the language of the FQA as amended by P.L. 104-113 which clearly states that only fasteners which are covered by standards and specifications published by a consensus standards organization or government agency are subject to the Act. This leads us to our second concern.

Part 280.11 of the NIST regulations covers the issue of the significant alteration of fasteners. Under these provisions a manufacturer of aircraft, engines or aircraft components can be treated as a manufacturer of fasteners.

This action is dependant on the extent of any alteration if his own approved standard or specification references a consensus standard. The manufacturer now becomes subject to new record keeping requirements, new documentation and lot numbering. Additionally, head markings are required before the sale of spares or replacement kits to customers, repair stations and subcontractors. If industry (OEM’s) perform the alteration in accordance with the OEM,s FAA approved engineering requirements they should not be made subject to the provisions of Part 280.11. Such redundancy can be costly and adds no value to product or to aviation safety.

Our third major concern, and highly significant to industry are the requirements for testing and certification. Depending on the extent of the alteration the altered product must be inspected and tested by a NIST accredited laboratory and certified that the product meets design criteria. This action is required even though the product design has been tested and approved by the FAA. As many aerospace manufacturers conduct FAA approved testing in house but will not meet the criteria established by NIST under the provisions of Part 280.Subpart 1 which sets forth the special rule for the accreditation of manufacturing facilities whose quality system meets defined requirements as laboratories they must utilize a NIST accredited laboratory.

We are advised that as of today there are not a sufficient number of laboratories accredited to serve the specific needs of aerospace, particularly fatigue testing and testing for tensile strength. Compounding this problem is the difficulty industry has encountered in obtaining clarification as to what products are covered by the FQA and the implementing regulations. Absent this knowledge it is difficult to determine what products require certification by an accredited laboratory.

While we have addressed the major concerns of industry, there are additional requirements under the Part 280 regulations that add to the cost of compliance which are duplicated by the FAA regulations. The record keeping requirements under Part 280.6 are extensive. They call for the retention of all test records for a period of five years. This requirement addresses the need for parts traceability in the event such action is necessary. The FAA regulations under Part 21.143 and Part 21.157 cover quality control data requirements and inspection and testing. Part traceability requirements evolve primarily through the use of FAA Form 8130-3, so that any non-conforming part may be identified and recalled. There is also the FAA Material Review Board process to oversee and correct minor product non-conformance. Industry compliance with these provisions meet the intent of the fastener regulations are certainly equal to the provisions of Part 280.

During the formulation of the FQA implementation regulations in November 1992 under Docket No. 910778-1178, AIA and the FAA conveyed to Dr. Stanly Warshaw at that time the director of the FQA program at NIST our concerns with the developing FQA implementation regulations. We requested consideration be given to the existing oversight responsibility of the FAA and indicated areas where the proposed NIST reqiurements would be redundant. Unfortunately no action was taken at that time. We remain convinced there is no need for the duel oversight of the aerospace manufacturing process by both FAA and NIST. We hope corrective action will be forthcoming.

We look forward to working with you as you address these issues and welcome the opportunity to provide you with any further assistance and information.