Airport Advisory Board

AGENDA AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD JULY 15, 2026 AT 5:30 PM SHAWNEE REGIONAL AIRPORT 2202 AIRPORT DRIVE, SHAWNEE, OKLAHOMA Official action can only be taken on items which appear on the agenda. The public body may adopt, approve, ratify, deny, defer, recommend, amend, strike, or continue any agenda item. When more information is needed to act on an item, the public body may refer the matter to Staff or back to Committee or the recommending body. Under certain circumstances, items are deferred to a future date or stricken from the agenda entirely. 1. Administration of Oaths of Office 2. Execution of Code of Ethics CALL TO ORDER DECLARATION OF QUORUM 1. Consideration of acceptance of the Minutes from the May 20, 2026, regular meeting. 2. Citizens Participation (A three-minute limit per person) (A twelve-minute limit per topic) 3. Discussion and Consideration of a Recommendation to Award Bid - Automated Weather Observation System Upgrade 4. Election Protocols 5. Staff Reports 6. Board Comments 7. Adjournment Respectfully submitted, Page 1 of 20  Bonnie Wilson, CM, Secretary The City of Shawnee encourages participation from its citizens in public meetings. If participation is not possible due to a disability, notify the City Clerk, in writing, at least forty- eight hours prior to the scheduled meeting, and necessary accommodations will be made. (ADA 28 CFR 36) Page 2 of 20  DRAFT AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD PROCEEDINGS MAY 20, 2026 AT 5:30 PM The Airport Advisory Board of the City of Shawnee, County of Pottawatomie, State of Oklahoma, met in Regular Session at the Shawnee Regional Airport, 2202 Airport Drive, Shawnee, Oklahoma on May 20, 2026, pursuant to notice duly posted as prescribed by law at 7:33 A.M., May 14, 2026. Chairman Lee presided and called the meeting to order. Upon roll call, the following members were in attendance. Scott Lee Chairman Bryan Cantrell Keith Layne Board Member Vice Chairman Kevin Hanna Garrett Roberts Board Member Board Member Absent: Colton Crowder, Blake White CALL TO ORDER DECLARATION OF QUORUM 1. Consideration of approval of the Minutes from the November 19, 2025, regular meeting. A motion was made by Vice Chairman Layne, seconded by Mr. Roberts, to accept the Minutes of the November 19, 2025, Regular Meeting of the Airport Advisory Board. Motion carried 5-0-0. AYE: CANTRELL, HANNA, LAYNE, ROBERTS, LEE NAY: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE 2. Citizens Participation (A three-minute limit per person) (A twelve-minute limit per topic) 3. Discussion and Consideration of Airport Advisory Board Election Procedures Staff provided a briefing on the current practice regarding the election of officers to serve as Chairman and Vice Chairman noting that there are no specific policies or procedures governing elections other than a statement included in the City of Shawnee City Ordinance saying: "The airport advisory board shall elect Page 3 of 20 one of its members as chairman." (See citation below) The members discussed the matter in general terms, offering their views on the value of a "stair-step" system whereby officers of the Board rose through the ranks having gained experience as vice chairman or other similar roles. Members agreed there is value in this type of system but took no action regarding the establishment or adoption of a specific procedure. CODE OF ORDINANCES CITY OF SHAWNEE, OKLAHOMA (February 2026) Sec. 6-26. — Established; composition. There is established an airport advisory board consisting of seven members (Code 1986, § 6-16; Code 2002, § 6-26) Sec. 6-27. — Appointment; terms of office. The members of the airport advisory board shall be appointed by the chairman of the Shawnee Airport Authority with the approval of the trustees. The members shall be appointed for staggered terms of three years. Terms of office shall begin July 1 and end June 30 of the last year of appointment, provided members shall serve until their successors are appointed. (Code 1986, § 6-17; Code 2002, § 6-27; Ord. No. 2511NS, § 1, 7-1-2013) Sec. 6-28. - Chairman. The airport advisory board shall elect one of its members as chairman. 4. Staff Reports Staff provided a written report on: 1. Fuel sales activity and pricing 2. The proposed expense and revenue budgets to be approved by the Shawnee Airport Authority 3. A review of recent Shawnee Airport Authority actions and the proposed agenda for the Authority's May 2026 meeting 4. An update on the progress of planned and in progress capital projects at the airport 5. Board Comments Vice Chairman Layne inquired about the possibility of amending the design of the planned runway strengthening project to increase the weight-bearing capacity to 125,000 pounds landed weight to better accommodate military operations that could take advantage of the new Readiness Center. Staff agreed to forward the request for consideration to the design engineers and the Oklahoma Department of Aeronautics and Aerospace for their consideration. Mayor Stephens was invited to participate. He provided information on the proposed plan to improve Leo Street to provide better access to the interstate for the Readiness Center operations. He also spoke to the proposed plans to sell lands currently leased by the YMCA to support capital development at the airport. Page 4 of 20 6. Adjournment ______________________________ SCOTT LEE CHAIRMAN ATTEST: ______________________________ BONNIE A. WILSON, CM SECRETARY Page 5 of 20  Shawnee Regional Airport 2202 N. Airport Dr. Shawnee, OK 74804 ShawneeAirport.com Date: July 15, 2026 To: Airport Advisory Board From: Bonnie Wilson Subject: Discussion and Consideration of a Recommendation to Award Bid - Automated Weather Observation System Upgrade Background: The current Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) was procured and installed with assistance from the Oklahoma Department of Aerospace and Aeronautics in 2000. The manufacturer no longer supports the original equipment. Repairs and replacements have been undertaken over the past several years, but certain features of the system, such as lightning detection, are no longer functioning or serviceable. If the existing system is not replaced, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will decertify the system, significantly reducing the safety envelope at the airport. Staff prepared and published a Request for Bids/Information for Bidders for the Purchase and Installation of an AWOS III P/T, assistance with the FAA's system certification requirements, and one year of maintenance services. A total of two bids were received from qualified equipment and service providers by the bid deadline. Both bids were significantly below the budgeted amount for the project in the Shawnee Airport Authority Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2027 through 2031 adopted June 15, 2026. Staff is currently seeking greater specificity from the apparent low bidder regarding the requirement to provide an “open architecture” system, that parts are available on the open market from competitive vendors, and that routine maintenance and repair services, beyond the initial year after installation, may also be provided by independent service technicians. Financial Impact: 511-5-0120- 54500 Capital Outlay Equipment — Up to $150,000 Attachments: Staff Recommendation: Recommend the Shawnee Airport Authority award the bid to the apparent low bidder contingent on affirmation of availability of parts and services on the open market. Page 6 of 20  Shawnee Regional Airport 2202 N. Airport Dr. Shawnee, OK 74804 ShawneeAirport.com Date: July 15, 2026 To: Airport Advisory Board From: Bonnie Wilson Subject: Election Protocols Background: At the May 20, 2026, meeting of the Airport Advisory Board (AAB), the Chairman opened the floor for an informal discussion regarding the election of officers. No motions were made or actions taken. Rather, the Chairman requested members of the Board consider their views regarding the practice utilized by a former AAB, requiring two years of service to be eligible for nomination to the chair. As per the memo included in the May agenda package, the City of Shawnee Ordinances do not speak to a method or procedure for the election of officers. Financial Impact: N/A Attachments: Staff Recommendation: Members of the AAB are requested to make a motion on procedures and terms of office. Page 7 of 20  Staff Report Capital Project Update T-Hangar Taxilane/Ramp – The work of constructing a new taxilane to support the vertical construction of t-hangars, rehabilitation of the t-hangar taxilane, and crack sealing the aircraft parking ramp is complete. New T-Hangar construction will begin when plans and specifications have been finalized. Runway Strengthening – The proposed scope of work and fees for engineering services were sent to Neil Rood, P.E. of Rood and Associates to undertake the Independent Fee Estimate for the work of the project. Mr. Rood provided an estimated cost for engineering design services of $811,300, $88,900 above the amount proposed by Lochner of $722,400. Crews began the geotechnical assessment of the subsurface conditions this week taking core samples from key locations on the runway and taxiways. Concurrent to this activity, site survey work was conducted utilizing drones. The nature of the work did require the runway to be closed to aircraft activity for a full business day, but the taxiway work was scheduled in phases to allow aircraft to utilize the runway and back taxi as may be necessary depending on the wind direction at the time of arrival/departure. All the necessary paperwork supporting the application for grant funds to support the project have been submitted to the FAA’s Office of Airports for review. A “grant offer” letter is expected not later than September. Staff requested the Shawnee Airport Authority (SAA) authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to execute a grant agreement when presented to avoid any delays in the process. Authorization was provided via Resolution 2026-1 at the May 18, 2026, Regular Meeting of the SAA. Army National Guard Readiness Center – Staff submitted data on the proposed construction to the FAA’s Office of Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis (OE/AAA) April 27, that office is still considering the materials and has not yet made a determination. LD Kerns, the engineering and construction contractor engaged by the Oklahoma Military Department has requested permission to begin site preparation work. They will be engaging the services of the airport’s local landscaping contractor, Total Turf Care, to begin clearing the Page 8 of 20 site to allow for the installation a perimeter fence around the construction area. In support of Shop Shawnee, Visit Shawnee’s director, Stacy Cramer-Moore is working with the airport staff to provide a package of information on local temporary housing options, food trucks that can and will set up at the active construction sites, equipment rentals, materials and service suppliers. Other Airport Business Public Surplus Auction – The 1954 Beechcraft C-45H and the 1964 Beechcraft H-18 aircraft, declared surplus property by the SAA at their May meeting we put on an internet auction (www.publicsurplus.com) on June 22nd. So far only one party has offered bids at $800 per aircraft. The auction closes July 20th. Following award of the bid, and receipt of payment, the new owner will have ten business days to remove the property from the airport. Environmental Liability Insurance – Working with our insurance brokers we were able to secure a three-year policy for environmental liability coverage which if necessary will address costs associated with fuel releases, mitigation, and remediation. Our record of no-claims provided for a three-year policy with a premium increase of only $457 over the prior three year package. Budget Report – The Budget Performance report we usually provide at the first meeting of the calendar quarter is not included this month as we just got authorization to begin spending FY 27 funds. As of this writing, there is no recorded activity. The usual report will be included in the October 2026 meeting package. Page 9 of 20 Industry News Clips The Shawnee Airport Authority’s Capital Improvement Plan for SNL includes a replacement of our current fuel farm with a new set of tanks and pumps in Fiscal Year 2028/29. Projected changes to the aviation fuel industry are likely to have an impact on the design, and our ability to provide up to three types of fuel to remain in compliance with the FAA’s regulations on fuel availability. The following articles highlight some of the issues. FAA Issues Draft Framework for Unleaded Avgas Transition National rollout would take place by 2030 Kerry Lynch • Editor, AIN monthly magazine/ January 14, 2026 The FAA has released its draft Transition Plan to Unleaded Aviation Gasoline, providing an overview of a four-phase process for national rollout or a replacement for aviation gasoline. Notice of the plan was included in the January 12 Federal Register, with comments due on March 13. As required by the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act, the plan addresses steps to ensure the safe elimination of leaded fuel, approval for alternatives, implementation of requirements, and the ultimate transition by 2030, except in Alaska (which would follow in 2032). The agency notes that since the rollout is widely dependent on the market, the plan may evolve. Under the first phase to be completed by mid-2027, the agency, in concert with industry, would approve the unleaded replacement fuels and assess how they compare. Three candidates are currently under evaluation, with some further along than others. These include the GAMI G100UL, which is already widely approved for piston aircraft and is in limited distribution. This fuel was developed using an independent specification. Swift Fuels’ 100R is also under consideration. This fuel has received initial approval and is in use at five flight schools in California, Missouri, and Illinois. Swift has initially worked to replace UL94 with a replacement for higher-horsepower and turbocharged aircraft, anticipated by the end of the year. The company is working toward an ASTM specification. Also working with ASTM on a broad specification for its fuel is LyondellBasell/VP Racing with the UL100E. This fuel has received the initial test specification approval, with full-scale testing planned for later this year and fleet approval by mid-2027. After evaluating and comparing the fuels, the second phase would then focus on gaining market experience with the fuels. This will provide lessons learned on the market and integration, the FAA said, considering potential barriers of fuel mixing, storage requirements, fuel composition, and continuity, as well as compatibility, logistics, price, and liability. Fuel production would scale at this point in anticipation of a full national rollout. In phase three, all airports outside Alaska would eliminate leaded fuel, switching to unleaded options, and then the final phase would roll out unleaded fuels in Alaska. The FAA noted that Alaska faces unique challenges requiring more time. Page 10 of 20 The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) welcomed the framework and advised its members to review and comment on the plan to ensure they can help shape the transition. “The FAA emphasizes that stakeholder input will further inform the plan and help keep safety at the forefront,” NATA noted. Sustainable aviation fuel was the bridge to net zero. Aviation is backing away. Five years in, SAF covers 0.8% of jet fuel at several times the price, and its subsidies just got cut. (The public comment period is currently closed while the FAA considers submissions to the rulemaking docket) Business Aviation News, Airmail Focus Michael Wildes, Special to GlobalAir.com/ Jul. 2, 2026 at 07:05 AM EST A pump fake works because the defender believes the shot is coming. You sell the motion, draw the commitment out of the man guarding you, and keep the ball. It buys everything the real shot would have, without the risk of taking it. Aviation ran that play on decarbonization for most of a decade. From 2021 to 2024, sustainable aviation fuel answered the question the industry couldn’t otherwise answer: how does a business built on burning kerosene promise a clean future without telling its customers to fly less? Battery and hydrogen aircraft were a decade or more from carrying passengers at scale. SAF dropped into the engines and pipelines that already existed, so it became the bridge. Airlines wrote it into their sustainability reports, manufacturers built keynotes around it, and Washington launched a Grand Challenge with real numbers attached: three billion gallons a year by 2030, thirty-five billion by 2050, with Inflation Reduction Act tax credits meant to close the price gap. Then the bill came due. The shot that never left The numbers are not close. SAF production is expected to reach about 2.4 million tonnes in 2026, which the International Air Transport Association puts at eight-tenths of one percent of what airlines will burn, bought at a premium of roughly $4.3 billion. The 2050 pathway the industry wrote for itself needs around 500 million tonnes a year. Willie Walsh, IATA’s outgoing director general, called this another disappointing year and pointed at badly sequenced government policy and what he termed “oil companies’ manifest lack of interest.” On the nearer goal, ICAO’s target of a 5 percent emissions cut from SAF by 2030, he didn’t hedge: “there is no path to meet that outcome.” The paperwork always ran ahead of the fuel. Airlines signed more than 180 offtake agreements after 2021, and the delivered barrels never matched them. The retreat shows up in the disclosures. SAF still runs two to five times the price of conventional jet fuel. In April, Delta deleted its pledge to make SAF a tenth of its fuel by 2030 from its sustainability page and rewrote net zero by 2050 from a goal into an aspiration. Pressed, the airline said it still sees the fuel as “one of the most important ways to decarbonize flight,” and reaffirmed the same 2030 target it had just taken off the website. Page 11 of 20 Europe is where the fight is loudest. Airlines there are organizing to challenge the bloc’s 2030 mandate for synthetic fuel, on the argument that the volumes won’t exist at a price anyone can pay, and IATA’s own chief economist, Marie Owens Thomsen, agrees with them. She called the UK and EU 2030 e-SAF targets “beyond unrealistic — they are utterly detached from reality,” and pointed to what makes them hardest to defend: Europe has the highest renewable-power prices in the world, so the synthetic fuel the mandate requires costs more to make there than almost anywhere it could be made. Why it isn’t AI The easy conclusion is that the fuel was never necessary. That reading is wrong, and it lets everyone off cheap. Nothing in the past two years showed that SAF doesn’t work, or that the climate math stopped needing it. What got proven is narrower: the fuel is uneconomic without coercion, and the United States couldn’t hold the coercion through one change of administration. Set that against the more contemporary build-out happening in plain view. Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta and Oracle are putting somewhere between $600 and $725 billion into AI infrastructure in 2026, most of it data centers, up from roughly $440 billion the year before. Nobody is asking those companies to find their nerve. They spend because the customers are already there and the firm that underbuilds loses the market; one industry read of it was that the hyperscalers can’t slow down without forfeiting the race. Whether the bet pays is a separate discussion. Plenty of careful people think the whole thing is a bubble of money circling between chipmakers, model labs and cloud providers. It doesn’t change the point. Capital moves on the belief that revenue is close, and no equivalent belief exists that travelers will pay extra for a lower-carbon seat. The gap has nothing to do with which technology matters more. Both are generational bets. What separates them is who captures the value, and who has to move first. With AI, the dominant move is to spend, because waiting hands your franchise to a competitor. Why SAF doesn’t get the AI premium SAF runs the other way. What it produces, a livable climate and aviation’s license to keep growing, belongs to everyone and is owned by no one, so the rational move for any single airline is to let a rival fund the refineries and lock up the feedstock, then buy the fuel cheap once it exists. When everyone plays it that way, you get the picture that exists today: producers waiting on demand, carriers waiting on supply, governments waiting on production, investors waiting on certainty. You can hear the standoff in the way the two sides describe each other. The airlines say the fuel isn’t there. The producers say the buyers aren’t. At Davos in January, TotalEnergies chief executive Patrick Pouyanné, whose company already makes SAF, said he had stopped expanding production because his airline customers wouldn’t commit to buying past what the mandate forced on them. “All the airline companies are fighting the 6% SAF mandate, which frankly is easy to reach,” he said, and then put the economics plainly: “everybody is dreaming they can have these biofuels at Page 12 of 20 the same price as oil, but it’s not true.” Walsh, from the other side of the table, blames the oil majors. They are both right, which is exactly the trap. Economists named this a long time ago. It’s a free-rider problem sitting on top of an unpriced externality: carbon costs the atmosphere everything and the ticket nothing, so the cleaner choice carries a premium no buyer has a private reason to pay. Bill Gates calls that the green premium. AI doesn’t have one, because the capable chip is the only chip for sale. SAF prices are several times higher than kerosene, and the entire plan depended on policy grinding that down. It didn’t. The real fake was the architecture The companies that softened had cause. The 2025 reconciliation package cut the clean-fuel credit to about a dollar a gallon and stripped the land-use accounting that had made the newer fuels viable on paper. The political center followed the money, away from climate and toward corn, soybeans, domestic feedstock and energy security. You can’t fairly blame an airline for walking back a pledge whose underlying subsidy Congress had just gutted. The failure that matters sits upstream of any single carrier: the commitments were never load- bearing. A pledge isn’t a mechanism. Only two things are: a mandate a company can’t escape, or a price on carbon that closes the premium without anyone’s goodwill. U.S. aviation has neither. Walsh spent his last AGM hammering regulators for mandating a fuel that doesn’t exist yet and refiners for passing their compliance costs straight through to airlines, and he called the EU and UK mandates “a spectacular failure” that pushed prices up without producing supply. The mandates arrived before the fuel did. What aviation built toward 2050 was a structure resting almost entirely on promises nobody could be made to keep. That implicates more than the airlines: the oil majors who stayed out, the two administrations that couldn’t carry an industrial policy across an election, and the corporate buyers who took the sustainability headline and then declined to buy the fuel at the price that would have moved the market. Even business aviation stalled Business aviation makes the shift easy to see, because its trade groups keep writing it down. The sector never disowned SAF; if anything it raised the stakes, moving its 2050 target from halving emissions to net zero back in 2021. What changed is the argument it makes in public. Watch how the National Business Aviation Association sells the fuel now. Supporting a February 2026 Senate bill to restore the SAF tax credit Congress had cut, the group said the credit would close the cost gap “while creating new home-grown economic opportunities for farmers, rural communities and fuel producers,” and its chief executive, Ed Bolen, described what restoring it would buy as “the stability needed to unlock investment, scale production.” When the House wrote SAF into the 2026 Farm Bill, the first time the fuel had appeared in federal farm policy, Bolen said he was glad lawmakers had recognized “not only the environmental benefits of sustainable aviation fuels, but also their potential for significant economic contributions to our country’s farmers and rural communities.” Page 13 of 20 State politics doesn’t bother with the gesture. When Wisconsin created a $120 million tax credit for SAF refined from local woody feedstock, NBAA’s regional director welcomed a bill that would “make the U.S. a global leader in SAF production while also bringing new jobs to Wisconsin’s rural communities,” and the legislature wrote into the bill that the industry was “a statewide responsibility of statewide dimension,” tying it to the state’s timber economy rather than its emissions. The same instinct shows up in a quieter register. Back in 2024, the business-aviation coalition that lobbies the USDA on feedstock rules asked the agency for “as much adaptability and flexibility in its framework as is practicable,” warning that the SAF Grand Challenge would be reached only “through the existing scale and capabilities of U.S. agriculture through access to sustainable crop- based feedstocks.” In plainer terms, the targets only hold if corn and soy keep qualifying. None of this is cynicism, and the fuel works as advertised. But the through-line is hard to miss. The case for SAF was never only about the climate. It was always also a farm bill, and when the climate politics turned, the farm bill was the part the industry led with. What the fake costs A fake costs more than the shot it skips. It costs whatever the defense does next. The first cost is time, and it compounds in a way almost nobody prices in. A SAF refinery takes three to five years to permit, build and certify, and it needs its feedstock locked before it runs. A slow 2025 and 2026 isn’t a two-year delay; it shifts the whole 2030 capacity curve to the right by more than the pause itself, because the clock on the next plant starts only when the capital commits. IATA expects about 55 million tonnes of renewable-fuel capacity by 2030, against a 2050 requirement near 500 million. Every idle year makes the remaining ones steeper. Then there’s the question of where the industry gets built. If Washington hesitates while Europe’s mandate holds and producers in the Gulf and China keep pouring concrete, the plants and the expertise and the jobs settle there instead. Europe is lodging the same complaint in the opposite direction, and about clean-aviation manufacturing more broadly than SAF alone: GAMA, the general-aviation manufacturers’ association, warned in April that “insufficient access to capital and limited industrial scale-up support have caused some companies to file bankruptcy and/or relocate,” and that without stronger investment the region risks losing its lead in clean-aviation manufacturing. A country that treats SAF as a moral choice rather than an industrial one ends up importing the supply chain it could have owned, on terms set somewhere else. The cost that never lands on a balance sheet is the worst of them. SAF was the easy story: mature, certified, already in the tank. If the easy one gets quietly shelved the first time it costs real money, every harder promise behind it arrives discounted: hydrogen airframes, electric regional fleets, contrail management, direct air capture. The next time an executive points at some future technology and says the problem is handled, the lenders and regulators in the room would be right to remember how this one got handled once the politics turned. The research from the start of the decade wasn’t a fantasy. The fuel does what it claimed, and the emissions cut holds up. The buyer is the thing that never showed. Page 14 of 20 So the real test of the next promise isn’t the target it sets, but what the industry will spend, build and defend once the fuel is expensive and the politics have turned. This decade proved the chemistry and disproved the commitment behind it, which lasted precisely as long as the subsidy underwriting it. The targets were never the hard part. Getting the fuel into the tanks at a price airlines would pay always was, and that still hasn’t happened. FAA Proposes New Inspection Rating For Mechanics The proposal would replace the current inspection authorization renewal process. Matt Ryan/Friday, July 03, 2026 at 01:01 PM ET / Edited By: Zach Vasile FAA Proposes New Inspection Rating For Mechanics The FAA has proposed replacing the inspection authorization currently held by some A&P mechanics with a new inspection rating on the mechanic certificate, according to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published July 1 in the Federal Register. Renewal Requirement Would Be Removed Under the proposal, the new inspection rating would carry the same privileges and limitations now held under the inspection authorization, including approval for return to service after major repairs or major alterations and conducting annual or progressive inspections. The change would remove the current expiration date and the requirement for IA holders to renew in March of every odd- numbered year. The FAA said mechanics would instead have to meet recent experience requirements during the previous 12 calendar months to exercise the privileges of the rating. Current IA holders would have up to 24 months after the effective date of a final rule to obtain a replacement mechanic certificate showing the inspection rating. Recent Experience Records Required Mechanics holding the new rating would be required to keep records showing recent experience for the previous 24 calendar months. The FAA proposal would also create a process for mechanics who fall out of recent experience to reestablish inspection privileges by completing eight hours of acceptable training or passing an oral test given by an FAA aviation safety inspector. The FAA estimates the proposal would save mechanics who hold IAs $1.01 million over 10 years and save the agency $4.44 million over the same period. The NPRM lists a one-time cost of about $220,000 for mechanics to request replacement certificates and for the FAA to process and issue them. Comments on the proposal are due by Aug. 31. https://avweb.com/aviation-news/faa-proposes-new-inspection-rating/ Home/Aviation News/FAA Proposes New Inspection Rating For Mechanics Page 15 of 20 Page 16 of 20 Page 17 of 20 Page 18 of 20 Page 19 of 20 Page 20 of 20