Service Difficulty Reports, 76974-76979 [05-24536]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
76974
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Actions Accomplished Per Previous Release
of the Service Bulletin
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
(b) Actions accomplished prior to the
effective date of this AD in accordance with
Airbus Service Bulletin A320–27–1132,
dated March 14, 2001, are considered
acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding actions required by this AD.
Adoption of the Correction
No Reporting Requirement
RIN 2120–AI08
Therefore, the FAA has determined that
notice and public procedures are
unnecessary.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration
amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
I
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13
[Corrected]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by
correctly adding the following
airworthiness directive (AD):
I
Detailed Inspection and Corrective Action
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
(a) Within 800 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, perform a detailed
inspection to determine the position of each
tail cone triangle in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A320–27–1132, Revision 01,
dated June 19, 2002. If the position of the tail
cone triangle is not within the limits
specified in the service bulletin: Within
3,500 flight hours after the inspection, re-rig
the elevator servo controls to adjust the
elevator neutral setting, and change the
position of the tail cone triangle, in
accordance with the service bulletin.
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a
detailed inspection is defined as: ‘‘An
intensive visual examination of a specific
structural area, system, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or
irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by
the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror,
magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface
cleaning and elaborate access procedures
may be required.’’
19:06 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(d)(1) In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, the
Manager, International Branch, ANM–116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, is
authorized to approve alternative methods of
compliance for this AD.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
Incorporation by Reference
2005–22–10 R1 Airbus: Amendment 39–
14354. Docket 2002–NM–298–AD.
Applicability: Model A320–111, –211,
–212, –214, –231, –232, and –233 airplanes,
certificated in any category; as listed in
Airbus Service Bulletin A320–27–1132,
Revision 01, dated June 19, 2002.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless
accomplished previously.
To prevent excessive vibrations of the
elevators, which could result in reduced
structural integrity and reduced
controllability of the airplane, accomplish
the following:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
(c) Although the service bulletin specifies
to submit certain information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include such
a requirement.
(e) Unless otherwise specified in this AD,
the actions must be done in accordance with
Airbus Service Bulletin A320–27–1132,
Revision 01, excluding Appendix 01, dated
June 19, 2002. This incorporation by
reference was approved previously by the
Director of the Federal Register as of
December 5, 2005 (70 FR 62232, October 31,
2005). To get copies of this service
information, contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point
Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex,
France. To inspect copies of this service
information, go to the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue,
SW., Renton, Washington; or to the National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at the NARA, call (202) 741–
6030, or go to https://www.archives.gov/
federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.
Note 2: The subject of this AD is addressed
in French airworthiness directive 2002–
514(B) R1, dated November 13, 2002.
Effective Date
(f) The effective date of this amendment
remains December 5, 2005.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
December 15, 2005.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–24525 Filed 12–28–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14 CFR Parts 121, 125, 135, and 145
[Docket No. FAA–2000–7952; Amendment
Nos. 121–319, 125–49, 135–102, and 145–
26]
Service Difficulty Reports
Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule and withdrawal of
delayed final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is withdrawing a
delayed final rule published on
September 15, 2000. That final rule
would have amended the reporting
requirements for certificate holders
concerning failures, malfunctions, and
defects of aircraft, aircraft engines,
systems, and components. We are
withdrawing this rule to allow the FAA
time to re-examine the service difficulty
report (SDR) program and consider the
comments received since the delayed
final rule was published.
In this action we are also adopting
several amendments that improve the
functioning of the SDR program.
DATES: This amendment becomes
effective January 30, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Emilio Estrada, Flight Standards
Service, Aircraft Maintenance Division
(AFS–300), Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone (202) 267–5571, e-mail
emilio.estrada@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy of
rulemaking documents using the
Internet by—
(1) Searching the Department of
Transportation’s electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) Web site
(https://dms.dot.gov/search);
(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and
Policies Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
(3) Accessing the Government
Printing Office’s Web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
You can also get a copy by sending a
request to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to
identify the amendment number or
docket number of this rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM
29DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Privacy Act
Using the search function of the Web
site, anyone can find and read the
comments received into any of our
dockets, including the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit
https://dms.dot.gov.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with
small entity requests for information or
advice about compliance with statutes
and regulations within its jurisdiction. If
you are a small entity and you have a
question regarding this document, you
may contact the local FAA official, or
the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out
more about SBREFA on the Internet at
https://www.faa.gov/
regulations_policies/rulemaking/
sbre_act/.
Statutory Authority
Title 49, section 44701 of the United
States Code, authorizes the FAA
Administrator to prescribe regulations
for practices the Administrator finds
necessary for safety in air commerce [49
U.S.C. 44701(a)(5)]. Under that statutory
authority, the Administrator prescribed
regulations for certificate holders on the
reporting of failures, malfunctions, and
defects of aircraft, aircraft engines,
systems, and components (commonly
called Service Difficulty Reports). These
regulations are found at 14 CFR 121.703,
121.704, 121.705, 125.409, 125.410,
135.415, 135.416, and 145.221. This
rulemaking action amends these
regulations.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Background
On September 15, 2000, the FAA
published a final rule entitled, ‘‘Service
Difficulty Reports,’’ Amendment
Numbers 121–279, 125–35, 135–77, and
145–22 (65 FR 56191). That final rule,
applicable to air carriers and repair
station operators, would have amended
the requirements for reporting failures,
malfunctions, and defects of aircraft,
aircraft engines, systems, and
components. In the final rule, the FAA
also sought comments on the impact of
paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the
public. The final rule effective date was
scheduled for January 16, 2001.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
The FAA received written comments
raising concerns with many of the
provisions of the new SDR
requirements. In response, the FAA held
a public meeting about the final rule on
December 11, 2000. Participants at that
public meeting raised significant issues
concerning the implementation of the
final rule.
As a result of the concerns raised
during the comment period and at the
public meeting, the FAA delayed the
effective date of the final rule to January
31, 2006. The purpose of this delay was
to provide us more time to consider
industry’s concerns.
Since the delayed final rule
publication, the FAA amended the SDR
requirements for repair stations (66 FR
41117, August 6, 2001). This
amendment addressed one of the public
meeting commenters’ concerns about
duplicate reporting by a part 145
certificate holder. Under § 145.221(d), a
repair station no longer has an
independent SDR reporting provision
when performing work for a part 121,
125, or 135 certificate holder.
Discussion of Comments Received
We received five comments on the
proposal to withdraw the delayed final
rule and make amendments to the
existing SDR rule (70 FR 54454,
September 14, 2005).
Comment: Four of the comments
support the FAA’s proposal to withdraw
the delayed final rule. The other
commenter suggests an amendment to
part 145 be included in this rulemaking.
FAA Response: The comments to the
delayed final rule, the comments at the
public meeting, and the comments to
the proposal to withdraw the delayed
final rule request that the agency make
revisions to the delayed final rule before
we proceed with implementation. The
FAA agrees and is withdrawing the
delayed final rule.
Comment: The Regional Airline
Association (RAA), representing the
views of a segment of the affected
aviation industry, supports adopting the
proposed changes to the existing SDR
rules that:
• Extend the reporting time to submit
SDRs from 72 hours to 96 hours.
• Require certificate holders to
submit SDRs directly to the FAA’s
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Office.
• Allow electronic submission of SDR
reports.
FAA Response: The FAA is adopting
these amendments as proposed. The
increase in reporting time will result in
fewer supplemental reports, the
centralized reporting will result in
greater internal efficiencies, and the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
76975
electronic submitting option will benefit
the majority of the current submitters.
Comment: The Aeronautical Repair
Station Association (ARSA), which
represents repair stations certificated
under 14 CFR part 145, supports the
proposed changes to the existing SDR
system and requests an additional
correcting change.
Section 145.221(d) allows a repair
station to submit a SDR on behalf of a
part 121, 125, or 135 certificate holder,
provided the report meets the
requirements of the applicable
operational rule. Paragraph (d) states in
a parenthetical that such a report may
be ‘‘operational or structural.’’ This
‘‘operational or structural’’ reference
reflects the language in the SDR rule the
FAA is withdrawing, which the FAA
had issued as a final rule for part 121,
125, and 135 certificate holders before
§ 145.221 became effective in January
2004. For example, the delayed SDR
final rule would have changed the titles
of §§ 121.703 and 121.704 to read
‘‘Service difficulty reports
(operational)’’ and ‘‘Service difficulty
reports (structural),’’ respectively. This
distinction was the subject of much
controversy. Many commenters,
including ARSA, voiced their concerns
with the operational and structural
categories. The operational and
structural distinction is not present in
the existing SDR regulatory language.
Leaving such language in § 145.221(d)
serves no purpose, and can only create
confusion for repair stations who
prepare SDRs on behalf of part 121, 125,
or 135 certificate holders. Therefore,
ARSA requests that the FAA remove the
parenthetical language, ‘‘(operational or
structural),’’ in § 145.221(d) to conform
the language in part 145 with the
language in parts 121, 125, and 135.
FAA Response: The FAA is adopting
the change to § 145.221(d) as suggested
by ARSA. The change corrects the
language of § 145.221 to bring it into
conformity with the existing SDR
requirements of 14 CFR parts 121, 125,
and 135. The correcting change, which
is a logical outgrowth of the proposal,
would not impose any additional
burdens on the regulated public.
Comment: An individual commenter
asks that the proposed changes to the
existing SDR rule be included in 14 CFR
145.221, Reports of failures,
malfunctions, or defects.
FAA Response: Only one of the
proposed changes, the requirement for
the certificate holder to submit SDRs
directly to the FAA’s Oklahoma Office,
is not already incorporated into
§ 145.221. The FAA has decided not to
add the centralized reporting
requirement to § 145.221 in this
E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM
29DER1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
76976
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
rulemaking action. A repair station,
operating under part 145, will continue
to submit their SDRs to their assigned
Principal Inspector using the existing
procedures. The FAA would want to
receive comments on a change in the
reporting procedure for part 145
certificate holders before implementing
such a change. The FAA does not want
to delay the remainder of this
rulemaking while we solicit and review
comments on this one change. As part
of the FAA’s review of the SDR program
discussed later in this document we will
consider a change to the part 145
reporting procedure as the commenter
suggested. Future SDR rulemaking may
propose such a requirement.
Comment: One individual commenter
does not agree with the proposed
changes to the existing reporting rule
that specifically requires all SDRs be
reported to Oklahoma City. The same
reasons that are driving the withdrawal
of the delayed final rule (software
capability, the need for greater FAA
efficiency in processing SDRs, etc.) have
not been resolved. The commenter
claims requiring a person to submit
SDRs directly to Oklahoma City will be
fraught with error and difficulty.
From the commenter’s experience, an
SDR submitted electronically creates
more work for the individual or air
carrier. When submitted electronically,
the submitter must continually check
the SDR database to insure that the SDR
has not been sent back for correction, to
make sure that it has been processed.
The commenter recently stopped using
the electronic submission method
because he had a severe back log of
unprocessed submitted SDRs. The
return to paper submissions has reduced
the number of man-hours per week from
eight to around one.
The commenter suggests that the FAA
fix their internal SDR processing
problems before any new SDR
requirement of any kind is introduced
and made mandatory. Secondly, if the
assigned Principal Inspector still has the
requirement to review the submissions,
then those submissions should go to the
inspector first. It would be up to the
FAA how to enforce and insure that the
principal sends these on to Oklahoma
City in a timely manner, not industry.
FAA response: The FAA disagrees
with the commenter’s conclusion about
the problems with electronic reporting.
Many air carriers, repair stations, and
individuals are submitting SDRs
electronically without problem. The
FAA did experience technical
difficulties with electronic reporting
prior to 2004. In April 2004, we
developed improved SDR web site
instructions with the help of a FAA PMI
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
for a major U.S. air carrier. These
instructions resulted in new web
procedures, which enabled the FAA
certificate management office (CMO) to
electronically conduct the same SDR
reviews and approvals that they
performed with the hardcopy SDRs, but
in a shorter period of time. As result, the
instructions helped to improve the air
carrier’s, the CMO’s, and FAA’s
Oklahoma City Office efficiency of
operation. These new instructions are in
wider use today and are available on the
Flight Standards Internet Service
Difficulty Reporting (iSDR) web site,
which is located at https://avinfo.faa.gov/isdr/. We have found that
once the operator and FAA personnel
become familiar with these new
procedures we have received only
enthusiastic and favorable feedback.
These instructions are also available
upon request to the Aviation Data
Systems Branch (AFS–620) 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma 73169 (hand delivered), or
P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma 73125 (U.S. Mail),
Telephone: (405) 954–4391. A copy has
also been placed in the Rules Docket.
The FAA concedes that the SDR
system still needs improvements, but
with the new instructions the system
has been enhanced to the point where
electronic submission of SDRs to
Oklahoma City benefit the majority of
submitters. The electronic submission
method continues to be optional.
Comment: An individual commenter
said the FAA is taking positive steps in
the direction developed by the
Commercial Airplane Certification
Process (CPS) group. The commenter
requests the recommendations of the
CPS committee group be used as a
framework to develop new reporting
requirements. The commenter
emphasized the members of the CPS
represented a good cross section of the
industry and FAA.
FAA response: The FAA agrees, and
as described below, is studying the
recommendations of the CPS for future
rulemaking action.
The Final Rule Withdrawal
The FAA’s intent in the delayed final
rule was to improve the SDR program
without having an adverse impact on
industry recordkeeping practices. The
SDR requirements were adopted to
correct known deficiencies in the SDR
program and to improve the quality of
the data in the SDR database. Based on
the comments received and information
gathered at the public meeting, we now
realize the delayed final rule does not
meet this intent. The industry concerns
highlight the need to resolve problems
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
with the SDR program before increasing
the amount and type of data recorded.
The topic that received the most
comments following publication of the
delayed final rule was the FAA’s
economic analysis. The commenters
were uniform in their contention that
the additional reporting requirements
would greatly increase the costs of
compliance under the SDR program.
The FAA received cost estimates from
industry that considerably exceeded our
own estimates based, in part, on the
wide disparity between the industry’s
and the FAA’s evaluation of the number
of SDRs resulting from the rulemaking.
While not completely agreeing with
the industry’s estimate of the increase in
the number of reports or the significant
increase in costs, we have determined
that varying interpretations of the
number of additional reports required
by the rule could have led industry to
overestimate the costs of compliance
with the delayed final rule. We have
reevaluated the delayed final rule in
light of the data provided in the
comments and have determined that the
costs of this rulemaking may be higher
than projected. We further acknowledge
that populating data collection systems
with inappropriate data could have a
negative impact on our ability to
identify and collect meaningful safety
data on the operation of aircraft.
Since the public meeting, we have
considered how to address industry
concerns about the delayed final rule
and, at the same time, maintain its
original intent to correct deficiencies in
the program and improve the quality of
data collected. The FAA is also
obligated to review and consider the
findings about the SDR program noted
in the CPS study. The CPS identified
certain underlying deficiencies in the
SDR program that should be corrected
so data collected may provide the
maximum safety benefit. A copy of the
CPS report has been placed in the
docket for this rulemaking.
Based on the comments received and
the CPS findings, the FAA has
determined there is a need to enhance
the SDR program so it meets the needs
of the FAA and industry more
efficiently and effectively. Rather than
continuing to delay the effective date of
the final rule while we address this
issue, we determined it is prudent to
withdraw the delayed final rule. This
approach will eliminate uncertainty
about the final rule’s status and allow us
time to thoroughly evaluate and
improve the SDR program. The effect of
this withdrawal is the retention of the
regulations currently in effect.
E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM
29DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
The Future of the SDR System
The FAA is still pursuing changes to
the SDR system that will address the
CPS findings and the feedback we
received from this withdrawn final rule.
We plan to evaluate the present SDR
system and issues related to its
associated Management Information
System (MIS) database. We will also
reexamine the economic impact of any
new changes to the SDR system. All
amendments to the SDR regulations will
be preceded by an NPRM.
Amending the Existing Rule
The FAA is making several changes to
the existing SDR program regulations.
Most of these changes were already
incorporated in the final rule we are
now withdrawing. We are proceeding
with these changes because they will
improve the SDR program.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Sections 121.703, 125.409, 135.415, and
145.221
The FAA is renaming §§ 121.703,
125.409, 135.415, and 145.221 as
‘‘Service Difficulty Reports.’’ The
existing titles reflect the varying names
these reports have been called over the
years by different parties, which
resulted in some confusion. This
amendment uses the most common
industry term for SDRs and will result
in the use of only one consistent term
when referring to these reports.
Sections 121.703(d), 125.409(b), and
135.415(d)
The FAA adopts three changes to
improve the process of submitting SDRs
to the FAA under these sections:
(1) Replacing the terms ‘‘send,’’
‘‘mailed,’’ or ‘‘delivered’’ with the term
‘‘submit.’’ This change allows for the
use of other means, such as electronic
transmission, to submit SDRs to the
FAA.
(2) Increasing the time for submitting
an SDR from 72 hours to 96 hours after
an event occurs that requires an SDR.
The increased reporting time gives
certificate holders additional time to
prepare the SDR and should reduce the
number of supplemental SDRs that need
to be filed. A reduction of supplemental
SDRs should reduce the administrative
burden on both the FAA and industry.
(3) Changing the location to which the
certificate holder must send SDRs. The
existing rule required SDRs to be sent
directly to the Certificate Holding
District Office (CHDO). There, the SDRs
are reviewed by the assigned Principal
Maintenance Inspector (PMI) and then
forwarded to the FAA offices in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, where all
SDRs are entered into the SDR database.
The revised rule requires the certificate
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
holder to send SDRs directly to our
Oklahoma City office. The PMI would
be instructed by internal agency
procedures to review the individual
SDR for their assigned certificate holder
through an internal FAA computer
system that would access the SDR
database. This revised procedure
removes the intermediate step of
processing SDRs through the PMI, but
does not relieve the PMI of the
responsibility for reviewing them. The
change would also facilitate electronic
reporting by eliminating the necessity of
delivering a copy to the PMI. The
certificate holder would retain the
option of submitting paper SDRs should
it so choose, although the FAA strongly
encourages electronic reporting. In this
final rule, we made editorial changes to
§§ 125.409(b) and 135.415(d) to make
them consistent with § 121.703(d). The
centralized collection point is the FAA
office in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Finally, for only § 135.415, the FAA is
removing the provision for aircraft
operated where mail is not collected.
This was an outdated provision that was
rarely used by the industry. Mail service
is available now in most locations and
various alternatives to the U.S. Mail
exist.
Section 121.703(e)
The amended rule requires certificate
holders to submit SDRs in a form or
format acceptable to the Administrator.
Many operators have voluntarily
adopted reporting formats compatible
with the FAA’s electronic systems to
simplify their reporting under the
existing rule. Electronic submission of
SDRs through the FAA Web site is an
acceptable format. This provision is
intended to assure that, regardless of the
method and format chosen for use, the
information we receive is readable.
However, when using electronic
technology, the electronic language used
must be one the FAA is capable of
reading.
Section 145.221(d)
The amended rule would delete the
parenthetical (operational or structural)
to bring the SDR requirements in part
145 into conformity with the language
of the existing SDR rules.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements
associated with this final rule have been
approved previously by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), and have been assigned OMB
Control Number 2120–0008 (part 121),
2120–0085 (part 125), 2120–0039 (part
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
76977
135), and 2120–0003 (part 145). In the
NPRM, we incorrectly referenced a
single OMB Control Number 2120–0663
for all four parts cited above.
This final rule contains several
changes to the existing SDR rule. We
changed the mailing address for SDR
reports; we replaced the words ‘‘send,’’
‘‘mailed,’’ and ‘‘delivered’’ with
‘‘submit’’; and we lengthened the
submittal period for the SDR to reduce
the number of supplementary reports
from certificate holders.
An agency may not collect or sponsor
the collection of information, nor may it
impose an information collection
requirement unless it displays a
currently valid Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) control number.
Economic Assessment, Regulatory
Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact
Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates
Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must
undergo several economic analyses.
First, Executive Order 12866 directs
each Federal agency to propose or adopt
a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the
intended regulation justify its costs.
Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes
on small entities. Third, the Trade
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531–2533)
prohibits agencies from setting
standards that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act also requires
agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, use
them as the basis of U.S. standards.
Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires
agencies to prepare a written assessment
of the costs, benefits, and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include
a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
annually (adjusted for inflation.)
In conducting these analyses, FAA
has determined this rule: (1) Has
benefits that justify its costs, is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as
defined in section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 and is not ‘‘significant’’ as
defined in Department of Transportation
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (2)
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities; (3) would have only a domestic
impact and therefore no affect on any
trade-sensitive activity; and (4) does not
impose an unfunded mandate on state,
local, or tribal governments, or on the
E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM
29DER1
76978
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
private sector. These analyses, available
in the rulemaking docket, are
summarized below.
Costs
This final rule imposes minimal new
costs on industry, and results in costsavings ranging from $16.13 million
($11.33 million, discounted) to $38.96
million ($27.36 million, discounted).
This results in a net cost savings to
industry ranging from $15.98 million
($11.23 million, discounted) to $38.97
million ($27.37 million, discounted).
The impacts to the FAA are additional
costs of $145,200 ($102,000, discounted)
and savings of $9,300 ($6,500,
discounted). The FAA has determined
this rule to be cost beneficial.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Benefits
A significant effort is underway to
improve the quality of aviation safety
data identification and collection. This
rulemaking is a component of this effort
and proposes changes to improve the
existing SDR program. These changes
include:
• Extending the reporting time to
submit SDRs from 72 hours to 96 hours.
• Requiring part 121, 125, and 135
certificate holders to submit SDRs
directly to a centralized collection
point, thus allowing the reports to be
entered into the SDR database quicker
and reducing the administrative
workload of the certificate-holding
district office (CHDO).
• Allowing electronic submission of
SDR reports.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of
regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objective
of the rule and of applicable statutes, to
fit regulatory and informational
requirements to the scale of the
business, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.’’ To achieve that principle,
the RFA requires agencies to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals
and to explain the rationale for their
actions. The RFA covers a wide range of
small entities, including small
businesses, not-for-profit organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to
determine whether a proposed or final
rule will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it
will, the agency must prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis as
described in the Act.
However, if an agency determines that
a proposed or final rule is not expected
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
to have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 RFA
provides that the head of the agency
may so certify and a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement
providing the factual basis for this
determination, and the reasoning should
be clear.
For this rule, the small entity group is
considered to be 14 CFR part 121, 125,
and 135 certificate holders (North
American Industry Classification
System [NAICS] 481111). For this
analysis, the FAA considers each part
125 and 135 certificate holder to be a
small entity, and some of the part 121
and 121/135 certificate holders are also
small entities.
These regulations result in cost
savings for all 121, 125, and 135
certificate holders of between $16.13
million ($11.33 million, discounted) to
$38.96 million ($27.36 million,
discounted) over the next ten years or,
on average, between $1.61 million to
$3.90 million per year. Assuming that
the cost savings is spread among the
types of 121, 125, and 135 certificate
holders in proportion to the number of
SDRs each type generated from January
1, 2002, through August 31, 2004, the
average part 121 certificate holder will
save between $13,010 and $31,424 a
year, the average part 121/135 certificate
holder will save between $3,511 and
$8,479 a year, the average part 125
certificate holder will save between $16
and $39 a year, and the average part 135
certificate holder will save between $68
and $165 a year. Thus, the economic
impact is minimal. Therefore, I certify
that this action would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979
prohibits Federal agencies from
establishing any standards or engaging
in related activities that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States.
Legitimate domestic objectives, such as
safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards
and, where appropriate, that they be the
basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final
rule and has determined that it will
have only a domestic impact and
therefore no affect on any tradesensitive activity.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (the Act) is intended, among
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
other things, to curb the practice of
imposing unfunded Federal mandates
on State, local, and tribal governments.
Title II of the Act requires each Federal
agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal
mandate in a proposed or final agency
rule that may result in an expenditure
of $100 million or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any one year
by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector;
such a mandate is deemed to be a
‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ The
FAA currently uses an inflationadjusted value of $120.7 million in lieu
of $100 million.
This final rule does not contain such
a mandate. The requirements of Title II
do not apply.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule
under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We
determined that this action will not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, or the relationship between the
national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, and therefore does
not have federalism implications.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA
actions that are categorically excluded
from preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact
statement under the National
Environmental Policy Act in the
absence of extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has determined this
rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in
Appendix 4, paragraph 4(j) of the FAA
Order, and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA has analyzed this final rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We
have determined that it is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ under the
executive order because it is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866, and it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.
E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM
29DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Safety, Transportation.
§ 121.705 Mechanical interruption
summary report.
14 CFR Part 125
Each certificate holder shall submit to
the Administrator, before the end of the
10th day of the following month, a
summary report for the previous month
of:
*
*
*
*
*
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 145
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
withdraws the final rule published at 65
FR 56192 on September 15, 2000 and
delayed at 66 FR 21626, April 30, 2001;
66 FR 58912, November 23, 2001; 67 FR
78970, December 27, 2002; and 68 FR
75116, December 30, 2003. The FAA
also amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:
I
PART 121—OPERATING
REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG,
AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 121
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119,
41706, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–
44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901,
44903–44904, 44912, 45101–45105, 46105,
46301.
§ 121.703
Service difficulty reports.
2. Amend § 121.703 to revise the
heading as set forth above and to revise
paragraphs (d) and (e) introductory text
to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Each certificate holder shall
submit each report required by this
section, covering each 24-hour period
beginning at 0900 local time of each day
and ending at 0900 local time on the
next day, to the FAA offices in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Each report
of occurrences during a 24-hour period
shall be submitted to the collection
point within the next 96 hours.
However, a report due on Saturday or
Sunday may be submitted on the
following Monday, and a report due on
a holiday may be submitted on the next
work day.
(e) The certificate holder shall submit
the reports required by this section on
a form or in another format acceptable
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
I
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:06 Dec 28, 2005
to the Administrator. The reports shall
include the following information:
*
*
*
*
*
I 3. Amend § 121.705 to revise the
introductory text to read as follows:
Jkt 208001
PART 125—CERTIFICATION AND
OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A
SEATING CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE
PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM
PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000
POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES
GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD
SUCH AIRCRAFT
4. The authority citation for part 125
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–
44702, 44705, 44710–44711, 44713, 44716–
44717, 44722.
§ 125.409
Service difficulty reports.
5. Amend § 125.409 to revise the
heading as set forth above and to revise
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Each certificate holder shall
submit each report required by this
section, covering each 24-hour period
beginning at 0900 local time of each day
and ending at 0900 local time on the
next day, to the FAA office in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma. Each report of
occurrences during a 24-hour period
shall be submitted to the collection
point within the next 96 hours.
However, a report due on Saturday or
Sunday may be submitted on the
following Monday, and a report due on
a holiday may be submitted on the next
work day.
I
PART 135—OPERATING
REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND
ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS AND
RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON
BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT
6. The authority citation for part 135
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 44113,
44701–44702, 44705, 44709, 44711–44713,
44715–44717, 44722.
§ 135.415
Service difficulty reports.
7. Amend § 135.415 to revise the
heading as set forth above and to revise
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
I
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
76979
(d) Each certificate holder shall
submit each report required by this
section, covering each 24-hour period
beginning at 0900 local time of each day
and ending at 0900 local time on the
next day, to the FAA offices in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Each report
of occurrences during a 24-hour period
shall be submitted to the collection
point within the next 96 hours.
However, a report due on Saturday or
Sunday may be submitted on the
following Monday, and a report due on
a holiday may be submitted on the next
workday.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 145—REPAIR STATIONS
8. The authority citation for part 145
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–
44702, 44707, 44709, 44717.
§ 145.221
Service difficulty reports.
9. Amend § 145.221 to revise the
heading as set forth above and to revise
paragraph (d) introductory text to read
as follows:
*
*
*
*
*
(d) A certificated repair station may
submit a service difficulty report for the
following:
*
*
*
*
*
I
Issued in Washington, DC, on December
22, 2005.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–24536 Filed 12–28–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Parts 1926 and 1928
[Docket No. S–270–A]
RIN 1218–AC15
Roll-Over Protective Structures
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), DOL.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In 1996, OSHA published a
technical amendment revising the
construction and agriculture standards
that regulate testing of roll-over
protective structures (‘‘ROPS’’) used to
protect employees who operate wheeltype tractors. This revision removed the
original ROPS standards and replaced
them with references to national
consensus standards for ROPS-testing
E:\FR\FM\29DER1.SGM
29DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 249 (Thursday, December 29, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76974-76979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24536]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 121, 125, 135, and 145
[Docket No. FAA-2000-7952; Amendment Nos. 121-319, 125-49, 135-102, and
145-26]
RIN 2120-AI08
Service Difficulty Reports
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule and withdrawal of delayed final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is withdrawing a
delayed final rule published on September 15, 2000. That final rule
would have amended the reporting requirements for certificate holders
concerning failures, malfunctions, and defects of aircraft, aircraft
engines, systems, and components. We are withdrawing this rule to allow
the FAA time to re-examine the service difficulty report (SDR) program
and consider the comments received since the delayed final rule was
published.
In this action we are also adopting several amendments that improve
the functioning of the SDR program.
DATES: This amendment becomes effective January 30, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emilio Estrada, Flight Standards
Service, Aircraft Maintenance Division (AFS-300), Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone (202) 267-5571, e-mail emilio.estrada@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) Web site (https://dms.dot.gov/search);
(2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
(3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
[[Page 76975]]
Privacy Act
Using the search function of the Web site, anyone can find and read
the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of
the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question
regarding this document, you may contact the local FAA official, or the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out
more about SBREFA on the Internet at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_
policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.
Statutory Authority
Title 49, section 44701 of the United States Code, authorizes the
FAA Administrator to prescribe regulations for practices the
Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce [49 U.S.C.
44701(a)(5)]. Under that statutory authority, the Administrator
prescribed regulations for certificate holders on the reporting of
failures, malfunctions, and defects of aircraft, aircraft engines,
systems, and components (commonly called Service Difficulty Reports).
These regulations are found at 14 CFR 121.703, 121.704, 121.705,
125.409, 125.410, 135.415, 135.416, and 145.221. This rulemaking action
amends these regulations.
Background
On September 15, 2000, the FAA published a final rule entitled,
``Service Difficulty Reports,'' Amendment Numbers 121-279, 125-35, 135-
77, and 145-22 (65 FR 56191). That final rule, applicable to air
carriers and repair station operators, would have amended the
requirements for reporting failures, malfunctions, and defects of
aircraft, aircraft engines, systems, and components. In the final rule,
the FAA also sought comments on the impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed on the public. The final rule
effective date was scheduled for January 16, 2001.
The FAA received written comments raising concerns with many of the
provisions of the new SDR requirements. In response, the FAA held a
public meeting about the final rule on December 11, 2000. Participants
at that public meeting raised significant issues concerning the
implementation of the final rule.
As a result of the concerns raised during the comment period and at
the public meeting, the FAA delayed the effective date of the final
rule to January 31, 2006. The purpose of this delay was to provide us
more time to consider industry's concerns.
Since the delayed final rule publication, the FAA amended the SDR
requirements for repair stations (66 FR 41117, August 6, 2001). This
amendment addressed one of the public meeting commenters' concerns
about duplicate reporting by a part 145 certificate holder. Under Sec.
145.221(d), a repair station no longer has an independent SDR reporting
provision when performing work for a part 121, 125, or 135 certificate
holder.
Discussion of Comments Received
We received five comments on the proposal to withdraw the delayed
final rule and make amendments to the existing SDR rule (70 FR 54454,
September 14, 2005).
Comment: Four of the comments support the FAA's proposal to
withdraw the delayed final rule. The other commenter suggests an
amendment to part 145 be included in this rulemaking.
FAA Response: The comments to the delayed final rule, the comments
at the public meeting, and the comments to the proposal to withdraw the
delayed final rule request that the agency make revisions to the
delayed final rule before we proceed with implementation. The FAA
agrees and is withdrawing the delayed final rule.
Comment: The Regional Airline Association (RAA), representing the
views of a segment of the affected aviation industry, supports adopting
the proposed changes to the existing SDR rules that:
Extend the reporting time to submit SDRs from 72 hours to
96 hours.
Require certificate holders to submit SDRs directly to the
FAA's Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Office.
Allow electronic submission of SDR reports.
FAA Response: The FAA is adopting these amendments as proposed. The
increase in reporting time will result in fewer supplemental reports,
the centralized reporting will result in greater internal efficiencies,
and the electronic submitting option will benefit the majority of the
current submitters.
Comment: The Aeronautical Repair Station Association (ARSA), which
represents repair stations certificated under 14 CFR part 145, supports
the proposed changes to the existing SDR system and requests an
additional correcting change.
Section 145.221(d) allows a repair station to submit a SDR on
behalf of a part 121, 125, or 135 certificate holder, provided the
report meets the requirements of the applicable operational rule.
Paragraph (d) states in a parenthetical that such a report may be
``operational or structural.'' This ``operational or structural''
reference reflects the language in the SDR rule the FAA is withdrawing,
which the FAA had issued as a final rule for part 121, 125, and 135
certificate holders before Sec. 145.221 became effective in January
2004. For example, the delayed SDR final rule would have changed the
titles of Sec. Sec. 121.703 and 121.704 to read ``Service difficulty
reports (operational)'' and ``Service difficulty reports
(structural),'' respectively. This distinction was the subject of much
controversy. Many commenters, including ARSA, voiced their concerns
with the operational and structural categories. The operational and
structural distinction is not present in the existing SDR regulatory
language. Leaving such language in Sec. 145.221(d) serves no purpose,
and can only create confusion for repair stations who prepare SDRs on
behalf of part 121, 125, or 135 certificate holders. Therefore, ARSA
requests that the FAA remove the parenthetical language, ``(operational
or structural),'' in Sec. 145.221(d) to conform the language in part
145 with the language in parts 121, 125, and 135.
FAA Response: The FAA is adopting the change to Sec. 145.221(d) as
suggested by ARSA. The change corrects the language of Sec. 145.221 to
bring it into conformity with the existing SDR requirements of 14 CFR
parts 121, 125, and 135. The correcting change, which is a logical
outgrowth of the proposal, would not impose any additional burdens on
the regulated public.
Comment: An individual commenter asks that the proposed changes to
the existing SDR rule be included in 14 CFR 145.221, Reports of
failures, malfunctions, or defects.
FAA Response: Only one of the proposed changes, the requirement for
the certificate holder to submit SDRs directly to the FAA's Oklahoma
Office, is not already incorporated into Sec. 145.221. The FAA has
decided not to add the centralized reporting requirement to Sec.
145.221 in this
[[Page 76976]]
rulemaking action. A repair station, operating under part 145, will
continue to submit their SDRs to their assigned Principal Inspector
using the existing procedures. The FAA would want to receive comments
on a change in the reporting procedure for part 145 certificate holders
before implementing such a change. The FAA does not want to delay the
remainder of this rulemaking while we solicit and review comments on
this one change. As part of the FAA's review of the SDR program
discussed later in this document we will consider a change to the part
145 reporting procedure as the commenter suggested. Future SDR
rulemaking may propose such a requirement.
Comment: One individual commenter does not agree with the proposed
changes to the existing reporting rule that specifically requires all
SDRs be reported to Oklahoma City. The same reasons that are driving
the withdrawal of the delayed final rule (software capability, the need
for greater FAA efficiency in processing SDRs, etc.) have not been
resolved. The commenter claims requiring a person to submit SDRs
directly to Oklahoma City will be fraught with error and difficulty.
From the commenter's experience, an SDR submitted electronically
creates more work for the individual or air carrier. When submitted
electronically, the submitter must continually check the SDR database
to insure that the SDR has not been sent back for correction, to make
sure that it has been processed. The commenter recently stopped using
the electronic submission method because he had a severe back log of
unprocessed submitted SDRs. The return to paper submissions has reduced
the number of man-hours per week from eight to around one.
The commenter suggests that the FAA fix their internal SDR
processing problems before any new SDR requirement of any kind is
introduced and made mandatory. Secondly, if the assigned Principal
Inspector still has the requirement to review the submissions, then
those submissions should go to the inspector first. It would be up to
the FAA how to enforce and insure that the principal sends these on to
Oklahoma City in a timely manner, not industry.
FAA response: The FAA disagrees with the commenter's conclusion
about the problems with electronic reporting. Many air carriers, repair
stations, and individuals are submitting SDRs electronically without
problem. The FAA did experience technical difficulties with electronic
reporting prior to 2004. In April 2004, we developed improved SDR web
site instructions with the help of a FAA PMI for a major U.S. air
carrier. These instructions resulted in new web procedures, which
enabled the FAA certificate management office (CMO) to electronically
conduct the same SDR reviews and approvals that they performed with the
hardcopy SDRs, but in a shorter period of time. As result, the
instructions helped to improve the air carrier's, the CMO's, and FAA's
Oklahoma City Office efficiency of operation. These new instructions
are in wider use today and are available on the Flight Standards
Internet Service Difficulty Reporting (iSDR) web site, which is located
at https://av-info.faa.gov/isdr/. We have found that once the operator
and FAA personnel become familiar with these new procedures we have
received only enthusiastic and favorable feedback. These instructions
are also available upon request to the Aviation Data Systems Branch
(AFS-620) 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73169
(hand delivered), or P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125
(U.S. Mail), Telephone: (405) 954-4391. A copy has also been placed in
the Rules Docket.
The FAA concedes that the SDR system still needs improvements, but
with the new instructions the system has been enhanced to the point
where electronic submission of SDRs to Oklahoma City benefit the
majority of submitters. The electronic submission method continues to
be optional.
Comment: An individual commenter said the FAA is taking positive
steps in the direction developed by the Commercial Airplane
Certification Process (CPS) group. The commenter requests the
recommendations of the CPS committee group be used as a framework to
develop new reporting requirements. The commenter emphasized the
members of the CPS represented a good cross section of the industry and
FAA.
FAA response: The FAA agrees, and as described below, is studying
the recommendations of the CPS for future rulemaking action.
The Final Rule Withdrawal
The FAA's intent in the delayed final rule was to improve the SDR
program without having an adverse impact on industry recordkeeping
practices. The SDR requirements were adopted to correct known
deficiencies in the SDR program and to improve the quality of the data
in the SDR database. Based on the comments received and information
gathered at the public meeting, we now realize the delayed final rule
does not meet this intent. The industry concerns highlight the need to
resolve problems with the SDR program before increasing the amount and
type of data recorded.
The topic that received the most comments following publication of
the delayed final rule was the FAA's economic analysis. The commenters
were uniform in their contention that the additional reporting
requirements would greatly increase the costs of compliance under the
SDR program. The FAA received cost estimates from industry that
considerably exceeded our own estimates based, in part, on the wide
disparity between the industry's and the FAA's evaluation of the number
of SDRs resulting from the rulemaking.
While not completely agreeing with the industry's estimate of the
increase in the number of reports or the significant increase in costs,
we have determined that varying interpretations of the number of
additional reports required by the rule could have led industry to
overestimate the costs of compliance with the delayed final rule. We
have reevaluated the delayed final rule in light of the data provided
in the comments and have determined that the costs of this rulemaking
may be higher than projected. We further acknowledge that populating
data collection systems with inappropriate data could have a negative
impact on our ability to identify and collect meaningful safety data on
the operation of aircraft.
Since the public meeting, we have considered how to address
industry concerns about the delayed final rule and, at the same time,
maintain its original intent to correct deficiencies in the program and
improve the quality of data collected. The FAA is also obligated to
review and consider the findings about the SDR program noted in the CPS
study. The CPS identified certain underlying deficiencies in the SDR
program that should be corrected so data collected may provide the
maximum safety benefit. A copy of the CPS report has been placed in the
docket for this rulemaking.
Based on the comments received and the CPS findings, the FAA has
determined there is a need to enhance the SDR program so it meets the
needs of the FAA and industry more efficiently and effectively. Rather
than continuing to delay the effective date of the final rule while we
address this issue, we determined it is prudent to withdraw the delayed
final rule. This approach will eliminate uncertainty about the final
rule's status and allow us time to thoroughly evaluate and improve the
SDR program. The effect of this withdrawal is the retention of the
regulations currently in effect.
[[Page 76977]]
The Future of the SDR System
The FAA is still pursuing changes to the SDR system that will
address the CPS findings and the feedback we received from this
withdrawn final rule. We plan to evaluate the present SDR system and
issues related to its associated Management Information System (MIS)
database. We will also reexamine the economic impact of any new changes
to the SDR system. All amendments to the SDR regulations will be
preceded by an NPRM.
Amending the Existing Rule
The FAA is making several changes to the existing SDR program
regulations. Most of these changes were already incorporated in the
final rule we are now withdrawing. We are proceeding with these changes
because they will improve the SDR program.
Sections 121.703, 125.409, 135.415, and 145.221
The FAA is renaming Sec. Sec. 121.703, 125.409, 135.415, and
145.221 as ``Service Difficulty Reports.'' The existing titles reflect
the varying names these reports have been called over the years by
different parties, which resulted in some confusion. This amendment
uses the most common industry term for SDRs and will result in the use
of only one consistent term when referring to these reports.
Sections 121.703(d), 125.409(b), and 135.415(d)
The FAA adopts three changes to improve the process of submitting
SDRs to the FAA under these sections:
(1) Replacing the terms ``send,'' ``mailed,'' or ``delivered'' with
the term ``submit.'' This change allows for the use of other means,
such as electronic transmission, to submit SDRs to the FAA.
(2) Increasing the time for submitting an SDR from 72 hours to 96
hours after an event occurs that requires an SDR. The increased
reporting time gives certificate holders additional time to prepare the
SDR and should reduce the number of supplemental SDRs that need to be
filed. A reduction of supplemental SDRs should reduce the
administrative burden on both the FAA and industry.
(3) Changing the location to which the certificate holder must send
SDRs. The existing rule required SDRs to be sent directly to the
Certificate Holding District Office (CHDO). There, the SDRs are
reviewed by the assigned Principal Maintenance Inspector (PMI) and then
forwarded to the FAA offices in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, where all SDRs
are entered into the SDR database. The revised rule requires the
certificate holder to send SDRs directly to our Oklahoma City office.
The PMI would be instructed by internal agency procedures to review the
individual SDR for their assigned certificate holder through an
internal FAA computer system that would access the SDR database. This
revised procedure removes the intermediate step of processing SDRs
through the PMI, but does not relieve the PMI of the responsibility for
reviewing them. The change would also facilitate electronic reporting
by eliminating the necessity of delivering a copy to the PMI. The
certificate holder would retain the option of submitting paper SDRs
should it so choose, although the FAA strongly encourages electronic
reporting. In this final rule, we made editorial changes to Sec. Sec.
125.409(b) and 135.415(d) to make them consistent with Sec.
121.703(d). The centralized collection point is the FAA office in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Finally, for only Sec. 135.415, the FAA is removing the provision
for aircraft operated where mail is not collected. This was an outdated
provision that was rarely used by the industry. Mail service is
available now in most locations and various alternatives to the U.S.
Mail exist.
Section 121.703(e)
The amended rule requires certificate holders to submit SDRs in a
form or format acceptable to the Administrator. Many operators have
voluntarily adopted reporting formats compatible with the FAA's
electronic systems to simplify their reporting under the existing rule.
Electronic submission of SDRs through the FAA Web site is an acceptable
format. This provision is intended to assure that, regardless of the
method and format chosen for use, the information we receive is
readable. However, when using electronic technology, the electronic
language used must be one the FAA is capable of reading.
Section 145.221(d)
The amended rule would delete the parenthetical (operational or
structural) to bring the SDR requirements in part 145 into conformity
with the language of the existing SDR rules.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements associated with this final rule
have been approved previously by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), and have been assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0008
(part 121), 2120-0085 (part 125), 2120-0039 (part 135), and 2120-0003
(part 145). In the NPRM, we incorrectly referenced a single OMB Control
Number 2120-0663 for all four parts cited above.
This final rule contains several changes to the existing SDR rule.
We changed the mailing address for SDR reports; we replaced the words
``send,'' ``mailed,'' and ``delivered'' with ``submit''; and we
lengthened the submittal period for the SDR to reduce the number of
supplementary reports from certificate holders.
An agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information,
nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it
displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number.
Economic Assessment, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact
Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency to
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that
the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from
setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade
Act also requires agencies to consider international standards and,
where appropriate, use them as the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies
to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other
effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation.)
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined this rule: (1) Has
benefits that justify its costs, is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and is not
``significant'' as defined in Department of Transportation Regulatory
Policies and Procedures; (2) will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities; (3) would have only a
domestic impact and therefore no affect on any trade-sensitive
activity; and (4) does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local,
or tribal governments, or on the
[[Page 76978]]
private sector. These analyses, available in the rulemaking docket, are
summarized below.
Costs
This final rule imposes minimal new costs on industry, and results
in cost-savings ranging from $16.13 million ($11.33 million,
discounted) to $38.96 million ($27.36 million, discounted). This
results in a net cost savings to industry ranging from $15.98 million
($11.23 million, discounted) to $38.97 million ($27.37 million,
discounted). The impacts to the FAA are additional costs of $145,200
($102,000, discounted) and savings of $9,300 ($6,500, discounted). The
FAA has determined this rule to be cost beneficial.
Benefits
A significant effort is underway to improve the quality of aviation
safety data identification and collection. This rulemaking is a
component of this effort and proposes changes to improve the existing
SDR program. These changes include:
Extending the reporting time to submit SDRs from 72 hours
to 96 hours.
Requiring part 121, 125, and 135 certificate holders to
submit SDRs directly to a centralized collection point, thus allowing
the reports to be entered into the SDR database quicker and reducing
the administrative workload of the certificate-holding district office
(CHDO).
Allowing electronic submission of SDR reports.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes,
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the Act.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 RFA provides that
the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement
providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning
should be clear.
For this rule, the small entity group is considered to be 14 CFR
part 121, 125, and 135 certificate holders (North American Industry
Classification System [NAICS] 481111). For this analysis, the FAA
considers each part 125 and 135 certificate holder to be a small
entity, and some of the part 121 and 121/135 certificate holders are
also small entities.
These regulations result in cost savings for all 121, 125, and 135
certificate holders of between $16.13 million ($11.33 million,
discounted) to $38.96 million ($27.36 million, discounted) over the
next ten years or, on average, between $1.61 million to $3.90 million
per year. Assuming that the cost savings is spread among the types of
121, 125, and 135 certificate holders in proportion to the number of
SDRs each type generated from January 1, 2002, through August 31, 2004,
the average part 121 certificate holder will save between $13,010 and
$31,424 a year, the average part 121/135 certificate holder will save
between $3,511 and $8,479 a year, the average part 125 certificate
holder will save between $16 and $39 a year, and the average part 135
certificate holder will save between $68 and $165 a year. Thus, the
economic impact is minimal. Therefore, I certify that this action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not
considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this final rule and has determined that it will
have only a domestic impact and therefore no affect on any trade-
sensitive activity.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) is intended,
among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act
requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing
the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule
that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $120.7 million in lieu of $100
million.
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements
of Title II do not apply.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and therefore does not have federalism implications.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in Appendix 4, paragraph 4(j) of the FAA Order,
and involves no extraordinary circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
[[Page 76979]]
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
14 CFR Part 125
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
14 CFR Part 145
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The Amendment
0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
withdraws the final rule published at 65 FR 56192 on September 15, 2000
and delayed at 66 FR 21626, April 30, 2001; 66 FR 58912, November 23,
2001; 67 FR 78970, December 27, 2002; and 68 FR 75116, December 30,
2003. The FAA also amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS
0
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-
44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-
44904, 44912, 45101-45105, 46105, 46301.
Sec. 121.703 Service difficulty reports.
0
2. Amend Sec. 121.703 to revise the heading as set forth above and to
revise paragraphs (d) and (e) introductory text to read as follows:
* * * * *
(d) Each certificate holder shall submit each report required by
this section, covering each 24-hour period beginning at 0900 local time
of each day and ending at 0900 local time on the next day, to the FAA
offices in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Each report of occurrences during a
24-hour period shall be submitted to the collection point within the
next 96 hours. However, a report due on Saturday or Sunday may be
submitted on the following Monday, and a report due on a holiday may be
submitted on the next work day.
(e) The certificate holder shall submit the reports required by
this section on a form or in another format acceptable to the
Administrator. The reports shall include the following information:
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 121.705 to revise the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 121.705 Mechanical interruption summary report.
Each certificate holder shall submit to the Administrator, before
the end of the 10th day of the following month, a summary report for
the previous month of:
* * * * *
PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH
AIRCRAFT
0
4. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-
44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.
Sec. 125.409 Service difficulty reports.
0
5. Amend Sec. 125.409 to revise the heading as set forth above and to
revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(b) Each certificate holder shall submit each report required by
this section, covering each 24-hour period beginning at 0900 local time
of each day and ending at 0900 local time on the next day, to the FAA
office in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Each report of occurrences during a
24-hour period shall be submitted to the collection point within the
next 96 hours. However, a report due on Saturday or Sunday may be
submitted on the following Monday, and a report due on a holiday may be
submitted on the next work day.
PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT
0
6. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 44113, 44701-44702, 44705,
44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.
Sec. 135.415 Service difficulty reports.
0
7. Amend Sec. 135.415 to revise the heading as set forth above and to
revise paragraph (d) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(d) Each certificate holder shall submit each report required by
this section, covering each 24-hour period beginning at 0900 local time
of each day and ending at 0900 local time on the next day, to the FAA
offices in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Each report of occurrences during a
24-hour period shall be submitted to the collection point within the
next 96 hours. However, a report due on Saturday or Sunday may be
submitted on the following Monday, and a report due on a holiday may be
submitted on the next workday.
* * * * *
PART 145--REPAIR STATIONS
0
8. The authority citation for part 145 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44707, 44709,
44717.
Sec. 145.221 Service difficulty reports.
0
9. Amend Sec. 145.221 to revise the heading as set forth above and to
revise paragraph (d) introductory text to read as follows:
* * * * *
(d) A certificated repair station may submit a service difficulty
report for the following:
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 22, 2005.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-24536 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
