Notification and Reporting of Aircraft Accidents or Incidents and Overdue Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft Wreckage, Mail, Cargo, and Records, 16826-16829 [E8-6393]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16826
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 62 / Monday, March 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules
avoid the interference by operating on
another BAS channel. Moreover, this
interference would be temporary
because all the BAS licensees are
scheduled to relocate by September 7,
2009 to spectrum that does not conflict
with MSS.
21. The proposed rule changes would
also affect the interest of the two 2 GHz
MSS operators, TerreStar and ICO.
Under the current rules TerreStar and
ICO cannot begin operations in this
band until after the top 30 markets have
been relocated. Consequently,
modifying the top 30 market rule to
allow them to enter the band sooner will
provide the 2 GHz MSS operators with
a benefit and not a burden.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered
22. Our primary concern in this
proceeding continues to be balancing
the needs of incumbent BAS licensees
to provide service without suffering
harmful interference and the
introduction of new MSS in a timely
manner. If the Sprint Nextel et al., plan
for BAS relocation is successfully
implemented, ICO’s and TerreStar’s
ability to begin operation in the 2 GHz
MSS band could be delayed until
September 2009 under the current rules.
On the other hand, if BAS relocation of
the top 30 markets and fixed BAS links
in all markets is completed earlier than
is now anticipated but before all BAS
markets are relocated, interference
between MSS, including ATC, and BAS
is likely to occur in those markets not
yet relocated. In the latter case, MSS
would have to accept interference from
the remaining BAS users until they are
relocated. It seeks comment on whether
to maintain this non-interference
requirement. The Commission also
seeks comment on whether it should
modify other requirements for MSS
entry into the 2 GHz MSS band.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
23. None.
Ordering Clauses
24. The Further Notice of Proposed
Rule Making is adopted. This authority
is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i) and (j)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 CFR 154(i) and (j), and
Section 1.3 of the Commission’s Rules.
25. The Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:12 Mar 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–6494 Filed 3–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD
49 CFR Part 830
Notification and Reporting of Aircraft
Accidents or Incidents and Overdue
Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft
Wreckage, Mail, Cargo, and Records
National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The NTSB is proposing to
amend its regulations concerning
notification and reporting requirements
with regard to aircraft accidents or
incidents. The existing version of the
definitions section does not address
unmanned aircraft accidents; therefore,
the NTSB proposes to update the
definitions section in order to define
‘‘unmanned aircraft accident.’’
DATES: Submit comments on or before
June 30, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may send written
comments using any of the following
methods:
1. Government-wide rulemaking Web
site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
2. Mail: Mail comments concerning
this proposed rule to Dana Schulze, AS–
lO, National Transportation Safety
Board, 490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW.,
Washington, DC 20594–2000.
3. Fax: (202) 314–6319, Attention:
Dana Schulze.
4. Hand Delivery: 6th Floor, 490
L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dana Schulze, Office of Aviation Safety,
(202) 314–6323.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory and Regulatory Evaluation
This rule proposes to add a definition
of ‘‘unmanned aircraft accident’’
alongside the existing definition of
‘‘aircraft accident,’’ to include a
requirement to report unmanned aircraft
accidents under the notification
requirements of 49 CFR 830.5(a), which
requires immediate notification of any
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
aircraft accident, as defined at 49 CFR
830.2. The NTSB also seeks to add a
reference to this new definition in the
existing definition of ‘‘aircraft
accident.’’ These additions will enhance
aviation safety by providing the NTSB
with notification of events in which
persons are injured or the aircraft
sustains substantial damage. Such
reports will enable the NTSB to conduct
investigations, influence corrective
actions, and propose safety
recommendations with regard to
unmanned aircraft in a timely manner.
In addition, these reports will assist the
NTSB with safety studies and analysis
of any trends in aviation transportation
that could affect aviation safety.
The NTSB has considered whether
this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, and has determined that this
rule does not meet the definition of
‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ In
particular, the rule will not: have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect the
economy; create a serious inconsistency
or interfere with an action that another
agency has taken or plans to take;
materially alter the budgetary impact of
any grants, entitlements, or the like; or
raise novel legal or policy issues. As
such, Executive Order 12866 does not
require the NTSB to complete an
assessment of the potential costs and
benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that
Order.
Likewise, the NTSB has analyzed this
rule under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501–1571. The
NTSB acknowledges that this proposed
reporting requirement may affect state,
local, and tribal entities because those
entities may utilize unmanned aircraft
for a variety of purposes. However, the
NTSB maintains that requiring such
entities to report to the NTSB
transportation accidents arising from the
operation of unmanned aircraft will not
result in any expenditure by any private
sector organization or entity that would
exceed $100 million. As such, the NTSB
asserts that the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act does not prevent the NTSB’s
enactment of this proposed regulation.
Likewise, the NTSB has analyzed this
proposed rule as required by the
National Environmental Policy Act, 42
U.S.C. 4321–4347, and has determined
that this proposed regulation does not
necessitate further analysis under the
provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act.
In addition, the NTSB has considered
whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM
31MRP1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 62 / Monday, March 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601–612). The NTSB certifies
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Indeed, the changes to part 830
that the NTSB proposes herein will only
result in a potential increase in the
number of reports that small entities
must submit to the NTSB; the NTSB
does not anticipate that submitting such
reports will have a significant economic
impact on small entities. Moreover, in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the
NTSB has submitted this certification to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the
Small Business Administration.
This rule proposes no new collection
of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520) but will require that the public
notify the NTSB of more events. As
such, the NTSB has submitted this
NPRM to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. The NTSB
will continue to use Form No. 6120.1 to
receive notification of events that are
reportable under 49 CFR Part 830. OMB
last approved the use of Form No.
6120.1 on June 30, 2006, and this
approval will expire on June 30, 2009
(OMB Control No. 3147–0001). The
NTSB estimates that the number of
respondents for the submission of this
notification using the aforementioned
form will increase by a very modest
amount: approximately five additional
reports per year. As such, after this rule
becomes effective, the NTSB anticipates
receiving reports on Form No. 6120.1
from approximately 2,205 respondents
per year; this estimate includes
approximately 2,200 reports on Form
6120.1 that the NTSB receives from all
notification requirements in 49 CFR Part
830, as well as approximately five
additional reports that the NTSB
expects to receive each year due to the
new definition that is the subject of this
NPRM. All other information regarding
the use of Form No. 6120.1 will remain
the same. The public may submit
comments regarding the collection of
this information to the OMB desk officer
for the NTSB.
The NTSB recognizes that Congress’s
intent in promulgating the Paperwork
Reduction Act was to reduce the burden
on individuals and ensure that the
information collected would not be
duplicative of other federal information
collections. The NTSB notes that some
individuals or entities from which the
NTSB must receive notification of an
event under part 830 may also be
required to report the event to the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
However, this reporting is currently not
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:12 Mar 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
required under FAA regulations but is
required in individual agreements
authorizing the operation of unmanned
aircraft. See 72 FR 6689 (Feb. 13, 2007).
Therefore, any duplicative reporting
that may occur will be uncommon, as it
will be limited to individual agreements
into which the FAA has entered with
specific operators or parties and will
occur infrequently at the NTSB, given
the NTSB’s estimate that it will receive
approximately five additional reports
per year. In any event, the NTSB asserts
that such duplicative reporting, while
minimal, is necessary for the NTSB to
fulfill its statutory mission of improving
safety. The NTSB’s response to
unmanned aircraft accidents could
include immediately dispatching an
investigator to the location of the
damaged aircraft to evaluate the
circumstances of the accident and
observe various components of the
aircraft, or other locations where
perishable information exists or requires
collection for the investigation. Such a
response would not be possible if the
operator only reported the event to the
FAA. The NTSB also notes that it has
experienced impediments to some
investigations, such as an inability to
recover and examine critical parts,
when the NTSB belatedly received
notification of the event. Overall, the
NTSB does not anticipate that
duplicative reporting will be
commonplace, and, to the extent that
duplicate reports occur, the NTSB
asserts that such reports are necessary
and will not cause an undue burden on
the public.
Moreover, the NTSB does not
anticipate that this rule will have a
substantial, direct effect on State or
local governments or preempt state law;
as such, this rule does not have
implications for federalism under
Executive Order 13132, Federalism.
This rule also complies with all
applicable standards in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and
reduce burden. In addition, the NTSB
has evaluated this rule under: Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights; Executive
Order 13045, Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks; Executive Order 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments; Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use; and
the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, 15 U.S.C. 272 note.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16827
The NTSB has concluded that this rule
does not contravene any of the
requirements set forth in these
Executive Orders or statutes, nor does
this rule prompt further consideration
with regard to such requirements. With
regard to these aforementioned legal
considerations, the NTSB notes that this
proposed requirement is an extension of
its existing requirements for the
reporting of manned aircraft accidents;
as such, the NTSB’s analyses of the
aforementioned statutes and Executive
Orders is analogous to its considerations
with regard to notification of other
aircraft accidents in which a person is
on board the aircraft.
Discussion of Proposed Addition to
Section 830.2
The NTSB proposes to add the
definition of ‘‘Unmanned aircraft
accident’’ by adding the following text:
‘‘Unmanned aircraft accident means an
occurrence associated with the
operation of a public or civil unmanned
aircraft that takes place between the
time that the aircraft is activated with
the purpose of flight and the time that
the aircraft is deactivated at the
conclusion of its mission, in which any
person suffers death or serious injury, or
in which the aircraft receives substantial
damage.’’ The NTSB also proposes to
add a brief reference at the end of the
existing definition of ‘‘aircraft accident’’
in section 830.2, which will state: ‘‘For
purposes of this part, the definition of
‘aircraft accident’ includes ‘unmanned
aircraft accident,’ as defined herein.’’
Interpretation of Proposed Definition
The NTSB’s reference to ‘‘substantial
damage’’ in the proposed definition is
appropriate given that substantial
damage includes ‘‘damage or failure to
an aircraft that adversely affects the
structural strength, performance, or
flight characteristics of the aircraft, and
would normally require major repair or
replacement of the affected
component.’’ The NTSB does not
propose altering the definition of
‘‘substantial damage’’ and will apply the
full definition, including all exclusions
that the definition contains, to the
proposed addition of unmanned aircraft
accidents. Likewise, the NTSB does not
intend to alter its definition of the term,
‘‘serious injury,’’ which is also defined
in section 830.2. Overall, the NTSB
notes that this proposed addition does
not contravene, alter, or in any way
affect any of the other terms that section
830.2 defines.
The NTSB’s proposed addition to the
existing definition of ‘‘aircraft
accident,’’ to include a reference to
unmanned aircraft accidents, will
E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM
31MRP1
16828
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 62 / Monday, March 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
ensure that the reporting requirement
within section 830.5 unambiguously
applies to aircraft accidents in which
manned and unmanned aircraft are
involved. Except with regard to the
NTSB’s proposed addition of this
reference via a short sentence at the end
of the definition of ‘‘aircraft accident,’’
this reference does not change the
existing interpretation or applicability
of ‘‘aircraft accident.’’
Moreover, the NTSB’s use of the term
‘‘aircraft’’ is similarly appropriate given
that this reference does not contradict or
supersede the existing definition of
‘‘aircraft’’ at 14 CFR 1.1 (which defines
‘‘aircraft’’ as ‘‘a device that is used or
intended to be used for flight in the
air’’). Similarly, the NTSB intends its
reference to the term ‘‘unmanned
aircraft’’ to be consistent with the FAA’s
definition of ‘‘unmanned aircraft’’ at 72
FR 6689 (Feb. 13, 2007), wherein the
FAA defines an ‘‘’unmanned aircraft’’ as
‘‘a device that is used, or is intended to
be used, for flight in the air with no
onboard pilot.’’ Further, the NTSB
intends for this proposed rule to apply
to the category of unmanned aircraft
used as public aircraft or civil aircraft,
not those used as model aircraft; hence,
the NTSB has included the terms ‘‘civil’’
and ‘‘public’’ within this definition and
incorporates the existing definitions of
those terms in section 830.2 as
applicable to this definition. Moreover,
the incorporation of these terms is
consistent with the FAA’s categorization
of unmanned aircraft, as described at 72
FR 6689, 6690 (Feb. 13, 2007)
(explaining three unique ways in which
an operator may obtain authority to
operate three types of unmanned
aircraft, which include public, civil, and
model aircraft), and conforms to the
statutory directive that Congress issued
to the NTSB, at 49 U.S.C. 1131(a)(1)(A)
and 1132(a) (directing the NTSB to
investigate civil and public aircraft
accidents). In summary, the text of the
NTSB’s proposed definition does not
affect and is not inconsistent with any
of the definitions that the FAA has
promulgated; as such, the NTSB does
not anticipate that this definition will
create ambiguity.
Effect of Proposed Definition on
Transportation Safety
The Independent Safety Board Act of
1974 (codified, as amended, at 49 U.S.C.
1101–1155) directs the NTSB to
investigate the facts, conditions, and
circumstances relating to transportation
accidents and to recommend steps to
reduce or eliminate such accidents. The
NTSB also has the authority to conduct
special studies and investigations on
matters pertaining to safety and for the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:12 Mar 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
prevention of accidents. The NTSB
anticipates that this proposed
amendment will enhance aviation safety
by providing the NTSB with direct and
timely notification of events that
involve safety concerns regarding
unmanned aircraft. Such notification
will consequently enable the NTSB to
conduct investigations, through which
the NTSB can influence or enable
necessary corrective actions in a timely
manner. Such corrective actions
function to prevent future transportation
accidents and improve safety. The
NTSB also anticipates that this
regulatory amendment will assist the
NTSB in improving safety via the
agency’s safety recommendation
process, under 49 U.S.C. 1116, 1131,
and 1136.
The NTSB notes that congress has
directed the NTSB to carry out special
studies and investigations concerning
transportation safety and evaluate the
effectiveness of transportation safety
consciousness of other departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities in the
interest of improving transportation
safety. See 49 U.S.C. 1116(b). In
addition, Congress has recognized the
NTSB’s process of issuing safety
recommendations as one that has
successfully prevented potential
transportation accidents. See H.R. Rep.
No. 103–239(I) at 1 (1993), which
emphasizes the importance of the
NTSB’s safety recommendations and
states that such recommendations ‘‘have
saved countless human lives.’’ In
addition to performing these duties, the
NTSB significantly influences
transportation safety in conducting its
aviation accident investigations. Often,
organizations, such as state or local
agencies; other Federal agencies; foreign
governments; and private entities from
the aviation industry, will implement
changes during the course of an NTSB
investigation to improve safety and
prevent future accidents. Consequently,
the NTSB is effective in improving
safety in a variety of ways; the NTSB
anticipates that the proposed
notification requirement will assist the
NTSB in improving safety via the
NTSB’s investigative process, safety
recommendations, and identification of
safety concerns.
For example, the NTSB investigated
the April 25, 2006, crash of an
unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that
the United States Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) agency was operating
near Nogales, Arizona. The NTSB found
that several factors related to pilot
training and proficiency in dealing with
emergency situations contributed to the
accident. In addition to these findings,
the NTSB identified several other safety
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
deficiencies regarding the UAS
equipment design and maintenance, the
CBP’s operational contingency plans,
and the safety risk management process
used to ensure safety while operating
the aircraft in the United States National
Airspace System (NAS) The
investigation also revealed a number of
safety issues related to the FAA’s air
traffic management of the unmanned
aircraft and the FAA’s practice of
monitoring unmanned aircraft
operations under the current system of
authorization. As a result of these
findings, the CBP took action to improve
certain aspects of its UAS equipment
design and operation. Likewise, the
FAA also took action to reconsider its
current means of monitoring UAS
operations in the NAS. Although these
actions addressed some of the
investigation’s safety findings, the NTSB
remained concerned about other
potential safety deficiencies and the risk
they presented for a possible midair
collision between an unmanned aircraft
and a human-piloted aircraft or a
possible collision involving an
unmanned aircraft and persons or
property on the ground; the NTSB also
remained concerned that these
deficiencies may not be adequately
addressed by current UAS operating
procedures. As a result, the NTSB
issued 22 safety recommendations to
address the specific findings and
concerns identified in the CBP accident
investigation, as well as to improve the
safety of other unmanned aircraft
operations in the NAS. See Safety
Recommendations A–07–065 through
A–07–086, available at https://
www.ntsb.gov.
In the course of conducting the CEP
investigation, the NTSB also became
aware that the framework of safety
standards and regulations related to the
design, operation, and continuing
airworthiness of unmanned aircraft
systems for use in the NAS is
insufficient when compared to that of
manned aircraft and that the
development of these regulations and
standards is a new and evolving area of
civil aviation. Given this assessment,
combined with the knowledge that
numerous public use and civil entities
are already currently operating their
unmanned aircraft in the NAS today
under specific approval from the FAA,
the NTSB determined that it should
receive notification of accidents
involving unmanned aircraft. The NTSB
anticipates that it will investigate these
occurrences and make determinations
and issue safety recommendations that
other entities will use to develop safety
improvements. Such a purpose is
E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM
31MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 62 / Monday, March 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules
consistent with Congress’s intent in
creating the NTSB and supplying the
NTSB with its broad investigative
authority. The NTSB also notes that the
investigation of such occurrences will
provide critical data and lessons learned
that can assist regulators and industry in
the development of safety regulations
and standards and the monitoring of
their effectiveness in improving the
safety of unmanned aircraft operations
in the NAS.
The NTSB has carefully considered
the safety concerns that unmanned
aircraft accidents could present. The
NTSB notes that Congress’s intention in
creating the NTSB and providing it with
broad authority with regard to
investigating transportation accidents
indicates a general purpose of
preventing transportation accidents,
because such accidents can cause death
or physical harm. In recognizing this
statutory purpose, the NTSB proposes to
amend section 830.2 by including a
definition of unmanned aircraft
accidents, in accordance with the
proposed language, below.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 830
Aircraft accidents, Aircraft incidents,
Aviation safety, Overdue aircraft
notification and reporting, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the NTSB proposes to amend
49 CFR Part 830 as follows:
PART 830—NOTIFICATION AND
REPORTING OF AIRCRAFT
ACCIDENTS OR INCIDENTS AND
OVERDUE AIRCRAFT, AND
PRESERVATION OF AIRCRAFT
WRECKAGE, MAIL, CARGO, AND
RECORDS
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR
part 830 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Independent Safety Board Act
of 1974, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1101—1155);
Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Pub. L. No. 85–
726, 72 Stat. 731 (codified as amended at 49
U.S.C. 40101).
2. Amend § 830.2 as follows:
A. Add a new sentence at the end of
the definition of ‘‘Aircraft accident’’ to
read as set forth below; and
B. Add a definition of ‘‘Unmanned
aircraft accident’’ in alphabetical order
to read as follows:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
§ 830.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Aircraft accident * * * For purposes
of this part, the definition of ‘‘aircraft
accident’’ includes ‘‘unmanned aircraft
accident,’’ as defined herein.
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:12 Mar 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
Unmanned aircraft accident means an
occurrence associated with the
operation of a public or civil unmanned
aircraft that takes place between the
time that the aircraft is activated with
the purpose of flight and the time that
the aircraft is deactivated at the
conclusion of its mission, in which any
person suffers death or serious injury, or
in which the aircraft receives substantial
damage.
Dated: March 24, 2008.
Vicky D’Onofrio,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–6393 Filed 3–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7533–01–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
RIN 0648–AV34
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico;
Amendment 30A
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability of
Amendment 30A to the Reef Fish
Fishery Management Plan; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS announces the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council
(Council) has submitted Amendment
30A to the Fishery Management Plan
(FMP) for the Reef Fish Resources of the
Gulf of Mexico for review, approval, and
implementation by NMFS. Amendment
30A proposes actions to end overfishing
of greater amberjack and gray triggerfish
and to rebuild these stocks to
sustainable levels.
DATES: Written comments must be
received no later than 5 p.m., eastern
time, on May 30, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by ‘‘0648–AV34’’ by any of
the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov.
• Fax: 727–824–5308; Attention: Peter
Hood.
• Mail: Peter Hood, Southeast
Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th
Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
Instructions: All comments received
are a part of the public record and will
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16829
generally be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov without change.
All Personal Identifying Information (for
example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit Confidential Business
Information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous
comments. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF file formats only.
Copies of Amendment 30A, which
include a supplemental environmental
impact statement, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, and a regulatory
impact review may be obtained from the
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Suite
1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone 813–
348–1630; fax 813–348–1711; e-mail
gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org; or may be
downloaded from the Council’s website
at https://www.gulfcouncil.org/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Hood, telephone 727–824–5305;
fax 727–824–5308; e-mail
peter.hood@noaa.gov.
The
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each
Regional Fishery Management Council
to submit any fishery management plan
or amendment to NMFS for review and
approval, disapproval, or partial
approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act
also requires that NMFS, upon receiving
a plan or amendment, publish an
announcement in the Federal Register
notifying the public that the plan or
amendment is available for review and
comment.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens
Act of 2006 requires regional fishery
management councils to establish
annual catch limits (ACLs) for each
stock or stock complex and
accountability measures (AMs) to
ensure these ACLs are not exceeded.
Amendment 30A addresses these
requirements for greater amberjack and
gray triggerfish.
Greater amberjack have been under a
rebuilding plan since 2003. However, a
new stock assessment completed in
2006 concluded that the stock is not
recovering as projected. It remains
overfished and NMFS recently
determined overfishing is recurring.
Amendment 30A is necessary to end
overfishing and adjust total allowable
catch (TAC) and management measures
to bring the greater amberjack rebuilding
E:\FR\FM\31MRP1.SGM
31MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 62 (Monday, March 31, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16826-16829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-6393]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
49 CFR Part 830
Notification and Reporting of Aircraft Accidents or Incidents and
Overdue Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft Wreckage, Mail, Cargo,
and Records
AGENCY: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The NTSB is proposing to amend its regulations concerning
notification and reporting requirements with regard to aircraft
accidents or incidents. The existing version of the definitions section
does not address unmanned aircraft accidents; therefore, the NTSB
proposes to update the definitions section in order to define
``unmanned aircraft accident.''
DATES: Submit comments on or before June 30, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may send written comments using any of the following
methods:
1. Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
2. Mail: Mail comments concerning this proposed rule to Dana
Schulze, AS-lO, National Transportation Safety Board, 490 L'Enfant
Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20594-2000.
3. Fax: (202) 314-6319, Attention: Dana Schulze.
4. Hand Delivery: 6th Floor, 490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Schulze, Office of Aviation
Safety, (202) 314-6323.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory and Regulatory Evaluation
This rule proposes to add a definition of ``unmanned aircraft
accident'' alongside the existing definition of ``aircraft accident,''
to include a requirement to report unmanned aircraft accidents under
the notification requirements of 49 CFR 830.5(a), which requires
immediate notification of any aircraft accident, as defined at 49 CFR
830.2. The NTSB also seeks to add a reference to this new definition in
the existing definition of ``aircraft accident.'' These additions will
enhance aviation safety by providing the NTSB with notification of
events in which persons are injured or the aircraft sustains
substantial damage. Such reports will enable the NTSB to conduct
investigations, influence corrective actions, and propose safety
recommendations with regard to unmanned aircraft in a timely manner. In
addition, these reports will assist the NTSB with safety studies and
analysis of any trends in aviation transportation that could affect
aviation safety.
The NTSB has considered whether this rule is a ``significant
regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, and has determined that this rule does
not meet the definition of ``significant regulatory action.'' In
particular, the rule will not: have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more or adversely affect the economy; create a serious
inconsistency or interfere with an action that another agency has taken
or plans to take; materially alter the budgetary impact of any grants,
entitlements, or the like; or raise novel legal or policy issues. As
such, Executive Order 12866 does not require the NTSB to complete an
assessment of the potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order.
Likewise, the NTSB has analyzed this rule under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1501-1571. The NTSB acknowledges that
this proposed reporting requirement may affect state, local, and tribal
entities because those entities may utilize unmanned aircraft for a
variety of purposes. However, the NTSB maintains that requiring such
entities to report to the NTSB transportation accidents arising from
the operation of unmanned aircraft will not result in any expenditure
by any private sector organization or entity that would exceed $100
million. As such, the NTSB asserts that the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act does not prevent the NTSB's enactment of this proposed regulation.
Likewise, the NTSB has analyzed this proposed rule as required by the
National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, and has
determined that this proposed regulation does not necessitate further
analysis under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.
In addition, the NTSB has considered whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
[[Page 16827]]
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The NTSB
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Indeed, the changes to part 830 that the NTSB proposes herein will only
result in a potential increase in the number of reports that small
entities must submit to the NTSB; the NTSB does not anticipate that
submitting such reports will have a significant economic impact on
small entities. Moreover, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the NTSB
has submitted this certification to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy at
the Small Business Administration.
This rule proposes no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) but will require
that the public notify the NTSB of more events. As such, the NTSB has
submitted this NPRM to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The NTSB will continue to use
Form No. 6120.1 to receive notification of events that are reportable
under 49 CFR Part 830. OMB last approved the use of Form No. 6120.1 on
June 30, 2006, and this approval will expire on June 30, 2009 (OMB
Control No. 3147-0001). The NTSB estimates that the number of
respondents for the submission of this notification using the
aforementioned form will increase by a very modest amount:
approximately five additional reports per year. As such, after this
rule becomes effective, the NTSB anticipates receiving reports on Form
No. 6120.1 from approximately 2,205 respondents per year; this estimate
includes approximately 2,200 reports on Form 6120.1 that the NTSB
receives from all notification requirements in 49 CFR Part 830, as well
as approximately five additional reports that the NTSB expects to
receive each year due to the new definition that is the subject of this
NPRM. All other information regarding the use of Form No. 6120.1 will
remain the same. The public may submit comments regarding the
collection of this information to the OMB desk officer for the NTSB.
The NTSB recognizes that Congress's intent in promulgating the
Paperwork Reduction Act was to reduce the burden on individuals and
ensure that the information collected would not be duplicative of other
federal information collections. The NTSB notes that some individuals
or entities from which the NTSB must receive notification of an event
under part 830 may also be required to report the event to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). However, this reporting is currently not
required under FAA regulations but is required in individual agreements
authorizing the operation of unmanned aircraft. See 72 FR 6689 (Feb.
13, 2007). Therefore, any duplicative reporting that may occur will be
uncommon, as it will be limited to individual agreements into which the
FAA has entered with specific operators or parties and will occur
infrequently at the NTSB, given the NTSB's estimate that it will
receive approximately five additional reports per year. In any event,
the NTSB asserts that such duplicative reporting, while minimal, is
necessary for the NTSB to fulfill its statutory mission of improving
safety. The NTSB's response to unmanned aircraft accidents could
include immediately dispatching an investigator to the location of the
damaged aircraft to evaluate the circumstances of the accident and
observe various components of the aircraft, or other locations where
perishable information exists or requires collection for the
investigation. Such a response would not be possible if the operator
only reported the event to the FAA. The NTSB also notes that it has
experienced impediments to some investigations, such as an inability to
recover and examine critical parts, when the NTSB belatedly received
notification of the event. Overall, the NTSB does not anticipate that
duplicative reporting will be commonplace, and, to the extent that
duplicate reports occur, the NTSB asserts that such reports are
necessary and will not cause an undue burden on the public.
Moreover, the NTSB does not anticipate that this rule will have a
substantial, direct effect on State or local governments or preempt
state law; as such, this rule does not have implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule also complies with
all applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden. In addition, the NTSB has evaluated this
rule under: Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights; Executive
Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks; Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments; Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use; and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, 15
U.S.C. 272 note. The NTSB has concluded that this rule does not
contravene any of the requirements set forth in these Executive Orders
or statutes, nor does this rule prompt further consideration with
regard to such requirements. With regard to these aforementioned legal
considerations, the NTSB notes that this proposed requirement is an
extension of its existing requirements for the reporting of manned
aircraft accidents; as such, the NTSB's analyses of the aforementioned
statutes and Executive Orders is analogous to its considerations with
regard to notification of other aircraft accidents in which a person is
on board the aircraft.
Discussion of Proposed Addition to Section 830.2
The NTSB proposes to add the definition of ``Unmanned aircraft
accident'' by adding the following text: ``Unmanned aircraft accident
means an occurrence associated with the operation of a public or civil
unmanned aircraft that takes place between the time that the aircraft
is activated with the purpose of flight and the time that the aircraft
is deactivated at the conclusion of its mission, in which any person
suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives
substantial damage.'' The NTSB also proposes to add a brief reference
at the end of the existing definition of ``aircraft accident'' in
section 830.2, which will state: ``For purposes of this part, the
definition of `aircraft accident' includes `unmanned aircraft
accident,' as defined herein.''
Interpretation of Proposed Definition
The NTSB's reference to ``substantial damage'' in the proposed
definition is appropriate given that substantial damage includes
``damage or failure to an aircraft that adversely affects the
structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the
aircraft, and would normally require major repair or replacement of the
affected component.'' The NTSB does not propose altering the definition
of ``substantial damage'' and will apply the full definition, including
all exclusions that the definition contains, to the proposed addition
of unmanned aircraft accidents. Likewise, the NTSB does not intend to
alter its definition of the term, ``serious injury,'' which is also
defined in section 830.2. Overall, the NTSB notes that this proposed
addition does not contravene, alter, or in any way affect any of the
other terms that section 830.2 defines.
The NTSB's proposed addition to the existing definition of
``aircraft accident,'' to include a reference to unmanned aircraft
accidents, will
[[Page 16828]]
ensure that the reporting requirement within section 830.5
unambiguously applies to aircraft accidents in which manned and
unmanned aircraft are involved. Except with regard to the NTSB's
proposed addition of this reference via a short sentence at the end of
the definition of ``aircraft accident,'' this reference does not change
the existing interpretation or applicability of ``aircraft accident.''
Moreover, the NTSB's use of the term ``aircraft'' is similarly
appropriate given that this reference does not contradict or supersede
the existing definition of ``aircraft'' at 14 CFR 1.1 (which defines
``aircraft'' as ``a device that is used or intended to be used for
flight in the air''). Similarly, the NTSB intends its reference to the
term ``unmanned aircraft'' to be consistent with the FAA's definition
of ``unmanned aircraft'' at 72 FR 6689 (Feb. 13, 2007), wherein the FAA
defines an ``'unmanned aircraft'' as ``a device that is used, or is
intended to be used, for flight in the air with no onboard pilot.''
Further, the NTSB intends for this proposed rule to apply to the
category of unmanned aircraft used as public aircraft or civil
aircraft, not those used as model aircraft; hence, the NTSB has
included the terms ``civil'' and ``public'' within this definition and
incorporates the existing definitions of those terms in section 830.2
as applicable to this definition. Moreover, the incorporation of these
terms is consistent with the FAA's categorization of unmanned aircraft,
as described at 72 FR 6689, 6690 (Feb. 13, 2007) (explaining three
unique ways in which an operator may obtain authority to operate three
types of unmanned aircraft, which include public, civil, and model
aircraft), and conforms to the statutory directive that Congress issued
to the NTSB, at 49 U.S.C. 1131(a)(1)(A) and 1132(a) (directing the NTSB
to investigate civil and public aircraft accidents). In summary, the
text of the NTSB's proposed definition does not affect and is not
inconsistent with any of the definitions that the FAA has promulgated;
as such, the NTSB does not anticipate that this definition will create
ambiguity.
Effect of Proposed Definition on Transportation Safety
The Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 (codified, as amended, at
49 U.S.C. 1101-1155) directs the NTSB to investigate the facts,
conditions, and circumstances relating to transportation accidents and
to recommend steps to reduce or eliminate such accidents. The NTSB also
has the authority to conduct special studies and investigations on
matters pertaining to safety and for the prevention of accidents. The
NTSB anticipates that this proposed amendment will enhance aviation
safety by providing the NTSB with direct and timely notification of
events that involve safety concerns regarding unmanned aircraft. Such
notification will consequently enable the NTSB to conduct
investigations, through which the NTSB can influence or enable
necessary corrective actions in a timely manner. Such corrective
actions function to prevent future transportation accidents and improve
safety. The NTSB also anticipates that this regulatory amendment will
assist the NTSB in improving safety via the agency's safety
recommendation process, under 49 U.S.C. 1116, 1131, and 1136.
The NTSB notes that congress has directed the NTSB to carry out
special studies and investigations concerning transportation safety and
evaluate the effectiveness of transportation safety consciousness of
other departments, agencies, and instrumentalities in the interest of
improving transportation safety. See 49 U.S.C. 1116(b). In addition,
Congress has recognized the NTSB's process of issuing safety
recommendations as one that has successfully prevented potential
transportation accidents. See H.R. Rep. No. 103-239(I) at 1 (1993),
which emphasizes the importance of the NTSB's safety recommendations
and states that such recommendations ``have saved countless human
lives.'' In addition to performing these duties, the NTSB significantly
influences transportation safety in conducting its aviation accident
investigations. Often, organizations, such as state or local agencies;
other Federal agencies; foreign governments; and private entities from
the aviation industry, will implement changes during the course of an
NTSB investigation to improve safety and prevent future accidents.
Consequently, the NTSB is effective in improving safety in a variety of
ways; the NTSB anticipates that the proposed notification requirement
will assist the NTSB in improving safety via the NTSB's investigative
process, safety recommendations, and identification of safety concerns.
For example, the NTSB investigated the April 25, 2006, crash of an
unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that the United States Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) agency was operating near Nogales, Arizona. The
NTSB found that several factors related to pilot training and
proficiency in dealing with emergency situations contributed to the
accident. In addition to these findings, the NTSB identified several
other safety deficiencies regarding the UAS equipment design and
maintenance, the CBP's operational contingency plans, and the safety
risk management process used to ensure safety while operating the
aircraft in the United States National Airspace System (NAS) The
investigation also revealed a number of safety issues related to the
FAA's air traffic management of the unmanned aircraft and the FAA's
practice of monitoring unmanned aircraft operations under the current
system of authorization. As a result of these findings, the CBP took
action to improve certain aspects of its UAS equipment design and
operation. Likewise, the FAA also took action to reconsider its current
means of monitoring UAS operations in the NAS. Although these actions
addressed some of the investigation's safety findings, the NTSB
remained concerned about other potential safety deficiencies and the
risk they presented for a possible midair collision between an unmanned
aircraft and a human-piloted aircraft or a possible collision involving
an unmanned aircraft and persons or property on the ground; the NTSB
also remained concerned that these deficiencies may not be adequately
addressed by current UAS operating procedures. As a result, the NTSB
issued 22 safety recommendations to address the specific findings and
concerns identified in the CBP accident investigation, as well as to
improve the safety of other unmanned aircraft operations in the NAS.
See Safety Recommendations A-07-065 through A-07-086, available at
https://www.ntsb.gov.
In the course of conducting the CEP investigation, the NTSB also
became aware that the framework of safety standards and regulations
related to the design, operation, and continuing airworthiness of
unmanned aircraft systems for use in the NAS is insufficient when
compared to that of manned aircraft and that the development of these
regulations and standards is a new and evolving area of civil aviation.
Given this assessment, combined with the knowledge that numerous public
use and civil entities are already currently operating their unmanned
aircraft in the NAS today under specific approval from the FAA, the
NTSB determined that it should receive notification of accidents
involving unmanned aircraft. The NTSB anticipates that it will
investigate these occurrences and make determinations and issue safety
recommendations that other entities will use to develop safety
improvements. Such a purpose is
[[Page 16829]]
consistent with Congress's intent in creating the NTSB and supplying
the NTSB with its broad investigative authority. The NTSB also notes
that the investigation of such occurrences will provide critical data
and lessons learned that can assist regulators and industry in the
development of safety regulations and standards and the monitoring of
their effectiveness in improving the safety of unmanned aircraft
operations in the NAS.
The NTSB has carefully considered the safety concerns that unmanned
aircraft accidents could present. The NTSB notes that Congress's
intention in creating the NTSB and providing it with broad authority
with regard to investigating transportation accidents indicates a
general purpose of preventing transportation accidents, because such
accidents can cause death or physical harm. In recognizing this
statutory purpose, the NTSB proposes to amend section 830.2 by
including a definition of unmanned aircraft accidents, in accordance
with the proposed language, below.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 830
Aircraft accidents, Aircraft incidents, Aviation safety, Overdue
aircraft notification and reporting, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the NTSB proposes to
amend 49 CFR Part 830 as follows:
PART 830--NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING OF AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS OR
INCIDENTS AND OVERDUE AIRCRAFT, AND PRESERVATION OF AIRCRAFT
WRECKAGE, MAIL, CARGO, AND RECORDS
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 830 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Independent Safety Board Act of 1974, as amended (49
U.S.C. 1101--1155); Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-
726, 72 Stat. 731 (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 40101).
2. Amend Sec. 830.2 as follows:
A. Add a new sentence at the end of the definition of ``Aircraft
accident'' to read as set forth below; and
B. Add a definition of ``Unmanned aircraft accident'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 830.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Aircraft accident * * * For purposes of this part, the definition
of ``aircraft accident'' includes ``unmanned aircraft accident,'' as
defined herein.
* * * * *
Unmanned aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the
operation of a public or civil unmanned aircraft that takes place
between the time that the aircraft is activated with the purpose of
flight and the time that the aircraft is deactivated at the conclusion
of its mission, in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or
in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.
Dated: March 24, 2008.
Vicky D'Onofrio,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-6393 Filed 3-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
