Restrictions on Operators Employing Former Flight Standards Service Aviation Safety Inspectors, 60218-60227 [E9-27852]

Download as PDF 60218 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 223 / Friday, November 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules subsurface LFEC inspection for cracking of the forward edge frame of the number 5 main entry door cutouts, at station 2231, between stringers 23 and 31; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2450, Revision 5, dated January 29, 2009. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. Corrective Action (l) If any crack is found during any inspection required this AD, before further flight repair the crack per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (SACO), FAA; Per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings; or in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2450, Revision 5, dated January 29, 2009. For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, the approval letter must specifically reference this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, repair the crack using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. dcolon on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Post-Repair Inspections (m) Except as required by paragraph (n) of this AD, for airplanes on which the forward edge frame of the number 5 main entry door cutouts, at station 2231, between stringers 16 and 31, is repaired in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2450: Within 3,000 flight cycles after doing the repair or within 1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the detailed, LFEC, and HFEC inspections of the repaired area for cracks in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2450, Revision 5, dated January 29, 2009. If no cracking is found, repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles. If any crack is found, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. Doing the inspections specified in paragraph (m) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD for the repaired area. (n) For any frame that is repaired in accordance with a method other than the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747–53A2450, Revision 5, dated January 29, 2009, do the inspection in accordance with a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (o)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (SACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:11 Nov 19, 2009 Jkt 220001 Renton, Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425) 917–6437; fax (425) 917–6590; Or, e-mail information to 9-ANM-Seattle-ACOAMOC-Requests@faa.gov. (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD. (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD. (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2001–16–02, amendment 39–12370, are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (l) of this AD. Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 6, 2009. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E9–27963 Filed 11–19–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 91, 119, 125, 133, 137, 141, 142, 145 and 147 [Docket No. FAA–2008–1154; Notice No. 09– 13] RIN 2120–AJ36 Restrictions on Operators Employing Former Flight Standards Service Aviation Safety Inspectors AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: This proposed rule would prohibit any person holding a certificate to conduct certain operations from knowingly employing, or making a contractual arrangement with, certain individuals to act as an agent or a representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the FAA under certain conditions. These restrictions would apply if the individual, in the preceding 2-year period: Directly served as, or was directly responsible for the PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 oversight of, a Flight Standards Service Aviation Safety Inspector; and had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the operations of the certificate holder. This proposed rule would also apply to persons who own or manage fractional ownership program aircraft that are used to conduct operations under specific regulations described in this document. This proposed rule would establish these restrictions to prevent potential organizational conflicts of interests which could adversely affect aviation safety. DATES: Send your comments to reach us on or before February 18, 2010. ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA– 2008–1154 using any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590–0001. • Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12–140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202–493–2251. For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for 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 http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online instructions for accessing the docket, or, go to the Docket Operations in Room W12–140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 223 / Friday, November 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning this proposed rule, contact Nancy Lauck Claussen, Air Transportation Division, AFS–200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267–8166, e-mail Nancy.L.Claussen@faa.gov. For legal questions concerning this proposed rule, contact Paul G. Greer, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: 202–267–3073, e-mail: Paul.G.Greer@faa.gov. Later in this preamble under the Additional Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how you can get a copy of related rulemaking documents. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking The FAA’s authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator, to include the authority to issue, rescind, and revise regulations. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency’s authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Chapter 447, Safety Regulation. Under Section 44701(a) the FAA is charged with promoting the safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. dcolon on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS I. Background On March 5, 2008, the FAA proposed a $10.2 million civil penalty against a major airline for operating 46 airplanes without performing mandatory inspections for fuselage fatigue cracking. The FAA alleged that the airline operated 46 Boeing 737 airplanes on almost 60,000 flights from June 2006 to March 2007 while failing to comply with an existing FAA Airworthiness Directive (AD) that required repetitive inspections of certain fuselage areas to detect fatigue cracking. After investigating these events, the FAA took steps to improve its safety systems and strengthen regulations to VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:11 Nov 19, 2009 Jkt 220001 minimize the risk of reoccurrence of these or similar events. One such step was to toughen Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) post employment restrictions to prevent conflicts of interest. This proposed rulemaking would establish restrictions on persons employing former Flight Standards Service (AFS) ASIs and those responsible for their oversight. Review of FAA’s Safety Oversight of Airlines and Use of Regulatory Partnership Programs On June 30, 2008, the Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of Inspector General issued its review of the FAA’s oversight of airlines and use of regulatory partnership programs. The report concluded that the FAA Certificate Management Office overseeing the airline that failed to perform the required inspections had developed an overly collaborative relationship with the airline. That relationship allowed repeated selfdisclosures of AD violations without ensuring that the airline had developed a comprehensive solution for those reported safety problems. The report noted that the Regulatory Compliance Manager for the airline was a former FAA ASI who reported directly to the FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector assigned to the airline when the former ASI worked for the FAA. The former employee had become a manager at the airline two weeks after leaving the FAA. In his new position at the airline, the former ASI served as the liaison between the carrier and the FAA and managed both the airline’s AD Compliance Program and its Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program. The report also concluded that the overly collaborative relationship with the air carrier occurred because the FAA lacked effective management controls over its partnership program. The report stated that effective management controls would address: (1) Adequate segregation of duties; (2) the avoidance of potential conflicts of interests among its employees dealing with the carrier; and (3) verification of the propriety and integrity of corrective actions taken. The report recommended that the FAA should enhance management controls by implementing postemployment guidance that includes a ‘‘cooling-off’’ period to prohibit an air carrier from hiring an FAA ASI who previously inspected the air carrier from acting in any type of liaison capacity between that air carrier and the FAA. A full copy of the report is contained in the docket for this rulemaking. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 60219 Proposed Legislation On July 15, 2008, Congressman James L. Oberstar introduced the Aviation Safety Enhancement Act of 2008 (H.R. 6493). Section 4 of the proposed legislation included post employment restrictions for AFS ASIs. The proposed legislation would prohibit certificate holders from employing or contracting with a former AFS ASI or other person with certificate holder oversight responsibilities to represent that certificate holder in any matter before the FAA for a 2-year period after leaving the FAA. The proposed legislation was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives on July 22, 2008. However, it was not subsequently passed by the Senate prior to adjournment of the 110th Congress. On May 21, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 (H.R. 915). Section 333 of the proposed legislation contains language identical to that proposed earlier in section 4 of the Aviation Safety Enhancement Act of 2008. Similar provisions are also found in Section 513 of the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act which was introduced in the Senate on July 14, 2009 (S. 1451). Managing Risks in Civil Aviation: A Review of the FAA’s Approach to Safety On May 1, 2008, former Secretary of Transportation, Mary E. Peters, appointed an independent review team to examine the FAA’s safety culture and its implementation of safety management systems. She asked the team to prepare recommendations that would optimize the FAA’s regulatory effectiveness. On September 2, 2008, the independent review team issued its report titled, ‘‘Managing Risks in Civil Aviation: A Review of the FAA’s Approach to Safety.’’ A full copy of the report may be found in the docket for this rulemaking. The report stated that ‘‘[t]he FAA, like all other regulators, faces the danger of regulatory capture. Capture occurs when a regulatory agency draws so close to those with whom it deals on a daily basis (i.e. the regulated) that the agency ends up elevating their concerns at the expense of the agency’s core mission. One feature of the FAA’s current structure has the potential to increase this risk: the inspection teams are mostly organized around airlines, rather than cutting across multiple airlines and organizing around some other dimension, like geography, or type of plane. Most regulatory agencies organize by broad functional areas (like E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1 60220 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 223 / Friday, November 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules dcolon on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS enforcement, education, etc.) and also by geography; as a result, any one inspector normally deals with multiple corporations on a daily basis. By contrast, the majority of FAA airline inspectors are assigned to a specific Certificate Management Office, and deal with one airline, full time, and for many years at a stretch * * *’’ Further, the report stated that the panel does ‘‘understand the enhanced risk of regulatory capture that longstanding relationships between regulators and regulated entities might produce. We understand also the countervailing value in accumulating a detailed knowledge of a specific airline’s operations. We believe that any enhanced risk of capture can be properly mitigated * * *’’ This proposal would serve to mitigate the risks associated with regulatory capture by establishing a ‘‘cooling off’’ period for former AFS ASIs, while allowing AFS ASIs assigned to a specific operator to acquire the level of knowledge necessary to conduct effective oversight. longstanding FAA policy. It would, however, create a corresponding requirement applicable to operators who seek to employ certain former FAA ASIs and those responsible for their oversight. Current AFS policy was first set forth in a memorandum, dated May 10, 1990 from the Director, Flight Standards Service (AFS–1) to all AFS staff. It was reiterated in two subsequent AFS–1 memoranda dated July 18, 1996 and April 9, 2008. II. Discussion of the Proposal The FAA has considered the proposed legislation, the current ethics regulations, and the recommendations raised in the previously discussed reports. Although 18 U.S.C. 207 establishes some general restrictions for Federal employees after they leave government service, the FAA proposes additional safety-based restrictions on certificate holders conducting operations under parts 121, 125, 133, 135, 137, 141, 142, 145 or 147. (Parts 121, 125, 133, 135, 137, 141, 142, 145 and 147 apply to: Air carriers Current Post Employment Restrictions of conducting domestic, flag, or Former Employees supplemental operations; operators of Section 207(a)(1) of Title 18, United airplanes having a seating capacity of 20 States Code (18 U.S.C.) generally places or more passengers or a maximum a permanent restriction on former payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or executive branch employees (including more; rotorcraft external-load FAA employees) regarding their ability operations; commuter and on-demand operations; agricultural aircraft to represent any other person in operations; pilot schools; training connection with a particular matter in which the United States government has centers; repair stations; and aviation maintenance technician schools, a direct and substantial interest and in respectively). The proposed restrictions which that person participated would apply if the certificate holder personally and substantially. In addition, it also places a 2-year employs (or makes a contractual restriction on those same former arrangement with) a former AFS ASI or a person directly responsible for the employees concerning their ability to oversight of the ASI and either person represent any other person in had direct responsibility to inspect, or connection with a particular matter in oversee the inspection of, the certificate which the U.S. government has a direct holder. The proposed restrictions would and substantial interest and which that person knew, or reasonably should have also apply to persons who own or manage fractional ownership program known, was pending under his or her aircraft that are used to conduct official responsibility within 1 year of operations using fractional ownership their separation. Section 207(a)(2) program aircraft under subpart K of part basically restricts a person’s ability to 91. represent an entity before the FAA on The proposed rule would address a particular matters in which they were involved. It does not limit a former FAA significant concern highlighted in the report issued by the independent review employee’s ability to obtain team—the need to address ‘‘regulatory employment with any entity. capture’’ to mitigate risk. Although the Current FAA Flight Standards Service report did not specifically recommend a Policy ‘‘cooling off period’’ for former AFS ASIs after they leave the FAA, this In order to minimize the influence of proposed rule is consistent with the a particular carrier on the FAA, AFS FAA’s commitment to take steps to policy provides for a 2-year ‘‘cooling mitigate the risk that a current FAA off’’ period for newly employed ASIs, employee may engage inappropriately which prohibits them from having with a regulated party. This proposed certificate management responsibilities rule would establish restrictions on for their former aviation employer. The these operators that exceed current proposed rule would not change this VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:11 Nov 19, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 restrictions applicable to most businesses who hire former Federal employees. The proposed rule would specifically apply to AFS ASIs and those persons directly responsible for their oversight. The FAA considers an AFS ASI to be a properly credentialed individual who holds FAA Form 110A and is authorized under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40113 to perform inspections and investigations. This proposal would prohibit any person conducting operations under parts 121, 125, 133, 135, 137, 141, 142, 145, 147, or subpart K of part 91 from knowingly employing or contracting with a former AFS ASI (Avionics, Cabin Safety, Dispatch, Maintenance, or Operations), or other person with oversight responsibilities for that operator, to represent that operator in any matter before the FAA. These restrictions would apply if the person, in the preceding 2-year period has served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, an AFS ASI and had the direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the operator. Operators, however, would only be restricted from employing or making a contractual arrangement with former AFS ASIs who had inspection or oversight responsibilities for that particular operator. The proposed rule would not apply if an operator employs or contracts with an AFS ASI who had inspection or oversight responsibilities for another operator that has (or may have had) a marketing, code share, business partnership, or similar relationship with the operator. The FAA contends that these often temporary business arrangements between separate and distinct operators do not warrant the application of the restrictions set forth in this proposed rule. The FAA would consider the proposed restrictions to apply only to those operators employing persons who had an office location in a Flight Standards District Office or a Certificate Management Office with oversight responsibilities for the operator (e.g. Office Managers, Assistant Office Managers, Unit Supervisors, and Aviation Safety Inspectors). AFS ASIs directly engaged in certificate management typically develop extensive knowledge of an operator’s practices. They also develop close working relationships with other AFS ASIs with whom they share direct oversight responsibilities for that particular operator. The FAA believes that aviation safety could be compromised if a former AFS ASI, acting on behalf of the operator, is able to exert undue influence on current E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1 dcolon on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 223 / Friday, November 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules FAA employees with whom he or she had established close working relationships while working at a Flight Standards District Office or a Certificate Management Office. This proposed rule would address these concerns. The intent of the proposed rule is not to affect employment relationships entered into prior to the effective date of this rule. Therefore, the proposed rule would not affect any operator currently employing a former AFS ASI in any capacity. A former AFS ASI hired by an operator prior to the effective date of the rule may continue to act as a representative of that operator in any matter before the FAA. The proposal would only prohibit an operator from hiring or making a contractual arrangement with an individual to act as a representative of the operator in any matter before the FAA if the individual had direct certificate oversight responsibilities for that operator in the previous 2 years and that employment commenced on or after the effective date of the rule. The following examples further explain the provisions of this proposed rule: (1) A former AFS ASI who was assigned direct oversight responsibilities for air carrier X, who is currently working for air carrier X in any position which includes representing air carrier X to the FAA prior to the effective date of the rule, may continue in that position. (2) In order to be hired by training center A for a position which includes representing the training center in any matter before the FAA, on or after the effective date of the rule, the former AFS ASI must be able to look back over the 2 years preceding his or her being hired by training center A and determine that during that preceding 2 years the former ASI was not assigned oversight responsibilities for training center A. (3) A former AFS ASI who was assigned direct oversight responsibilities for repair station Q may immediately go to work for any repair station other than repair station Q in any position. (4) A former AFS ASI who was assigned direct oversight responsibilities for aviation maintenance technician school Q may immediately go to work for aviation maintenance technician school Q in any position that does not require representing aviation maintenance technician school Q to the FAA. The FAA has many employees other than AFS ASIs with direct oversight responsibilities for various regulated entities. However, after considering the VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:11 Nov 19, 2009 Jkt 220001 potential safety risks and in light of the findings of recent reports, the FAA proposes only to establish restrictions for operators who employ or make contractual arrangements with former AFS ASIs who previously had direct oversight responsibility for that operator. This action is necessary to address the development of overly collaborative relationships that may occur during routine AFS surveillance of certain operators. Such relationships occur when a regulatory agency draws so close to those with whom it deals on a daily basis (i.e. the regulated) that the agency ends up elevating their concerns at the expense of the agency’s core safety mission. The proposed rule would not prohibit an operator from employing a former AFS ASI to serve in any capacity if that former AFS ASI did not have direct oversight responsibilities for that operator within the previous 2 years. The FAA acknowledges that the skills and expertise former FAA employees bring to the aviation industry are valuable and enhance safety. The agency notes that there are many employment opportunities for former FAA employees that would not be restricted by the proposed rule. There are numerous positions that would typically not require representing an operator to the FAA, but would take advantage of the unique skill set that a former AFS ASI would possess. For example, under most circumstances, working in operations or maintenance as an aircraft dispatcher, flight attendant, maintenance technician, training instructor, or pilot would not be prohibited by the proposed rule. As long as the covered employee did not act as an agent or representative of the operator before the FAA, the employee would be able to provide highly beneficial expertise and enhance safety in areas such as safety management systems, continuous analysis programs, operational training programs, crewmember training programs, maintenance training programs, aircraft dispatcher training programs, ETOPs (Extended Range Operations), operational control systems, maintenance, accident investigation, and regulatory compliance. Based on recent events and reviews of the FAA’s safety oversight programs, the agency has determined that the proposed restrictions set forth in this notice must be placed on the employment of persons holding certain agency positions that could lead to organizational conflicts of interest. This proposed rule would enhance the FAA’s ability to properly perform its safety PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 60221 mission and ensure the integrity of the programs administered by the FAA. During the development of this proposal, the FAA considered a prohibition on operators employing a former AFS ASI to serve in any capacity if that former AFS ASI had direct oversight responsibilities for that operator within the previous 2 years. The FAA determined that as long as the former AFS ASI did not act as an agent or a representative of the operator in any matter before the FAA, serving in other positions with the operator (e.g. aircraft dispatcher, flight attendant, maintenance technician, pilot, or training instructor) would not be prohibited by the proposed rule. The FAA also consulted with representatives of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS) to determine their views on the scope of the restrictions; a record of that meeting is available in the docket. The FAA is seeking specific comments on whether the prohibition on operators should be more restrictive than as proposed. In addition, the agency is proposing the period of restriction as a sliding timeline, with the 2-year clock starting on the last day the AFS ASI or supervisor had direct responsibility for oversight of the operator. The FAA is also seeking specific comments on whether the prohibition should instead begin on the date the individual’s employment by the FAA is terminated. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there is no new information collection requirement associated with this proposed rule. International Compatibility In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations. III. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1 dcolon on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS 60222 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 223 / Friday, November 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96–39) 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 requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be 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 with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule. Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The reasoning for this determination follows: The proposed rule would prohibit any of the previously mentioned certificate holders from employing or making a contractual agreement with an individual who was responsible for the direct oversight of an operator as an FAA AFS ASI or who had responsibility to inspect or oversee the inspections of the operator during the preceding 2 years. This proposed rule would also apply to fractional owners or fractional ownership program managers who conduct operations under subpart K of part 91. These proposed restrictions would prevent potential organizational conflicts of interest that could adversely affect aviation safety or create a perception of such conflicts of interest. The proposed rule would have minimal economic impact. The affected former FAA employees would be allowed to work for other operators for which they did not have direct oversight responsibilities. In addition, they would be able to work for operators for which VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:11 Nov 19, 2009 Jkt 220001 they did have direct oversight responsibilities provided that they do not represent the operator in any matter before the FAA. Who Would Be Potentially Affected by This Proposed Rule This proposal would affect current and future AFS ASIs and persons responsible for their oversight who would perform work after the effective date of the rule for an operator for which they had direct oversight responsibilities when employed by the FAA. In addition, this proposal would affect operators that would have hired former FAA employees who had oversight responsibilities for those operators. Potential Benefits and Costs The benefits associated with this proposal would arise from preventing potential organizational conflicts of interest. There would also be benefits from reducing the potential public perception that: (1) A current AFS ASI who was offered post-FAA employment with an operator he or she regulates could compromise current aviation safety; and (2) future aviation safety could be compromised if a former FAA employee working for an operator would be able to exert undue influence on current FAA employees with whom he or she had established close working relationships. This prohibition would also apply to the more likely case of former AFS ASIs who would become consultants to the operator. By prohibiting such a close relationship between a former AFS ASI and the operator for which he or she had direct oversight responsibilities, the potential for an overly collaborative relationship leading to a possible lapse in safety standards would be avoided, increasing the public’s confidence in the safety and integrity of the FAA inspection system. Such benefits cannot be quantified. The proposed rule would also create some minor inefficiencies. In general, an operator can benefit from employing a former AFS ASI because that ASI knows more about FAA processes than someone who had not worked for the FAA. In addition, that ASI would know more about the operator than some other former AFS ASI. Further, a former AFS ASI from a specific Flight Standards District Office or Certificate Management Office will have greater knowledge about that office (as well as be better acquainted with the people in that office) than would a former AFS ASI from a different office. For example, some operators may believe that employing a former AFS ASI who recently had direct oversight PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 responsibilities for their operations would reduce the time to obtain FAA approval for manual revisions partially due to the personal relationships between the former ASI and current FAA employees. Due to the general similarities among the groups of operators, the potential inefficiencies from employing a former ASI who had not had direct oversight responsibilities for that operator would not be significant. Thus, from the societal point of view, the overall losses to some individual former FAA inspectors would be largely offset by gains to other former FAA inspectors or qualified personnel. Although the proposed rule would create income transfers among individuals, at this time, we cannot quantify this overall loss on an individual basis. From a societal basis, the safety differential paid for the incremental loss in knowledge will be very small. The number of former AFS ASIs who leave the FAA varies from year to year. We took the time period of October 1, 2007 to October 2, 2008 as a representative year-long period. As shown in Table 1, of the 208 AFS ASIs who left FAA employment, 138 voluntarily retired, 8 retired due to disability, 27 resigned, 10 were removed, 10 were terminated during their probation period, 4 had their appointments terminated, and 11 died. Of the voluntary retirements, 13 personnel were from FAA headquarters and were not specifically assigned to an operator. They would not be affected by the proposed rule. The maximum number of AFS ASIs who would have been affected had the proposed rule been in effect are the 160 nonheadquarters personnel who retired, resigned, or became disabled. (We assumed that ASIs terminated or removed from their FAA position would be unlikely to be hired by an operator to work with their former FAA office in the absence of this proposed rule, and therefore would not be part of the potential economically affected population.) TABLE 1—THE NUMBER OF AFS ASIS WHO LEFT FAA EMPLOYMENT BETWEEN 10/1/07 AND 10/2/08 Reason for separation Voluntary Retirement ................ Disability Retirement ................. Resignation ............................... Removal .................................... Termination During Probation Period .................................... Termination of Appointment ..... E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1 Number of inspectors 138 8 27 10 10 4 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 223 / Friday, November 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. The proposed rule would only prevent an AFS ASI and persons responsible for their oversight from Number of Reason for separation being employed by the operator for inspectors which he or she had direct oversight Death ........................................ 11 responsibilities. The cost to an operator of being unable to employ a specific Total ................................... 208 individual would be minimal because other individuals with similar Currently, the FAA does not officially professional qualifications as those track the status of former AFS ASIs. We possessed by the former AFS ASI would believe that few of these former AFS be available. ASIs would become involved in postTherefore the FAA certifies that this FAA employment that would be subject proposed rule would not have a to the restrictions of the proposed rule. significant economic impact on a Although the proposal may affect only substantial number of small entities. a small number of former AFS ASIs, The FAA requests comments on this inappropriate action by a single ASI certification. could potentially lead to significant International Trade Impact Analysis safety issues. We further believe that this overall economic impact would be The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the minimal, with the potential benefits Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. exceeding the costs. We request L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies comments on this analysis. The FAA has, therefore, determined from establishing any standards or that this proposed rule would impose engaging in related activities that create minimal cost, and under DOT 2100.5 we unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. did not prepare a full regulatory Pursuant to these Acts, the evaluation. establishment of standards is not Regulatory Flexibility Determination considered an unnecessary obstacle to The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 the foreign commerce of the United (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a States, so long as the standards have a principle of regulatory issuance that legitimate domestic objective, such as agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the protection of safety, and do not the objectives of the rule and of operate in a manner that excludes applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and imports that meet this objective. The informational requirements to the scale statute also requires consideration of of the businesses, organizations, and international standards and, where governmental jurisdictions subject to appropriate, that they be the basis for regulation. To achieve this principle, U.S. standards. The FAA notes the agencies are required to solicit and purpose is to ensure the safety of the consider flexible regulatory proposals American public, and has assessed the and to explain the rationale for their effects of this rule to ensure that it does actions to assure that such proposals are not exclude imports that meet this given serious consideration.’’ The RFA objective. As a result, this rule is not covers a wide range of small entities, considered as creating an unnecessary including small businesses, not-forobstacle to foreign commerce. profit organizations, and small Unfunded Mandates Assessment governmental jurisdictions. Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Agencies must perform a review to Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) determine whether a rule will have a requires each Federal agency to prepare significant economic impact on a a written statement assessing the effects substantial number of small entities. If of any Federal mandate in a proposed or the agency determines that it will, the final agency rule that may result in an agency must prepare a regulatory expenditure of $100 million or more (in flexibility analysis as described in the 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, RFA. However, if an agency determines that local, and tribal governments, in the a rule is not expected to have a aggregate, or by the private sector; such significant economic impact on a a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant substantial number of small entities, regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently section 605(b) of the RFA provides that uses an inflation-adjusted value of the head of the agency may so certify $136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. and a regulatory flexibility analysis is This proposed rule does not contain not required. The certification must such a mandate; therefore, the dcolon on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS TABLE 1—THE NUMBER OF AFS ASIS WHO LEFT FAA EMPLOYMENT BETWEEN 10/1/07 AND 10/2/08—Continued VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:11 Nov 19, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 60223 requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply. Executive Order 13132, Federalism The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on 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, would 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 proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). While this NPRM is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866, we have determined that it is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under the executive order because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Additional Information Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments only one time. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1 60224 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 223 / Friday, November 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive. dcolon on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS Proprietary or Confidential Business Information Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send the information on a disk or CD–ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD–ROM the specific information that is proprietary or confidential. Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. Availability of Rulemaking Documents You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the Internet by— 1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and Policies Web page at: http:// www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or 3. Accessing the Government Printing Office’s Web page at: http:// www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 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 docket or notice number of this rulemaking. You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in paragraph (1). VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:11 Nov 19, 2009 Jkt 220001 List of Subjects 14 CFR Part 91 Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety. 14 CFR Part 119 Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety. 14 CFR Part 125 Aircraft, Aviation safety. 14 CFR Part 133 Aircraft, Aviation safety. 14 CFR Part 137 Aircraft, Aviation safety. 14 CFR Part 141 Educational facilities, Schools. 14 CFR Part 142 Educational facilities, Schools. 14 CFR Part 145 Aircraft, Aviation safety. 14 CFR Part 147 Aircraft, Educational facilities, Schools. The Proposed Amendment In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES 1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506– 46507, 47122, 47508, 47528–47531, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180). 2. Add § 91.1050 to read as follows: § 91.1050 Employment of former FAA employees. (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager may knowingly employ or make a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 years— (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 operations of the fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager. (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any written or oral communication on behalf of the fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager to the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector. (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager from knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual was employed by the fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager before [effective date of the rule]. PART 119—CERTIFICATION: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS 3. The authority citation for part 119 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40102, 40103, 40113, 44105, 44106, 44111, 44701–44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 44906, 44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, 46103, 46105. 4. Add § 119.73 to read as follows: § 119.73 Employment of former FAA employees. (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 or 135 of this chapter may knowingly employ or make a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 years— (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the operations of the certificate holder. (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be considered to be E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 223 / Friday, November 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules acting as an agent or representative of a certificate holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector. (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a certificate holder from knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual was employed by the certificate holder before [effective date of the rule]. 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 5. 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. 6. Add § 125.26 to read as follows: dcolon on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS § 125.26 Employment of former FAA employees. (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no certificate holder may knowingly employ or make a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 years— (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the operations of the certificate holder. (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a certificate holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a particular matter, whether or not involving a specific VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:11 Nov 19, 2009 Jkt 220001 party and without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector. (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a certificate holder from knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual was employed by the certificate holder before [effective date of the rule]. PART 133—ROTORCRAFT EXTERNALLOAD OPERATIONS 7. The authority citation for part 133 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 44702. 8. Add § 133.22 to read as follows: § 133.22 Employment of former FAA employees. (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no certificate holder may knowingly employ or make a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 years— (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the operations of the certificate holder. (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a certificate holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector. (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a certificate holder from knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual was employed by the PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 60225 certificate holder before [effective date of the rule]. PART 137—AGRICULTURAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS 9. The authority citation for part 137 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 44701–44702. 10. Add § 137.40 to read as follows: § 137.40 Employment of former FAA employees. (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no certificate holder may knowingly employ or make a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 years— (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the operations of the certificate holder. (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a certificate holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector. (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a certificate holder from knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual was employed by the certificate holder before [effective date of the rule]. PART 141—PILOT SCHOOLS 11. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 44703, 44707, 44709, 44711, 45102–45103, 45301–45302. 12. Add § 141.34 to read as follows: § 141.34 Employment of former FAA employees. (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no holder of a pilot E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1 60226 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 223 / Friday, November 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules school certificate or a provisional pilot school certificate may knowingly employ or make a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 years— (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the operations of the certificate holder. (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a certificate holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector. (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a holder of a pilot school certificate or a provisional pilot school certificate from knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual was employed by the certificate holder before [effective date of the rule]. PART 142—TRAINING CENTERS 13. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701–44703, 44705, 44707, 44709– 44711, 45102–45103, 45301–45302. 14. Add § 142.14 to read as follows: dcolon on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS § 142.14 Employment of former FAA employees. (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no holder of a training center certificate may knowingly employ or make a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 years— (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:11 Nov 19, 2009 Jkt 220001 (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the operations of the certificate holder. (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a certificate holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector. (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a holder of a training center certificate from knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual was employed by the certificate holder before [effective date of the rule]. PART 145—REPAIR STATIONS 15. The authority citation for part 145 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 44702, 44707, 44709, 44717. 16. Add § 145.160 to read as follows: § 145.160 Employment of former FAA employees. (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no holder of a repair station certificate may knowingly employ or make a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 years— (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the operations of the certificate holder. (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a certificate holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector. (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a holder of a repair station certificate from knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual was employed by the certificate holder before [effective date of the rule]. PART 147—AVIATION MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN SCHOOLS 17. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 44702, 44707–44709. 18. Add § 147.8 to read as follows: § 147.8 Employment of former FAA employees. (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no holder of an aviation maintenance technician certificate may knowingly employ or make a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 years— (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the operations of the certificate holder. (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a certificate holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector. (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a holder of an aviation maintenance technician school certificate from knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual was employed by the E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 223 / Friday, November 20, 2009 / Proposed Rules certificate holder before [effective date of the rule]. Issued in Washington, DC, on November 9, 2009. John M. Allen, Director, Flight Standards Service. [FR Doc. E9–27852 Filed 11–19–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0771; FRL–8980–5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana dcolon on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a request submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management on September 25, 2009, to revise the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP). The submission revises the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) by amending and updating the definition of ‘‘References to Code of Federal Regulations,’’ to refer to the 2008 edition. DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 21, 2009. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– OAR–2009–0771 by one of the following methods: • http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. • Fax: (312) 692–2551. • Mail: John Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. • Hand Delivery: John Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:11 Nov 19, 2009 Jkt 220001 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031, hatten.charles@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State’s SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule, and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register. Dated: November 3, 2009. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E9–27816 Filed 11–19–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0674; FRL–8983–2] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Transportation Conformity Regulations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia for Transportation Conformity regulations. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State’s SIP submittal as a direct final PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 60227 rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. DATES: Comments must be received in writing by December 21, 2009. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA– R03–OAR–2009–0674 by one of the following methods: A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. E-mail: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0674, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2008– 0674. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI (or otherwise protected) through http:// www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an anonymous access system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http:// www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 223 (Friday, November 20, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60218-60227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27852]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 119, 125, 133, 137, 141, 142, 145 and 147

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1154; Notice No. 09-13]
RIN 2120-AJ36


Restrictions on Operators Employing Former Flight Standards 
Service Aviation Safety Inspectors

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would prohibit any person holding a 
certificate to conduct certain operations from knowingly employing, or 
making a contractual arrangement with, certain individuals to act as an 
agent or a representative of the certificate holder in any matter 
before the FAA under certain conditions. These restrictions would apply 
if the individual, in the preceding 2-year period: Directly served as, 
or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a Flight Standards 
Service Aviation Safety Inspector; and had direct responsibility to 
inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the operations of the 
certificate holder. This proposed rule would also apply to persons who 
own or manage fractional ownership program aircraft that are used to 
conduct operations under specific regulations described in this 
document. This proposed rule would establish these restrictions to 
prevent potential organizational conflicts of interests which could 
adversely affect aviation safety.

DATES: Send your comments to reach us on or before February 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2008-
1154 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-
140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket 
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you 
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can 
find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of 
our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment 
(or signing the comment for 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 http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to 
http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online 
instructions for accessing the docket, or, go to the Docket Operations 
in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue, SE., Washington,

[[Page 60219]]

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this proposed rule, contact Nancy Lauck Claussen, Air Transportation 
Division, AFS-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8166, e-mail 
Nancy.L.Claussen@faa.gov. For legal questions concerning this proposed 
rule, contact Paul G. Greer, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of 
the Chief Counsel, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
Telephone: 202-267-3073, e-mail: Paul.G.Greer@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional 
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal 
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is 
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of 
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how 
you can get a copy of related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes 
the authority of the FAA Administrator, to include the authority to 
issue, rescind, and revise regulations. Subtitle VII, Aviation 
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. 
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Chapter 447, Safety Regulation. Under Section 
44701(a) the FAA is charged with promoting the safe flight of civil 
aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations and minimum 
standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for 
safety in air commerce and national security.

I. Background

    On March 5, 2008, the FAA proposed a $10.2 million civil penalty 
against a major airline for operating 46 airplanes without performing 
mandatory inspections for fuselage fatigue cracking. The FAA alleged 
that the airline operated 46 Boeing 737 airplanes on almost 60,000 
flights from June 2006 to March 2007 while failing to comply with an 
existing FAA Airworthiness Directive (AD) that required repetitive 
inspections of certain fuselage areas to detect fatigue cracking.
    After investigating these events, the FAA took steps to improve its 
safety systems and strengthen regulations to minimize the risk of 
reoccurrence of these or similar events. One such step was to toughen 
Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI) post employment restrictions to prevent 
conflicts of interest. This proposed rulemaking would establish 
restrictions on persons employing former Flight Standards Service (AFS) 
ASIs and those responsible for their oversight.

Review of FAA's Safety Oversight of Airlines and Use of Regulatory 
Partnership Programs

    On June 30, 2008, the Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of 
Inspector General issued its review of the FAA's oversight of airlines 
and use of regulatory partnership programs. The report concluded that 
the FAA Certificate Management Office overseeing the airline that 
failed to perform the required inspections had developed an overly 
collaborative relationship with the airline. That relationship allowed 
repeated self-disclosures of AD violations without ensuring that the 
airline had developed a comprehensive solution for those reported 
safety problems.
    The report noted that the Regulatory Compliance Manager for the 
airline was a former FAA ASI who reported directly to the FAA Principal 
Maintenance Inspector assigned to the airline when the former ASI 
worked for the FAA. The former employee had become a manager at the 
airline two weeks after leaving the FAA. In his new position at the 
airline, the former ASI served as the liaison between the carrier and 
the FAA and managed both the airline's AD Compliance Program and its 
Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program.
    The report also concluded that the overly collaborative 
relationship with the air carrier occurred because the FAA lacked 
effective management controls over its partnership program. The report 
stated that effective management controls would address: (1) Adequate 
segregation of duties; (2) the avoidance of potential conflicts of 
interests among its employees dealing with the carrier; and (3) 
verification of the propriety and integrity of corrective actions 
taken.
    The report recommended that the FAA should enhance management 
controls by implementing post-employment guidance that includes a 
``cooling-off'' period to prohibit an air carrier from hiring an FAA 
ASI who previously inspected the air carrier from acting in any type of 
liaison capacity between that air carrier and the FAA. A full copy of 
the report is contained in the docket for this rulemaking.

Proposed Legislation

    On July 15, 2008, Congressman James L. Oberstar introduced the 
Aviation Safety Enhancement Act of 2008 (H.R. 6493). Section 4 of the 
proposed legislation included post employment restrictions for AFS 
ASIs. The proposed legislation would prohibit certificate holders from 
employing or contracting with a former AFS ASI or other person with 
certificate holder oversight responsibilities to represent that 
certificate holder in any matter before the FAA for a 2-year period 
after leaving the FAA. The proposed legislation was passed unanimously 
by the House of Representatives on July 22, 2008. However, it was not 
subsequently passed by the Senate prior to adjournment of the 110th 
Congress.
    On May 21, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the FAA 
Reauthorization Act of 2009 (H.R. 915). Section 333 of the proposed 
legislation contains language identical to that proposed earlier in 
section 4 of the Aviation Safety Enhancement Act of 2008. Similar 
provisions are also found in Section 513 of the FAA Air Transportation 
Modernization and Safety Improvement Act which was introduced in the 
Senate on July 14, 2009 (S. 1451).

Managing Risks in Civil Aviation: A Review of the FAA's Approach to 
Safety

    On May 1, 2008, former Secretary of Transportation, Mary E. Peters, 
appointed an independent review team to examine the FAA's safety 
culture and its implementation of safety management systems. She asked 
the team to prepare recommendations that would optimize the FAA's 
regulatory effectiveness. On September 2, 2008, the independent review 
team issued its report titled, ``Managing Risks in Civil Aviation: A 
Review of the FAA's Approach to Safety.'' A full copy of the report may 
be found in the docket for this rulemaking.
    The report stated that ``[t]he FAA, like all other regulators, 
faces the danger of regulatory capture. Capture occurs when a 
regulatory agency draws so close to those with whom it deals on a daily 
basis (i.e. the regulated) that the agency ends up elevating their 
concerns at the expense of the agency's core mission. One feature of 
the FAA's current structure has the potential to increase this risk: 
the inspection teams are mostly organized around airlines, rather than 
cutting across multiple airlines and organizing around some other 
dimension, like geography, or type of plane. Most regulatory agencies 
organize by broad functional areas (like

[[Page 60220]]

enforcement, education, etc.) and also by geography; as a result, any 
one inspector normally deals with multiple corporations on a daily 
basis. By contrast, the majority of FAA airline inspectors are assigned 
to a specific Certificate Management Office, and deal with one airline, 
full time, and for many years at a stretch * * *''
    Further, the report stated that the panel does ``understand the 
enhanced risk of regulatory capture that long-standing relationships 
between regulators and regulated entities might produce. We understand 
also the countervailing value in accumulating a detailed knowledge of a 
specific airline's operations. We believe that any enhanced risk of 
capture can be properly mitigated * * *'' This proposal would serve to 
mitigate the risks associated with regulatory capture by establishing a 
``cooling off'' period for former AFS ASIs, while allowing AFS ASIs 
assigned to a specific operator to acquire the level of knowledge 
necessary to conduct effective oversight.

Current Post Employment Restrictions of Former Employees

    Section 207(a)(1) of Title 18, United States Code (18 U.S.C.) 
generally places a permanent restriction on former executive branch 
employees (including FAA employees) regarding their ability to 
represent any other person in connection with a particular matter in 
which the United States government has a direct and substantial 
interest and in which that person participated personally and 
substantially.
    In addition, it also places a 2-year restriction on those same 
former employees concerning their ability to represent any other person 
in connection with a particular matter in which the U.S. government has 
a direct and substantial interest and which that person knew, or 
reasonably should have known, was pending under his or her official 
responsibility within 1 year of their separation. Section 207(a)(2) 
basically restricts a person's ability to represent an entity before 
the FAA on particular matters in which they were involved. It does not 
limit a former FAA employee's ability to obtain employment with any 
entity.

Current FAA Flight Standards Service Policy

    In order to minimize the influence of a particular carrier on the 
FAA, AFS policy provides for a 2-year ``cooling off'' period for newly 
employed ASIs, which prohibits them from having certificate management 
responsibilities for their former aviation employer. The proposed rule 
would not change this longstanding FAA policy. It would, however, 
create a corresponding requirement applicable to operators who seek to 
employ certain former FAA ASIs and those responsible for their 
oversight. Current AFS policy was first set forth in a memorandum, 
dated May 10, 1990 from the Director, Flight Standards Service (AFS-1) 
to all AFS staff. It was reiterated in two subsequent AFS-1 memoranda 
dated July 18, 1996 and April 9, 2008.

II. Discussion of the Proposal

    The FAA has considered the proposed legislation, the current ethics 
regulations, and the recommendations raised in the previously discussed 
reports. Although 18 U.S.C. 207 establishes some general restrictions 
for Federal employees after they leave government service, the FAA 
proposes additional safety-based restrictions on certificate holders 
conducting operations under parts 121, 125, 133, 135, 137, 141, 142, 
145 or 147. (Parts 121, 125, 133, 135, 137, 141, 142, 145 and 147 apply 
to: Air carriers conducting domestic, flag, or supplemental operations; 
operators of airplanes having a seating capacity of 20 or more 
passengers or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more; 
rotorcraft external-load operations; commuter and on-demand operations; 
agricultural aircraft operations; pilot schools; training centers; 
repair stations; and aviation maintenance technician schools, 
respectively). The proposed restrictions would apply if the certificate 
holder employs (or makes a contractual arrangement with) a former AFS 
ASI or a person directly responsible for the oversight of the ASI and 
either person had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the 
inspection of, the certificate holder. The proposed restrictions would 
also apply to persons who own or manage fractional ownership program 
aircraft that are used to conduct operations using fractional ownership 
program aircraft under subpart K of part 91.
    The proposed rule would address a significant concern highlighted 
in the report issued by the independent review team--the need to 
address ``regulatory capture'' to mitigate risk. Although the report 
did not specifically recommend a ``cooling off period'' for former AFS 
ASIs after they leave the FAA, this proposed rule is consistent with 
the FAA's commitment to take steps to mitigate the risk that a current 
FAA employee may engage inappropriately with a regulated party. This 
proposed rule would establish restrictions on these operators that 
exceed current restrictions applicable to most businesses who hire 
former Federal employees.
    The proposed rule would specifically apply to AFS ASIs and those 
persons directly responsible for their oversight. The FAA considers an 
AFS ASI to be a properly credentialed individual who holds FAA Form 
110A and is authorized under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 40113 to 
perform inspections and investigations.
    This proposal would prohibit any person conducting operations under 
parts 121, 125, 133, 135, 137, 141, 142, 145, 147, or subpart K of part 
91 from knowingly employing or contracting with a former AFS ASI 
(Avionics, Cabin Safety, Dispatch, Maintenance, or Operations), or 
other person with oversight responsibilities for that operator, to 
represent that operator in any matter before the FAA. These 
restrictions would apply if the person, in the preceding 2-year period 
has served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, an AFS 
ASI and had the direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the 
inspection of, the operator. Operators, however, would only be 
restricted from employing or making a contractual arrangement with 
former AFS ASIs who had inspection or oversight responsibilities for 
that particular operator. The proposed rule would not apply if an 
operator employs or contracts with an AFS ASI who had inspection or 
oversight responsibilities for another operator that has (or may have 
had) a marketing, code share, business partnership, or similar 
relationship with the operator. The FAA contends that these often 
temporary business arrangements between separate and distinct operators 
do not warrant the application of the restrictions set forth in this 
proposed rule.
    The FAA would consider the proposed restrictions to apply only to 
those operators employing persons who had an office location in a 
Flight Standards District Office or a Certificate Management Office 
with oversight responsibilities for the operator (e.g. Office Managers, 
Assistant Office Managers, Unit Supervisors, and Aviation Safety 
Inspectors). AFS ASIs directly engaged in certificate management 
typically develop extensive knowledge of an operator's practices. They 
also develop close working relationships with other AFS ASIs with whom 
they share direct oversight responsibilities for that particular 
operator. The FAA believes that aviation safety could be compromised if 
a former AFS ASI, acting on behalf of the operator, is able to exert 
undue influence on current

[[Page 60221]]

FAA employees with whom he or she had established close working 
relationships while working at a Flight Standards District Office or a 
Certificate Management Office. This proposed rule would address these 
concerns.
    The intent of the proposed rule is not to affect employment 
relationships entered into prior to the effective date of this rule. 
Therefore, the proposed rule would not affect any operator currently 
employing a former AFS ASI in any capacity. A former AFS ASI hired by 
an operator prior to the effective date of the rule may continue to act 
as a representative of that operator in any matter before the FAA. The 
proposal would only prohibit an operator from hiring or making a 
contractual arrangement with an individual to act as a representative 
of the operator in any matter before the FAA if the individual had 
direct certificate oversight responsibilities for that operator in the 
previous 2 years and that employment commenced on or after the 
effective date of the rule.
    The following examples further explain the provisions of this 
proposed rule:
    (1) A former AFS ASI who was assigned direct oversight 
responsibilities for air carrier X, who is currently working for air 
carrier X in any position which includes representing air carrier X to 
the FAA prior to the effective date of the rule, may continue in that 
position.
    (2) In order to be hired by training center A for a position which 
includes representing the training center in any matter before the FAA, 
on or after the effective date of the rule, the former AFS ASI must be 
able to look back over the 2 years preceding his or her being hired by 
training center A and determine that during that preceding 2 years the 
former ASI was not assigned oversight responsibilities for training 
center A.
    (3) A former AFS ASI who was assigned direct oversight 
responsibilities for repair station Q may immediately go to work for 
any repair station other than repair station Q in any position.
    (4) A former AFS ASI who was assigned direct oversight 
responsibilities for aviation maintenance technician school Q may 
immediately go to work for aviation maintenance technician school Q in 
any position that does not require representing aviation maintenance 
technician school Q to the FAA.
    The FAA has many employees other than AFS ASIs with direct 
oversight responsibilities for various regulated entities. However, 
after considering the potential safety risks and in light of the 
findings of recent reports, the FAA proposes only to establish 
restrictions for operators who employ or make contractual arrangements 
with former AFS ASIs who previously had direct oversight responsibility 
for that operator. This action is necessary to address the development 
of overly collaborative relationships that may occur during routine AFS 
surveillance of certain operators. Such relationships occur when a 
regulatory agency draws so close to those with whom it deals on a daily 
basis (i.e. the regulated) that the agency ends up elevating their 
concerns at the expense of the agency's core safety mission.
    The proposed rule would not prohibit an operator from employing a 
former AFS ASI to serve in any capacity if that former AFS ASI did not 
have direct oversight responsibilities for that operator within the 
previous 2 years. The FAA acknowledges that the skills and expertise 
former FAA employees bring to the aviation industry are valuable and 
enhance safety. The agency notes that there are many employment 
opportunities for former FAA employees that would not be restricted by 
the proposed rule. There are numerous positions that would typically 
not require representing an operator to the FAA, but would take 
advantage of the unique skill set that a former AFS ASI would possess. 
For example, under most circumstances, working in operations or 
maintenance as an aircraft dispatcher, flight attendant, maintenance 
technician, training instructor, or pilot would not be prohibited by 
the proposed rule. As long as the covered employee did not act as an 
agent or representative of the operator before the FAA, the employee 
would be able to provide highly beneficial expertise and enhance safety 
in areas such as safety management systems, continuous analysis 
programs, operational training programs, crewmember training programs, 
maintenance training programs, aircraft dispatcher training programs, 
ETOPs (Extended Range Operations), operational control systems, 
maintenance, accident investigation, and regulatory compliance.
    Based on recent events and reviews of the FAA's safety oversight 
programs, the agency has determined that the proposed restrictions set 
forth in this notice must be placed on the employment of persons 
holding certain agency positions that could lead to organizational 
conflicts of interest. This proposed rule would enhance the FAA's 
ability to properly perform its safety mission and ensure the integrity 
of the programs administered by the FAA.
    During the development of this proposal, the FAA considered a 
prohibition on operators employing a former AFS ASI to serve in any 
capacity if that former AFS ASI had direct oversight responsibilities 
for that operator within the previous 2 years. The FAA determined that 
as long as the former AFS ASI did not act as an agent or a 
representative of the operator in any matter before the FAA, serving in 
other positions with the operator (e.g. aircraft dispatcher, flight 
attendant, maintenance technician, pilot, or training instructor) would 
not be prohibited by the proposed rule. The FAA also consulted with 
representatives of the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS) 
to determine their views on the scope of the restrictions; a record of 
that meeting is available in the docket. The FAA is seeking specific 
comments on whether the prohibition on operators should be more 
restrictive than as proposed.
    In addition, the agency is proposing the period of restriction as a 
sliding timeline, with the 2-year clock starting on the last day the 
AFS ASI or supervisor had direct responsibility for oversight of the 
operator. The FAA is also seeking specific comments on whether the 
prohibition should instead begin on the date the individual's 
employment by the FAA is terminated.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there 
is no new information collection requirement associated with this 
proposed rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

III. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination, 
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or

[[Page 60222]]

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 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze 
the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the 
Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) 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 
requires agencies to consider international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be 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 with base year of 
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The 
reasoning for this determination follows:
    The proposed rule would prohibit any of the previously mentioned 
certificate holders from employing or making a contractual agreement 
with an individual who was responsible for the direct oversight of an 
operator as an FAA AFS ASI or who had responsibility to inspect or 
oversee the inspections of the operator during the preceding 2 years. 
This proposed rule would also apply to fractional owners or fractional 
ownership program managers who conduct operations under subpart K of 
part 91. These proposed restrictions would prevent potential 
organizational conflicts of interest that could adversely affect 
aviation safety or create a perception of such conflicts of interest. 
The proposed rule would have minimal economic impact. The affected 
former FAA employees would be allowed to work for other operators for 
which they did not have direct oversight responsibilities. In addition, 
they would be able to work for operators for which they did have direct 
oversight responsibilities provided that they do not represent the 
operator in any matter before the FAA.

Who Would Be Potentially Affected by This Proposed Rule

    This proposal would affect current and future AFS ASIs and persons 
responsible for their oversight who would perform work after the 
effective date of the rule for an operator for which they had direct 
oversight responsibilities when employed by the FAA. In addition, this 
proposal would affect operators that would have hired former FAA 
employees who had oversight responsibilities for those operators.

Potential Benefits and Costs

    The benefits associated with this proposal would arise from 
preventing potential organizational conflicts of interest. There would 
also be benefits from reducing the potential public perception that: 
(1) A current AFS ASI who was offered post-FAA employment with an 
operator he or she regulates could compromise current aviation safety; 
and (2) future aviation safety could be compromised if a former FAA 
employee working for an operator would be able to exert undue influence 
on current FAA employees with whom he or she had established close 
working relationships. This prohibition would also apply to the more 
likely case of former AFS ASIs who would become consultants to the 
operator. By prohibiting such a close relationship between a former AFS 
ASI and the operator for which he or she had direct oversight 
responsibilities, the potential for an overly collaborative 
relationship leading to a possible lapse in safety standards would be 
avoided, increasing the public's confidence in the safety and integrity 
of the FAA inspection system. Such benefits cannot be quantified.
    The proposed rule would also create some minor inefficiencies. In 
general, an operator can benefit from employing a former AFS ASI 
because that ASI knows more about FAA processes than someone who had 
not worked for the FAA. In addition, that ASI would know more about the 
operator than some other former AFS ASI. Further, a former AFS ASI from 
a specific Flight Standards District Office or Certificate Management 
Office will have greater knowledge about that office (as well as be 
better acquainted with the people in that office) than would a former 
AFS ASI from a different office.
    For example, some operators may believe that employing a former AFS 
ASI who recently had direct oversight responsibilities for their 
operations would reduce the time to obtain FAA approval for manual 
revisions partially due to the personal relationships between the 
former ASI and current FAA employees. Due to the general similarities 
among the groups of operators, the potential inefficiencies from 
employing a former ASI who had not had direct oversight 
responsibilities for that operator would not be significant. Thus, from 
the societal point of view, the overall losses to some individual 
former FAA inspectors would be largely offset by gains to other former 
FAA inspectors or qualified personnel. Although the proposed rule would 
create income transfers among individuals, at this time, we cannot 
quantify this overall loss on an individual basis. From a societal 
basis, the safety differential paid for the incremental loss in 
knowledge will be very small.
    The number of former AFS ASIs who leave the FAA varies from year to 
year. We took the time period of October 1, 2007 to October 2, 2008 as 
a representative year-long period. As shown in Table 1, of the 208 AFS 
ASIs who left FAA employment, 138 voluntarily retired, 8 retired due to 
disability, 27 resigned, 10 were removed, 10 were terminated during 
their probation period, 4 had their appointments terminated, and 11 
died. Of the voluntary retirements, 13 personnel were from FAA 
headquarters and were not specifically assigned to an operator. They 
would not be affected by the proposed rule. The maximum number of AFS 
ASIs who would have been affected had the proposed rule been in effect 
are the 160 non-headquarters personnel who retired, resigned, or became 
disabled. (We assumed that ASIs terminated or removed from their FAA 
position would be unlikely to be hired by an operator to work with 
their former FAA office in the absence of this proposed rule, and 
therefore would not be part of the potential economically affected 
population.)

 Table 1--The Number of AFS ASIs Who Left FAA Employment Between 10/1/07
                               and 10/2/08
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Number of
                   Reason for separation                      inspectors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voluntary Retirement.......................................          138
Disability Retirement......................................            8
Resignation................................................           27
Removal....................................................           10
Termination During Probation Period........................           10
Termination of Appointment.................................            4

[[Page 60223]]

 
Death......................................................           11
                                                            ------------
    Total..................................................          208
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the FAA does not officially track the status of former 
AFS ASIs. We believe that few of these former AFS ASIs would become 
involved in post-FAA employment that would be subject to the 
restrictions of the proposed rule. Although the proposal may affect 
only a small number of former AFS ASIs, inappropriate action by a 
single ASI could potentially lead to significant safety issues. We 
further believe that this overall economic impact would be minimal, 
with the potential benefits exceeding the costs. We request comments on 
this analysis.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule would 
impose minimal cost, and under DOT 2100.5 we did not prepare a full 
regulatory evaluation.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' 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 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 RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the 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.
    The proposed rule would only prevent an AFS ASI and persons 
responsible for their oversight from being employed by the operator for 
which he or she had direct oversight responsibilities. The cost to an 
operator of being unable to employ a specific individual would be 
minimal because other individuals with similar professional 
qualifications as those possessed by the former AFS ASI would be 
available.
    Therefore the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The FAA requests comments on this certification.

International Trade Impact Analysis

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related 
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of 
standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign 
commerce of the United States, so long as the standards have a 
legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and do 
not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. 
The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, 
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA 
notes the purpose is to ensure the safety of the American public, and 
has assessed the effects of this rule to ensure that it does not 
exclude imports that meet this objective. As a result, this rule is not 
considered as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) 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 
(in 1995 dollars) 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 $136.1 million in lieu of $100 
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, 
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this 
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on 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, would 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 proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the 
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no 
extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). While this NPRM is a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, we have determined 
that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive 
order because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on 
the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Additional Information

Comments Invited
    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also 
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or 
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in 
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion 
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain 
duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or 
if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments 
only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel

[[Page 60224]]

concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we 
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for 
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has 
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. 
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information
    Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be 
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this 
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the 
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send 
the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or 
CD-ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information 
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a 
separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a 
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to 
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request 
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a 
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    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 docket or notice number of this rulemaking.
    You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this 
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from 
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in 
paragraph (1).

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 91

    Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 119

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 125

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 133

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 137

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 141

    Educational facilities, Schools.

14 CFR Part 142

    Educational facilities, Schools.

14 CFR Part 145

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 147

    Aircraft, Educational facilities, Schools.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

    1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 
44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 
44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-
47531, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil 
Aviation (61 Stat. 1180).

    2. Add Sec.  91.1050 to read as follows:


Sec.  91.1050  Employment of former FAA employees.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no 
fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager may knowingly 
employ or make a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to 
act as an agent or representative of the fractional owner or fractional 
ownership program manager in any matter before the Federal Aviation 
Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 years--
    (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a 
Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and
    (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection 
of, the operations of the fractional owner or fractional ownership 
program manager.
    (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be 
considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a fractional 
owner or fractional ownership program manager in a matter before the 
agency if the individual makes any written or oral communication on 
behalf of the fractional owner or fractional ownership program manager 
to the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with 
a particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and 
without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had 
responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight 
Standards Service aviation safety inspector.
    (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a fractional 
owner or fractional ownership program manager from knowingly employing 
or making a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act 
as an agent or representative of the fractional owner or fractional 
ownership program manager in any matter before the Federal Aviation 
Administration if the individual was employed by the fractional owner 
or fractional ownership program manager before [effective date of the 
rule].

PART 119--CERTIFICATION: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS

    3. The authority citation for part 119 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40102, 40103, 40113, 
44105, 44106, 44111, 44701-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 44906, 
44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, 46103, 46105.

    4. Add Sec.  119.73 to read as follows:


Sec.  119.73  Employment of former FAA employees.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no 
certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 or 135 of this 
chapter may knowingly employ or make a contractual arrangement which 
permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the 
certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation 
Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 years--
    (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a 
Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and
    (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection 
of, the operations of the certificate holder.
    (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be 
considered to be

[[Page 60225]]

acting as an agent or representative of a certificate holder in a 
matter before the agency if the individual makes any written or oral 
communication on behalf of the certificate holder to the agency (or any 
of its officers or employees) in connection with a particular matter, 
whether or not involving a specific party and without regard to whether 
the individual has participated in, or had responsibility for, the 
particular matter while serving as a Flight Standards Service aviation 
safety inspector.
    (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a certificate 
holder from knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement 
which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the 
certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation 
Administration if the individual was employed by the certificate holder 
before [effective date of the rule].

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

    5. 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.

    6. Add Sec.  125.26 to read as follows:


Sec.  125.26  Employment of former FAA employees.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no 
certificate holder may knowingly employ or make a contractual 
arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or 
representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the 
Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 
years--
    (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a 
Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and
    (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection 
of, the operations of the certificate holder.
    (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be 
considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a certificate 
holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any 
written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to 
the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a 
particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and 
without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had 
responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight 
Standards Service aviation safety inspector.
    (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a certificate 
holder from knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement 
which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the 
certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation 
Administration if the individual was employed by the certificate holder 
before [effective date of the rule].

PART 133--ROTORCRAFT EXTERNAL-LOAD OPERATIONS

    7. The authority citation for part 133 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702.

    8. Add Sec.  133.22 to read as follows:


Sec.  133.22  Employment of former FAA employees.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no 
certificate holder may knowingly employ or make a contractual 
arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or 
representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the 
Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 
years--
    (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a 
Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and
    (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection 
of, the operations of the certificate holder.
    (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be 
considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a certificate 
holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any 
written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to 
the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a 
particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and 
without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had 
responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight 
Standards Service aviation safety inspector.
    (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a certificate 
holder from knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement 
which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the 
certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation 
Administration if the individual was employed by the certificate holder 
before [effective date of the rule].

PART 137--AGRICULTURAL AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS

    9. The authority citation for part 137 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 44701-44702.

    10. Add Sec.  137.40 to read as follows:


Sec.  137.40  Employment of former FAA employees.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no 
certificate holder may knowingly employ or make a contractual 
arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent or 
representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the 
Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 
years--
    (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a 
Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and
    (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection 
of, the operations of the certificate holder.
    (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be 
considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a certificate 
holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any 
written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to 
the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a 
particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and 
without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had 
responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight 
Standards Service aviation safety inspector.
    (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a certificate 
holder from knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement 
which permits an individual to act as an agent or representative of the 
certificate holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation 
Administration if the individual was employed by the certificate holder 
before [effective date of the rule].

PART 141--PILOT SCHOOLS

    11. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709, 
44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

    12. Add Sec.  141.34 to read as follows:


Sec.  141.34  Employment of former FAA employees.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no holder 
of a pilot

[[Page 60226]]

school certificate or a provisional pilot school certificate may 
knowingly employ or make a contractual arrangement which permits an 
individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate 
holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the 
individual, in the preceding 2 years--
    (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a 
Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and
    (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection 
of, the operations of the certificate holder.
    (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be 
considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a certificate 
holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any 
written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to 
the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a 
particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and 
without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had 
responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight 
Standards Service aviation safety inspector.
    (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a holder of a 
pilot school certificate or a provisional pilot school certificate from 
knowingly employing or making a contractual arrangement which permits 
an individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate 
holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the 
individual was employed by the certificate holder before [effective 
date of the rule].

PART 142--TRAINING CENTERS

    13. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44703, 
44705, 44707, 44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

    14. Add Sec.  142.14 to read as follows:


Sec.  142.14  Employment of former FAA employees.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no holder 
of a training center certificate may knowingly employ or make a 
contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent 
or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the 
Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 
years--
    (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a 
Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and
    (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection 
of, the operations of the certificate holder.
    (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be 
considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a certificate 
holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any 
written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to 
the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a 
particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and 
without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had 
responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight 
Standards Service aviation safety inspector.
    (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a holder of a 
training center certificate from knowingly employing or making a 
contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent 
or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the 
Federal Aviation Administration if the individual was employed by the 
certificate holder before [effective date of the rule].

PART 145--REPAIR STATIONS

    15. The authority citation for part 145 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44707, 44709, 
44717.

    16. Add Sec.  145.160 to read as follows:


Sec.  145.160  Employment of former FAA employees.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no holder 
of a repair station certificate may knowingly employ or make a 
contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent 
or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the 
Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the preceding 2 
years--
    (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a 
Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and
    (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection 
of, the operations of the certificate holder.
    (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be 
considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a certificate 
holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any 
written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to 
the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a 
particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and 
without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had 
responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight 
Standards Service aviation safety inspector.
    (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a holder of a 
repair station certificate from knowingly employing or making a 
contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as an agent 
or representative of the certificate holder in any matter before the 
Federal Aviation Administration if the individual was employed by the 
certificate holder before [effective date of the rule].

PART 147--AVIATION MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN SCHOOLS

    17. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44707-44709.

    18. Add Sec.  147.8 to read as follows:


Sec.  147.8  Employment of former FAA employees.

    (a) Except as specified in paragraph (c) of this section, no holder 
of an aviation maintenance technician certificate may knowingly employ 
or make a contractual arrangement which permits an individual to act as 
an agent or representative of the certificate holder in any matter 
before the Federal Aviation Administration if the individual, in the 
preceding 2 years--
    (1) Served as, or was directly responsible for the oversight of, a 
Flight Standards Service aviation safety inspector; and
    (2) Had direct responsibility to inspect, or oversee the inspection 
of, the operations of the certificate holder.
    (b) For the purpose of this section, an individual shall be 
considered to be acting as an agent or representative of a certificate 
holder in a matter before the agency if the individual makes any 
written or oral communication on behalf of the certificate holder to 
the agency (or any of its officers or employees) in connection with a 
particular matter, whether or not involving a specific party and 
without regard to whether the individual has participated in, or had 
responsibility for, the particular matter while serving as a Flight 
Standards Service aviation safety inspector.
    (c) The provisions of this section do not prohibit a holder of an 
aviation maintenance technician school certificate from knowingly 
employing or making a contractual arrangement which permits an 
individual to act as an agent or representative of the certificate 
holder in any matter before the Federal Aviation Administration if the 
individual was employed by the

[[Page 60227]]

certificate holder before [effective date of the rule].

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 9, 2009.
John M. Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. E9-27852 Filed 11-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P