Notification and Reporting of Aircraft Accidents or Incidents and Overdue Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft Wreckage, Mail, Cargo, and Records, 922-927 [E9-30398]
Download as PDF
922
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective,
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the rule
an explanation why the alternative was
not adopted. Before EPA establishes any
regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements. Today’s
action contains no Federal mandates
(under the regulatory provisions of Title
II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. It
imposes no new enforceable duty on
any State, local or tribal governments or
the private sector. Similarly, EPA has
also determined that this action
contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect
small government entities. Therefore,
today’s action is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 203 of
the UMRA.
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of
government, as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). This final rule authorizes preexisting State rules. Therefore,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this final rule.
6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR
22951, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Jan 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This final rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 because EPA
retains its authority over Indian
Country. Therefore, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this final rule.
7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required
under section 5–501 of the Executive
Order has the potential to influence the
regulation. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it
approves a state program.
8. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as defined under
Executive Order 12866.
9. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus bodies. The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards. This final
rulemaking does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA will not be
considering the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
10. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low
Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States. EPA
has determined that this final rule will
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income
populations. This final rule does not
affect the level of protection provided to
human health or the environment
because this rule authorizes pre-existing
State rules which are equivalent to, and
no less stringent than existing federal
requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indians—lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: This action is issued under the
authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and
7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Dated: December 23, 2009.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2010–13 Filed 1–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD
49 CFR Part 830
Notification and Reporting of Aircraft
Accidents or Incidents and Overdue
Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft
Wreckage, Mail, Cargo, and Records
AGENCY: National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The NTSB is amending its
regulations concerning notification and
reporting requirements regarding
aircraft accidents or incidents. In
particular, the NTSB is adding
regulations to require operators to report
certain incidents to the NTSB. The
NTSB is also amending existing
regulations to provide clarity and ensure
that the appropriate means for notifying
the NTSB of a reportable incident is
listed correctly in the regulation.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM
07JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
DATES: The revisions and additions
published in this final rule will become
effective March 8, 2010.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
published in the Federal Register (FR),
is available for inspection and copying
in the NTSB’s public reading room,
located at 490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW.,
Washington, DC 20594–2000.
Alternatively, a copy of the NPRM is
available on the government-wide Web
site on regulations at https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Deepak Joshi, Lead Aerospace Engineer
(Structures), Office of Aviation Safety,
(202) 314–6348.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
On October 7, 2008, the NTSB
published an NPRM titled ‘‘Notification
and Reporting of Aircraft Accidents or
Incidents and Overdue Aircraft, and
Preservation of Aircraft Wreckage, Mail,
Cargo, and Records’’ in 73 FR 58520.
This NPRM proposed and the final rule
herein codifies the addition of five
reportable incidents, the reporting of
which the NTSB believes will improve
aviation safety. In particular, the new
subsections within 49 CFR 830.5(a) will
require operators to report the
following: failure of any internal turbine
engine component that results in the
escape of debris other than out the
exhaust path; release of all or a portion
of a propeller blade from an aircraft,
excluding release caused solely by
ground contact; a complete loss of
information, excluding flickering, from
more than 50 percent of an aircraft’s
cockpit displays, known as Electronic
Flight Instrument System displays,
Engine Indication and Crew Alerting
System displays, Electronic Centralized
Aircraft Monitor displays, or other such
displays; Airborne Collision Avoidance
System (ACAS) resolution advisories
issued either (1) when an aircraft is
being operated on an instrument flight
rules (IFR) flight plan and compliance
with the advisory is necessary to avert
a substantial risk of collision between
two or more aircraft, or (2) to an aircraft
operating in class A airspace; damage to
helicopter tail or main rotor blades,
including ground damage, that requires
major repair or replacement of the
blade(s); and any event in which an
aircraft operated by an air carrier lands
or departs on a taxiway, incorrect
runway, or other area not designed as a
runway, or experiences a runway
incursion that requires the operator or
the crew of another aircraft or vehicle to
take immediate corrective action to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Jan 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
avoid a collision. The NPRM also
proposed certain wording changes to
other existing subsections within 49
CFR 830.5(a) for clarity and proposed a
change in the footnote that provides the
locations of NTSB regional offices.
The NTSB notes that it further
analyzed the potential application of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, as published
in Title 5 United States Code (U.S.C.),
sections 601–612, to this rule. Prior to
publishing the NPRM, the NTSB
considered whether this rule would
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
and certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that
this rule would not have such an
impact. The NTSB verifies this
assessment and notes that while this
rule will require some affected
individuals to complete NTSB Form
6120.1, ‘‘Pilot/Operator Accident/
Incident Report,’’ the cost to complete
this form is nominal. Therefore, the
NTSB verifies that its certification under
5 U.S.C. 605(b) was valid.
In response to the publication of this
NPRM, the NTSB received and carefully
considered six comments. The NTSB
did not receive any requests for a public
meeting; therefore, the NTSB did not
hold a public meeting on the NPRM.
Below is a summary of and response to
each concern that commenters raised,
arranged by issue.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
In the interest of ensuring that the
provisions of 49 CFR 830.5 are
complete, comprehensible, and
enforceable, the NTSB’s final rule
herein includes revisions to three new
subsections of 49 CFR 830.5 that the
NTSB proposed, including subsections
(a)(9), (a)(10), and (a)(12), which
proposed requiring reports of a
complete loss of information from
certain electronic displays, certain types
of resolution advisories, and certain
runway incursions, respectively. These
changes are described in the sections
below.
Proposed Revision to Section 830.5(a)(3)
The NPRM proposed to amend 49
CFR 830.5(a)(3) to require notification of
incidents in which ‘‘[f]ailure of any
internal turbine engine component that
results in the escape of debris other than
out the exhaust path’’ occurs. The NTSB
received two comments on this
proposed addition.
One commenter, an aviation industry
manufacturing association, objected to
the requirement that the NTSB be
notified immediately for the following
proposed events: Failure of any internal
turbine engine component that results
in the escape of the debris other than
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
923
out the exhaust path and release of all
or a portion of a propeller blade from an
aircraft, excluding release caused solely
by ground contact. The commenter
stated that, in accordance with 14 CFR
21.3(c), operators are already required to
report such failures to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA). The
commenter further stated that the
requirement to report these events to the
NTSB would put an additional burden
on the operator by requiring duplicate
reporting of events. The commenter
suggested the development of a joint
FAA/NTSB reporting system that would
alert both agencies concurrently when
one of the reportable events occurs.
The NTSB disagrees with these
comments. The NTSB is aware that 14
CFR 21.3 requires holders of type
certificates, supplemental type
certificates, and parts manufacturing
approval to notify the FAA within 24
hours, or the next business day on
weekends or holidays, of an engine or
component failure. But the NTSB also
notes that 14 CFR 21.3(d)(1)(iii) states
that a report to the FAA is not required
if the event has been reported to the
NTSB. The NTSB needs immediate
notification of a reportable event to
determine the appropriate level of
response, which might include
immediately dispatching an investigator
to the scene. The NTSB continues to
believe that utilizing the 14 CFR 21.3
notification system alone that initially
reports failures to the FAA presents an
unacceptable delay in the notification to
the NTSB and the initiation of a
response. The NTSB reiterates that it
has investigated catastrophic engine
failures after being belatedly notified,
and critical evidence was lost as a result
of the delay in notification, thus
hampering the investigation. The NTSB
also notes that 49 CFR 830.10 requires
the operator of an aircraft involved in a
reportable event to preserve the
wreckage and all pertinent records until
the NTSB takes custody or until the
wreckage and records have been
released pursuant to 49 CFR 831.12. The
NTSB believes that relying on 14 CFR
21.3 reports that would initially be sent
to the FAA would delay not only the
NTSB’s response to the event but also
the return of custody of the airplane
and/or engine to the operator, thus
delaying their repair and return to
service. The NTSB is aware that 14 CFR
121.703 and 135.415 require those
respective Part 121 or 135 certificate
holders to notify their FAA certificateholding district offices of an engine
failure within 24 hours, or the next
business day on weekends or holidays.
While engine or component failures are
E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM
07JAR1
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
924
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
relatively rare, the NTSB is not
concerned with every engine or
component failure that occurs;
therefore, this rule will not materially
affect operators. However, the NTSB is
very concerned about engine failures
that result in debris coming out of the
engine through a path other than the
exhaust, also referred to as uncontained
engine failures. These failures can and
have liberated debris, resulting in
damage to the airplane or its systems
and/or injured passengers. Fortunately,
these types of reportable events are very
rare. Thus, the NTSB does not expect
that it will be unduly burdensome for
Part 121 and 135 operators who
experience engine failures resulting in
debris exiting the engine through a path
other than the exhaust or one of the
other previously reportable events to
make the dual notification to their FAA
certificate-holding district offices as
well as the NTSB.
The commenter also suggested that a
system be developed so that the FAArequired 14 CFR 21.3 data would be
shared concurrently with the NTSB.
While the NTSB appreciates the
commenter’s suggestion, the NTSB
believes that situations could occur in
which the notification that the NTSB
receives would be delayed, such as
occurrences under 14 CFR 21.3 in
which notification occurs within 24
hours, or the next business day if the
event occurred on the weekend or a
holiday.
One commenter, a professional pilots’
union, fully concurred with the
proposed rule requiring the NTSB to be
notified immediately of an event where
debris exited an engine through some
other path besides the engine’s exhaust.
The NTSB appreciates the commenter’s
support on this proposed immediate
notification requirement.
In summary, the NTSB understands
that this new rule will require Part 121
and 135 operators who, in accordance
with 14 CFR 121.703 and 135.415,
respectively, must report any engine or
component malfunctions or failures to
both their FAA certificate-holding
district offices and the NTSB. The NTSB
continues to believe, however, that the
language of the reporting requirement
will result in timely notification of
incidents in which a failure of an
internal engine component resulted in
the escape of debris from an exit other
than out the exhaust path. Therefore,
the NTSB has not amended this
addition.
Proposed Addition of Section
830.5(a)(8)
The NPRM proposed to add section
830.5(a)(8) to 49 CFR Part 830 to require
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Jan 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
the reporting of any ‘‘release of all or a
portion of a propeller blade from an
aircraft, excluding release caused solely
by ground contact.’’ One commenter, a
professional pilots’ union, dissented
with the NTSB regarding the exclusion
of a structural failure of a propeller or
portion of a propeller caused solely by
ground contact. The NTSB disagrees
with the commenter’s position that the
NTSB should broaden the section to
include all incidents in which propeller
blades or blade sections have separated
from an aircraft. The commenter stated
that liberated propeller blades or blade
segments pose a significant hazard to
the crew, passengers, and bystanders.
The NTSB agrees with the commenter
regarding the hazards that liberated
propeller blades or segments of
propeller blades pose to crews,
passengers, and bystanders. However,
the NTSB notes that propeller blades are
designed and certified to operate within
the atmosphere and, as such, the
expectation is that they remain intact
and in place during normal operation.
Propeller blades are not designed or
expected to continue to remain intact
and in place following contact with the
ground. The NTSB continues to believe
that the language of the reporting
requirement will achieve the NTSB’s
objective of receiving notification of any
release of all or a portion of a propeller
blade from an aircraft, inconsistent with
its design parameters and certification,
thus excluding releases caused solely by
ground contact. Therefore, the NTSB
has not amended this addition.
Proposed Addition of Section
830.5(a)(9)
The NPRM proposed to add section
830.5(a)(9) to 49 CFR Part 830 to require
the reporting of ‘‘[a] complete loss of
information, excluding flickering, from
more than 50 percent of an aircraft’s
certified electronic primary displays.’’
The NTSB has carefully reviewed the
comments received concerning this
section and has concluded that the
language should be amended to require
notification of ‘‘[a] complete loss of
information, excluding flickering, from
more than 50 percent of an aircraft’s
cockpit displays known as: (A)
Electronic Flight Instrument System
(EFIS) displays; (B) Engine Indication
and Crew Alerting System (EICAS)
displays; (C) Electronic Centralized
Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) displays; or
(D) Other displays of this type, which
generally include a primary flight
display (PFD), primary navigation
display (PND), and other integrated
displays.’’
The NTSB now recognizes the need to
revise the proposed language to avoid
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
capturing an excessive number of
failures. For example, under the
proposed language, a failed electronic
exhaust gas temperature (EGT) gauge
that is the only means of monitoring
EGT would have been reportable.
However, the NTSB would not likely be
concerned with collecting data
concerning or investigating such events;
therefore, the NTSB has narrowed the
language of this section. The NTSB
maintains that this change in the
proposed regulatory language is a
logical outgrowth of the proposed rule
and therefore does not violate the
rulemaking requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The NTSB received three comments
that addressed this notification
requirement. Two commenters stated
that they had difficulty determining
exactly what types of failures for which
notification was required. One
commenter provided an example of an
electronic display on a general aviation
aircraft where a mechanical indication
was also included. This commenter was
concerned that when the electronic
display failed, this event would have to
be reported even though a mechanical
display of the information was still
available. The other commenter stated
that the criteria for reporting should be
based on the aircraft’s certification
requirements.
Based on these comments and the
NTSB’s careful review of the proposed
language of the notification
requirement, the NTSB decided that
some adjustment of the language of this
section was required to ensure that the
relevant failures will be reported, as
described above. The NTSB’s principal
goal in promulgating this requirement is
to capture ‘‘display blanking’’ events in
which many of the newer ‘‘glass
cockpit’’ type displays have gone blank.
The proposed language of this
requirement was intended to capture
this type of failure, but the NTSB
recognizes that a revision specifically
mentioning the various types of displays
would be advantageous. Therefore, the
NTSB has changed the language of this
subsection to require the reporting of
any ‘‘complete loss of information,
excluding flickering, from more than 50
percent of an aircraft’s cockpit displays
known as: (A) Electronic Flight
Instrument System (EFIS) displays; (B)
Engine Indication and Crew Alerting
System (EICAS) displays; (C) Electronic
Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM)
displays; or (D) Other displays of this
type, which generally include a primary
flight display (PFD), primary navigation
display (PND), and other integrated
displays.’’
E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM
07JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Furthermore, another commenter
disagreed with the exclusion of
‘‘flickering’’ of instrument displays when
considering the reporting requirements
in this section. The commenter felt that
the ‘‘flickering’’ of displays could be an
indication of underlying hardware or
software problems. The NTSB
considered this potential meaning of
‘‘flickering’’ when it originally defined
the language of this section. After
reviewing this concept, the NTSB has
decided against revising the language of
this section. While the NTSB agrees that
‘‘flickering’’ can be a symptom of
underlying problems, the NTSB feels
that the operator’s maintenance
organization is best equipped to deal
with this type of symptom. If the
‘‘flickering’’ becomes so severe that the
display is unusable, then it should be
reported under this section (providing
that over 50 percent of the displays were
similarly unusable).
One commenter stated that the
requirement to report these types of
failures to the NTSB constituted a
duplicative reporting requirement, as
failures are already required to be
reported to the FAA. The NTSB feels
that the requirement to report these
types of failures directly to the NTSB is
essential to aviation safety because it
ensures that these events will be
investigated by NTSB personnel as
quickly as possible. In addition,
duplicative notifications are not
required because the regulations state
that any incident reported to the NTSB
does not have to be reported separately
to the FAA.
As described above, the NTSB
continues to believe that it is in the best
interest of aviation safety to receive
reports of a complete loss of information
from certain types of electronic
displays. After carefully considering all
comments that addressed this section,
the NTSB has determined that it must
receive notification of complete losses
of information, as described above.
Consistent with the above discussion,
the NTSB has amended this addition.
Proposed Addition of Section
830.5(a)(10)
The NPRM proposed to add section
830.5(a)(10) to 49 CFR Part 830 to
require the reporting of the following:
Airborne Collision and Avoidance
System (ACAS) resolution advisories
issued either: When an aircraft is being
operated on an instrument flight rules
flight plan and corrective or evasive
action is required to maintain a safe
distance from other aircraft; or to an
aircraft operating in class A airspace.
The intent of this requirement is for
the NTSB to be notified of incidents
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Jan 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
where ACAS-equipped aircraft must
actively maneuver to avert a substantial
risk of collision with another aircraft
and to be notified of incidents where the
stringent separation requirements
inherent in operations within class A
airspace may have been compromised.
The NTSB has carefully reviewed the
comments received concerning this
requirement and amends the language of
this requirement to require reports of
ACAS resolution advisories issued
either (A) when an aircraft is being
operated on an IFR flight plan and
compliance with the advisory is
necessary to avert a substantial risk of
collision between two or more aircraft;
or (B) to an aircraft operating in class A
airspace.
Five commenters were concerned that
the original proposed requirement
would result in an unmanageable
number of reports. In general, regarding
the proposed rule’s effect outside class
A airspace, commenters placed most of
their emphasis on the ‘‘corrective or
evasive action’’ language, despite the
language that a report would be
necessary only when such maneuvers
are ‘‘* * * required to maintain a safe
distance from other aircraft.’’ The NTSB
fully recognizes that when a resolution
advisory occurs, it does not necessarily
follow that an unsafe encounter is about
to occur. The NTSB intends to require
reports only when failure to comply
with a resolution advisory would lead to
an unsafe encounter with another
aircraft, that is, an encounter presenting
a substantial risk of collision. The
NTSB’s expectation is that there are not
an unmanageable number of such
encounters occurring in the air traffic
control (ATC) system. However, if
reports show that a large number of
these incidents are occurring, the
circumstances leading up to the
incidents would certainly be a safety
issue of major interest to the NTSB.
Concern about dealing with the
associated reports is not a persuasive
rationale for not requiring them,
especially if the number of serious
incidents is unexpectedly high. The
NTSB believes that by further clarifying
the definition of incidents to be
reported, the burden on both aircraft
operators and the NTSB will be limited
to addressing high-risk events that
warrant further examination and
potentially full investigation.
The NTSB recognizes that ‘‘substantial
risk of collision’’ is somewhat
subjective, but the infinite variety of
encounter geometries does not lend
itself to specific guidance that would
apply to every possible scenario. The
FAA’s definition of a near midair
collision is ‘‘an incident associated with
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
925
the operation of an aircraft in which a
possibility of collision occurs as a result
of proximity of less than 500 feet to
another aircraft, or a report is received
from a pilot or a flight crew member
stating that a collision hazard existed
between two or more aircraft.’’ This
definition is not incorporated to limit or
precisely define the reports desired, but
it may be useful in illustrating the
nature of the types of incidents for
which the NTSB will require
notification. Resolution advisories that
command maximum vertical speed,
‘‘reversal’’ advisories that require a
change in vertical direction after the
initial advisory is issued, or encounters
that result in zero vertical separation
between the aircraft involved are all
examples of the types of advisories that
the NTSB believes may be indicative of
substantial collision risk. Conversely,
resolution advisories issued to aircraft
operating on closely spaced parallel
approaches or in other circumstances
where there is no substantial risk of
collision need not be reported under
this rule.
Four commenters stated that this
requirement would effectively mandate
the reporting of all resolution
advisories. As stated above, the NTSB
does not intend for all resolution
advisories to be reported. The NTSB
expects that the revised language fully
addresses this concern and explicitly
limits the need for reporting to
situations where compliance with a
resolution advisory is necessary to avert
a significant risk of collision.
Two commenters expressed concern
about the potential need to download
flight recorder data or remove recorders
from aircraft, thereby incurring expense
and potential schedule disruption to the
aircraft operator. As the NTSB has
previously noted, requiring an operator
to provide flight recorder data can be
disruptive and burdensome. The NTSB
carefully considers the need for such
information in determining how to
investigate serious incidents properly
and limits requests to situations where
the data is clearly required to
understand the sequence of events
because other available information,
such as recorded radar data, is
inadequate. Unless a large number of
unreported serious incidents occur, the
NTSB does not expect to substantially
increase the number of recorder requests
made to support this reporting
requirement.
Two commenters stated that the
NTSB should rely on the FAA for
reports of traffic alert and collision
avoidance system (TCAS) events. The
NTSB does not believe that the FAA’s
processes for assessing and reporting
E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM
07JAR1
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
926
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
incidents, particularly those involving
losses of separation, are sufficiently
reliable. Recent Department of
Transportation Inspector General
investigations have documented
repeated failures to report incidents,
misclassification of incidents, and other
circumstances which lead the NTSB, as
an independent agency, to seek
additional means of monitoring the
performance of the ATC system. The
NTSB expects that information provided
by aircraft operators under this
reporting requirement will help validate
the effectiveness of the FAA’s reporting
process, especially relating to more
serious incidents occurring in the
system. One of the commenters noted
that the NTSB should, in lieu of the
proposed reporting requirement, correct
the FAA’s procedures. The NTSB does
occasionally interact with the FAA
regarding the efficacy of its internal
processes. However, the NTSB has no
authority to direct changes to FAA
procedures. The NTSB believes that for
the significant types of incidents the
NTSB expects to investigate under this
requirement, occasional duplicative
reports are worthwhile to ensure that a
complete examination of the
circumstances takes place.
Five commenters stated that the
proposed reporting requirement should
be dropped in favor of existing
voluntary confidential data collection
systems such as the Aviation Safety
Action Program (ASAP), Flight
Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA)
programs, and the MITRE-operated
Aviation Safety Information Analysis
and Sharing program. While the NTSB
does support such programs in
principle, the de-identified and
otherwise filtered information available
through them is not useful for
investigative purposes. The NTSB’s
duty is to define the types of events that
may warrant a safety investigation,
evaluate those events as they occur, and
investigate as necessary. Existing NTSB
reporting requirements predated and, to
a large extent, overlap with the types of
incidents and accidents for which
reports are made to these programs.
Nonetheless, the NTSB continues to
define reporting requirements and
investigate safety incidents as necessary
to protect the public interest. The NTSB
cannot delegate such responsibilities to
external organizations, become wholly
dependent on information such
organizations may or may not see fit to
share, or limit the investigative use of
that information to comply with
accompanying restrictions. Therefore,
the NTSB does not view the data
collection programs suggested by the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Jan 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
commenters as an adequate substitute
for the proposed reporting requirement.
One commenter noted that pilots may
not report incidents without the
protection of an ASAP or FOQA
program and further inquired about the
possible consequences of failing to
report such incidents. While a pilot’s
decision to disregard a reporting
requirement is an unfortunate
possibility, it is beyond the control of
the NTSB. The NTSB presumes good
faith on the part of professional aviators
with regard to reporting, and the NTSB
does not intend to use this requirement
to prompt enforcement actions.
The NTSB emphasizes that the intent
of this reporting requirement is to
identify, evaluate, and investigate (when
appropriate) serious incidents where
aircraft maneuvers were required to
avert substantial risk of collision
between TCAS-equipped aircraft and
other aircraft in the system and to
evaluate situations where resolution
advisories occur between aircraft under
positive control in class A airspace. The
NTSB’s intent is not to require the
reporting of all resolution advisories or,
outside of class A airspace, to require
the reporting of any resolution advisory
resulting from an encounter between
aircraft where no substantial risk of
collision exists.
In summary, the NTSB continues to
believe that this reporting requirement
will achieve the NTSB’s objective of
receiving notification of aircraft
encounters that present a significant risk
of collision. The NTSB, however, has
determined that amending the language
will provide further clarity and assist
operators, crews, and other individuals
and entities affected by this rule in
recognizing that the NTSB seeks
notification of the category of
occurrences in which hazardous
encounters involving ACAS-equipped
aircraft occur. As such, the NTSB will
require notification of the following:
Airborne Collision and Avoidance
System (ACAS) resolution advisories
issued either: when an aircraft is being
operated on an instrument flight rules
flight plan and compliance with the
advisory is necessary to avert a
substantial risk of collision between two
or more aircraft; or to an aircraft
operating in class A airspace.
Proposed Addition of Section
830.5(a)(11)
The NPRM proposed to add section
830.5(a)(11) to 49 CFR Part 830 to
require that the public report ‘‘[d]amage
to helicopter tail or main rotor blades,
including ground damage, that requires
major repair or replacement of the
blade(s).’’ The NTSB did not receive any
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
comments concerning this proposed
requirement. Moreover, the NTSB
continues to believe that the proposed
reporting requirement will achieve the
NTSB’s objective of receiving
notification of all rotor blade strikes that
result in damage, regardless of what the
blades strike. Therefore, the NTSB has
not amended this addition and will
require notification of any damage to
helicopter tail or main rotor blades that
requires major repair or replacement of
the blade(s).
Proposed Addition of Section
830.5(a)(12)
The NPRM proposed to add section
830.5(a)(12) to 49 CFR Part 830 to
require that the public report the
following: Any runway incursion event
in which an operator, when operating
an aircraft as an air carrier: lands or
departs on a taxiway, incorrect runway,
or other area not designed as a runway;
or experiences a reduction in separation
that requires the operator or another
aircraft or vehicle to take immediate
corrective action to avoid a collision.
The NTSB received one comment on
this section, which partially concurred
with the proposal and provided
suggestions. The commenter stated that
the phrase ‘‘runway incursion’’ in the
qualifying statement should be deleted
because landing and taking off on a
taxiway is not a runway incursion.
Additionally, the commenter stated that
the reporting requirements should
include nonrevenue operations (such as
ferry flights, maintenance flights/taxi,
and reposition flights/taxi). Finally, the
commenter believed that events
resulting in a go-around should be
excluded because that would require a
report each time a go-around was
conducted if an aircraft or vehicle was
on the runway. Although the
commenter believed that the events as
stated should be reportable, the
commenter felt that the language should
be clarified.
The NTSB agrees that the term
‘‘runway incursion’’ should be deleted
from the beginning of the statement for
the reasons provided by the commenter.
However, to clarify that the NTSB is
requesting reports of separation issues
on the runway, the NTSB hereby
amends subsection (B) to restrict reports
to runway operations. The NTSB also
agrees with the commenter’s suggestion
to include nonrevenue flights because
the same pilots fly both revenue and
nonrevenue flights.
Finally, the commenter opined that
all go-around maneuvers conducted
because the runway was not clear would
need to be reported. The NTSB
disagrees with this assessment. For
E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM
07JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
example, if a controller instructs the
pilot to go around because an aircraft or
vehicle is on the runway, that is a
controlled situation. The tower
controller was aware of the situation
and directed a go around. However, if
the pilot had to execute a go-around on
his own and the tower controller was
not aware of the situation, the NTSB
would want to know about that event
because it may go unreported. Similarly,
a tower controller could clear an aircraft
to land and inadvertently clear another
aircraft onto the runway; if the arriving
pilot has to conduct a go-around
because of the airplane on the runway,
the NTSB should receive a report of the
incident.
Based on the NTSB’s careful review of
the above commentary, the NTSB will
now require the reporting of ‘‘[a]ny
event in which an aircraft operated by
an air carrier: (A) [l]ands or departs on
a taxiway, incorrect runway, or other
area not designed as a runway; or (B)
[e]xperiences a runway incursion that
requires the operator or the crew of
another aircraft or vehicle to take
immediate corrective action to avoid a
collision.’’
The NTSB has concluded that this
clarification in the regulatory language
is a logical outgrowth of the proposed
language and is therefore consistent
with the rulemaking requirements of the
APA.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 830
Aircraft accidents, Aircraft incidents,
Aviation safety, Overdue aircraft
notification and reporting, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
In conclusion, for the reasons
discussed in the preamble, the NTSB
amends 49 CFR Part 830 as follows:
PART 830—NOTIFICATION AND
REPORTING OF AIRCRAFT
ACCIDENTS OR INCIDENTS AND
OVERDUE AIRCRAFT, AND
PRESERVATION OF AIRCRAFT
WRECKAGE, MAIL, CARGO, AND
RECORDS
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR
Part 830 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Independent Safety Board Act
of 1974, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1101–1155);
Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Public Law 85–
726, 72 Stat. 731 (codified as amended at 49
U.S.C. 40101).
2. Section 830.5 is amended as
follows:
A. The section introductory text,
paragraph (a) introductory text,
paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5), and
footnote 1 are revised.
B. Paragraphs (a)(8) through (a)(12)
are added.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:23 Jan 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
§ 830.5
Immediate notification.
The operator of any civil aircraft, or
any public aircraft not operated by the
Armed Forces or an intelligence agency
of the United States, or any foreign
aircraft shall immediately, and by the
most expeditious means available,
notify the nearest National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
office,1 when:
(a) An aircraft accident or any of the
following listed serious incidents occur:
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Failure of any internal turbine
engine component that results in the
escape of debris other than out the
exhaust path;
(4) In-flight fire;
(5) Aircraft collision in flight;
*
*
*
*
*
(8) Release of all or a portion of a
propeller blade from an aircraft,
excluding release caused solely by
ground contact;
(9) A complete loss of information,
excluding flickering, from more than 50
percent of an aircraft’s cockpit displays
known as:
(i) Electronic Flight Instrument
System (EFIS) displays;
(ii) Engine Indication and Crew
Alerting System (EICAS) displays;
(iii) Electronic Centralized Aircraft
Monitor (ECAM) displays; or
(iv) Other displays of this type, which
generally include a primary flight
display (PFD), primary navigation
display (PND), and other integrated
displays;
(10) Airborne Collision and
Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution
advisories issued either:
(i) When an aircraft is being operated
on an instrument flight rules flight plan
and compliance with the advisory is
necessary to avert a substantial risk of
collision between two or more aircraft;
or
(ii) To an aircraft operating in class A
airspace.
(11) Damage to helicopter tail or main
rotor blades, including ground damage,
that requires major repair or
replacement of the blade(s);
(12) Any event in which an aircraft
operated by an air carrier:
(i) Lands or departs on a taxiway,
incorrect runway, or other area not
designed as a runway; or
1 NTSB regional offices are located in the
following cities: Anchorage, Alaska; Atlanta,
Georgia; West Chicago, Illinois; Denver, Colorado;
Arlington, Texas; Gardena (Los Angeles), California;
Miami, Florida; Parsippany, New Jersey
(metropolitan New York City); Seattle, Washington;
and Ashburn, Virginia. In addition, NTSB
headquarters is located at 490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW.,
Washington, DC 20594. Contact information for
these offices is available at https://www.ntsb.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
927
(ii) Experiences a runway incursion
that requires the operator or the crew of
another aircraft or vehicle to take
immediate corrective action to avoid a
collision.
Dated: December 16, 2009.
Deborah A. P. Hersman,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. E9–30398 Filed 1–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7533–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Parts 21 and 22
[FWS–R9–MB–2009–0002; 91200–1231–
9BPP]
RIN 1018–AW44
Migratory Bird Permits; Changes in the
Regulations Governing Falconry
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, published a final rule
in the Federal Register on October 8,
2008, to revise our regulations
governing falconry in the United States.
With this action, we make several
changes to those regulations to correct
inconsistencies and oversights and
make the regulations clearer.
DATES: This regulations change will be
effective on February 8, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
George T. Allen, Division of Migratory
Bird Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 703–358–1825.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On October 8, 2008, we published a
final rule in the Federal Register (73 FR
59448) to revise our regulations
governing falconry in the United States.
We eliminated the requirement for a
Federal permit to practice falconry, and
made other changes to make it easier to
understand the requirements for the
practice of falconry, including take of
raptors from the wild, and the
procedures for obtaining a falconry
permit. The rule also added a provision
allowing us to approve falconry
regulations that Indian Tribes, States, or
U.S. territories adopt. The rule became
effective November 7, 2008, and
changed the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR parts 21
and 22.
After publication of the rule, we
received questions from the public
E:\FR\FM\07JAR1.SGM
07JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 922-927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30398]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
49 CFR Part 830
Notification and Reporting of Aircraft Accidents or Incidents and
Overdue Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft Wreckage, Mail, Cargo,
and Records
AGENCY: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The NTSB is amending its regulations concerning notification
and reporting requirements regarding aircraft accidents or incidents.
In particular, the NTSB is adding regulations to require operators to
report certain incidents to the NTSB. The NTSB is also amending
existing regulations to provide clarity and ensure that the appropriate
means for notifying the NTSB of a reportable incident is listed
correctly in the regulation.
[[Page 923]]
DATES: The revisions and additions published in this final rule will
become effective March 8, 2010.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
published in the Federal Register (FR), is available for inspection and
copying in the NTSB's public reading room, located at 490 L'Enfant
Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20594-2000. Alternatively, a copy of the
NPRM is available on the government-wide Web site on regulations at
https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Deepak Joshi, Lead Aerospace Engineer
(Structures), Office of Aviation Safety, (202) 314-6348.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulatory History
On October 7, 2008, the NTSB published an NPRM titled
``Notification and Reporting of Aircraft Accidents or Incidents and
Overdue Aircraft, and Preservation of Aircraft Wreckage, Mail, Cargo,
and Records'' in 73 FR 58520. This NPRM proposed and the final rule
herein codifies the addition of five reportable incidents, the
reporting of which the NTSB believes will improve aviation safety. In
particular, the new subsections within 49 CFR 830.5(a) will require
operators to report the following: failure of any internal turbine
engine component that results in the escape of debris other than out
the exhaust path; release of all or a portion of a propeller blade from
an aircraft, excluding release caused solely by ground contact; a
complete loss of information, excluding flickering, from more than 50
percent of an aircraft's cockpit displays, known as Electronic Flight
Instrument System displays, Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System
displays, Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor displays, or other
such displays; Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution
advisories issued either (1) when an aircraft is being operated on an
instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan and compliance with the
advisory is necessary to avert a substantial risk of collision between
two or more aircraft, or (2) to an aircraft operating in class A
airspace; damage to helicopter tail or main rotor blades, including
ground damage, that requires major repair or replacement of the
blade(s); and any event in which an aircraft operated by an air carrier
lands or departs on a taxiway, incorrect runway, or other area not
designed as a runway, or experiences a runway incursion that requires
the operator or the crew of another aircraft or vehicle to take
immediate corrective action to avoid a collision. The NPRM also
proposed certain wording changes to other existing subsections within
49 CFR 830.5(a) for clarity and proposed a change in the footnote that
provides the locations of NTSB regional offices.
The NTSB notes that it further analyzed the potential application
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as published in Title 5 United
States Code (U.S.C.), sections 601-612, to this rule. Prior to
publishing the NPRM, the NTSB considered whether this rule would have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
and certified under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have such
an impact. The NTSB verifies this assessment and notes that while this
rule will require some affected individuals to complete NTSB Form
6120.1, ``Pilot/Operator Accident/Incident Report,'' the cost to
complete this form is nominal. Therefore, the NTSB verifies that its
certification under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) was valid.
In response to the publication of this NPRM, the NTSB received and
carefully considered six comments. The NTSB did not receive any
requests for a public meeting; therefore, the NTSB did not hold a
public meeting on the NPRM. Below is a summary of and response to each
concern that commenters raised, arranged by issue.
Discussion of Comments and Changes
In the interest of ensuring that the provisions of 49 CFR 830.5 are
complete, comprehensible, and enforceable, the NTSB's final rule herein
includes revisions to three new subsections of 49 CFR 830.5 that the
NTSB proposed, including subsections (a)(9), (a)(10), and (a)(12),
which proposed requiring reports of a complete loss of information from
certain electronic displays, certain types of resolution advisories,
and certain runway incursions, respectively. These changes are
described in the sections below.
Proposed Revision to Section 830.5(a)(3)
The NPRM proposed to amend 49 CFR 830.5(a)(3) to require
notification of incidents in which ``[f]ailure of any internal turbine
engine component that results in the escape of debris other than out
the exhaust path'' occurs. The NTSB received two comments on this
proposed addition.
One commenter, an aviation industry manufacturing association,
objected to the requirement that the NTSB be notified immediately for
the following proposed events: Failure of any internal turbine engine
component that results in the escape of the debris other than out the
exhaust path and release of all or a portion of a propeller blade from
an aircraft, excluding release caused solely by ground contact. The
commenter stated that, in accordance with 14 CFR 21.3(c), operators are
already required to report such failures to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). The commenter further stated that the requirement
to report these events to the NTSB would put an additional burden on
the operator by requiring duplicate reporting of events. The commenter
suggested the development of a joint FAA/NTSB reporting system that
would alert both agencies concurrently when one of the reportable
events occurs.
The NTSB disagrees with these comments. The NTSB is aware that 14
CFR 21.3 requires holders of type certificates, supplemental type
certificates, and parts manufacturing approval to notify the FAA within
24 hours, or the next business day on weekends or holidays, of an
engine or component failure. But the NTSB also notes that 14 CFR
21.3(d)(1)(iii) states that a report to the FAA is not required if the
event has been reported to the NTSB. The NTSB needs immediate
notification of a reportable event to determine the appropriate level
of response, which might include immediately dispatching an
investigator to the scene. The NTSB continues to believe that utilizing
the 14 CFR 21.3 notification system alone that initially reports
failures to the FAA presents an unacceptable delay in the notification
to the NTSB and the initiation of a response. The NTSB reiterates that
it has investigated catastrophic engine failures after being belatedly
notified, and critical evidence was lost as a result of the delay in
notification, thus hampering the investigation. The NTSB also notes
that 49 CFR 830.10 requires the operator of an aircraft involved in a
reportable event to preserve the wreckage and all pertinent records
until the NTSB takes custody or until the wreckage and records have
been released pursuant to 49 CFR 831.12. The NTSB believes that relying
on 14 CFR 21.3 reports that would initially be sent to the FAA would
delay not only the NTSB's response to the event but also the return of
custody of the airplane and/or engine to the operator, thus delaying
their repair and return to service. The NTSB is aware that 14 CFR
121.703 and 135.415 require those respective Part 121 or 135
certificate holders to notify their FAA certificate-holding district
offices of an engine failure within 24 hours, or the next business day
on weekends or holidays. While engine or component failures are
[[Page 924]]
relatively rare, the NTSB is not concerned with every engine or
component failure that occurs; therefore, this rule will not materially
affect operators. However, the NTSB is very concerned about engine
failures that result in debris coming out of the engine through a path
other than the exhaust, also referred to as uncontained engine
failures. These failures can and have liberated debris, resulting in
damage to the airplane or its systems and/or injured passengers.
Fortunately, these types of reportable events are very rare. Thus, the
NTSB does not expect that it will be unduly burdensome for Part 121 and
135 operators who experience engine failures resulting in debris
exiting the engine through a path other than the exhaust or one of the
other previously reportable events to make the dual notification to
their FAA certificate-holding district offices as well as the NTSB.
The commenter also suggested that a system be developed so that the
FAA-required 14 CFR 21.3 data would be shared concurrently with the
NTSB. While the NTSB appreciates the commenter's suggestion, the NTSB
believes that situations could occur in which the notification that the
NTSB receives would be delayed, such as occurrences under 14 CFR 21.3
in which notification occurs within 24 hours, or the next business day
if the event occurred on the weekend or a holiday.
One commenter, a professional pilots' union, fully concurred with
the proposed rule requiring the NTSB to be notified immediately of an
event where debris exited an engine through some other path besides the
engine's exhaust. The NTSB appreciates the commenter's support on this
proposed immediate notification requirement.
In summary, the NTSB understands that this new rule will require
Part 121 and 135 operators who, in accordance with 14 CFR 121.703 and
135.415, respectively, must report any engine or component malfunctions
or failures to both their FAA certificate-holding district offices and
the NTSB. The NTSB continues to believe, however, that the language of
the reporting requirement will result in timely notification of
incidents in which a failure of an internal engine component resulted
in the escape of debris from an exit other than out the exhaust path.
Therefore, the NTSB has not amended this addition.
Proposed Addition of Section 830.5(a)(8)
The NPRM proposed to add section 830.5(a)(8) to 49 CFR Part 830 to
require the reporting of any ``release of all or a portion of a
propeller blade from an aircraft, excluding release caused solely by
ground contact.'' One commenter, a professional pilots' union,
dissented with the NTSB regarding the exclusion of a structural failure
of a propeller or portion of a propeller caused solely by ground
contact. The NTSB disagrees with the commenter's position that the NTSB
should broaden the section to include all incidents in which propeller
blades or blade sections have separated from an aircraft. The commenter
stated that liberated propeller blades or blade segments pose a
significant hazard to the crew, passengers, and bystanders.
The NTSB agrees with the commenter regarding the hazards that
liberated propeller blades or segments of propeller blades pose to
crews, passengers, and bystanders. However, the NTSB notes that
propeller blades are designed and certified to operate within the
atmosphere and, as such, the expectation is that they remain intact and
in place during normal operation. Propeller blades are not designed or
expected to continue to remain intact and in place following contact
with the ground. The NTSB continues to believe that the language of the
reporting requirement will achieve the NTSB's objective of receiving
notification of any release of all or a portion of a propeller blade
from an aircraft, inconsistent with its design parameters and
certification, thus excluding releases caused solely by ground contact.
Therefore, the NTSB has not amended this addition.
Proposed Addition of Section 830.5(a)(9)
The NPRM proposed to add section 830.5(a)(9) to 49 CFR Part 830 to
require the reporting of ``[a] complete loss of information, excluding
flickering, from more than 50 percent of an aircraft's certified
electronic primary displays.'' The NTSB has carefully reviewed the
comments received concerning this section and has concluded that the
language should be amended to require notification of ``[a] complete
loss of information, excluding flickering, from more than 50 percent of
an aircraft's cockpit displays known as: (A) Electronic Flight
Instrument System (EFIS) displays; (B) Engine Indication and Crew
Alerting System (EICAS) displays; (C) Electronic Centralized Aircraft
Monitor (ECAM) displays; or (D) Other displays of this type, which
generally include a primary flight display (PFD), primary navigation
display (PND), and other integrated displays.''
The NTSB now recognizes the need to revise the proposed language to
avoid capturing an excessive number of failures. For example, under the
proposed language, a failed electronic exhaust gas temperature (EGT)
gauge that is the only means of monitoring EGT would have been
reportable. However, the NTSB would not likely be concerned with
collecting data concerning or investigating such events; therefore, the
NTSB has narrowed the language of this section. The NTSB maintains that
this change in the proposed regulatory language is a logical outgrowth
of the proposed rule and therefore does not violate the rulemaking
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The NTSB received three comments that addressed this notification
requirement. Two commenters stated that they had difficulty determining
exactly what types of failures for which notification was required. One
commenter provided an example of an electronic display on a general
aviation aircraft where a mechanical indication was also included. This
commenter was concerned that when the electronic display failed, this
event would have to be reported even though a mechanical display of the
information was still available. The other commenter stated that the
criteria for reporting should be based on the aircraft's certification
requirements.
Based on these comments and the NTSB's careful review of the
proposed language of the notification requirement, the NTSB decided
that some adjustment of the language of this section was required to
ensure that the relevant failures will be reported, as described above.
The NTSB's principal goal in promulgating this requirement is to
capture ``display blanking'' events in which many of the newer ``glass
cockpit'' type displays have gone blank. The proposed language of this
requirement was intended to capture this type of failure, but the NTSB
recognizes that a revision specifically mentioning the various types of
displays would be advantageous. Therefore, the NTSB has changed the
language of this subsection to require the reporting of any ``complete
loss of information, excluding flickering, from more than 50 percent of
an aircraft's cockpit displays known as: (A) Electronic Flight
Instrument System (EFIS) displays; (B) Engine Indication and Crew
Alerting System (EICAS) displays; (C) Electronic Centralized Aircraft
Monitor (ECAM) displays; or (D) Other displays of this type, which
generally include a primary flight display (PFD), primary navigation
display (PND), and other integrated displays.''
[[Page 925]]
Furthermore, another commenter disagreed with the exclusion of
``flickering'' of instrument displays when considering the reporting
requirements in this section. The commenter felt that the
``flickering'' of displays could be an indication of underlying
hardware or software problems. The NTSB considered this potential
meaning of ``flickering'' when it originally defined the language of
this section. After reviewing this concept, the NTSB has decided
against revising the language of this section. While the NTSB agrees
that ``flickering'' can be a symptom of underlying problems, the NTSB
feels that the operator's maintenance organization is best equipped to
deal with this type of symptom. If the ``flickering'' becomes so severe
that the display is unusable, then it should be reported under this
section (providing that over 50 percent of the displays were similarly
unusable).
One commenter stated that the requirement to report these types of
failures to the NTSB constituted a duplicative reporting requirement,
as failures are already required to be reported to the FAA. The NTSB
feels that the requirement to report these types of failures directly
to the NTSB is essential to aviation safety because it ensures that
these events will be investigated by NTSB personnel as quickly as
possible. In addition, duplicative notifications are not required
because the regulations state that any incident reported to the NTSB
does not have to be reported separately to the FAA.
As described above, the NTSB continues to believe that it is in the
best interest of aviation safety to receive reports of a complete loss
of information from certain types of electronic displays. After
carefully considering all comments that addressed this section, the
NTSB has determined that it must receive notification of complete
losses of information, as described above. Consistent with the above
discussion, the NTSB has amended this addition.
Proposed Addition of Section 830.5(a)(10)
The NPRM proposed to add section 830.5(a)(10) to 49 CFR Part 830 to
require the reporting of the following: Airborne Collision and
Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution advisories issued either: When an
aircraft is being operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan
and corrective or evasive action is required to maintain a safe
distance from other aircraft; or to an aircraft operating in class A
airspace.
The intent of this requirement is for the NTSB to be notified of
incidents where ACAS-equipped aircraft must actively maneuver to avert
a substantial risk of collision with another aircraft and to be
notified of incidents where the stringent separation requirements
inherent in operations within class A airspace may have been
compromised. The NTSB has carefully reviewed the comments received
concerning this requirement and amends the language of this requirement
to require reports of ACAS resolution advisories issued either (A) when
an aircraft is being operated on an IFR flight plan and compliance with
the advisory is necessary to avert a substantial risk of collision
between two or more aircraft; or (B) to an aircraft operating in class
A airspace.
Five commenters were concerned that the original proposed
requirement would result in an unmanageable number of reports. In
general, regarding the proposed rule's effect outside class A airspace,
commenters placed most of their emphasis on the ``corrective or evasive
action'' language, despite the language that a report would be
necessary only when such maneuvers are ``* * * required to maintain a
safe distance from other aircraft.'' The NTSB fully recognizes that
when a resolution advisory occurs, it does not necessarily follow that
an unsafe encounter is about to occur. The NTSB intends to require
reports only when failure to comply with a resolution advisory would
lead to an unsafe encounter with another aircraft, that is, an
encounter presenting a substantial risk of collision. The NTSB's
expectation is that there are not an unmanageable number of such
encounters occurring in the air traffic control (ATC) system. However,
if reports show that a large number of these incidents are occurring,
the circumstances leading up to the incidents would certainly be a
safety issue of major interest to the NTSB. Concern about dealing with
the associated reports is not a persuasive rationale for not requiring
them, especially if the number of serious incidents is unexpectedly
high. The NTSB believes that by further clarifying the definition of
incidents to be reported, the burden on both aircraft operators and the
NTSB will be limited to addressing high-risk events that warrant
further examination and potentially full investigation.
The NTSB recognizes that ``substantial risk of collision'' is
somewhat subjective, but the infinite variety of encounter geometries
does not lend itself to specific guidance that would apply to every
possible scenario. The FAA's definition of a near midair collision is
``an incident associated with the operation of an aircraft in which a
possibility of collision occurs as a result of proximity of less than
500 feet to another aircraft, or a report is received from a pilot or a
flight crew member stating that a collision hazard existed between two
or more aircraft.'' This definition is not incorporated to limit or
precisely define the reports desired, but it may be useful in
illustrating the nature of the types of incidents for which the NTSB
will require notification. Resolution advisories that command maximum
vertical speed, ``reversal'' advisories that require a change in
vertical direction after the initial advisory is issued, or encounters
that result in zero vertical separation between the aircraft involved
are all examples of the types of advisories that the NTSB believes may
be indicative of substantial collision risk. Conversely, resolution
advisories issued to aircraft operating on closely spaced parallel
approaches or in other circumstances where there is no substantial risk
of collision need not be reported under this rule.
Four commenters stated that this requirement would effectively
mandate the reporting of all resolution advisories. As stated above,
the NTSB does not intend for all resolution advisories to be reported.
The NTSB expects that the revised language fully addresses this concern
and explicitly limits the need for reporting to situations where
compliance with a resolution advisory is necessary to avert a
significant risk of collision.
Two commenters expressed concern about the potential need to
download flight recorder data or remove recorders from aircraft,
thereby incurring expense and potential schedule disruption to the
aircraft operator. As the NTSB has previously noted, requiring an
operator to provide flight recorder data can be disruptive and
burdensome. The NTSB carefully considers the need for such information
in determining how to investigate serious incidents properly and limits
requests to situations where the data is clearly required to understand
the sequence of events because other available information, such as
recorded radar data, is inadequate. Unless a large number of unreported
serious incidents occur, the NTSB does not expect to substantially
increase the number of recorder requests made to support this reporting
requirement.
Two commenters stated that the NTSB should rely on the FAA for
reports of traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) events.
The NTSB does not believe that the FAA's processes for assessing and
reporting
[[Page 926]]
incidents, particularly those involving losses of separation, are
sufficiently reliable. Recent Department of Transportation Inspector
General investigations have documented repeated failures to report
incidents, misclassification of incidents, and other circumstances
which lead the NTSB, as an independent agency, to seek additional means
of monitoring the performance of the ATC system. The NTSB expects that
information provided by aircraft operators under this reporting
requirement will help validate the effectiveness of the FAA's reporting
process, especially relating to more serious incidents occurring in the
system. One of the commenters noted that the NTSB should, in lieu of
the proposed reporting requirement, correct the FAA's procedures. The
NTSB does occasionally interact with the FAA regarding the efficacy of
its internal processes. However, the NTSB has no authority to direct
changes to FAA procedures. The NTSB believes that for the significant
types of incidents the NTSB expects to investigate under this
requirement, occasional duplicative reports are worthwhile to ensure
that a complete examination of the circumstances takes place.
Five commenters stated that the proposed reporting requirement
should be dropped in favor of existing voluntary confidential data
collection systems such as the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP),
Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) programs, and the MITRE-
operated Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing program.
While the NTSB does support such programs in principle, the de-
identified and otherwise filtered information available through them is
not useful for investigative purposes. The NTSB's duty is to define the
types of events that may warrant a safety investigation, evaluate those
events as they occur, and investigate as necessary. Existing NTSB
reporting requirements predated and, to a large extent, overlap with
the types of incidents and accidents for which reports are made to
these programs. Nonetheless, the NTSB continues to define reporting
requirements and investigate safety incidents as necessary to protect
the public interest. The NTSB cannot delegate such responsibilities to
external organizations, become wholly dependent on information such
organizations may or may not see fit to share, or limit the
investigative use of that information to comply with accompanying
restrictions. Therefore, the NTSB does not view the data collection
programs suggested by the commenters as an adequate substitute for the
proposed reporting requirement.
One commenter noted that pilots may not report incidents without
the protection of an ASAP or FOQA program and further inquired about
the possible consequences of failing to report such incidents. While a
pilot's decision to disregard a reporting requirement is an unfortunate
possibility, it is beyond the control of the NTSB. The NTSB presumes
good faith on the part of professional aviators with regard to
reporting, and the NTSB does not intend to use this requirement to
prompt enforcement actions.
The NTSB emphasizes that the intent of this reporting requirement
is to identify, evaluate, and investigate (when appropriate) serious
incidents where aircraft maneuvers were required to avert substantial
risk of collision between TCAS-equipped aircraft and other aircraft in
the system and to evaluate situations where resolution advisories occur
between aircraft under positive control in class A airspace. The NTSB's
intent is not to require the reporting of all resolution advisories or,
outside of class A airspace, to require the reporting of any resolution
advisory resulting from an encounter between aircraft where no
substantial risk of collision exists.
In summary, the NTSB continues to believe that this reporting
requirement will achieve the NTSB's objective of receiving notification
of aircraft encounters that present a significant risk of collision.
The NTSB, however, has determined that amending the language will
provide further clarity and assist operators, crews, and other
individuals and entities affected by this rule in recognizing that the
NTSB seeks notification of the category of occurrences in which
hazardous encounters involving ACAS-equipped aircraft occur. As such,
the NTSB will require notification of the following: Airborne Collision
and Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution advisories issued either: when
an aircraft is being operated on an instrument flight rules flight plan
and compliance with the advisory is necessary to avert a substantial
risk of collision between two or more aircraft; or to an aircraft
operating in class A airspace.
Proposed Addition of Section 830.5(a)(11)
The NPRM proposed to add section 830.5(a)(11) to 49 CFR Part 830 to
require that the public report ``[d]amage to helicopter tail or main
rotor blades, including ground damage, that requires major repair or
replacement of the blade(s).'' The NTSB did not receive any comments
concerning this proposed requirement. Moreover, the NTSB continues to
believe that the proposed reporting requirement will achieve the NTSB's
objective of receiving notification of all rotor blade strikes that
result in damage, regardless of what the blades strike. Therefore, the
NTSB has not amended this addition and will require notification of any
damage to helicopter tail or main rotor blades that requires major
repair or replacement of the blade(s).
Proposed Addition of Section 830.5(a)(12)
The NPRM proposed to add section 830.5(a)(12) to 49 CFR Part 830 to
require that the public report the following: Any runway incursion
event in which an operator, when operating an aircraft as an air
carrier: lands or departs on a taxiway, incorrect runway, or other area
not designed as a runway; or experiences a reduction in separation that
requires the operator or another aircraft or vehicle to take immediate
corrective action to avoid a collision.
The NTSB received one comment on this section, which partially
concurred with the proposal and provided suggestions. The commenter
stated that the phrase ``runway incursion'' in the qualifying statement
should be deleted because landing and taking off on a taxiway is not a
runway incursion. Additionally, the commenter stated that the reporting
requirements should include nonrevenue operations (such as ferry
flights, maintenance flights/taxi, and reposition flights/taxi).
Finally, the commenter believed that events resulting in a go-around
should be excluded because that would require a report each time a go-
around was conducted if an aircraft or vehicle was on the runway.
Although the commenter believed that the events as stated should be
reportable, the commenter felt that the language should be clarified.
The NTSB agrees that the term ``runway incursion'' should be
deleted from the beginning of the statement for the reasons provided by
the commenter. However, to clarify that the NTSB is requesting reports
of separation issues on the runway, the NTSB hereby amends subsection
(B) to restrict reports to runway operations. The NTSB also agrees with
the commenter's suggestion to include nonrevenue flights because the
same pilots fly both revenue and nonrevenue flights.
Finally, the commenter opined that all go-around maneuvers
conducted because the runway was not clear would need to be reported.
The NTSB disagrees with this assessment. For
[[Page 927]]
example, if a controller instructs the pilot to go around because an
aircraft or vehicle is on the runway, that is a controlled situation.
The tower controller was aware of the situation and directed a go
around. However, if the pilot had to execute a go-around on his own and
the tower controller was not aware of the situation, the NTSB would
want to know about that event because it may go unreported. Similarly,
a tower controller could clear an aircraft to land and inadvertently
clear another aircraft onto the runway; if the arriving pilot has to
conduct a go-around because of the airplane on the runway, the NTSB
should receive a report of the incident.
Based on the NTSB's careful review of the above commentary, the
NTSB will now require the reporting of ``[a]ny event in which an
aircraft operated by an air carrier: (A) [l]ands or departs on a
taxiway, incorrect runway, or other area not designed as a runway; or
(B) [e]xperiences a runway incursion that requires the operator or the
crew of another aircraft or vehicle to take immediate corrective action
to avoid a collision.''
The NTSB has concluded that this clarification in the regulatory
language is a logical outgrowth of the proposed language and is
therefore consistent with the rulemaking requirements of the APA.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 830
Aircraft accidents, Aircraft incidents, Aviation safety, Overdue
aircraft notification and reporting, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
0
In conclusion, for the reasons discussed in the preamble, the NTSB
amends 49 CFR Part 830 as follows:
PART 830--NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING OF AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS OR
INCIDENTS AND OVERDUE AIRCRAFT, AND PRESERVATION OF AIRCRAFT
WRECKAGE, MAIL, CARGO, AND RECORDS
0
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR Part 830 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Independent Safety Board Act of 1974, as amended (49
U.S.C. 1101-1155); Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Public Law 85-726,
72 Stat. 731 (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. 40101).
0
2. Section 830.5 is amended as follows:
0
A. The section introductory text, paragraph (a) introductory text,
paragraphs (a)(3) through (a)(5), and footnote 1 are revised.
0
B. Paragraphs (a)(8) through (a)(12) are added.
Sec. 830.5 Immediate notification.
The operator of any civil aircraft, or any public aircraft not
operated by the Armed Forces or an intelligence agency of the United
States, or any foreign aircraft shall immediately, and by the most
expeditious means available, notify the nearest National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) office,\1\ when:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NTSB regional offices are located in the following cities:
Anchorage, Alaska; Atlanta, Georgia; West Chicago, Illinois; Denver,
Colorado; Arlington, Texas; Gardena (Los Angeles), California;
Miami, Florida; Parsippany, New Jersey (metropolitan New York City);
Seattle, Washington; and Ashburn, Virginia. In addition, NTSB
headquarters is located at 490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC
20594. Contact information for these offices is available at https://www.ntsb.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed serious
incidents occur:
* * * * *
(3) Failure of any internal turbine engine component that results
in the escape of debris other than out the exhaust path;
(4) In-flight fire;
(5) Aircraft collision in flight;
* * * * *
(8) Release of all or a portion of a propeller blade from an
aircraft, excluding release caused solely by ground contact;
(9) A complete loss of information, excluding flickering, from more
than 50 percent of an aircraft's cockpit displays known as:
(i) Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) displays;
(ii) Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) displays;
(iii) Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) displays; or
(iv) Other displays of this type, which generally include a primary
flight display (PFD), primary navigation display (PND), and other
integrated displays;
(10) Airborne Collision and Avoidance System (ACAS) resolution
advisories issued either:
(i) When an aircraft is being operated on an instrument flight
rules flight plan and compliance with the advisory is necessary to
avert a substantial risk of collision between two or more aircraft; or
(ii) To an aircraft operating in class A airspace.
(11) Damage to helicopter tail or main rotor blades, including
ground damage, that requires major repair or replacement of the
blade(s);
(12) Any event in which an aircraft operated by an air carrier:
(i) Lands or departs on a taxiway, incorrect runway, or other area
not designed as a runway; or
(ii) Experiences a runway incursion that requires the operator or
the crew of another aircraft or vehicle to take immediate corrective
action to avoid a collision.
Dated: December 16, 2009.
Deborah A. P. Hersman,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. E9-30398 Filed 1-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-P