[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 72 (Thursday, April 15, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18766-18783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9299]



[[Page 18765]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Parts 121, 125, 135, and 145



Service Difficulty Reports; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 72 / Thursday, April 15, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 18766]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 121, 125, 135, and 145

[Docket No. 28293; Notice No. 95-12A]
RIN 2120-AF71


Service Difficulty Reports

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document modifies a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
published on August 14, 1995, that proposed revising the reporting 
requirements for air carrier certificate holders and certificated 
domestic and foreign repair stations concerning failures, malfunctions, 
and defects of aircraft, aircraft engines, systems, and components. The 
original proposed action was prompted by an internal Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) review of the effectiveness of the reporting 
system and by air carrier industry concern over the quality of the data 
being reported by air carriers. This SNPRM addresses the concerns 
raised by the commenters on the original proposal. The objective of 
this SNPRM is to update and improve the reporting system to effectively 
collect and disseminate clear and concise safety information to the 
aviation industry.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 1, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this document should be delivered, in 
triplicate, to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief 
Counsel, Attn: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 28293, Room 915G, 800 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments delivered must 
be marked Docket No. 28293. Comments also may be submitted 
electronically to the following Internet address: 9-NPRM-
[email protected]. Comments may be examined in Room 915G weekdays, 
except Federal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Corcoran, Maintenance Support 
Branch, AFS-640, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation 
Administration, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; telephone 
(405) 954-6508.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This document modifies Notice No. 95-12 (60 FR 41992, August 14, 
1995). Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposal by 
submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. 
Comments relating to the environmental, energy, federalism, or economic 
impact that might result from adopting the proposals also are invited. 
Substantive comments should be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments 
should identify the regulatory docket or notice number and should be 
submitted in triplicate to the Rules Docket address specified above. 
All comments received on or before the specified closing date for 
comments will be considered by the Administrator before taking further 
rulemaking action. All comments received will be available, both before 
and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for 
examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each 
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this 
rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to 
acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this 
document must include a preaddressed, stamped postcard on which the 
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. 28293.'' The 
postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRM

    Any person may obtain a copy of this document by submitting a 
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 
Attn: ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 
calling (202) 267-9680. Communications must identify the notice number 
of this SNPRM.
    Using a modem and suitable communications software, an electronic 
copy of this document may be downloaded from the FAA regulations 
section of the FedWorld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 
(703) 321-3339) or the Government Printing Office's electronic bulletin 
board service (telephone: (202) 512-1661) or the FAA Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee bulletin board service (telephone: (800) 
322-2722 or (202) 267-5948).
    Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the Government Printing Office's web page at 
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to recently published 
rulemaking documents.
    Any person may obtain a copy of this SNPRM by submitting a request 
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 
800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 
267-9680. Communications must identify the notice number or docket 
number of this SNPRM.
    Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future 
NPRM's should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular 
No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which 
describes the application procedure.

Availability of the Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code

    Copies of the JASC Code are available from the FAA's Regulatory 
Support Division (AFS-600) or on-line from the FAA regulations section 
of the FedWorld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: (703) 
321-3339).

Background

    On August 14, 1995, the FAA issued an NPRM titled ``Operational and 
Structural Difficulty Reports,'' Notice No. 95-12 (60 FR 41992). That 
document proposed to revise the reporting requirements for air carrier 
certificate holders and certificated domestic and foreign repair 
stations concerning failures, malfunctions, and defects of aircraft, 
aircraft engines, systems, and components.
    The reports submitted by certificate holders and certificated 
repair stations, known as service difficulty reports (SDR's), provide 
the FAA with airworthiness statistical data necessary for planning, 
directing, controlling, and evaluating certain assigned safety-related 
programs. The reporting system provides FAA managers and inspectors 
with a means for monitoring the effectiveness of self-evaluation 
techniques being employed by certain segments of the civil aviation 
industry.
    Currently, Secs. 121.703 and 135.415 of Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR) require that holders of certificates issued under 
part 121 or part 135, respectively, submit reports on certain failures, 
malfunctions, or defects of specific systems and on all other failures, 
malfunctions, or defects that, in the opinion of the certificate 
holder, have endangered or may endanger the safe operation of an 
aircraft. Similarly, 14 CFR Sec. 125.409 requires that part 125 
certificate holders report the occurrence or detection of each failure, 
malfunction, or defect. In addition, 14 CFR Secs. 145.63 and 145.79 
contain provisions for certificated domestic and foreign repair 
stations, respectively, to report to the FAA serious defects in, or 
other recurring unairworthy conditions of, an aircraft, powerplant, 
propeller, or component. Air carrier certificate

[[Page 18767]]

holders and certificated repair stations must submit to the FAA the 
reports described above. In accordance with the FAA Flight Standards' 
Service Difficulty Program, set forth in FAA Order No. 8010.2, the 
information is reviewed and evaluated by the assigned Principal 
Maintenance Inspector (PMI) and mailed to the FAA's Mike Monroney 
Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for input into the 
Service Difficulty Reporting Subsystem (SDRS). The report data are 
entered into the SDRS and compiled to generate a weekly summary 
distributed to aircraft manufacturers, air carriers, repair stations, 
members of the general aviation community, and various offices of the 
FAA. Additional review and evaluation of the data are accomplished at 
the Aeronautical Center to identify trends or significant reports, and 
the appropriate FAA office is notified if trends or significant safety 
items are noted.
    Sections 121.705 and 135.417 contain provisions for submitting a 
summary report to the FAA on known or suspected mechanical difficulties 
or malfunctions that interrupt a flight or cause unscheduled aircraft 
changes, stops, or diversions en route that are not required to be 
reported under Sec. 121.703 or Sec. 135.415, respectively. Section 
121.705 also requires a summary report containing information on the 
number of aircraft engines removed prematurely because of a 
malfunction, failure, or defect and the number of propeller featherings 
that occur in flight for other than training purposes, demonstrations, 
or flight checks. Section 135.417 requires summary reports on the 
number of propeller featherings that occur in flight for purposes other 
than training, demonstrations, or flight checks.
    The comment period for Notice No. 95-12 closed on November 13, 
1995. Comments on the proposed rule addressing numerous issues were 
received from individuals, part 121 and part 135 certificate holders, 
aviation consulting firms, industry associations, manufacturers, and 
labor organizations. The FAA has reviewed the comments and the changes 
recommended by the commenters and has made substantive changes to the 
proposed rule based on the comments received. Accordingly, the FAA is 
issuing this supplemental notice to give all interested parties an 
opportunity to comment on the modified proposed rule.

Discussion of Comments and Modifications to the Proposal

    This preamble discussion addresses the comments received in 
response to Notice No. 95-12 and describes only the modifications to 
that proposal. However, for the convenience of the public, the text of 
the proposed rule is reprinted in its entirety.

14 CFR Part 127

    The final rule for 14 CFR part 119, ``Commuter Operations and 
General Certification and Operations Requirements,'' was published on 
December 20, 1995 (60 FR 65832). That final rule removed part 127, 
``Certification and Operations of Scheduled Air Carriers with 
Helicopters.'' Therefore, the proposed revisions to part 127 are no 
longer appropriate, and all references to part 127 have been removed 
from the proposal.

Section Headings

    Several commenters state that the name of the proposed section 
headings should be changed. They state that because ``Service 
difficulty report'' is the generally recognized term for the required 
reports, it should be used for the section headings, instead of 
``Operational difficulty reports'' or ``Structural difficulty 
reports,'' as previously proposed.
    The FAA agrees. Therefore, the headings of proposed Secs. 121.703, 
125.409, and 135.415 have been changed from ``Operational difficulty 
reports'' to ``Service difficulty reports (operational).'' The headings 
of proposed Secs. 121.704, 125.410, and 135.416 have been changed from 
``Structural difficulty reports'' to ``Service difficulty reports 
(structural).''

Airworthiness Directives and Service Bulletins

    The FAA received six comments addressing the continued submission 
of reports following the issuance of an airworthiness directive (AD) or 
service bulletin (SB). These commenters express their disappointment 
that a provision that would have discontinued this practice was removed 
from the draft NPRM presented to the FAA by the Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee.
    Several commenters state that AD's or SB's are often issued to 
address a deficiency identified through the SDR program. These 
commenters contend that because these AD's or SB's provide a corrective 
action, subsequent reporting is not necessary. Commenters indicate that 
the continued reporting of information after the issuance of an AD only 
fills the SDR data base with unneeded information.
    The FAA disagrees. In theory, after the issuance of an AD to 
address a specific problem, continued service difficulties should not 
occur if the prescribed correction was developed and implemented 
properly. If the FAA continues to receive SDR's for a particular 
problem after an AD has been issued and incorporated, it could indicate 
that the AD did not correct the original deficiency and that more work 
is necessary to ensure appropriate corrective action. The FAA then 
could revise an AD or issue subsequent AD's to address continued 
service difficulties.
    Several other commenters contend that the proposed reporting for 
certain discrepancies combined with the reporting requirements for 
certain AD's constitutes dual reporting. These commenters state that 
certain AD's addressing aging aircraft issues prescribe the use of 
supplemental inspection documents and corrosion prevention and control 
programs and currently require reports of certain defects. As a result, 
requiring similar reports under the SDR program is unnecessary.
    The FAA disagrees. The AD reporting requirements, while containing 
some information common to the SDRS, usually request information that 
is different from the type of information collected for input into the 
SDRS. Also, the reported AD information is used for reasons other than 
the analysis function of the SDRS. The aging aircraft information 
reported by certificate holders is submitted to the appropriate FAA 
aircraft certification office to determine the extent of aircraft 
deterioration because of age and to monitor the effectiveness of the 
supplemental inspection documents and corrosion prevention and control 
programs. Information submitted to the SDRS is used for the 
identification of recurring service problems.

The Proposed SDR and ODR Forms

    The FAA received six comments regarding the proposed structural 
difficulty report and operation difficulty report forms, which were 
published with Notice No. 95-12 in the Federal Register. These forms 
were examples of the proposed forms that a certificate holder would be 
permitted to use if it chose to use a method other than electronically 
submitting the required reports. Unfortunately, commenters were given 
the impression that the forms would be the only acceptable method of 
report submission. Additionally, the use of two forms may have left 
commenters with the impression that two data bases were under 
development in which data from the forms would be entered. However, 
this is not the case.

[[Page 18768]]

    Based on these concerns, the FAA has consolidated the proposed 
forms into one form titled ``Service Difficulty Report.'' The proposed 
form would not be the only acceptable method of providing the report 
information. As stated in the proposed rule, a certificate holder would 
be permitted to submit the required information in an electronic or 
other form acceptable to the Administrator. However, as described later 
in the discussion of the proposed changes to Secs. 121.703(e) and 
121.704(d), the proposal would require part 121 certificate holders to 
submit the information electronically beginning one year after the 
effective date of a final rule. After that date no other format would 
be acceptable for submission of SDR's under part 121.
    One commenter believes that the existing data base would be deleted 
and replaced by information collected after the effective date of the 
rule. This is not the case. The existing data base will remain 
available for research and use by industry, and future information 
collected, as proposed, would be added to the existing data base.

FAA Form 337

    Several commenters state that the discrepancies required to be 
reported by proposed Secs. 121.703(a), 125.409(a), and 135.415(a) would 
likely result in the accomplishment of a major repair for corrective 
action. They state that the subsequent submission of FAA Form 337, 
Major Repair and Alteration (Airframe, Powerplant, Propeller, or 
Appliance), in addition to an SDR, constitutes a dual reporting 
requirement.
    The FAA disagrees. FAA Form 337 serves two purposes: one is to 
provide an owner or operator with a record of a major repair or 
alteration indicating details and approval; the other is to provide the 
FAA with a copy of the form for inclusion in an aircraft's permanent 
record maintained by the FAA. In general, if the submitted FAA Form 337 
uses previously approved data, it is forwarded by the Flight Standards 
District Office (FSDO) to the Aircraft Registration Branch in Oklahoma 
City, Oklahoma. However, if the data used have not been previously 
approved, the FSDO reviews the data to ensure compliance with 
applicable regulations and conformity with accepted industry practices. 
Upon favorable review, data approval is indicated by entering an 
appropriate statement on the form, and the form is returned to the 
applicant. This individual then completes the form and provides the 
completed copies to the owner or operator and the FSDO.
    Because the information submitted on an FAA Form 337 and the 
information provided in an SDR vary considerably, the FAA has 
determined that these reports do not constitute a duplicate reporting 
requirement. For example, when submitting an SDR under the proposed 
rules, the required information would include the stage of flight 
operation or ground operation during which the discrepancy was 
discovered; the nature of the failure, malfunction, or defect; aircraft 
total time and cycles; and other information necessary for a more 
complete analysis of the cause of the failure, malfunction, or defect, 
including available information pertaining to type designation of the 
major component and the time since the last maintenance overhaul, 
repair, or inspection. None of this information is requested or 
required on FAA Form 337. Furthermore, the FAA contends that the 
discrepancies described by proposed Secs. 121.703(a), 125.409(a), and 
135.415(a) may not always result in the accomplishment of a major 
repair, and that submission of either an FAA Form 337 or an SDR will 
not always require the submission of the other form.

Sections 121.703(a)(2), 121.703(a)(4), 125.409(a)(2), 125.409(a)(4), 
135.415(a)(2), and 135.415(a)(4)

    The FAA received three comments regarding the submission of reports 
concerning any false fire or smoke warnings that require the use of 
emergency procedures. One commenter states that the phrase ``use of 
emergency procedures'' could be misinterpreted. This commenter states 
that the phrase could mean anything from reference to the abnormal 
procedures checklist to the declaration of an emergency to air traffic 
control. Another commenter contends that all false fire or smoke 
warnings should be reported, whether or not emergency action is taken. 
The third commenter questions whether the rule should require the 
reporting of indications that occurred only during revenue service and 
not during maintenance checks.
    To clarify what information must be reported, the FAA has removed 
the phrase ``that require the use of emergency procedures'' from these 
sections of the proposal. Similar revisions have been made to 
Secs. 121.703(a)(4), 125.409(a)(4), and 135.415(a)(4). The FAA also has 
revised the remaining language in paragraph (a)(2) of each section to 
read ``any false warning of fire or smoke.'' In addition, proposed 
Secs. 121.703(e)(5), 125.409(e)(5), and 135.415(e)(5) are revised to 
clarify the requirement that failures, malfunctions, or defects 
occurring during flight operations and ground operations must be 
reported.

Sections 121.703(a)(5), 125.409(a)(5), and 135.415(a)(5)

    The FAA received two comments regarding the reporting of an engine 
flameout or shutdown. Each of these commenters states that an engine 
flameout during ground operations or taxi should not be a reportable 
item. One commenter states that an engine flameout should be reportable 
only if it occurs after the initiation of the takeoff roll.
    The FAA disagrees. The FAA contends that an engine flameout or 
uncommanded engine shutdown is not a normal occurrence regardless of 
when it occurs. Such incidents could be an indication of a system 
malfunction or fault. The proposed rule language would require the 
reporting of an engine flameout or shutdown during ground or flight 
operations as previously proposed. The FAA notes, however, the proposed 
rule would require the reporting of an engine flameout or shutdown only 
if it is the result of a failure, malfunction, or defect. Reports of 
intentional engine shutdowns such as those that occur during flightcrew 
training, test flights, or while taxiing to reduce fuel consumption 
would not be required.

Sections 121.703(a)(7), 125.409(a)(7), and 135.415(a)(7)

    One comment was received regarding the dumping of fuel by aircraft 
in flight. The commenter states that he is familiar with several events 
during which aircraft dumped significant amounts of fuel in preparation 
for a landing following an engine malfunction that occurred shortly 
after takeoff. The commenter states that fuel dumping has received 
little attention from environmental groups, but reports of fuel dumping 
should be required by the Federal Aviation Regulations.
    While the comment may have merit, reporting of fuel dumping with 
regard to environmental effects is beyond the scope of this rulemaking 
action, and therefore is not addressed in this proposal.
    During preparation of this document, the FAA determined that any 
failure, malfunction, or defect concerning a fuel system or fuel 
dumping system that affects fuel flow or causes hazardous leakage 
should be reported regardless of whether it occurs during ground or 
flight operations. Therefore, the FAA has revised the proposed rule by 
removing the language that limited the

[[Page 18769]]

reporting of such service difficulties to those that occur during 
flight.

Sections 121.703(a)(8), 125.409(a)(8), and 135.415(a)(8)

    Two commenters express confusion about the proposed reporting 
requirements for landing gear failures, malfunctions, or defects. These 
commenters indicate that the proposed rule language could require a 
report whether a landing gear defect ``resulted'' in an extension or 
retraction, or ``became apparent'' during a landing gear extension or 
retraction that was selected by the pilot. The commenters contend that 
the rule language is not consistent with the explanation in the 
preamble.
    The FAA intends that all failures, malfunctions, or defects 
associated with landing gear extension or retraction during flight be 
reported. Therefore, the proposed rule language remains unchanged.
    The final rule for part 119 revised current Sec. 121.703(a)(12) to 
require the reporting of an ``unwanted'' landing gear extension or 
retraction, or an ``unwanted'' opening or closing of landing gear doors 
during flight. The use of the term ``unwanted'' is superfluous because 
this section only requires the reporting of failures, malfunctions, or 
defects associated with landing gear extension or retraction. 
Therefore, the FAA proposes to remove the term ``unwanted'' from 
Sec. 121.703(a)(8). Similar changes are proposed in Secs. 125.409(a)(8) 
and 135.415(a)(8).

Sections 121.703(a)(9), 125.409(a)(9), and 135.415(a)(9)

    The FAA received one comment regarding the reporting of a failure, 
malfunction, or defect concerning any brake system component that 
results in any detectable loss of brake actuating force when the 
aircraft is in motion on the ground. The commenter states that the 
subsequent statement that excludes defects deferrable according to the 
Minimum Equipment List (MEL), as provided for in 14 CFR Sec. 91.213, is 
confusing. The commenter states that the MEL item may have induced the 
problem and that excluding a report of such a failure would prevent the 
collection of information that may be beneficial for analysis. Another 
comment concerning the MEL states that if MEL discrepancies are 
reported, the adequacy of the MEL can be assessed objectively.
    The FAA's intent was to avoid having discrepancies such as 
hydraulic leaks and inoperative anti-skid systems reported to the SDRS 
because, under certain circumstances, these discrepancies may not be 
critical to the continued safe operation of the braking system. 
However, the FAA has reconsidered this proposal and agrees with the 
commenters that such information, regardless of deferability in 
accordance with the MEL, should be reported. Therefore, the FAA has 
revised the proposal accordingly.

Sections 121.703(a)(10), 125.409(a)(10), and 135.415(a)(10)

    The FAA received six comments that address the reporting of 
failures, malfunctions, or defects that result in rejected takeoffs 
(RTO's) after initiation of the takeoff roll or emergency actions 
during flight. Two of these commenters state that the proposed rule 
language should be amended to include ``when that defect or malfunction 
has endangered or may endanger the safe operation of the aircraft.'' 
One commenter recommends only reporting those RTO's that occur above a 
certain speed and recommends the establishment of a standard 
V1 percentage above which RTO's would be reported. Another 
commenter states that reports of RTO's should be limited to those that 
involve a ``significant'' safety problem. One commenter questions the 
need for reporting when the RTO's occur during maintenance activities, 
such as test flights.
    The FAA has determined that the rule, as proposed, would result in 
the collection of useful data on all RTO's. The FAA contends that 
attempting to define terms such as ``significant,'' as suggested, is 
not feasible because of the subjective nature of the term. Because one 
commenter states that the use of the term ``emergency'' is ambiguous, 
the FAA has added for clarification the phrase ``as defined by the 
Aircraft Flight Manual or Pilot's Operating Handbook'' to the proposed 
rule language. The FAA notes that the collected data would not include 
RTO's associated with animals or debris on runways because such events 
would not be the result of an aircraft component or system failure, 
malfunction, or defect.

Sections 121.703(a)(11), 125.409(a)(11), and 135.415(a)(11)

    The FAA received five comments concerning the reporting of 
failures, malfunctions, or defects associated with emergency evacuation 
systems or components. These commenters similarly state that reports on 
the failure of emergency lighting or the degradation of emergency 
egress lighting batteries should be excluded from the reporting 
requirements. The commenters state that individual component failures 
that do not affect the operation of the emergency evacuation system 
should not be reported.
    The FAA disagrees. The current rules pertaining to the reporting of 
the described failures provide the FAA with an indication of evacuation 
system reliability, as well as the reliability of components within 
evacuation systems. The FAA contends that if an evacuation slide has an 
on-aircraft life of 12 months, for example, the components within that 
slide should last 12 months. Failure of a slide's emergency egress 
lighting batteries is an indication of their reliability and may 
indicate that a change in maintenance procedures or life limits is 
necessary. The proposed rule language has been revised to require 
reporting of all failures, malfunctions, or defects of an emergency 
evacuation system or component including those deferred in accordance 
with a MEL.

Sections 121.703(a)(12), 125.409(a)(12), and 135.415(a)(12)

    In this supplemental notice, the FAA proposes to add a new 
reporting requirement for failures, malfunctions, or defects that are 
not reported under the current regulations. Reports would be required 
for failures, malfunctions, or defects of autothrottle, autoflight, or 
flight control systems or components found to be defective or that fail 
to perform their intended function. The reporting requirements would 
include scenarios in which the primary mode of a system fails, and a 
secondary system immediately and appropriately assumes operation. Under 
such a scenario, the failure of the primary mode would be reportable.
    There have been two air carrier accidents in the United States that 
immediately followed unexplained airplane rolls. The FAA is aware of 
other roll, pitch, or yaw events that have occurred, although reports 
are not always made to the SDRS. The FAA notes that some of these 
events have required full deflection of the flight controls to regain 
control of the aircraft. Other events have occurred involving ice in 
autopilot actuators, which prevented the actuators from disengaging 
when the autopilot was disengaged.
    Although such events could be reported under current 
Sec. 121.703(c) or Sec. 135.415(c), the SDR data base does not indicate 
that such reports are being made. Therefore, the FAA has added a 
proposed requirement to report failures, malfunctions, or defects of 
autothrottle, autoflight, or flight control systems or components in 
proposed

[[Page 18770]]

Sec. Sec. 121.703(a)(12), 125.409(a)(12), and 135.415(a)(12).

Sections 121.703(c), 121.704(b), 125.409(c), 125.410(b), 135.415(c), 
and 135.416(b)

    In this supplemental notice, the FAA proposes to revise the 
language in Secs. 121.703(c), 125.409(c), and 135.415(c). The proposed 
rule states that each certificate holder shall report any failure, 
malfunction, or defect in an aircraft system, component, or powerplant 
that occurs or is detected at any time if that failure, malfunction, or 
defect has endangered or may endanger the safe operation of an 
aircraft. The phrase ``in its opinion'' would no longer be included in 
the rule language. The proposed provision would provide the FAA with 
additional information concerning failures, malfunctions, or defects, 
not otherwise specified in the proposed rule, involving modern, complex 
aircraft. Similar revisions would be included in proposed 
Secs. 121.704(b), 125.410(b), and 135.416(b).

Sections 121.703(d), 121.704(c), 125.409(d), 125.410(c), 135.415(d), 
and 135.416(c)

    The FAA received six comments that address the provisions of 
proposed Secs. 121.703(d), 125.409(d), and 135.415(d). These comments 
address the submission of reports directly to a centralized collection 
point rather than the certificate holder's FSDO, the 72-hour reporting 
requirement, the availability of reports for examination by the FSDO, 
and the perception that the proposed rule prescribes dual reporting 
requirements. One commenter asserts that the requirements for reports 
to be reviewed by the FSDO before they are entered into the SDR 
database should be retained.
    The FAA disagrees. The current requirement for FSDO review before 
forwarding the report to Oklahoma City allows the FSDO to review the 
reports for completion and accuracy and assess certificate holder 
trends. Because the proposed reporting requirements are more precise 
than the existing rules, an accuracy review of the report by the FSDO 
should no longer be required. Current routing requirements create a 
delay of approximately 4 to 5 weeks from the date of occurrence to the 
date of data entry. The FAA contends that the continued FSDO review 
would only delay the timely entry of data into the SDRS.
    Because of concerns raised by the commenters about making the 
reports available for FSDO review, the duration of such availability, 
and the perception that this constitutes a dual reporting requirement, 
the FAA has added a statement to the proposed rule that the reports be 
made available for review for 30 days. The FAA contends that 
certificate holders usually retain SDR's indefinitely; therefore, a 30-
day retention requirement should place minimal burden on the 
certificate holders. Certificate holders would not be required to 
submit a copy of the report to their PMI, but would be required to 
permit the inspector to review any reports submitted within the 
previous 30 days.
    FAA inspectors have expressed concern that their lack of review 
would ``take them out of the loop'' and would not permit them to remain 
aware of difficulties experienced by the certificate holder; however, 
inspectors have access to the FAA's SDR data base and the reports are 
currently available for review in the SDR Summary (provided by AFS-600) 
on computer services such as FedWorld and the Integrated Safety 
Information System. The FAA will use inspector guidance to emphasize 
that inspectors should use available computer systems to review SDR 
data. However, as previously noted, certificate holders would be 
required to permit inspectors to review any reports submitted within 
the previous 30 days.
    The FAA notes that, with regard to the provision for certificate 
holders to make reports available to the FSDO for review as proposed in 
the NPRM, the final rule for part 119 removed the references to 
``Flight Standards District Office'' in Sec. 121.703. Specifically, the 
FAA revised the report submission requirements of Sec. 121.703(d) by 
replacing ``FAA Flight Standards District Office charged with the 
overall inspection of the certificate holder'' with ``certificate-
holding district office.'' In addition, Sec. 119.3 defines the 
certificate-holding district office as the FSDO that has responsibility 
for administering the certificate and is charged with the overall 
inspection of the certificate holder's operations. Therefore, to 
maintain consistency, proposed Secs. 121.703(d), 121.704(c), 
125.409(d), 125.410(c), 135.415(d), and 135.416(c) have been revised to 
reflect this change.
    Four commenters mention the 72-hour reporting requirement. Two of 
these commenters state that the 72-hour reporting requirement is 
inappropriate, and at times is impossible to meet for aircraft 
undergoing heavy maintenance. The commenters recommend revising the 
current rule so that, under such circumstances, reports would be 
required 72 hours after the aircraft is returned to service. One 
commenter states that the 72-hour reporting requirement should only be 
required for those discrepancies that could cause the ``sudden loss of 
an aircraft.'' Another commenter states that there is no justification 
for the 72-hour reporting requirement.
    The FAA has reviewed the comments and determined that a 96-hour 
requirement for the submission of reports is more appropriate than the 
current 72-hour reporting requirement. However, the FAA disagrees with 
the comment that for aircraft undergoing heavy maintenance, the 96-hour 
reporting requirement should begin when the aircraft is approved for 
return to service, because there may be a substantial period of time 
between discovery of the failure, malfunction, or defect during a heavy 
maintenance check and the return of the aircraft to service. In 
addition, the FAA contends that the increase from 72 hours to 96 hours 
for reporting would allow ample time for certificate holders to gather 
the necessary information to submit a detailed report and reduce 
supplemental reporting.
    One commenter notes that the text of proposed Sec. 135.415(d) 
states that reports must be submitted to the ``location where the data 
base is maintained'' rather than a centralized collection point, as 
stated in the similar sections of the proposal. The FAA notes that this 
was an inadvertent error, and the proposed rule language has been 
revised to read ``to a centralized collection point'' for consistency 
with similar proposed sections.
    For the reasons discussed above proposed Secs. 121.704(c), 
125.410(c), and 135.416(c) also have been revised to increase the 
reporting requirement to 96 hours and require that SDR's be made 
available for 30 days for examination by the certificate holding 
district office.

Sections 121.703(e), 125.409(e), and 135.415(e)

    The FAA received two comments concerning the introductory text of 
Secs. 121.703(e), 125.409(e), and 135.415(e). One commenter indicates 
the perception that the proposed rule language would require both an 
electronic copy and a paper copy of any reports submitted. That 
commenter also states that reporting electronically should be optional. 
In addition, that commenter states that the word ``should'' is not 
appropriate language for a rule. The other commenter expresses concern 
that the rule as proposed would not require the submission of 
information that is necessary to conduct meaningful analysis because 
items

[[Page 18771]]

contained in previously proposed paragraphs (e)(7) through (e)(9) would 
be optional information that certificate holders could but would not be 
required to submit.
    The FAA has revised the proposed rule language to clarify that a 
report must be submitted electronically or in another form acceptable 
to the Administrator. It was not the FAA's intention to require the 
submission of reports in both electronic and paper form. However, the 
FAA proposes revising Sec. 121.703(e) to provide that 1 year after the 
effective date of the rule, part 121 certificate holders would be 
required to submit reports in an electronic form. This proposed 
revision is consistent with Department of Transportation (DOT) 
requirements, contained in 14 CFR Sec. 234.5 and section 19-1 of 14 CFR 
part 241, for the electronic submission of certain reports and data, 
and should impose little additional burden on part 121 certificate 
holders. Part 125 and part 135 certificate holders would retain the 
option of submitting the required information in electronic or paper 
form. Part 145 certificate holders also would retain this option unless 
the repair facility submits the information on behalf of a part 121 
certificate holder in accordance with proposed Secs. 121.703(g) and 
121.704(f).
    The proposed rule also has been reworded to require the submission 
of all of the information listed in paragraph (e). The increase from 72 
hours to 96 hours for the submission of the reports should permit the 
timely collection of the information previously proposed as optional in 
paragraphs (e)(7) through (e)(9). The increase in the amount of time 
allowed for submission of reports should reduce the number of 
supplemental reports submitted to update the SDR data base, a concern 
that was expressed by several other commenters.

Sections 121.703(e)(1), 125.409(e)(1), and 135.415(e)(1)

    As previously proposed, these sections required that an SDR include 
the manufacturer, the model, the serial number, and the registration 
number of the aircraft. When the service difficulty involves an engine 
or propeller, the manufacturer, the model, and the serial number of 
those items are necessary for accurate trend analysis. Therefore, these 
sections have been revised to require the reporting of the 
manufacturer, the model, and the serial number of the aircraft, engine, 
or propeller. The requirement to provide the registration number of the 
aircraft is now contained in proposed Secs. 121.703(e)(2), 
125.409(e)(2), and 135.415(e)(2).

Sections 121.703(e)(3), 125.409(e)(3), and 135.415(e)(3)

    The FAA has revised the proposed rule language in these sections to 
require that an SDR include the operator designator rather than the 
name of the operator. Each certificate holder is assigned a certificate 
number. The operator designator is the first four alphanumeric 
characters of the certificate number. This revision is necessary to 
avoid potential confusion when operators have similar names (for 
example, American Airlines, Inc.; American Trans Air, Inc.; and America 
West Airlines, Inc.).
    Proposed Secs. 121.704(d)(2), 125.410(d)(2), and 135.416(d)(2) also 
would require that an SDR submitted under these sections include an 
operator designator.

Sections 121.703(e)(4), 125.409(e)(4), and 135.415(e)(4)

    Two commenters address the content of previously proposed 
Secs. 121.703(e)(3), 125.409(e)(3), and 135.415(e)(3) and indicate that 
providing all the information required by those paragraphs may not be 
possible. One commenter states that his operation does not use flight 
numbers. The other commenter states that a flight number may not be 
appropriate if the defect was discovered during maintenance. This 
commenter also questions what station information would be appropriate 
if a discrepancy occurred during flight.
    After further review, the FAA has determined that the proposed 
requirement for submission of the flight number and the station where 
the failure, malfunction, or defect was detected is not necessary. 
Proposed Secs. 121.703(e)(4), 125.409(e)(4), and 135.415(e)(4) would 
now require only the date on which the failure, malfunction, or defect 
was discovered. The requirement to report the stage of operation during 
which the service difficulty occurred (previously included in proposed 
Secs. 121.703(e)(3), 125.409(e)(3), and 135.415(e)(3)) is now contained 
in Secs. 121.703(e)(5), 125.409(e)(5), and 135.415(e)(5) as discussed 
in the following paragraph.

Sections 121.703(e)(5), 125.409(e)(5), and 135.415(e)(5)

    The FAA has clarified the requirement to report the stage of 
operation during which the service difficulty occurred by revising it 
to read ``the stage of flight or ground operation during which the 
failure, malfunction, or defect was discovered.'' These operations may 
include, for example, ground handling, taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise, 
descent, approach, landing, or maintenance inspections. The intent of 
the proposal is to require reports for all of the listed failures, 
malfunctions, or defects, regardless of when they are detected. This 
clarification also addresses comments on Secs. 121.703(a), 125.409(a), 
and 135.415(a) about whether reports would be required only for defects 
detected during flight or if defects occurring during ground operations 
also would be reportable.

Sections 121.703(e)(7), 121.704(d)(6), 125.409(e)(7), 125.410(d)(6), 
135.415(e)(7), and 135.416(d)(6)

    The FAA received seven comments concerning the inclusion of the 
applicable FAA-modified Air Transport Association Specification 100 
(ATA Code) in the reporting requirements. The commenters cite various 
reasons for their lack of support for this requirement. Commenters 
express concern that the use of the FAA-modified system would become 
required throughout their operations, resulting in tremendous expense 
for manual revisions and computer system modifications. They also 
express concern that required use of the proposed codes would result in 
additional review requirements and that the modified codes add no value 
or safety benefit to the current system. Commenters also state that not 
all manufacturers prepare their manuals in accordance with the ATA Code 
system and that requiring the use of the codes creates the opportunity 
for inconsistent compliance.
    To address these concerns, the FAA has modified the proposed rule, 
which would require use of the applicable JASC Code. In May 1991, the 
FAA introduced the coding scheme used in the JASC Code for the 
technical classification of SDR's. This code, which was developed by 
the Safety Data Analysis Section of the FAA's Flight Standards Service 
with input from Transport Canada, is a modified version of the ATA 
Code. The JASC Code has been adopted by the Civil Aviation Authority of 
Australia and by Transport Canada. The current ATA Code system 
basically is consistent with the JASC Code system; therefore, users of 
the ATA Code should not need to significantly revise their procedures 
to adopt the JASC Code. The Safety Data Analysis Section often changes 
reporters' incorrect codes to the appropriate JASC Code before data are 
entered in the SDRS to ensure that correct data are captured during 
queries. This procedure ensures proper subsequent data analysis.

[[Page 18772]]

    Use of the JASC Code provides standardization between users and 
nonusers of the ATA Code, just as the ATA Code provides consistency for 
its users. Copies of the JASC Code are available from the FAA's 
Regulatory Support Division (AFS-600) or on-line via the FedWorld 
system (see ``Availability of JASC Code'').

Sections 121.703(e)(8), 121.703(d)(7), 125.409(e)(8), 125.410(d)(7), 
135.415(e)(8), and 135.416(d)(7)

    The FAA received four comments concerning the proposed requirement 
for submitting aircraft total time and total cycles. The commenters 
state that if the failure, malfunction, or defect involves a component, 
the aircraft total time and total cycles may not be readily available, 
especially if an outside vendor is involved in providing the corrective 
action. In the case of a component defect, the aircraft total time and 
total cycles may be irrelevant and too time consuming to determine. Two 
commenters state that total cycles may not be available for certain 
certificate holders who use aircraft for which cycle recording is not 
required. These commenters question whether the proposed rule would 
require those certificate holders to begin tracking aircraft total 
cycles.
    The FAA agrees with these comments and has revised the proposed 
rule accordingly. Because tracking the accumulation of aircraft cycles 
may not be a requirement for certain type designs, this information 
would only be required, if applicable. Proposed Secs. 121.703(e)(8), 
121.704(d)(7), 125.409(e)(8), 125.410(d)(7), 135.415(e)(8), and 
135.416(d)(7) have been modified accordingly. Also, the FAA has made 
the total time and total cycle information requirement more specific in 
proposed Secs. 121.703(e)(8), 121.409(e)(8), and 135.415(e)(8) so that 
information on the affected part would be required, rather than only 
aircraft total time and total cycles.

Sections 121.703(e)(9), 125.409(e)(9), and 135.415(e)(9)

    One commenter states that requiring the identification of the 
engine or component serial number is not justifiable when it is not 
required to report the engine or component manufacturer and part 
number.
    The FAA agrees and has added the requirement for the submission of 
the manufacturer, manufacturer part number, and part name of the 
malfunctioning item to the proposed rule. In addition, the location of 
the malfunctioning item would be required.
    The FAA also has revised these sections to require that the 
information be provided for the component that failed, malfunctioned, 
or was defective, if applicable. In some instances, it may be possible 
to further identify the specific part, within that component, that 
failed, malfunctioned, or was defective. For example, when a generator 
fails, during disassembly it may be discovered that the failure was 
caused by a problem with a bearing. In such cases, the FAA has 
determined that it also is necessary for accurate trend analysis that 
an SDR contain the manufacturer, manufacturer part number, part name, 
serial number, and location of that part (the bearing, in this 
example). Therefore, proposed Secs. 121.703(e)(10), 125.409(e)(10), and 
135.415(e)(10) have been added to require the reporting of this 
information. The FAA notes that in some cases the component causing the 
service difficulty may not contain any parts (for example, a cracked 
windscreen). In those cases, no information would be required under 
proposed Secs. 121.703(e)(10), 125.409(e)(10), and 135.415(e)(10).

Sections 121.703(e)(11), 125.409(e)(11), and 135.415(e)(11)

    During the review of comments and preparation of this document, the 
FAA determined that the proposed rule language should be clarified by 
substituting the phrase ``precautionary or emergency action taken'' for 
``emergency procedure effected.'' This revision is necessary because 
certain indications may require an aircraft to return to the gate for 
precautionary reasons (for example, an unusual or abnormal fuel 
quantity indication while taxiing for takeoff). Such events may not 
require the use of emergency procedures; therefore, certain certificate 
holders may not report the information under the existing or previously 
proposed rules. However, to ensure that all appropriate information is 
collected, the FAA wants reports of the precautionary or emergency 
action taken.

Sections 121.703(e)(13), 121.704(d)(9), 125.409(e)(13), 125.410(d)(9), 
135.415(e)(13), and 135.416(d)(9)

    The FAA has revised the proposed rule language by adding a 
requirement that an SDR include a unique control number for an 
occurrence, in a form acceptable to the Administrator. The following 
describes an acceptable form for the unique control number. The control 
number would begin with the first four alphanumeric characters of the 
submitter's certificate number. The next four numbers would be used to 
designate the calendar year in which the SDR is submitted. The 
remaining numbers would be generated by the submitter. For example, for 
the unique control number ABCD199700001, ``ABCD'' would denote the 
first four characters of the submitter's certificate number, ``1997'' 
would indicate that the SDR was filed in 1997, and ``0000001'' would 
indicate that the SDR relates to the first occurrence reported by the 
submitter for that year. When a supplemental SDR is submitted, the 
submitter would use the unique control number from the original SDR, 
add the new or modified information to the original SDR, and submit the 
supplemental report.
    The use of the unique control number will reduce the number of 
duplicate reports for the same occurrence in the SDR data base and 
provide a more simplified method for the FAA and industry to reference 
an SDR. Currently, FAA resources are expended to relate supplemental 
information to the original report.
    Proposed Secs. 121.704(d)(9), 125.410(d)(9), and 135.416(d)(9) also 
would require that an SDR submitted under these sections include a 
unique control number for the occurrence.

Sections 121.703(f), 125.409(f), and 135.415(f)

    Two commenters state that the proposed rule language pertaining to 
reporting under 14 CFR Sec. 21.3 provides manufacturers with a loophole 
to avoid SDR reporting, thereby preventing a meaningful comparison to 
service difficulties.
    The FAA disagrees. Sections 121.703(f), 125.409(f), and 135.415(f) 
apply to the few operators who also happen to be the type certificate 
holder of the aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller in which a 
failure, malfunction, or defect has been discovered. Other certificate 
holders would make a report as prescribed by the other provisions of 
the proposed rule. Although reports made under to Sec. 21.3 and 
proposed Secs. 121.703(a), 125.409(a), and 135.415(a) would contain 
common information, the FAA disagrees with the commenters' contention 
that the information should be compiled into a single data base for 
meaningful comparison. Comparison of the information may not result in 
useful data. Reports submitted under Secs. 121.703(a), 125.409(a), and 
135.415(a) identify problems on aircraft that are in service. Reports 
submitted under Sec. 21.3 identify manufacturing deficiencies and are 
used by the appropriate FAA Aircraft Certification

[[Page 18773]]

Office to address such deficiencies and correct them during subsequent 
manufacturing activity. The FAA contends that the information gathered 
through these separate reporting requirements should remain separate. 
The reporting requirements of Sec. 21.3 may be reviewed in a separate 
rulemaking action in the future; however, such review and potential 
revision is beyond the scope of this rulemaking activity.

Sections 121.703(g), 125.409(g), and 135.415(g)

    Three commenters request clarification of the proposed provision 
which would permit a part 121, part 125, or part 135 certificate holder 
to assign the service difficulty reporting task to a certificated 
repair station. Two of these commenters indicate that without clear 
lines of responsibility, inconsistent reporting will result. These two 
commenters also recommend that reporting be the responsibility of the 
person returning the aircraft or other item to service. Another 
commenter questions whether the certificate holder would have to grant 
reporting authority in writing to the repair station and whether 
certificate holders would be required to maintain lists of repair 
stations to which they have granted such authority.
    The FAA offers the following for clarification: The reporting 
responsibility ultimately lies with the certificate holder for the 
aircraft. However, a certificate holder could, in the contractual 
agreement for the maintenance activity made with a repair station, 
assign to the repair station the task of submitting the required 
reports. This assignment would permit the repair station to submit the 
reports as the repair station discovers discrepancies during 
maintenance of the operator's equipment without repeatedly contacting 
the operator. If such an arrangement is made to meet the proposed 
requirements, the repair station would submit the data required by the 
proposed SDR requirements, although repair stations are not governed by 
part 121, part 125, or part 135. The FAA emphasizes that such 
arrangements are optional and that the details of such arrangements are 
contractual, not regulatory. The FAA also emphasizes that the 
responsibility for the submission of the reports would still remain 
with the certificate holder, and that the certificate holder would 
still be required to make the reports available for review for 30 days.

Sections 121.703(h) and (i), 121.704(g) and (h), 125.409(h) and (i), 
125.410(g) and (h), 135.415(h) and (i), and 135.416(g) and (h)

    During preparation of this supplemental notice, the FAA noted that 
the requirements prescribed by current Secs. 121.703(g) and (h) and 
135.415(g) and (h) were not retained in Notice No. 95-12. These 
sections address the withholding of incomplete reports and the 
submission of supplemental reports. Although the change from 72 hours 
to 96 hours for the submission of reports is intended to reduce the 
number of supplemental reports required, the intent was not to 
eliminate supplemental reporting. Under the proposal, supplemental 
reports would still be required for the submission of information that 
was not available at the time the original report was submitted, as is 
required under the existing rules. Therefore, proposed Secs. 121.703(h) 
and (i), 125.409(h) and (i), and 135.415(h) and (i), which address the 
submission of supplemental reports, have been added in this proposal. 
Equivalent requirements are contained in proposed Secs. 121.704(g) and 
(h), 125.410(g) and (h), and 135.416(g) and (h).
    In adding the proposed requirement for submission of supplemental 
reports, the FAA has modified the current language of Secs. 121.703(h) 
and 135.415(h). The FAA intends that all additional information, from 
whatever source, be submitted in the supplemental reports, including 
information obtained from the manufacturer, the operator's internal 
maintenance organization, or a certificated repair station. The FAA has 
further modified the current language to require the certificate holder 
to reference the unique control number from the original report. As 
previously discussed, use of this number will ensure that the 
supplemental information is traceable to the original report.

Sections 121.704(a), 125.410(a), and 135.416(a)

    The FAA received six comments concerning use of the terms ``primary 
structure'' (PS) and ``principal structural element'' (PSE) in the 
introductory text of proposed Secs. 121.704(a), 125.410(a), and 
135.416(a). These commenters express concern that not all manufacturers 
of aircraft operated under parts 121, part 125, and part 135 identify 
portions of the airframe as a PS or a PSE. The commenters state that 
although in many cases the identification of a PS or a PSE is possible 
by evaluation of an item's function, this is not always the case. Two 
commenters note inconsistencies within paragraph (a) of each section.
    The FAA agrees with the concerns of the commenters. Because of 
these concerns, the FAA has revised proposed Secs. 121.704(a), 
125.410(a), and 135.416(a). The revised sections would require each 
certificate holder to report the occurrence or detection of each 
failure or defect related to corrosion, cracks, or disbonding that 
requires replacement of the affected part, or that requires rework or 
blendout because the corrosion, cracks, or disbonding exceeds the 
manufacturer's established allowable damage limits. The revised 
sections also would require reports for cracks, fractures, or 
disbonding in a composite structure that the equipment manufacturer has 
designated as a PS or a PSE. This clarification would alleviate the 
requirement for submitting reports about cracked composite radomes, 
fairings, or lift spoilers, while ensuring that cracks in composite 
wing structures are reported.
    The previously proposed requirement for the submission of 
information on failures or defects repaired in accordance with data 
approved by a Designated Engineering Representative (DER) or other 
approved data not contained in the manufacturer's maintenance manual 
also has been revised. In addition to reports of other failures or 
defects, the revised proposal would require the submission of 
information on any failures or defects repaired in accordance with data 
not contained in the manufacturer's maintenance manual so that 
information on aircraft without prescribed allowable damage limits also 
would be reported.

Sections 121.704(d), 125.410(d), and 135.416(d)

    The FAA received six comments regarding proposed Secs. 121.704(d), 
125.410(d), and 135.416(d). The majority of these comments were similar 
to comments on Secs. 121.703(e), 125.409(e), and 135.415(e), described 
previously, regarding the reporting of optional information.
    One commenter specifically addresses previously proposed paragraph 
(d)(7) of each section and states that the identification of a 
structural part should remain optional because many structural parts 
are several feet in length and the part number alone may not provide an 
adequate description of the damage location. The commenter notes that a 
part number may add no value when a detailed description of the damage 
location (including station, waterline, butt line) is provided.

[[Page 18774]]

    The FAA agrees. Therefore, the FAA has not included the 
manufacturer's part number and serial number of the defective item in 
the list of reportable items. The FAA notes that proposed 
Secs. 121.704(d)(5), 125.410(d)(5), and 135.416(d)(5) would require the 
certificate holder to report the part name, part condition, and 
location of the failure or defect. The addition of a reporting 
requirement for the part name and part condition is necessary for 
accurate trend analysis.
    The FAA also has added a requirement in proposed 
Secs. 121.704(d)(4), 125.410(d)(4), and 135.416(d)(4) that an SDR 
include the stage of ground operation during which the failure or 
defect was discovered. Such operations may include scheduled and 
unscheduled maintenance or servicing of the aircraft. The FAA has 
deleted the previously proposed requirement to report the ``nature of 
the failure or defect.''
    In addition, the FAA has revised the proposed rule to require the 
submission of all of the information listed in Secs. 121.704(d), 
125.410(d), and 135.416(d). The FAA has determined that this 
requirement is necessary to ensure that information such as corrosion 
classification and crack length is reported. The FAA notes that only 
those certificate holders who have a required corrosion prevention and 
control program are required to report corrosion classification 
information. The addition of proposed Secs. 121.704(g) and (h), 
125.410(g) and (h), and 135.416(g) and (h) would permit the reporting 
of this information when it becomes available.
    Consistent with the proposed revision to Sec. 121.703(e), the FAA 
has revised Sec. 121.704(d) to provide that 1 year after the effective 
date of the rule, part 121 certificate holders would be required to 
submit reports in an electronic form.

Sections 121.705 and 135.417

    The FAA received three comments concerning Sec. 135.417. Two of 
these comments address the proposal that would require reports 
following each interruption to a flight for any aircraft, rather than 
for just multiengine aircraft, as required by the existing rule. These 
commenters state that this change is significant and needs to be 
addressed.
    The FAA agrees. The proposal would require reports for all such 
interruptions, regardless of whether they occurred in a single- or 
multiengine aircraft for operations conducted under part 135. The FAA 
contends that many aircraft use parts or engines that are in common use 
between part 121, part 125, or part 135 certificate holders (for 
example, the Cessna Caravan and the Beechcraft 1900, which both use the 
Pratt & Whitney PT-6 engine). Also, the FAA has added unscheduled 
engine removals caused by known or suspected mechanical difficulties to 
the list of items that would be required to be reported. This change 
will facilitate the continued compilation of data for preparation of 
the FAA's Air Carrier Aircraft Utilization and Propulsion Reliability 
Report.
    One commenter addresses the proposed change in Sec. 135.417 for the 
submission of reports from the 10th day of the month following an 
interruption to the regular and prompt submission of reports, which 
would have made part 135 consistent with current Sec. 121.705. The 
commenter contends that the phrase ``regularly and promptly'' is too 
vague.
    The FAA agrees and has changed the language of proposed 
Secs. 121.705 and 135.417 to require that reports be submitted by the 
10th day of the month following the occurrence.

Sections 145.63 and 145.79

    For consistency with the proposed requirements of part 121, part 
125, and part 135, the FAA has revised these sections to require that 
reports of serious defects or recurring unairworthy conditions be 
submitted to a centralized collection point as specified by the 
Administrator. The FAA has revised the time period for reporting 
serious defects or unairworthy conditions from 72 hours to 96 hours for 
the same reason.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposal contains information collections that are subject to 
review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
13). The title, description, and respondent description of the annual 
burden are shown below.
    Title: Service Difficulty Reports.
    Description: Under current regulations, certificate holders 
operating under parts 121, 125, and 135 and part 145 certificated 
domestic and foreign repair stations are required to report service 
difficulties to the FAA. The objective of the revised proposed rule is 
to update and improve the reporting system to effectively collect and 
disseminate clear and concise safety information to the aviation 
industry. This would be done through a series of changes that include:
     Permitting part 121, 125, and 135 certificate holders to 
authorize a repair station to submit an SDR on their behalf;
     Permitting the electronic submission of SDR data 
(certificate holders operating under part 121 would be required to 
report electronically 1 year after the effective date of a final rule);
     Eliminating dual reporting from both air carriers and 
repair stations;
     Reducing the Principal Maintenance Inspector's (PMI's) 
workload;
     Requiring that each SDR include a unique control number 
for an occurrence; and
     Adding some additional reporting requirements for part 
121, 125, and 135 certificate holders on information that has not been 
collected before or had been collected through voluntary reporting.
    Description of Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit 
organizations.
    This proposal would constitute a recordkeeping burden for 
certificate holders operating under parts 121, 125, and 135, and part 
145 certificated repair stations that currently must report service 
difficulties. The FAA notes that the current service difficulty 
reporting requirements were approved under OMB assigned Control Numbers 
2120-0008, 2120-0085, 2120-0003, and 2120-0039.
    The FAA expects that this proposal would affect 156 part 121 
certificated air carriers, 2,940 part 125 and 135 certificated air 
carriers, and 4,599 part 145 certificated repair stations. The proposed 
rules, while imposing additional reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements on those operators, would have the following impacts on 
these businesses:
     Allowing a repair station to file an SDR on behalf of a 
certificate holder operating under part 121, 125, or 135 (saving 385 
hours annually); and
     Require certificate holders to report certain additional 
service difficulties and include new information in the SDR (adding 
1,725 hours annually for air carriers and 57.5 hours annually for 
repair stations).
    Accordingly, the FAA estimates that these proposed rules increase 
the reporting and paperwork requirements for industry by 1,398 hours 
annually. The total annual reporting burden costs sums to $31,464. 
These cost figures are based on estimates provided in the FAA's 
``Regulatory Analysis.''
    In addition, under the proposal, certificate holders operating 
under part 121 would be required to report SDR's electronically 1 year 
after the effective date of the rule. The FAA estimates that it would 
take approximately 1 hour for a certificate holder to program its 
computers to permit electronic submission of the report. In addition, 
it may be necessary for some certificate

[[Page 18775]]

holders to install additional software to convert to an IBM-compatible 
system to run the necessary software. Total first year costs are 
expected to sum to $7,719.
    The proposed regulations would decrease paperwork for the Federal 
Government by reducing the workload for PMI's and SDR data entry 
employees as follows:
     Allowing a repair station to file an SDR on behalf of a 
certificate holder operating under part 121, 125, or 135, hence, 
reducing dual reporting (saving 385 hours annually for data entry 
personnel);
     Requiring certificate holders to submit these reports 
directly to Oklahoma City (saving as much as 3,083 hours annually for 
PMI's);
     Requiring that an SDR include a unique control number for 
an occurrence (saving as much as 228 hours annually for data entry 
personnel); and
     Require certificate holders to report certain additional 
service difficulties and include new information in the SDR (adding 863 
hours annually for data entry personnel).
    Accordingly, the FAA estimates that these proposed rules decrease 
the reporting and paperwork requirements for the government by 2,834 
hours annually. The total annual reporting burden costs savings sums to 
$18,164. These cost figures are based on estimates provided in the 
FAA's ``Regulatory Analysis.''
    The agency solicits public comment on the information collection 
requirements to (1) evaluate whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the agency, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and 
(4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who 
are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology.
    Individuals and organizations may submit comments on the 
information collection requirement by June 1, 1999, and should direct 
them to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
    Persons are not required to respond to a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The burden 
associated with this proposal has been submitted to OMB for review. The 
FAA will publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public 
of the approval numbers and expiration date.

International Compatibility

    The FAA has reviewed corresponding International Civil Aviation 
Organization standards and recommended practices and Joint Aviation 
Authorities requirements and has identified no differences in these 
proposed amendments and the foreign regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Executive Order 12866 (issued October 4, 1993) established the 
requirement that each agency shall assess both the costs and benefits 
of every regulation and propose or adjust a regulation only upon a 
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. In response to this requirement, and in accordance 
with Department of Transportation policies and procedures, the FAA has 
estimated the anticipated benefits and costs of this rulemaking action. 
In addition to a summary of the regulatory evaluation, this section 
also contains a regulatory flexibility determination required by the 
1980 Regulatory Flexibility Act, an international trade impact 
assessment, and an unfunded mandates determination. (A detailed 
discussion of costs and benefits is contained in the full evaluation in 
the docket for this rule.)
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
proposed rule would generate cost-savings that would exceed any costs, 
and is not ``significant'' as defined under section 3(f) of Executive 
Order 12866 and Department of Transportation's (DOT) policies and 
procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). In addition, under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Determination, the FAA certifies that this 
proposal would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Furthermore, this proposal would not impose restraints 
on international trade. Finally, the FAA has determined that the 
proposal would not impose a federal mandate on state, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector of $100 million per year. These 
analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.

Cost of Compliance

    The FAA has estimated the expected costs and benefits of this 
regulatory proposal. In this analysis, the FAA estimated costs for a 
10-year period, from 1999 through 2008. The present value of this 
stream was calculated using a discount factor of 7 percent as required 
by the OMB. All costs in this analysis are in 1996 dollars.
    While 17 of the proposed sections would increase costs, the changes 
in 15 of them would modify existing reporting requirements or add 
additional reporting requirements for information that has not been 
collected before or had been collected through voluntary reporting. 
Accordingly, because there is little or no historical data on the 
proposed data collection and reporting requirements, the FAA does not 
know how many extra reports these new requirements would generate. For 
these proposed sections that lack historical data, the FAA believes 
that there would be few new reports and that the overall burden would 
be minimal. However, to provide the public with an estimation of the 
potential total impact of these sections, the FAA assumed that each of 
these proposed sections could increase the total number of SDR's 
processed each year by 1 percent. Over 10 years, these costs sum to 
$674,300 (net present value, $473,600). The FAA calls for comments on 
these assumptions, specifically what the extra number of reports and 
the total impact would be in each of these cases.
    Proposed Secs. 121.703(e) and 121.704(d) would require 1 year after 
the effective date of the rule, that part 121 certificate holders 
submit reports in an electronic form. Electronic reporting would 
necessitate having a computer and a modem. The software needed to 
interface with the SDRS runs only on IBM-compatible systems; almost all 
part 121 certificate holders have such systems.
    The costs associated with this section would be for those 
certificate holders who use non-IBM compatible computers. It would be 
necessary for them to convert to an IBM-compatible system and for a 
programmer to install the requisite software. In addition, the software 
necessary to interface with the SDRS would need to be installed at all 
locations; the FAA would provide this software at no charge. Total 
first year costs sum to approximately $7,700 (net present value, 
$7,200).
    Proposed sections Secs. 121.703(g), 121.704(f), 125.409(g), 
125.410(f), 135.415(g), and 135.416(f) would permit parts 121, 125, and 
135 certificate holders to authorize a repair station to submit an SDR 
on their behalf. Proposed Secs. 145.63(e) and 145.79(f) would require 
that the repair stations provide a copy of the report submitted by the 
repair

[[Page 18776]]

station to the part 121, 125, or 135 certificate holder on whose behalf 
the report was submitted. These proposed sections would result in 
increased costs for the repair stations. However, these proposed 
sections would allow for cost savings by eliminating duplicate reports; 
repair stations would submit the report for input into the SDRS 
currently submitted by both repair stations and air carriers.
    The elimination of the air carrier operator's duplicate report 
would not diminish safety. The SDR system is used to spot equipment 
malfunction trends and to get an overview of airplane mechanical 
malfunctions by fleet type; they are not intended to give an 
operational view of what is wrong with an operator's individual 
airplane. Based on the existing regulations, before an airplane can be 
put back into service, the air carrier will need to be aware of what 
was wrong and what corrective actions were taken. Alleviating the air 
carrier operator of the responsibility of submitting an SDR in this 
case does not lessen the information the air carrier would have about 
their aircraft.
    There were 2,311 SDR's from repair stations entered into the SDR 
data base that also were submitted from air carriers in 1996. Each 
report would need to be sent from the repair station to the air 
carrier. The FAA assumes in this analysis that all reports are 
photostated and mailed. Over 10 years, the costs of these reports would 
be $55,900 (net present value, $39,300).
    Total quantifiable costs, over 10 years, sum to $738,000 (net 
present value, $520,100).
    Proposed sections Secs. 121.703(d), 125.409(d), and 135.415(d) may 
reduce the PMI's workload. Currently, all reports go from the 
certificate holder to the Flight Service District Office (FSDO) where 
the PMI spends time reviewing the SDR before forwarding it to the SDRS 
in Oklahoma City. The proposal would require certificate holders and 
operators to submit these reports directly to Oklahoma City, thus 
possibly reducing the PMI's workload. The certificate holder or 
operator would be required to make the SDR data available to the FSDO 
for examination. Hence, while the PMI could still remain informed, he 
or she may not have to spend as much time inspecting each report and 
would not have to forward the material. Over 10 years, this cost 
savings would be $1.12 million (net present value, $786,000).
    Proposed Secs. 121.703(e)(13), 121.704(d)(9), 125.409(e)(13), 
125.410(d)(9), 135.415(e)(13), and 135.416(d)(9) would add a 
requirement that an SDR include a unique control number for each 
occurrence. This proposal would yield cost savings that would come from 
both the reduction in the number of duplicate reports for the same 
occurrence in the SDR data base and from the more simplified, 
methodical method for the FAA and industry to reference an SDR. 
Traditionally, when a supplemental report was submitted to the SDRS, it 
was entered as if it were a separate report, thus making it difficult 
to link to the original report. Using a unique identification number 
for each occurrence would reduce the total number of reports within the 
SDRS. The potential cost savings would be based on the reduction in the 
amount of time spent to find and link these reports within the SDRS. 
Over 10 years, the cost savings would be $143,800 (net present value, 
$101,000). The actual cost savings would almost certainly be lower 
because some certificate holders already are using a control number.
    Proposed sections Secs. 121.703(g), 125.409(g), and 135.415(g) 
would reduce dual reporting. When a repair station identifies a 
failure, malfunction, or defect, this information currently is being 
reported by both the repair station and the certificate holder or 
operator. Therefore, information about the same problem may be reported 
twice to the FAA. The proposed revision is intended to eliminate these 
duplicate reports. The proposed rule would require that the part 121, 
125, or 135 certificate holder or operator receive a copy of the report 
submitted by the repair station (these costs were covered above).
    Cost savings would accrue, for each repair, because one less report 
would need to be processed. In 1996, 2,311 repair station SDR's were 
enter into the SDR data base, so this analysis will assume that this 
number of reports would not have to be processed. Over 10 years, this 
cost reduction would be $227,300 (net present value, $194,800).
    Total cost savings over 10 years sum to $1.54 million (net present 
value, $1.08 million). Net cost savings would be $802,200 (net present 
value, $561,600); these savings could be lower (1) if any of the 
proposed sections the FAA is calling for comment on have higher costs 
than those assumed; and (2) if the total cost savings from using a 
unique control number is less (but the FAA does not have the data to 
determine how much less it may be).

Analysis of Benefits

    These proposals would help to eliminate the number of duplicate 
reports that have been entered into this system. In addition, the 
increased interval for submitting reports should reduce the number of 
supplemental reports filed. A more efficient system would preserve and 
improve the integrity of the data base and allow for better and more 
complete analyses. Additional specific benefits of these proposals 
include standardizing reporting procedures among air carriers.
    In addition to the above, the proposed regulations would enhance 
air carrier safety by collecting additional and more timely data that 
identify mechanical failures, malfunctions, and defects that may be a 
serious hazard to the operation of an aircraft. The information 
collected could be used to develop and implement corrective actions to 
help prevent future occurrences of these failures, malfunctions, and 
defects.
    As noted above, the SDR system is used to identify trends and to 
provide an overview of product service data. Identifying these trends 
could help to catch problems early, which could allow AD's to be based 
on better information. In addition, an SDR will give an operator the 
ability to use trend information (and knowledge of potential problems) 
to better plan its maintenance scheduling, a major benefit for airplane 
operators. In addition, the FAA believes that because of the improved 
SDR information resulting from these proposed regulations, additional 
information and equipment malfunction trends could be identified that 
would lead, over time, to safer airplanes.

Comparison of Costs and Benefits

    This proposed rule would result in cost savings. Duplicate reports, 
as well as duplicate entries in the SDRS, would be reduced. The only 
costs would include software and hardware costs for the part 121 air 
carriers and copies of reports from repair stations to certificate 
holders who would no longer need to file SDR's. These proposed changes 
are expected to generate net cost savings over 10 years of $802,200 
(net present value, $561,600).
    In addition to eliminating the number of duplicate reports that 
have been entered into this system, the proposed regulations would 
enhance air carrier safety by collecting additional and more timely 
data that identify mechanical failures, malfunctions, and defects that 
may be a serious hazard to the operation of an aircraft. This data 
could be used to identify trends that could help to catch problems 
early and to better plan its maintenance scheduling. All of this could 
lead, over time, to safer airplanes.
    Based on the proposed rule's cost savings and benefits, the FAA 
finds this proposed rule to be cost beneficial.

[[Page 18777]]

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 establishes ``as a principle 
of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 
the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory 
and informational requirements to the scale of the business, 
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.'' 
To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to solicit and 
consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rational for 
their actions. The Act covers a wide range of small entities, including 
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as 
described in the Act.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the Act provides that the 
head of the agency may so certify and an RFA is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    For this proposed rule, the small entity group is considered to be 
parts 121, 125, and 135 air carriers (Standard Industrial 
Classification (SIC) Code 4512) and part 145 repair stations (SIC Codes 
4581, 7622, 7629, and 7699). The FAA has identified a total of 98 part 
121 air carriers, 2,118 part 125 and part 135 air carriers, and 2,790 
part 145 repair stations that would be considered small entities.
    These proposed regulations would cost all air carriers $396,400 
(net present value, $280,200) and repair stations $64,300 (net present 
value, $45,100) over the next 10 years. On average, it would cost each 
air carrier $15 per year and each repair station $1 per year.
    The FAA conducted the required review of this proposal and 
determined that it would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, pursuant to the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Federal Aviation 
Administration certifies that this rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA specifically 
requests comments from small entities on this certification.

International Trade Impact Analysis

    In accordance with the OMB memorandum dated March 1983, Federal 
agencies engaged in rulemaking activities are required to assess the 
effects of regulatory changes on international trade. There would be no 
impact on international trade for the domestic certificate holders and 
operators affected by this proposed rule. In addition, the impact on 
both domestic and foreign repair stations would be the same, so there 
would be no cost advantage to using either. Accordingly, there would be 
no impact on international trade.

Federalism Implications

    The regulations proposed herein 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 the various levels of government. Therefore, in 
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this 
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, enacted as 
Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal agency, to 
the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the 
effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that 
may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year.
    Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal 
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by 
elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, and tribal 
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A 
``significant intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any 
provision in a Federal agency regulation that will impose an 
enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 
year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section 
204(a), provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the 
agency shall have developed a plan that, among other things, provides 
for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a 
meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development 
of regulatory proposals.
    This proposed rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental 
mandates or private sector mandates.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

14 CFR Part 125

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

14 CFR Part 145

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR parts 121, 125, 135, and 145 as 
follows:

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL 
OPERATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702, 
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904, 
44912, 46105.

    2. Amend Sec. 121.703 by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a), (c), (d), (e), and (f); redesignating paragraph (g) as 
paragraph (h); revising paragraph (h) and redesignating it as paragraph 
(i); and adding a new paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec. 121.703  Service difficulty reports (operational).

    (a) Each certificate holder shall report the occurrence or 
detection of each failure, malfunction, or defect concerning--
    (1) Any fire and, when monitored by a related fire-warning system, 
whether the fire-warning system functioned properly;
    (2) Any false warning of fire or smoke;
    (3) An engine exhaust system that causes damage to the engine, 
adjacent structure, equipment, or components;
    (4) An aircraft component that causes the accumulation or 
circulation of smoke, vapor, or toxic or noxious fumes;
    (5) Any engine flameout or shutdown during flight or ground 
operations;

[[Page 18778]]

    (6) A propeller feathering system or ability of the system to 
control overspeed;
    (7) A fuel or fuel-dumping system that affects fuel flow or causes 
hazardous leakage;
    (8) A landing gear extension or retraction, or the opening or 
closing of landing gear doors during flight;
    (9) Any brake system component that results in any detectable loss 
of brake actuating force when the aircraft is in motion on the ground;
    (10) Any aircraft component or system that results in a rejected 
takeoff after initiation of the takeoff roll or the taking of emergency 
actions, as defined by the Aircraft Flight Manual or Pilot's Operating 
Handbook;
    (11) Any emergency evacuation system or component including any 
exit door, passenger emergency evacuation lighting system, or 
evacuation equipment found to be defective or that fails to perform the 
intended function during an actual emergency or during training, 
testing, maintenance, demonstrations, or inadvertent deployments; and
    (12) Autothrottle, autoflight, or flight control systems or 
components of these systems.
* * * * *
    (c) In addition to the reports required by paragraph (a) of this 
section, each certificate holder shall report any other failure, 
malfunction, or defect in an aircraft, system, component, or powerplant 
that occurs or is detected at any time if that failure, malfunction, or 
defect has endangered or may endanger the safe operation of an 
aircraft.
    (d) Each certificate holder shall submit each report required by 
this section, covering each 24-hour period beginning at 0900 local time 
of each day and ending at 0900 local time on the next day, to a 
centralized collection point as specified by the Administrator. Each 
report of occurrences during a 24-hour period shall be submitted to the 
FAA within the next 96 hours. However, a report due on Saturday or 
Sunday may be submitted on the following Monday, and a report due on a 
holiday may be submitted on the next work day. Each certificate holder 
also shall make the report data available for 30 days for examination 
by the certificate-holding district office in a form and manner 
acceptable to the Administrator.
    (e) The certificate holder shall submit the reports required by 
this section in an electronic or other form acceptable to the 
Administrator. After [1 year from the effective date of the rule], the 
certificate holder shall submit the reports required by this section in 
an electronic form acceptable to the Administrator. The reports shall 
include the following information:
    (1) The manufacturer, model, and serial number of the aircraft, 
engine, or propeller;
    (2) The registration number of the aircraft;
    (3) The operator designator;
    (4) The date on which the failure, malfunction, or defect was 
discovered;
    (5) The stage of flight or ground operation during which the 
failure, malfunction, or defect was discovered;
    (6) The nature of the failure, malfunction, or defect;
    (7) The applicable Joint Aircraft System/Component Code;
    (8) The total cycles, if applicable, and total time of the 
aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or component;
    (9) The manufacturer, manufacturer part number, part name, serial 
number, and location of the component that failed, malfunctioned, or 
was defective, if applicable;
    (10) The manufacturer, manufacturer part number, part name, serial 
number, and location of the part that failed, malfunctioned, or was 
defective, if applicable;
    (11) The precautionary or emergency action taken;
    (12) Other information necessary for a more complete analysis of 
the cause of the failure, malfunction, or defect, including available 
information pertaining to type designation of the major component and 
the time since the last maintenance overhaul, repair, or inspection; 
and
    (13) A unique control number for the occurrence, in a form 
acceptable to the Administrator.
    (f) A certificate holder that also is the holder of a Type 
Certificate (including a Supplemental Type Certificate), a Parts 
Manufacturer Approval, or a Technical Standard Order authorization, or 
that is a licensee of a Type Certificate holder, need not report a 
failure, malfunction, or defect under this section if the failure, 
malfunction, or defect has been reported by that certificate holder 
under Sec. 21.3 of this chapter or under the accident reporting 
provisions of 49 CFR part 830.
    (g) A report required by this section may be submitted by a 
certificated repair station when the reporting task has been assigned 
to that repair station by a part 121 certificate holder. However, the 
part 121 certificate holder remains primarily responsible for ensuring 
compliance with the provisions of this section. The part 121 
certificate holder shall receive a copy of each report submitted by the 
repair station.
    (h) No person may withhold a report required by this section 
although all information required by this section is not available.
    (i) When a certificate holder gets additional information 
concerning a report required by this section, the certificate holder 
shall expeditiously submit that information as a supplement to the 
original report and use the unique control number from the original 
report.
    3. Add Sec. 121.704 to read as follows:


Sec. 121.704  Service difficulty reports (structural).

    (a) Each certificate holder shall report the occurrence or 
detection of each failure or defect related to--
    (1) Corrosion, cracks, or disbonding that requires replacement of 
the affected part;
    (2) Corrosion, cracks, or disbonding that requires rework or 
blendout because the corrosion, cracks, or disbonding exceeds the 
manufacturer's established allowable damage limits;
    (3) Cracks, fractures, or disbonding in a composite structure that 
the equipment manufacturer has designated as a primary structure or a 
principal structural element; or
    (4) Failures or defects repaired in accordance with approved data 
not contained in the manufacturer's maintenance manual.
    (b) In addition to the reports required by paragraph (a) of this 
section, each certificate holder shall report any other failure or 
defect in aircraft structure that occurs or is detected at any time if 
that failure or defect has endangered or may endanger the safe 
operation of an aircraft.
    (c) Each certificate holder shall submit each report required by 
this section, covering each 24-hour period beginning at 0900 local time 
of each day and ending at 0900 local time on the next day, to a 
centralized collection point as specified by the Administrator. Each 
report of occurrences during a 24-hour period shall be submitted to the 
FAA within the next 96 hours. However, a report due on Saturday or 
Sunday may be submitted on the following Monday, and a report due on a 
holiday may be submitted on the next work day. Each certificate holder 
also shall make the report data available for 30 days for examination 
by the certificate-holding district office in a form and manner 
acceptable to the Administrator.
    (d) The certificate holder shall submit the reports required by 
this section in an electronic or other form acceptable to the 
Administrator. After [1 year from the

[[Page 18779]]

effective date of the rule], the certificate holder shall submit the 
reports required by this section in an electronic form acceptable to 
the Administrator. The reports shall include the following information:
    (1) The manufacturer, model, serial number, and registration number 
of the aircraft;
    (2) The operator designator;
    (3) The date on which the failure or defect was discovered;
    (4) The stage of ground operation during which the failure or 
defect was discovered;
    (5) The part name, part condition, and location of the failure or 
defect;
    (6) The applicable Joint Aircraft System/Component Code;
    (7) The total cycles, if applicable, and total time of the 
aircraft;
    (8) Other information necessary for a more complete analysis of the 
cause of the failure or defect, including corrosion classification, if 
applicable, or crack length and available information pertaining to 
type designation of the major component and the time since the last 
maintenance overhaul, repair, or inspection; and
    (9) A unique control number for the occurrence, in a form 
acceptable to the Administrator.
    (e) A certificate holder that also is the holder of a Type 
Certificate (including a Supplemental Type Certificate), a Parts 
Manufacturer Approval, or a Technical Standard Order authorization, or 
that is a licensee of a Type Certificate holder, need not report a 
failure or defect under this section if the failure or defect has been 
reported by that certificate holder under Sec. 21.3 of this chapter or 
under the accident reporting provisions of 49 CFR part 830.
    (f) A report required by this section may be submitted by a 
certificated repair station when the reporting task has been assigned 
to that repair station by the part 121 certificate holder. However, the 
part 121 certificate holder remains primarily responsible for ensuring 
compliance with the provisions of this section. The part 121 
certificate holder shall receive a copy of each report submitted by the 
repair station.
    (g) No person may withhold a report required by this section 
although all information required by this section is not available.
    (h) When a certificate holder gets additional information 
concerning a report required by this section, the certificate holder 
shall expeditiously submit that information as a supplement to the 
original report and use the unique control number from the original 
report.
    4. Revise Sec. 121.705 to read as follows:


Sec. 121.705  Mechanical interruption summary report.

    Each certificate holder shall submit to the Administrator, before 
the end of the 10th day of the following month, a summary report for 
the previous month of each interruption to a flight, unscheduled change 
of aircraft en route, unscheduled stop or diversion from a route, or 
unscheduled engine removal caused by known or suspected mechanical 
difficulties or malfunctions that are not required to be reported under 
Sec. 121.703 or Sec. 121.704 of this part.

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

    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. Revise Sec. 125.409 to read as follows:


Sec. 125.409  Service difficulty reports (operational).

    (a) Each certificate holder shall report the occurrence or 
detection of each failure, malfunction, or defect concerning--
    (1) Any fire and, when monitored by a related fire-warning system, 
whether the fire-warning system functioned properly;
    (2) Any false warning of fire or smoke;
    (3) An engine exhaust system that causes damage to the engine, 
adjacent structure, equipment, or components;
    (4) An aircraft component that causes the accumulation or 
circulation of smoke, vapor, or toxic or noxious fumes;
    (5) Any engine flameout or shutdown during flight or ground 
operations;
    (6) A propeller feathering system or ability of the system to 
control overspeed;
    (7) A fuel or fuel-dumping system that affects fuel flow or causes 
hazardous leakage;
    (8) A landing gear extension or retraction, or the opening or 
closing of landing gear doors during flight;
    (9) Any brake system component that results in any detectable loss 
of brake actuating force when the aircraft is in motion on the ground;
    (10) Any aircraft component or system that results in a rejected 
takeoff after initiation of the takeoff roll or the taking of emergency 
actions, as defined by the Aircraft Flight Manual or Pilot's Operating 
Handbook;
    (11) Any emergency evacuation system or component including any 
exit door, passenger emergency evacuation lighting system, or 
evacuation equipment found to be defective or that fails to perform the 
intended function during an actual emergency or during training, 
testing, maintenance, demonstrations, or inadvertent deployments; and
    (12) Autothrottle, autoflight, or flight control systems or 
components of these systems.
    (b) For the purposes of this section, during flight means the 
period from the moment the aircraft leaves the surface of the earth on 
takeoff until it touches down on landing.
    (c) In addition to the reports required by paragraph (a) of this 
section, each certificate holder shall report any other failure, 
malfunction, or defect in an aircraft, system, component, or powerplant 
that occurs or is detected at any time if that failure, malfunction, or 
defect has endangered or may endanger the safe operation of an 
aircraft.
    (d) Each certificate holder shall submit each report required by 
this section, covering each 24-hour period beginning at 0900 local time 
of each day and ending at 0900 local time on the next day, to a 
centralized collection point as specified by the Administrator. Each 
report of occurrences during a 24-hour period shall be submitted to the 
FAA within the next 96 hours. However, a report due on Saturday or 
Sunday may be submitted on the following Monday, and a report due on a 
holiday may be submitted on the next work day. For aircraft operating 
in areas where mail is not collected, reports may be submitted within 
24 hours after the aircraft returns to a point where the mail is 
collected. Each certificate holder also shall make the report data 
available for 30 days for examination by the certificate-holding 
district office in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator.
    (e) The certificate holder shall submit the reports required by 
this section in an electronic or other form acceptable to the 
Administrator. The reports shall include the following information:
    (1) The manufacturer, model, and serial number of the aircraft, 
engine, or propeller;
    (2) The registration number of the aircraft;
    (3) The operator designator;
    (4) The date on which the failure, malfunction, or defect was 
discovered;
    (5) The stage of flight or ground operation during which the 
failure, malfunction, or defect was discovered;
    (6) The nature of the failure, malfunction, or defect;
    (7) The applicable Joint Aircraft System/Component Code;

[[Page 18780]]

    (8) The total cycles, if applicable, and total time of the 
aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or component;
    (9) The manufacturer, manufacturer part number, part name, serial 
number, and location of the component that failed, malfunctioned, or 
was defective, if applicable;
    (10) The manufacturer, manufacturer part number, part name, serial 
number, and location of the part that failed, malfunctioned, or was 
defective, if applicable;
    (11) The precautionary or emergency action taken;
    (12) Other information necessary for a more complete analysis of 
the cause of the failure, malfunction, or defect, including available 
information pertaining to type designation of the major component and 
the time since the last maintenance overhaul, repair, or inspection; 
and
    (13) A unique control number for the occurrence, in a form 
acceptable to the Administrator.
    (f) A certificate holder that also is the holder of a Type 
Certificate (including a Supplemental Type Certificate), a Parts 
Manufacturer Approval, or a Technical Standard Order authorization, or 
that is a licensee of a Type Certificate holder, need not report a 
failure, malfunction, or defect under this section if the failure, 
malfunction, or defect has been reported by that certificate holder 
under Sec. 21.3 of this chapter or under the accident reporting 
provisions of 49 CFR part 830.
    (g) A report required by this section may be submitted by a 
certificated repair station when the reporting task has been assigned 
to that repair station by a part 125 certificate holder. However, the 
part 125 certificate holder remains primarily responsible for ensuring 
compliance with the provisions of this section. The part 125 
certificate holder shall receive a copy of each report submitted by the 
repair station.
    (h) No person may withhold a report required by this section 
although all information required by this section is not available.
    (i) When a certificate holder gets additional information 
concerning a report required by this section, the certificate holder 
shall expeditiously submit that information as a supplement to the 
original report and use the unique control number from the original 
report.
    7. Add Sec. 125.410 to read as follows:


Sec. 125.410  Service difficulty reports (structural).

    (a) Each certificate holder shall report the occurrence or 
detection of each failure or defect related to--
    (1) Corrosion, cracks, or disbonding that requires replacement of 
the affected part;
    (2) Corrosion, cracks, or disbonding that requires rework or 
blendout because the corrosion, cracks, or disbonding exceeds the 
manufacturer's established allowable damage limits;
    (3) Cracks, fractures, or disbonding in a composite structure that 
the equipment manufacturer has designated as a primary structure or a 
principal structural element; or
    (4) Failures or defects repaired in accordance with approved data 
not contained in the manufacturer's maintenance manual.
    (b) In addition to the reports required by paragraph (a) of this 
section, each certificate holder shall report any other failure or 
defect in aircraft structure that occurs or is detected at any time if 
that failure or defect has endangered or may endanger the safe 
operation of an aircraft.
    (c) Each certificate holder shall submit each report required by 
this section, covering each 24-hour period beginning at 0900 local time 
of each day and ending at 0900 local time on the next day, to a 
centralized collection point as specified by the Administrator. Each 
report of occurrences during a 24-hour period shall be submitted to the 
FAA within the next 96 hours. However, a report due on Saturday or 
Sunday may be submitted on the following Monday, and a report due on a 
holiday may be submitted on the next work day. For aircraft operating 
in areas where mail is not collected, reports may be submitted within 
24 hours after the aircraft returns to a point where the mail is 
collected. Each certificate holder also shall make the report data 
available for 30 days for examination by the certificate-holding 
district office in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator.
    (d) The certificate holder shall submit the reports required by 
this section in an electronic or other form acceptable to the 
Administrator. The reports shall include the following information:
    (1) The manufacturer, model, serial number, and registration number 
of the aircraft;
    (2) The operator designator;
    (3) The date on which the failure or defect was discovered;
    (4) The stage of ground operation during which the failure or 
defect was discovered;
    (5) The part name, part condition, and location of the failure or 
defect;
    (6) The applicable Joint Aircraft System/Component Code;
    (7) The total cycles, if applicable, and total time of the 
aircraft;
    (8) Other information necessary for a more complete analysis of the 
cause of the failure or defect, including corrosion classification, if 
applicable, or crack length and available information pertaining to 
type designation of the major component and the time since the last 
maintenance overhaul, repair, or inspection; and
    (9) A unique control number for the occurrence, in a form 
acceptable to the Administrator.
    (e) A certificate holder that also is the holder of a Type 
Certificate (including a Supplemental Type Certificate), a Parts 
Manufacturer Approval, or a Technical Standard Order authorization, or 
that is a licensee of a Type Certificate holder, need not report a 
failure or defect under this section if the failure or defect has been 
reported by that certificate holder under Sec. 21.3 of this chapter or 
under the accident reporting provisions of 49 CFR part 830.
    (f) A report required by this section may be submitted by a 
certificated repair station when the reporting task has been assigned 
to that repair station by the part 125 certificate holder. However, the 
part 125 certificate holder remains primarily responsible for ensuring 
compliance with the provisions of this section. The part 125 
certificate holder shall receive a copy of each report submitted by the 
repair station.
    (g) No person may withhold a report required by this section 
although all information required by this section is not available.
    (h) When a certificate holder gets additional information 
concerning a report required by this section, the certificate holder 
shall expeditiously submit that information as a supplement to the 
original report and use the unique control number from the original 
report.

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON-DEMAND OPERATIONS

    8. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 44113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709, 
44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.

    9. Amend Sec. 135.415 by revising the section heading and 
paragraphs (a), (c), (d), (e), and (f); redesignating paragraph (g) as 
paragraph (h); revising paragraph (h) and redesignating it as paragraph 
(i); and adding a new paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec. 135.415  Service difficulty reports (operational).

    (a) Each certificate holder shall report the occurrence or 
detection of each

[[Page 18781]]

failure, malfunction, or defect concerning--
    (1) Any fire and, when monitored by a related fire-warning system, 
whether the fire-warning system functioned properly;
    (2) Any false warning of fire or smoke;
    (3) An engine exhaust system that causes damage to the engine, 
adjacent structure, equipment, or components;
    (4) An aircraft component that causes the accumulation or 
circulation of smoke, vapor, or toxic or noxious fumes;
    (5) Any engine flameout or shutdown during flight or ground 
operations;
    (6) A propeller feathering system or ability of the system to 
control overspeed;
    (7) A fuel or fuel-dumping system that affects fuel flow or causes 
hazardous leakage;
    (8) A landing gear extension or retraction, or the opening or 
closing of landing gear doors during flight;
    (9) Any brake system component that results in any detectable loss 
of brake actuating force when the aircraft is in motion on the ground;
    (10) Any aircraft component or system that results in a rejected 
takeoff after initiation of the takeoff roll or the taking of emergency 
action, as defined by the Aircraft Flight Manual or Pilot's Operating 
Handbook;
    (11) Any emergency evacuation system or component including any 
exit door, passenger emergency evacuation lighting system, or 
evacuation equipment found to be defective, or that fails to perform 
the intended function during an actual emergency or during training, 
testing, maintenance, demonstrations, or inadvertent deployments; and
    (12) Autothrottle, autoflight, or flight control systems or 
components of these systems.
* * * * *
    (c) In addition to the reports required by paragraph (a) of this 
section, each certificate holder shall report any other failure, 
malfunction, or defect in an aircraft, system, component, or powerplant 
that occurs or is detected at any time if that failure, malfunction, or 
defect has endangered or may endanger the safe operation of an 
aircraft.
    (d) Each certificate holder shall submit each report required by 
this section, covering each 24-hour period beginning at 0900 local time 
of each day and ending at 0900 local time on the next day, to a 
centralized collection point as specified by the Administrator. Each 
report of occurrences during a 24-hour period shall be submitted to the 
FAA within the next 96 hours. However, a report due on Saturday or 
Sunday may be submitted on the following Monday, and a report due on a 
holiday may be submitted on the next work day. For aircraft operating 
in areas where mail is not collected, reports may be submitted within 
24 hours after the aircraft returns to a point where the mail is 
collected. Each certificate holder also shall make the report data 
available for 30 days for examination by the certificate-holding 
district office in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator.
    (e) The certificate holder shall submit the reports required by 
this section in an electronic or other form acceptable to the 
Administrator. The reports shall include the following information:
    (1) The manufacturer, model, and serial number of the aircraft, 
engine, or propeller;
    (2) The registration number of the aircraft;
    (3) The operator designator;
    (4) The date on which the failure, malfunction, or defect was 
discovered;
    (5) The stage of flight or ground operation during which the 
failure, malfunction, or defect was discovered;
    (6) The nature of the failure, malfunction, or defect;
    (7) The applicable Joint Aircraft System/Component Code;
    (8) The total cycles, if applicable, and total time of the 
aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or component;
    (9) The manufacturer, manufacturer part number, part name, serial 
number, and location of the component that failed, malfunctioned, or 
was defective, if applicable;
    (10) The manufacturer, manufacturer part number, part name, serial 
number, and location of the part that failed, malfunctioned, or was 
defective, if applicable;
    (11) The precautionary or emergency action taken;
    (12) Other information necessary for more complete analysis of the 
cause of the failure, malfunction, or defect, including available 
information pertaining to type designation of the major component and 
the time since the last maintenance overhaul, repair, or inspection; 
and
    (13) A unique control number for the occurrence, in a form 
acceptable to the Administrator.
    (f) A certificate holder that also is the holder of a Type 
Certificate (including a Supplemental Type Certificate), a Parts 
Manufacturer Approval, or a Technical Standard Order authorization, or 
that is a licensee of a Type Certificate holder, need not report a 
failure, malfunction, or defect under this section if the failure, 
malfunction, or defect has been reported by that certificate holder 
under Sec. 21.3 of this chapter or under the accident reporting 
provisions of 49 CFR part 830.
    (g) A report required by this section may be submitted by a 
certificated repair station when the reporting task has been assigned 
to that repair station by a part 135 certificate holder. However, the 
part 135 certificate holder remains primarily responsible for ensuring 
compliance with the provisions of this section. The part 135 
certificate holder shall receive a copy of each report submitted by the 
repair station.
    (h) No person may withhold a report required by this section 
although all information required by this section is not available.
    (i) When a certificate holder gets additional information 
concerning a report required by this section, the certificate holder 
shall expeditiously submit that information as a supplement to the 
original report and use the unique control number from the original 
report.
    10. Add Sec. 135.416 to read as follows:


Sec. 135.416  Service difficulty reports (structural).

    (a) Each certificate holder shall report the occurrence or 
detection of each failure or defect related to--
    (1) Corrosion, cracks, or disbonding that requires replacement of 
the affected part;
    (2) Corrosion, cracks, or disbonding that requires rework or 
blendout because the corrosion, cracks, or disbonding exceeds the 
manufacturer's established allowable damage limits;
    (3) Cracks, fractures, or disbonding in a composite structure that 
the equipment manufacturer has designated as a primary structure or a 
principal structural element; or
    (4) Failures or defects repaired in accordance with approved data 
not contained in the manufacturer's maintenance manual.
    (b) In addition to the reports required by paragraph (a) of this 
section, each certificate holder shall report any other failure or 
defect in aircraft structure that occurs or is detected at any time if 
that failure or defect has endangered or may endanger the safe 
operation of an aircraft.
    (c) Each certificate holder shall submit each report required by 
this section, covering each 24-hour period beginning at 0900 local time 
of each day and ending at 0900 local time on the next day, to a 
centralized collection point as specified by the Administrator. Each 
report of occurrences during a 24-hour period shall be submitted to the 
FAA within the next 96 hours. However, a report due on Saturday or

[[Page 18782]]

Sunday may be submitted on the following Monday, and a report due on a 
holiday may be submitted on the next work day. For aircraft operating 
in areas where mail is not collected, reports may be submitted within 
24 hours after the aircraft returns to a point where the mail is 
collected. Each certificate holder also shall make the report data 
available for 30 days for examination by the certificate-holding 
district office in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator.
    (d) The certificate holder shall submit the reports required by 
this section in an electronic or other form acceptable to the 
Administrator. The reports shall include the following information:
    (1) The manufacturer, model, serial number, and registration number 
of the aircraft;
    (2) The operator designator;
    (3) The date on which the failure or defect was discovered;
    (4) The stage of ground operation during which the failure or 
defect was discovered;
    (5) The part name, part condition, and location of the failure or 
defect;
    (6) The applicable Joint Aircraft System/Component Code;
    (7) The total cycles, if applicable, and total time of the 
aircraft;
    (8) Other information necessary for a more complete analysis of the 
cause of the failure or defect, including corrosion classification, if 
applicable, or crack length and available information pertaining to 
type designation of the major component and the time since the last 
maintenance overhaul, repair, or inspection; and
    (9) A unique control number for the occurrence, in a form 
acceptable to the Administrator.
    (e) A certificate holder that also is the holder of a Type 
Certificate (including a Supplemental Type Certificate), a Parts 
Manufacturer Approval, or a Technical Standard Order authorization, or 
that is a licensee of a Type Certificate holder, need not report a 
failure or defect under this section if the failure or defect has been 
reported by that certificate holder under Sec. 21.3 of this chapter or 
under the accident reporting provisions of 49 CFR part 830.
    (f) A report required by this section may be submitted by a 
certificated repair station when the reporting task has been assigned 
to that repair station by the part 135 certificate holder. However, the 
part 135 certificate holder remains primarily responsible for ensuring 
compliance with the provisions of this section. The part 135 
certificate holder shall receive a copy of each report submitted by the 
repair station.
    (g) No person may withhold a report required by this section 
although all information required by this section is not available.
    (h) When a certificate holder gets additional information 
concerning a report required by this section, the certificate holder 
shall expeditiously submit that information as a supplement to the 
original report and use the unique control number from the original 
report.
    11. Revise Sec. 135.417 to read as follows:


Sec. 135.417  Mechanical interruption summary report.

    Each certificate holder shall submit to the Administrator, before 
the end of the 10th day of the following month, a summary report for 
the previous month of each interruption to a flight, unscheduled change 
of aircraft en route, unscheduled stop or diversion from a route, or 
unscheduled engine removal caused by known or suspected mechanical 
difficulties or malfunctions that are not required to be reported under 
Sec. 135.415 or Sec. 135.416 of this part.

PART 145--REPAIR STATIONS

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

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

    13. Amend Sec. 145.63 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) and adding 
paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:


Sec. 145.63  Reports of defects or unairworthy conditions.

    (a) Each certificated domestic repair station shall, within 96 
hours after it discovers any serious defect in, or other recurring 
unairworthy condition of, an aircraft, powerplant, or propeller, or any 
component of any of them, submit a report to a central collection point 
as specified by the Administrator. The report shall be made in a form 
and in a manner acceptable to the Administrator, describing the defect 
or unairworthy condition completely without withholding any pertinent 
information.
* * * * *
    (c) The holder of a domestic repair station certificate that also 
is the holder of a part 121, part 125, or part 135 certificate, a Type 
Certificate (including a Supplemental Type Certificate), a Parts 
Manufacturer Approval, or a Technical Standard Order Authorization, or 
that is the licensee of a Type Certificate holder, need not report a 
failure, malfunction, or defect under this section if the failure, 
malfunction, or defect has been reported by it under Sec. 21.3, 
Sec. 121.703, Sec. 121.704, Sec. 125.409, Sec. 125.410, Sec. 135.415, 
or Sec. 135.416 of this chapter.
    (d) A certificated domestic repair station may submit a Service 
Difficulty Report (operational or structural) for--
    (1) A part 121 certificate holder under Sec. 121.703(g) or 
Sec. 121.704(f) provided that the report meets the requirements of 
Secs. 121.703(d) and 121.703(e), or Secs. 121.704(c) and 121.704(d) of 
this chapter, as appropriate;
    (2) A part 125 certificate holder under Sec. 125.409(g) or 
Sec. 125.410(f) provided that the report meets the requirements of 
Secs. 125.409(d) and 125.409(e), or Secs. 125.410(c) and 125.410(d) of 
this chapter, as appropriate;
    (3) A part 135 certificate holder under Sec. 135.415(g) or 
Sec. 135.416(f) provided that the report meets the requirements of 
Secs. 135.415(d) and 135.415(e), or Secs. 135.416(c) and 135.416(d) of 
this chapter, as appropriate.
    (e) A certificated domestic repair station authorized to report a 
failure, malfunction, or defect under paragraph (d) of this section 
shall not report the same failure, malfunction, or defect under 
paragraph (a) of this section. A copy of the report submitted under 
paragraph (d) of this section shall be forwarded to the certificate 
holder.
    14. Amend Sec. 145.79 by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) and adding 
paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:


Sec. 145.79  Records and reports.

* * * * *
    (c) Each certificated foreign repair station shall, within 96 hours 
after it discovers any serious defect in, or other recurring 
unairworthy condition of, any aircraft, powerplant, propeller, or any 
component of any of them, submit a report to a central collection point 
as specified by the Administrator. The report shall be made in a form 
and in a manner acceptable to the Administrator, describing the defect 
or unairworthy condition completely without withholding any pertinent 
information.
    (d) The holder of a foreign repair station certificate that also is 
the holder of a Type Certificate (including a Supplemental Type 
Certificate), a Parts Manufacturer Approval, or a Technical Standard 
Order Authorization or that is the licensee of a Type Certificate 
holder need not report a failure, malfunction, or defect under this 
section if the failure, malfunction, or defect has been reported by it 
under Sec. 21.3 of this chapter.
    (e) A certificated foreign repair station may submit a Service 
Difficulty Report (operational or structural) for--

[[Page 18783]]

    (1) A part 121 certificate holder under Sec. 121.703(g) or 
Sec. 121.704(f) provided that the report meets the requirements of 
Secs. 121.703(d) and 121.703(e) or Secs. 121.704(c) and 121.704(d) of 
this chapter, as appropriate;
    (2) A part 125 certificate holder under Sec. 125.409(g) or 
Sec. 125.410(f) provided that the report meets the requirements of 
Secs. 125.409(d) and 125.409(e) or Secs. 125.410(c) and 125.410(d) of 
this chapter, as appropriate;
    (3) A part 135 certificate holder under Sec. 135.415(g) or 
Sec. 135.416(f) provided that the report meets the requirements of 
Secs. 135.415(d) and 135.415(e) or Secs. 135.416(c) and 135.416(d) of 
this chapter, as appropriate.
    (f) A certificated foreign repair station authorized to report a 
failure, malfunction, or defect under paragraph (e) of this section 
shall not report the same failure, malfunction, or defect under 
paragraph (c) of this section. A copy of the report submitted under 
paragraph (e) of this section shall be forwarded to the certificate 
holder.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on April 7, 1999.
Nicholas L. Lacey,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 99-9299 Filed 4-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P