[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 180 (Friday, September 15, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56192-56207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-23676]



[[Page 56191]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 121 et al.



Service Difficulty Reports; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 180 / Friday, September 15, 2000 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 56192]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 121, 125, 135, and 145

[Docket No. 28293; Amendment No. 121-279, 125-35, 135-77, and 145-22]
RIN 2120-AF71


Service Difficulty Reports

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, request for comments on the information collection 
requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA amends reporting requirements for air carriers and 
certificated domestic and foreign repair station operators concerning 
failures, malfunctions, and defects of aircraft, aircraft engines, 
systems, and components. This 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. The objective of this final rule is 
to improve the reporting system to effectively collect and disseminate 
clear and concise safety information to the aviation industry.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 16, 2001. Comments on the information 
collection requirements must be submitted on or before November 14, 
2000.

ADDRESSES: Address your comments on the information collection 
requirements, in duplicate, to the 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jose E. Figueroa, AFS-300, Flight 
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence 
Ave., Washington, DC, 20591 telephone (703) 661-0522.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the 
following steps:
    (1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's 
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search).
    (2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket 
number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information 
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number for the item 
you wish to view.
    You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through 
FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the 
Federal Register's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this 
rulemaking.

Availability of the Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code

    Copies of the Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code are 
available from the FAA's Regulatory Support Division (AFS-620), P.O. 
Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, (405) 954-4391 or on-line from 
http://av-info.faa.gov/isdr/SDRRelatedReferences.asp.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity that has a question regarding 
this document may contact their local FAA official, or the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can find out more 
about SBRFA on the Internet at our site, http://www.gov/avr/arm/sbrefa.htm. For more information on SBREFA, e-mail us [email protected].

Background

    On August 14, 1995, the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(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 comment period for Notice No. 95-12 closed on November 13, 
1995. Comments addressing numerous issues on the proposed rule were 
received from individuals, part 121 and part 135 certificate holders, 
aviation consulting firms, industry associations, manufacturers, and 
labor organizations. The FAA reviewed the comments and the changes 
recommended by the commenters. As a result, the FAA published a 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, Notice No. 95-12A (64 FR 
18766, April 15, 1999). This supplemental notice gave all interested 
parties an opportunity to comment on the revisions made as a result of 
the comments received on Notice 95-12.
    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. Currently, the Service Difficulty Reporting System (SDRS) is 
used in the following ways:
     FAA Analysis of SDR data:
     To rapidly disseminate defect trends, problems, and alert 
information that could pertain to future aviation safety issues to 
appropriate segments of the aviation community and the FAA; and
     To inform engineering offices within the FAA for 
evaluation of problems for potential use in preparing Airworthiness 
Directives (AD).
     FAA personnel requests for SDRS data:
     Using SDR data as part of aircraft safety inspections;
     Whenever there is an accident, the Office of Accident 
Investigation draws on this data;
     Supporting investigations into accidents and incidents;
     Disseminate safety data to the aviation industry, multiple 
government organizations, the public, the media, and legal communities; 
and
     Used in Aviation Safety/Accident Prevention programs.
     National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) personnel 
request data from the SDRS to assist in their accident investigations.
     There are numerous requests, from the media and legal 
community, for the SDR data.
     Foreign countries and branches of the U.S. military 
services use the SDR data for research.

Discussion of Comments and Modifications to the Proposal

    Eleven comments were received on the supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking (Notice No. 95-12A).

Structural Reporting Concerns

    One commenter interprets the proposed rule to mean that if a defect

[[Page 56193]]

is found to be beyond the manufacturer's limits and is repaired in 
accordance with the manufacturer's repair manual, that defect is not 
reportable under the revised SDR reporting requirements.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with the commenter's 
interpretation. Section 121.704(a)(4) requires reporting of each the 
following: (1) Any defect that leads to replacement, (2) any rework 
that exceeds the manufacturer's established allowable damage limits, 
(3) any defect in PSE's (Primary Structural Elements), or (4) repairs 
made in accordance with approved data not contained in the 
manufacturer's maintenance manual. Using the commenter's example, a 
report would be required under Sec. 121.704(a)(2) because the defect is 
found to be beyond the manufacturer's limits. The availability of the 
data in the repair manual has no bearing in this situation as the FAA 
wants reports of any defect that exceeds the manufacturer's established 
allowable damage limits. The FAA has made some minor editorial changes 
to the rule language.
    Delta Airlines is opposed to reporting defects when a repair scheme 
for that defect is not contained in the original equipment manufacturer 
(OEM) manuals. Delta Airlines also states that they are against 
reporting defects when a repair scheme is contained in the OEM manual. 
They believe that once a recurring problem has been addressed (through 
the development of a repair scheme), repetitive reporting of the same 
defect adds no value, unless the defect has recurred following the 
incorporation of the recommended terminating action or repair.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Section 121.704(a) requires 
certificate holders to report the occurrence or detection of each 
failure or defect that exceeds OEM established limits, and failures or 
defects repaired in accordance with approved data not contained in the 
manufacturer's maintenance manual. Certificate holders are required to 
report occurrences to the FAA. The FAA will use data on occurrences to 
identify trends that have a negative affect on the continued 
airworthiness of aeronautical products; and may take action to ensure 
prompt and appropriate correction of design defects. It is important to 
receive reports of defects even if a method of repairing them is known 
and available. If the FAA did not receive reports of defects because 
they could be repaired, the FAA would not be aware that defects were 
being identified. One of the primary purposes of the SDR program is to 
warn of defects that could lead to unairworthy conditions. To 
accomplish that goal, the FAA must be aware of possible safety related 
issues.

Value of Service Difficulty Reports (SDR's)

    The Air Transport Association (ATA) and some of its membership have 
questioned the value of reporting the service difficulty data, stating 
that further expansion of the rule will not lead to any observable 
benefit for the enhancement of safety.
    Airborne Express states that the existing service difficulty 
database serves little benefit. They believe that if any analysis is 
done based on this database, it is transparent to the operators.
    FAA Response: The Service Difficulty Reporting (SDR) Program's 
objective is to achieve prompt and appropriate correction of conditions 
adversely affecting continued airworthiness of aeronautical products. 
The SDR program allows for an exchange of information and provides a 
method of communication between the FAA and the aviation community 
concerning in-service problems. The consolidation, collation, and 
analysis of the data, and the rapid dissemination of trends, problems, 
and alert information to the appropriate segments of the aviation 
community and FAA, effectively and economically provide a method to 
ensure aviation safety.
    Air Canada states that ``it was our understanding that the basis 
for collecting this data was to provide a database that would 
substantiate the effectiveness of manufacturer developed bulletins and 
repairs.'' Air Canada also feels that new Sec. 121.704 is worded in 
general terms leading to more reporting of non-routine work tasks 
during heavy maintenance.
    FAA Response: The SDR program was never intended to substantiate 
the effectiveness of manufacturer-developed bulletins and repairs. 
Although certain conclusions can be drawn from repeated reporting of 
defects that were supposedly fixed by the provisions of a service 
bulletin, the SDR program is predicated on reporting of the occurrence 
of defects.
    The FAA created Sec. 121.704 to report defects occurring in 
structural items. Such reporting was not specifically required in the 
past. The rule language is designed to require reporting of specific 
items that are most likely to be found during a heavy maintenance 
check. The SDR program does not require the reporting of nonroutine 
work tasks. The program only requires the reporting of defects when 
found.
    American Airlines see SDR's as a very time consuming, labor 
intensive exercise, and may have little or no value.
    FAA Response: In the past, the SDR database may not have been 
utilized to its fullest potential. Some reporting requirements were 
subjective, causing inconsistent reporting which could lead to analysis 
of incorrect data and errors in trend analysis. The FAA undertook this 
rulemaking effort to correct such deficiencies. The rulemaking is 
designed to provide more consistent data reporting that will lend 
itself to better data analysis.
    The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), on the other hand, feels 
that the FAA has eliminated many reporting ambiguities found in the 
current rule language and believes that the FAA's proposal is clearer 
and will ensure more useful SDR reports. Also, comments received from 
the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA), and the International 
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) indicate that the 
FAA has made significant improvements to the service difficulty 
reporting process.
    Southwest Airlines states that Structural Item reporting proposed 
for heavy maintenance is totally unacceptable. They claim that this 
provision will require reporting service difficulties while the 
aircraft is still in-work, leaving the report ``open'' because all 
repair data are not available. The tracking and closure of open SDR's 
will impose an additional administrative burden on both Southwest 
Airlines and the FAA.
    The ATA comments that the proposed rule will not provide the FAA 
with valuable safety information. Many reports will be submitted by the 
operators as ``open'' reports and specific repair information will not 
be available until the repair process is completed.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Any report of the failure, 
malfunction, or defect of an aeronautical product that causes or has 
the potential to cause a safety hazard is valuable safety information. 
The initial ``open'' (not complete with cause) report is valuable 
safety information and may be the first indication of a problem. Even 
an ``open'' report could alert other operators of a potential safety 
problem or a defect.
    All of the required information may not be available when an 
original SDR is submitted. In such a case, when certificate holders 
operating under part 121, 125, or 135 get additional information 
concerning a required report, they must submit this additional 
information, from whatever source (including information obtained from

[[Page 56194]]

the manufacturer, the certificate holder's internal maintenance 
organization, or a certificated repair station) in a supplemental 
report. If all of the required information were available when the SDR 
is submitted, the report would be an original closed (``OC'') report. 
However, in those cases where all of the required information is not 
available, the certificate holder still must file an SDR within the 
required 96-hour time period and indicate on the SDR that the report is 
an original open (``OO'') report. When the additional information is 
obtained, the certificate holder must file a supplemental SDR 
referencing the operator control number from the original report. The 
use of this number will ensure that the supplemental report can be 
traced to the original SDR. The certificate holder also should indicate 
whether the additional information closes (supplemental closed/``SC'') 
the report or whether more information will be submitted and the report 
remains open (supplemental open/``SO''). Because certificate holders 
are required to submit supplemental SDR's, they should establish 
procedures for tracking ``open'' SDR's.
    Air Canada claims that they have seen no demonstrated increase in 
safety as a result of mandatory service difficulty reporting.
    FAA Response: The purpose of the SDR program is to receive reports 
of the occurrence of defects to alert the FAA, and subsequently the 
aviation industry, of the potential for widespread occurrences of those 
defects. The initial operator's report alerts the FAA of the potential 
for an airworthiness problem, and reports from multiple operators of 
the same defect could be an indication of a fleet-wide problem. The FAA 
analyses the reports it receives and places the report data in a 
database that is also analyzed. The FAA may determine that corrective 
action is required.

Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code Codes versus Air 
Transport Association (ATA) Codes

    The ATA states that the use of the Joint Aircraft System/Component 
(JASC) code as proposed in Sec. 121.703(e)(7) would require future 
reports to include the JASC rather than existing ATA codes. The ATA 
codes, are the cornerstone and industry standard for technical data 
development and reporting. Also, Airborne Express states that the issue 
of the use of JASC coding versus ATA coding seems to have questionable 
benefit.
    Delta Airlines disagrees with the use of JASC codes in place of ATA 
codes on the SDR form. Also, Southwest Airlines states that the 
requirement to use JASC coding is unacceptable. The usage of JASC codes 
would require reprogramming all computers and extensive training to 
adapt to the new coding system.
    The Regional Airline Association (RAA) requests that the following 
provisions be deleted from Secs. 121.703, 125.409, and 135.415: ``The 
applicable Joint Aircraft System/Component Code and a unique control 
number for the occurrence in a form acceptable to the Administrator.'' 
The RAA views the entry of the JASC Code as an optional field. The RAA 
further states that because the entry is administrative in nature, it 
should be recommended as a data entry field in an advisory circular 
(AC).
    FAA Response: The existing rules do not specifically require the 
use of ATA codes on an SDR report. When reporting, however, the use of 
ATA Codes has become a routine practice that has proven to be effective 
for both industry and the FAA. Most of the SDR reports presently 
contain the ATA Code and the FAA attempts to add the ATA Code to the 
database when possible. The use of a specific code has proven to be 
very useful for tracking and analysis of problems. Thus, the FAA 
decided to require the use of such a code. The FAA originally planned 
to require the ATA Code; however, a lack of specificity in certain ATA 
Codes necessitated a broader code.
    The JASC Code system was developed from the ATA coding system and 
is consistent with the ATA Code system. The ATA Codes do not always 
provide the necessary level of specificity for analysis. The JASC Codes 
merely expand on existing ATA Codes to give a more detailed picture of 
the condition. The users of the ATA Code should not need to 
significantly revise their procedures or systems to convert to the use 
of the JASC Code.
    The Safety Analysis Section of the FAA's Flight Standards Service 
developed the JASC Code from the ATA Code with input from other civil 
aviation authorities. The JASC Code has been adopted by the Civil 
Aviation Authority of Australia and by Transport Canada.

The 96-Hour Requirement

    The ATA and Airborne Express comment that the requirement for 
operators to submit SDR's within 96 hours after discovery of the defect 
rather than upon return to service of the aircraft places an additional 
burden on the airlines with questionable benefits.
    American Airlines states that forcing air carriers to report 
structural type defects within 96 hours from the time of discovery, 
instead of from the time the aircraft returns to service, will cause an 
additional and unnecessary burden.
    FAA Response: The reporting timeframe requirement in the existing 
rule (72 hours) and this revision to the rule (96 hours) has always 
been predicated on the time of discovery of the occurrence, not on 
return to service. The proposal did not change the triggering 
requirement. The initial report contains valuable safety information, 
as it may be the first indication of a problem. The initial report 
alerts other operators of the potential for problems. The change from a 
72 to a 96-hour requirement will allow the operators additional time to 
complete the report and may reduce the number of incomplete (open) 
reports.

Additional Burdens

    Airborne Express comments on the undue burden to operators to 
control data on parts to meet the SDR reporting information 
requirement.
    FAA Response: The FAA has determined that there is minimal burden 
on the operators due to this rulemaking action. Operators are already 
recording most of the information to document the airworthiness of the 
aeronautical product as required by other various regulations not part 
of this rulemaking. The revised rule specifies the need to report the 
manufacturer, manufacturer part number, part name, serial number, and 
location of the part. In the past, there was not a specific request for 
this information.
    The Helicopter Association International (HAI) states that 
``proposed Secs. 135.415(g), 135.416(f), and 145.79(e) permit 
certificated domestic and foreign repair stations to submit required 
SDR's, but do not require them to do so. Rather, the burden remains 
with the operator to submit the required reports or to supervise the 
efforts of the repair station to do so.'' The HAI believes that this 
allocation of responsibility is inappropriate.
    Air Canada states that they ``will be required to provide reporting 
on behalf of our customers.''
    FAA Response: The reporting responsibility ultimately lies with the 
certificate holder for the aircraft. However, a certificate holder 
could make arrangements with the repair station to submit the required 
reports. This arrangement would permit the repair station to submit the 
reports as the repair station discovers discrepancies during 
maintenance of the operator's equipment. If such an arrangement were 
made to meet the

[[Page 56195]]

requirements, the repair station would submit the data required to be 
submitted by the operator. The FAA emphasizes that such arrangements 
are optional and that the details of such arrangements are contractual, 
not regulatory. The FAA emphasizes that the responsibility for the 
submission of the reports would always remain with the certificate 
holder of that aircraft. Other regulations, not affected by this 
rulemaking, specify the certificate holders' responsibility for 
supervising contract maintenance.
    One purpose of the revised regulation is to reduce the possibility 
of duplicate reports when two separate certificate holders each bear 
responsibility for submitting SDR's. The FAA expects the operator and 
the repair station to reach an agreement so that one report is 
submitted to the FAA for each defect.
    American Airlines also states that the new rule shifts the burden 
of reporting from the FAA Certificate Management Office to the industry 
and that the impact of removing the FAA from the reporting chain should 
be addressed.
    FAA Response: The reporting burden has always been the 
responsibility of the operator. The local FAA offices will not be 
removed from the reporting chain, rather the reports will be 
transmitted to the FAA centralized collection point that is accessible 
to the Certificate Holding District Office (CHDO).
    American Airlines states that the proposed rule expands the 
reportable incidents and they expect a significant increase in the 
number of SDR's submitted.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees. The FAA took the current SDR list of 
reportable items and determined which items were necessary for 
inclusion in the database. This resulted in approximately the same 
numbers of items to be reported; however, the list is now very specific 
as to which items must be reported. This will result in an increase in 
the number of reports.
    American Airlines believes that reporting malfunctions or defects 
occurring during ground operations is unnecessary and is an additional 
burden. They also suggest that reporting engine shutdowns during either 
ground or flight operations will cause confusion.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The revised rule clarifies that a 
failure, malfunction, or defect is required to be reported regardless 
of what stage of operation the discovery occurred because such an 
incidence could indicate a system malfunction or fault that may affect 
safety of flight.

Reportable Items

    Airborne Express questions why a defect covered by the minimum 
equipment list (MEL) must to be reported when there is no apparent 
unsafe condition in the operation of the aircraft.
    FAA Response: If an item that is listed on the MEL for that 
aircraft fails, the operator may temporarily continue to operate the 
aircraft. However, the SDR program is designed to capture failure 
occurrences. In some cases an identical part that may not be on the MEL 
list for other aircraft could be subject to the same failure. The FAA 
needs to know if an item is failing, regardless if the aircraft may 
still be capable of safe flight. The repeated failure of an item, 
whether listed on the MEL or not, is of particular interest to the FAA 
and industry.
    Delta Airlines states that they are against reporting unscheduled 
engine removal.
    FAA Response: The proposal did not address the Mechanical 
Interruption Summary Report provisions that contain the requirement for 
reporting unscheduled engine removal. The FAA removed from Sec. 121.705 
only those items that were duplicated in the SDR's and did not change 
the remainder of the Sec. 121.705 requirements. The reporting of 
unscheduled engine removal facilitates the continued compilation of 
data for preparation of the FAA's Air Carrier Aircraft Utilization and 
Propulsion Reliability Report.
    Delta Airlines states that they currently provide continuous 
electronic access to Mechanical Interruption Summary data and; 
therefore, should not be required to comply with a monthly reporting 
requirement.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The FAA does not have the 
resources to monitor the certificate holder's database on a continual 
basis. In addition, the FAA is responsible for the oversight of a large 
number of certificate holders and needs the information submitted in 
summary format.
    Southwest Airlines states that proposals to change the language of 
``Sec. 121.703(a)(13) to include reporting of flight control seals, 
pulleys, cables, brackets, hardware, chafing, rubbing, rigging, etc. 
are unacceptable.''
    FAA Response: The provision Southwest Airlines refers to is found 
in Sec. 121.703(a)(12). The FAA's intent was to record events during 
aircraft operation, i.e. uncommanded movements of flight controls while 
engaged in autoflight and autothrottle operations. The FAA did not 
intend for the certificate holder to report the expected wear and tear 
of items such as cables, seals, pulleys, etc. The commenter did not 
provide evidence to support the claim that these reporting requirements 
are ``unacceptable.''
    British Aerospace Regional Aircraft (BAeRA) states ``that in our 
experience that (sic) airlines who are required to provide FAA SDR 
reporting rarely also provide safety event information direct to BAeRA, 
either in parallel or in addition to the required FAA SDR reporting.'' 
The BAeRA states ``that it would be of benefit, both in terms of 
timeliness and ensuring that any safety event is considered in the 
context of all aircraft of that type, if the airlines were required to 
inform or provide copies of all SDR's direct to the aircraft 
manufacturer in parallel with their submission to the FAA.''
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The SDR database is and has been 
available to the aviation industry and manufacturers through the 
publicly available reports. These reports are available on the 
Internet. The SDRS will allow the public access to information much 
quicker than in the past.

Redundant Reporting

    Airborne Express feels that these proposed rules include 
redundancies, such as the requirement to report similar information to 
the Reliability Programs and the SDR program.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that reliability programs capture 
similar defect data; however, not all part 121 operators have approval 
to use a reliability program, and data from these programs are not 
shared universally amongst operators. If operators with reliability 
programs were excluded from the requirement to submit SDRs to the 
database, the database would be incomplete (only show part of the 
potentially affected aircraft fleet), and the occurrence of defects for 
some aircraft would go unreported even though the defect could occur in 
another operator's fleet.
    American Airlines states that ``the value of the expanded 
structural reporting requirement must be questioned. The industry 
already gathers and reports structural repair data mandated by 
Airworthiness Directives (AD). Reporting this information under the SDR 
program seems to be a duplication of effort. This duplication is not 
addressed in the NPRM and should be considered by the FAA before any 
final rule is put into effect.''
    FAA Response: The FAA contends that, in general, AD's do not 
require the same reporting of structural repair data. The AD reporting 
requirements, while

[[Page 56196]]

containing some information common to the SDR system, usually request 
information that is different from the information collection required 
for the SDR system. Also, the reported AD information is used for 
reasons other than the analysis function of the SDR database. As an 
example, the ``aging aircraft'' information reported by certificate 
holders for an AD 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 SDR's is used for the identification of 
recurring service problems.

Electronic Submission of SDR's

    American Airlines feels that mandating the reporting of SDR's in an 
electronic format will result in an unnecessary burden and additional 
costs. The commenter further states that the reporting of SDR's is a 
complex process for part 121 certificate holders. ``Revamping the 
present reporting system, training numerous employees in a new unneeded 
process, and changing the culture in our company will cause a 
tremendous burden on American Airlines.'' Also, American Airlines 
suggests that the FAA may have unnecessarily burdened part 121 
certificate holders by requiring them to report SDR's in an electronic 
format when other certificate holders have the option of using 
electronic reporting.
    FAA Response: The FAA has determined that electronic submission of 
SDR's could permit a more timely dissemination of safety information. 
The FAA instituted a test electronic SDR reporting system several years 
ago to determine if electronic reporting was feasible. At this time, 
several similar sized part 121 operators are voluntarily submitting 
reports electronically via the Internet. Although the electronic 
reporting system appears to work, the FAA requested comments on a 
proposal to make electronic reporting mandatory. Most of the commenters 
raised concerns with mandating electronic reporting. The FAA has 
decided to allow the option of electronic reporting but will not make 
it mandatory at this time. The rule language has been revised to 
reflect that electronic reporting is optional.
    American Airlines also states that to mandate a part 121 
certificate holder to use an IBM-compatible computer, is as ludicrous 
as a part 121 carrier requesting that the FAA purchase and use a 
Macintosh computer so equipment used by the FAA can be compatible with 
equipment used by the part 121 certificate holder. Delta Airlines 
states ``that the proposed rule places the full burden (logistics, 
economics, programming, etc.) on the operators to conform to the 
Administrator's electronic format and its future revisions.''
    FAA Response: After further consideration, the FAA has determined 
that due to the potential for lack of computer compatibility and the 
current lack of a universally accepted protocol, the mandatory 
electronic submission of reports would increase the burden on the FAA 
and industry. Therefore, electronic submission of reports will be 
optional. The FAA is using the Internet standard as a means of 
receiving electronic SDR's that in effect resolves platform 
incompatibility issues such as Macintosh computer devices if an 
operator prefers to submit reports electronically.
    The Regional Airline Association (RAA) and Southwest Airlines 
support the use of electronically submitted SDR's. The RAA recognizes 
that the SDR system will become a more effective tool for tracking and 
analyzing mechanical malfunction trends. In the past, the air carriers 
provided the SDR data to the FAA on paper and the FAA in turn published 
the data in huge paper documents several months later.
    Delta Airlines states that Sec. 121.705 should allow for reporting 
by other means acceptable to the Administrator.
    FAA Response: The rule language has been changed to permit the 
SDR's to be submitted on a form or in another format acceptable to the 
Administrator. The FAA has developed a paper form that includes blocks 
for all the required reporting information. The FAA's Aviation Data 
Systems Branch (AFS-620), P.O. Box 25085, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, 
telephone number (405) 954-4391, will assist any operator with 
resolving compatibility and format issues should the operator desire to 
undertake electronic reporting.

Expansion of Reportable Items

    American Airlines states that fuel spills caused by overfilling the 
tanks would now become reportable.
    Southwest Airlines states that ``the expansion of reportable items 
Sec. 121.703(e) includes fuel and fuel dumping systems that could cause 
hazardous leakage will include fuel leakage during installation of 
components, static leaks, and fuel spills during the fueling of 
aircraft. This is unacceptable because a misinterpretation of this rule 
will cause enforcement problems with certain inspectors.''
    FAA Response: The provision to which Southwest Airlines refers is 
found in Sec. 121.703(a)(7). Fuel spills during refueling are not 
considered reportable under this rule unless an aircraft system 
failure, malfunction, or defect caused the fuel spill.
    Airborne Express feels that exceptions to the rule should be 
allowed for events occurring during the course of maintenance. Due to 
the potential for maintenance to introduce defects as systems are 
disturbed, there needs to be consideration given to exclusion of these 
events during maintenance. American Airlines states that the new rule 
will require the reporting of fuel leaks during heavy maintenance when 
leaks occur after assembly.
    FAA Response: An event occurring during the performance of 
maintenance that was induced by the maintenance action does not 
constitute a reportable defect if detected and corrected as part of 
that maintenance action. Using the Airborne Express' example, in the 
course of a mechanic replacing a bracket, where the maintenance-induced 
action of causing an associated fastener to loosen or break that 
results in a fuel leak would not necessarily mean that the leak would 
have to be reported to the SDR program. The SDR program is designed to 
track defects, not disturbances of parts due to maintenance. After 
completion of the related maintenance task, the aircraft is returned to 
service. During the subsequent operation of the aircraft, if the 
bracket should fail and cause a fuel leak, this leak would have to be 
reported to the SDR program.
    American Airlines has concerns with the reporting of failures, 
malfunctions, or defects associated with emergency evacuation systems 
or components. This commenter states that reports on the failure of 
emergency lighting or the degradation of emergency egress lighting 
batteries should be excluded from the reporting requirements. The 
commenter states that high maintenance components do not render the 
system inoperable, nor add value to the SDR database.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The current rules pertaining to 
the reporting of the described failures provide the FAA with an 
indication of evacuation system reliability and the reliability of 
components within evacuation systems. The FAA contends that if an 
evacuation slide has an on-aircraft life of 12 months, the components 
within that slide should last 12 months. Failure of batteries for a 
slide's emergency egress lighting may indicate a need to change 
maintenance procedures or life limits.

[[Page 56197]]

    American Airlines states their opposition to the requirement to 
report hours and cycles of the affected components due to the 
additional research time burden that would be imposed, and that if the 
rule goes into effect as proposed, that the reporting time be increased 
to 10 days. Also, Southwest Airlines states that the expansion of the 
list of reportable data, Sec. 121.703(e), to include reporting time and 
cycles of affected components, will impose additional time and manpower 
requirements due to some information that will have to be collected 
from vendors is unacceptable. Also, Delta Airlines disagrees with the 
new requirement to report manufacturer, name, time, and cycles of 
components.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The FAA has made the 
manufacturer's name, total time, and total cycle information a 
mandatory requirement. The FAA requires this information so a more 
complete analysis of the component failure trends can be made.
    One commenter has two problems with the SNPRM: the inclusion of 
aircraft total time and total cycles for each report, and station and 
flight numbers should be required. The commenter strongly supports the 
rest of the proposal.
    FAA Response: The flight number and station where the failure, 
malfunction, or defect was detected is not necessary to determine the 
cause of the failure. This information is available through the 
maintenance records if needed.
    The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers 
(IAM) and the Association of Flight Attendants fully support the 
proposed rule changes and support the additional requirement that 
aircraft total time and total cycles be recorded. Furthermore, the IAM 
believes the station and flight number should be included as part of 
the report to permit tracking of particular problems occurring at a 
specific station or airport.

Public Aircraft Concerns

    Delta Airlines suggests that ``the rule should include Public 
Aircraft.''
    FAA Response: The FAA has not exercised the authority to mandate 
that operators of public aircraft submit SDR reports; however, the FAA 
encourages those operators to participate in the SDR program.

Miscellaneous Comments

    American Airlines states that the new rule requires redundant 
reporting of failures, malfunctions or defects of the autothrottle, 
autoflight or flight control systems as these defects are already 
reportable under current Sec. 121.703(c). Delta Airlines suggests that 
the word ``uncommanded'' be added to the list of reportable flight 
control items in Sec. 121.703(a)(12).
    FAA Response: Although such events could be reported under current 
Sec. 121.703(c) or Sec. 135.415(c), the SDR database does not indicate 
that such reports are being made. The FAA has become aware that 
failures of this nature are occurring. Therefore, the FAA has added a 
specific requirement to report failures, malfunctions, or defects of 
autothrottle, autoflight, or flight control systems or components in 
Sec. 121.703(a)(12). The assumption is that any uncommanded system 
activation is the result of a malfunction, failure, or defect.
    Delta Airlines suggests that the wording ``in its opinion'' not be 
deleted from existing Sec. 121.703(c). According to Delta, ``the 
deletion would remove any flexibility in reporting and increase 
enforcement problems with inspectors who have various interpretations 
of the rule.''
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Section 121.704 has been modified 
by listing specific items to be reported. Flexibility in reporting has 
been a problem with the SDR database. The revised rule will require 
specific reporting so that a quality analysis can be performed.
    Southwest Airlines states that ``changes added to 
Sec. 121.703(a)(11) included all exit door defects, malfunctions, or 
failures. Additionally, this includes door trim, window shade panels, 
and other cosmetic and or secondary structure on doors.''
    FAA Response: Some items may have been installed for ``cosmetic'' 
reasons. However, using the commenter's example, opening a window shade 
panel during an aircraft emergency evacuation is necessary to allow one 
to look out the window of the exit to determine whether that exit is 
safe to use. If a shade is defective and cannot be opened, the crew or 
a passenger might not be able to determine if there is a fire outside 
the aircraft. Similarly, a door trim item that is defective may jam the 
door in an emergency. For these reasons, defects of these items must be 
reported as part of the SDR program.
    The RAA requests that the supplemental reporting provisions of 
Secs. 121.703(i), 125.409(i), and 135.415(i) be rewritten as follows: 
``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 unless the previously submitted information is sufficiently 
descriptive for analysis of the failure, malfunction or defect.''
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees in part. The rule requires that the 
occurrence of the defect be initially reported within a 96-hour time 
frame. The FAA realizes that in some instances all the required 
information to complete the report may not be available within this 
time frame. The purpose of the supplemental report is to allow the 
operator to submit the information when it becomes available in order 
to complete the report. The important point is that the FAA be notified 
of the occurrence or detection of the defect.
    In order to clarify what additional information is required in 
supplemental reporting, Secs. 121.703(i), 121.704(h), 125.409(i), 
125.410(h), 135.415(h), and 135.416(h) have been revised as follows: 
``When a certificate holder gets supplemental information to complete 
the 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.'' A 
report is only complete when all the required information is submitted 
to the FAA.
    The RAA requests that the word ``component'' in 
Secs. 121.703(e)(9), 125.409(e)(9), and 135.415(e)(9) be revised to 
``component part'' and that provision (e)(10) be deleted.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. As stated in the proposal, the FAA 
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. This provision (tracking down to the part level) is a 
major change from existing practice.
    The RAA also requests that the following provisions be deleted from 
Secs. 121.704, 125.410, and 135.416: ``* * * a unique control number 
for the occurrence, in a form acceptable to the Administrator.''
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. The FAA needs an identifiable 
field to track SDR's. The use of the unique control number will reduce 
the number of duplicate reports for the same occurrence in the SDR 
database and provide a more simplified method for the FAA and industry 
to reference an SDR.
    The Helicopter Association International states that the corrosion 
reporting requirements of Secs. 135.416(a)(1) and (a)(2) are 
superfluous from a safety perspective and that these provisions will 
prove

[[Page 56198]]

unduly burdensome in certain environments. The HAI urges the FAA to 
delete proposed Secs. 135.416(a)(1) and (a)(2).
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. Sections 135.416(a)(1) and (a)(2) 
apply to all aircraft. The FAA feels that helicopters are susceptible 
to the same conditions as most fixed wing aircraft.
    Delta Airlines states ``we know of no data to suggest a data link 
between autothrottle/autoflight systems and uncommanded control 
inputs.''
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees. 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 SDR's. 
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 existing 
Sec. 121.703(c) or Sec. 135.415(c), the SDR database does not indicate 
that such reports are being made. Therefore, the FAA has added a 
requirement to report failures, malfunctions, or defects of 
autothrottle, autoflight, or flight control systems or components in 
Secs. 121.703(a)(12), 125.409(a)(12), and 135.415(a)(12).
    The Air Line Pilots Association supports the intent of the proposal 
and feels that the FAA has eliminated many reporting ambiguities found 
in the old language. The ALPA believes the proposed changes have made 
the rule language more clear and will result in more useful reports. 
Comments received from the AFA and IAM also indicate that the FAA has 
made significant improvements to the service difficulty reporting 
process.

Summary of Economic Comments

    This section will summarize the economic comments and FAA's 
responses. A detailed discussion of these comments and responses is 
contained in the full evaluation in the docket for this rule. A total 
of 8 commenters raised economic issues.
    Costs--The economic analysis attributed relatively minor costs to 
the operators as a result of the SNPRM. Commenters believe that the 
analysis was wrong in many areas:
    Several commenters stress that switching from ATA codes to JASC 
codes will be costly.
    FAA Response: The major difference between the ATA and the JASC 
codes are that the latter includes more detailed description of 
aircraft systems and components. Hence, the air carrier operators will 
only need to obtain the new documentation and not need to retrain their 
employees, resulting in de mininus costs.
    A trade organization claims that the proposed rule would mandate 
additional fields for the data to be sorted; these additional fields 
would need to be provided at the expense of the air carriers. This 
organization estimates that the JASC code and unique control number 
would add at least 5% to the air carrier's processing costs.
    FAA Response: Given the similarities between the JASC code and ATA 
code and given that operators will always have to generate a control 
number, the FAA does not believe that these will add 5% to processing 
costs.
    Five commenters believe the number of SDR's will drastically 
increase, possibly at least double.
    FAA Response: The FAA is increasing the number of variables that 
need to be reported about each defect. To be conservative, the FAA will 
base costs in the final rule on a 45% increase in SDR's due to the new 
paragraphs.
    The answer to the previous comment has cost implications; air 
carriers would have to hire additional personnel.
    FAA Response: The existing rule only requires that the data be sent 
to the certificate holder's District Office. Any changes in how these 
air carriers report information is based on their internal operating 
procedures, rather than changes in the rule.
    Four commenters claim that the requirement to adjust the process 
from filing the time the aircraft returns to service to 96 hours from 
the time of discovery will increase their labor costs with questionable 
benefits.
    FAA Response: The current rule has been for operators to report 
within 72 hours from the time of discovery rather than from the time 
the aircraft returns to service. The FAA is making this process less 
burdensome by changing the 72 hours to 96 hours.
    One air carrier claims that, in order to continue to process SDR's 
with their Macintosh computer, they will incur additional hardware and 
service maintenance costs.
    FAA Response: Since the economic evaluation for the SNPRM was 
written, the FAA has changed its operating procedures. Operators can 
now submit the required information using the Internet and will not 
need to purchase software to allow Macintosh computers to interface 
with an IBM-compatible system.
    Several commenters are unhappy about the mandated electronic 
filing, as this would have cost implications.
    FAA Response: The FAA modified the requirements so that electronic 
filing will not be mandatory.
    One air carrier notes that the NPRM is moving the reporting burden 
from the FAA Certificate Management Office (CMO) to the industry; by 
removing them from the process, the responsibilities now falls on the 
carriers.
    FAA Response: The regulatory burden has always been on the industry 
to review and report the data. Hence, removal of the CMO will not place 
any new regulatory burdens on the industry.
    Several commenters were uncomfortable with the FAA's estimate that 
``on average, it would cost each individual air carrier $15 per year 
and each repair station $1 per year,'' saying that the SDR program 
costs air carriers much more per year.
    FAA Response: To obtain these values, the FAA divided the cost of 
the proposed changes by their applicable industry group. The FAA did 
err in not making it clear that these average annual costs were for the 
changes to the proposed rule rather than the entire cost of the SDR 
program.
    In sum, most of the commenters believe that the costs were very 
much undervalued.
    FAA Response: The FAA has reviewed the regulatory evaluation based 
on industry comments and has determined that the rule does not impose 
major additional costs to the industry. The FAA removed the proposed 
requirement for part 121 carriers to file electronically, which should 
reduce costs over what was reported in the SNPRM analysis.
    Benefits--Almost all of these commenters were unanimous in 
believing that the overall benefit of the SDRS is dubious at best and 
that the added costs do not justify the increase in benefits. Different 
commenters claimed that:
     The SDR system is seldom used in the decision making 
process either because the SDR information comes too late or the data 
is unworkable;
     The new requirements will not provide the FAA with 
valuable `safety' information;
     There are no real benefits to offset the costs imposed by 
data collection. In addition, there has been no demonstrated increase 
in safety as a result of mandatory reporting;
     Reporting SDR's is a time consuming and labor intensive 
exercise

[[Page 56199]]

that has little or no value, and there is no assurance that the 
increase in data will result in any safety gain; and
     The costs of reporting alone will far outweigh any 
benefits. The practical utility of the current information collection 
for SDR's is negligible.
    FAA Response: The FAA disagrees with these comments. The improved 
SDRS will 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. In addition, information submitted to the SDRS is 
used for the identification of recurring service problems.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the 
economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the 
Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. Secs. 2531-2533) prohibits agencies 
from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 
commerce of the U.S. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment 
of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules 
that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by 
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by private 
sector, or $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation).
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule 
is not ``a significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is not subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget. The rule is not considered significant 
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of 
Transportation (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). This rule will not 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and 
will not constitute a barrier to international trade.

Cost of Compliance

    The FAA has estimated the expected costs and benefits of this 
regulation. In this analysis, the FAA estimated costs for a 10-year 
period, from 2001 through 2010. The present value of this stream was 
calculated using a discount factor of 7 percent as required by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). All costs in this analysis are 
in 1998 dollars.
    Sixteen of the section changes will increase costs; the changes in 
fifteen of them will add additional reporting requirements for 
information that has not been collected before or had been collected 
through voluntary reporting. Accordingly, since there is little or no 
historical data on the data collection and reporting requirements, the 
FAA does not know how many extra reports these new requirements will 
generate. For these changes, the FAA believes that there will be few 
additional new reports and that the overall burden will be minimal. 
However, based on comments and the need to provide the public with an 
estimation of the potential total impact of these paragraphs, the FAA 
assumed that each of these changes will increase the total number of 
SDR's processed each year by three percent. Over ten years, these costs 
sum to $2.46 million (present value, $1.73 million).
    Sections 121.703(g), 121.704(f), 125.409(g), 125.410(f), 
135.415(g), and 135.416(f) will permit part 121, 125, and 135 
certificate holders to authorize a repair station to submit an SDR on 
their behalf. Sections 145.63(e) and 145.79(f) will require that the 
repair stations provide a copy of the report submitted by the repair 
station to the part 121, 125, or 135 certificate holder on whose behalf 
the report was submitted. These sections will result in increased costs 
for the repair stations. However, these sections will also allow for 
cost savings by eliminating duplicate reports; repair stations will 
submit the report for input into the SDRS that is currently submitted 
by both repair stations and air carriers.
    The elimination of the air carrier operator's duplicate report will 
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 that the air carrier will have 
about their aircraft.
    There were 2,600 SDR's from repair stations that were entered into 
the SDR database that were also submitted from air carriers in 1998. 
Each report will need to be sent from the repair station to the air 
carrier. Since repair stations may now do all of the reports, the FAA 
assumes in this analysis that half of this number of reports is the 
maximum number that will not have to be generated and processed in the 
SDR system under this section. The FAA assumes in this analysis that 
all reports are photostated and mailed. Over ten years, the costs of 
these reports will be $35,400 (present value, $24,800).
    Total quantifiable costs, over ten years, sum to $2.49 million 
(present value, $1.75 million).
    Sections 121.703(d), 125.409(d), and 135.415(d) may reduce the 
Principal Maintenance Inspector's (PMI) workload. Currently, all 
reports go from the certificate holder to the Flight Standards District 
Office (FSDO) where the PMI spends time reviewing the SDR before 
forwarding it to the SDRS in Oklahoma City. The rule will 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 will be required to make the SDR data 
available to the FSDO for examination. Hence, while the PMI can still 
remain informed, he or she may not have to spend as much time 
inspecting each report and will not have to forward the material. Over 
ten years, this cost savings will be $1.40 million (present value, 
$981,000).
    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) will add a requirement 
that an SDR include a unique control number for each occurrence. These 
sections will yield cost savings which will come from both the 
reduction in the number of duplicate reports for the same occurrence in 
the SDR database 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 it to the 
original report. Using a unique identification number for each 
occurrence will reduce the total number of reports within the SDRS. The 
potential cost savings will be based on the reduction in the amount of 
time spent to find and link these reports within the SDRS. Going on the 
assumption that no certificate holder currently is using unique control 
numbers, over ten years, the cost savings will be $140,500 (present 
value, $98,700). However, the actual cost savings will almost certainly 
be lower

[[Page 56200]]

because some certificate holders are already using a control number.
    Sections 121.703(g), 125.409(g), and 135.415(g) will reduce dual 
reporting. When a repair station identifies a failure, malfunction, or 
defect, this information is currently 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. This revision 
is intended to eliminate these duplicate reports. The final rule will 
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 will accrue, for each repair, 
due to one less report needing to be processed. Over ten years, this 
cost reduction will be $173,200 (present value, $121,600).
    Total cost savings over 10 years sum to $1.71 million (net present 
value, $1.20 million). The rule's net costs sum to $781,200 (present 
value, $548,600). Net cost savings could be change due to two factors:
     Net costs could be lower if the number of additional 
reports due to the new reporting requirements is less than the assumed 
45% increase in total reports. Indeed, if this increase in reports were 
less than 32%, this rule will yield net cost savings; and
     Net costs could be higher because the cost savings from 
using a unique control number almost certainly will be less than the 
amount discussed above (but the FAA does not have the data to determine 
how much more it will be).

Analysis of Benefits

    The use of a unique control number will help reduce the possibility 
of duplicate SDR reports being entered into the SDR database. In 
addition, the additional time from discovery for submitting reports 
should reduce the number of supplemental reports filed. A more 
efficient system will preserve and improve the integrity of the 
database and allow for better and more complete analysis by the FAA and 
other users of the data. Additional specific benefits of these rule 
changes include standardizing reporting requirements for air carriers, 
which allows for more consistent data.
    The regulations will enhance air carrier safety by collecting 
specific data that identify mechanical failures, malfunctions, and 
defects that may be a hazard to the operation of an aircraft. The 
information collected can 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 
can help to catch problems early, which would allow Airworthiness 
Directives 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. The FAA believes that because of the 
improved SDR information resulting from these regulations, additional 
information and equipment malfunction trends can be identified that 
will lead, over time, more timely corrective action by the FAA, and 
hence, to safer airplanes.

Comparison of Costs and Benefits

    This rule will result in costs of $828,400 (net present value, 
$581,800). Duplicate reports, as well as duplicate entries in the SDRS, 
will be reduced. In addition, the regulations will enhance air carrier 
safety by collecting additional and more timely data that identify 
mechanical failures, malfunctions, and defects that may be a hazard to 
the operation of an aircraft. This data can be used to identify trends, 
which could help to catch problems early and to better plan maintenance 
scheduling. All of this could lead, over time, to safer airplanes.
    The FAA believes that these benefits exceed the rule's net costs, 
and hence, finds this rule to be cost beneficial.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, 
directs the FAA to fit regulatory requirements to the scale of the 
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to the 
regulation. We are required to determine whether a proposed or final 
action will have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities'' defined in the Act. If we find that the 
action will have a significant impact, we must do a ``regulatory 
flexibility analysis.''
    For this rule, the small entity group is considered to be part 121, 
125, and 135 air carriers (Standard Industrial Classification Code 
[SIC] 4512) and part 145 repair stations (SIC Code 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 regulations will cost all small air carriers $2.08 million 
(present value, $1.46 million) and repair stations $99,200 (present 
value, $69,600) over the next ten years. On average, the economic 
impact is minimal; it will cost each individual certificated air 
carrier $67 per year and each repair station $2 per year for these 
changes. Therefore, we certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Statement

    The Office of Management and Budget directs the FAA to assess 
whether or not a regulatory change would affect international trade. We 
determined that the provisions of this rule will have no impact on 
trade for U.S. firms doing business in foreign countries and foreign 
firms doing business in the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. Secs. 1532-1538) 
requires the FAA to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on 
state, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector of 
rules that contain a Federal intergovernmental or private sector 
mandate that exceeds $100 million in any one year. This action does not 
contain such a mandate.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains information collections that are subject 
to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-13). The request for review and approval has been submitted to OMB. 
An opportunity for comment on the paperwork portion of this rule was 
not provided during the NPRM stage. Therefore, there is a 60-day 
comment period attached to this final rule. The title, description, 
respondents, and 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 revisions to the rule is 
to update and improve the reporting system to effectively collect and 
disseminate clear and concise safety information to the aviation 
industry. This will 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;
     Eliminating dual reporting from both air carriers and 
repair stations;
     Reducing the Principal Maintenance Inspector's (PMI's) 
workload;

[[Page 56201]]

     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: This rule will 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 rule will 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 final 
rule, while imposing additional reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements on those operators, will 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 216 
hours annually); and
     Requiring certificate holders to report certain additional 
service difficulties and include new information in the SDR (adding 
6,225 hours annually for air carriers and 98 hours annually for repair 
stations).
    Accordingly, the FAA estimates that this rule will increase the 
reporting and paperwork requirements for industry by 6,107 hours 
annually [calculation: 6,225 + 98-216 = 6,107 hours annually]. The 
total annual reporting burden costs sums to $168,800. These cost 
figures are based on estimates provided in the FAA's ``Regulatory 
Analysis.''
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. Therefore, the FAA is soliciting 
comments to (i) 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; (ii) 
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; (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, 
and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of 
responses.
    When an OMB control number is assigned, notification of that number 
will be published in the Federal Register.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
determined that there are some differences with ICAO Standards and 
Recommended Practices.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of 
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We have determined that this action 
will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Therefore, we have determined that this final rule does not 
have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically 
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, 
appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this rulemaking action qualifies for a 
categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

    The energy impact of this final rule has been assessed in 
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), P.L. 94-
163, as amended (43 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. It has been 
determined that the final rule is not a major regulatory action under 
the provisions of the EPCA.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 121

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

14 CFR Part 125

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

14 CFR Part 135

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

14 CFR Part 145

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends 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 paragraphs (g) 
and (h) as paragraphs (h) and (i) respectively; revising newly 
redesignated paragraph (i); and by 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;
    (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

[[Page 56202]]

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 workday. 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 on a form or in another format 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 supplemental information to 
complete the 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) Repairs made 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 workday. 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 on a form or in another format 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

[[Page 56203]]

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 supplemental information to 
complete the 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; AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH 
AIRCRAFT

    5. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-
44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.

    6. 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 workday. 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 on a form or in another format 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

[[Page 56204]]

    (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 supplemental information to 
complete the 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) Repairs made 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 workday. 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 on a form or in another format 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 supplemental information to 
complete the 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 
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 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 paragraphs (g) 
and (h) as paragraphs (h) and (i) respectively; revising newly 
redesignated paragraph (i); and by 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 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;

[[Page 56205]]

    (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 workday. 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 on a form or in another format 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 supplemental information to 
complete the 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) Repairs made 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 workday. 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 on a form or in another format acceptable to the 
Administrator. The reports shall include the following information:

[[Page 56206]]

    (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 supplemental information to 
complete the 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 on a form 
or in another format 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), orSecs. 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 on a form 
or another format 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--
    (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.

[[Page 56207]]

    (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 September 8, 2000.
Jane F. Garvey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 00-23676 Filed 9-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U