[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 19, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64859-64865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27036]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 43
[Docket No. FAA-2011-0763; Notice No. 11-05]
RIN 2120-AJ91
Pilot Loading of Navigation and Terrain Awareness Database
Updates
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend the maintenance regulations by
removing from the preventive maintenance category the task of updating
databases used in self-contained, front-panel or pedestal-mounted
navigation equipment. This change would allow pilots who operate
certificated aircraft to update the specified databases and eliminate
the requirement for certificated mechanics or repair stations to
perform the update. The effect of this revision would be to ensure that
pilots using specified navigation equipment have the most current and
accurate navigational data and thereby increase aviation safety.
DATES: Send comments on or before December 19, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number [Docket No. FAA-
2011-0763; Notice No. 11-05] using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA dockets, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-78), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions about this
rulemaking action, contact Chris Parfitt, Flight Standards Service,
Aircraft Maintenance Division--Avionics Maintenance Branch, AFS-360,
Federal
[[Page 64860]]
Aviation Administration, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024;
telephone (202) 385-6398; facsimile (202) 385-6474; e-mail
[email protected].
For legal questions about this action, contact Viola Pando, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Regulations Division--Policy and Adjudication
Branch, AGC-210, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 493-5293; e-mail
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the ``Additional Information'' section
for information on how to comment on this proposal and how the FAA will
handle comments received. The ``Additional Information'' section also
contains more information about the docket, privacy, and handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. In addition, there is
information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Sec. 44701(a)(1), section 44703
(a)(D), and section 44711(a)(2). In section 44701(a)(1), the FAA is
charged with prescribing regulations and minimum standards in the
interest of safety for and the manner of servicing of aircraft
appliances. In section 44703(a)(D), the FAA is charged with specifying
the capacity in which the holder of a certificate may serve as an
airman with respect to an aircraft. Section 44711(a)(2) prohibits any
person from serving in any capacity as an airman with respect to a
civil aircraft, aircraft appliance used, or intended for use, in air
commerce--without an airman certificate authorizing the airman to serve
in the capacity for which the certificate was issued. This regulation
is within the scope of the cited authority.
I. Overview of the Proposed Rule
This rulemaking would allow pilots of all certificated aircraft
equipped with self-contained, front-panel or pedestal-mounted
navigational systems (``Nav-Systems'') to update the database.
Currently, only pilots of aircraft operated under part 91 (general
aviation) are allowed to perform the update. Nav-Systems provide many
services for pilots, including navigational information for which
accuracy of data is critical to the safe operation of an aircraft.
Accuracy of navigational data is achieved by maintaining current data,
which is ensured by performing database updates that are typically
required every 28 days.
Under the current regulations, except general aviation aircraft,
updates to Nav-System databases must be performed by certificated
mechanics and repair stations (``qualified personnel''). Consequently,
if the database were to expire when the aircraft is not accessible to
qualified personnel, the aircraft would have to be operated with an
expired database, rerouted to the nearest repair station, or have a
certificated mechanic transported to the aircraft to perform the
update. Each of these options increase the workload for pilots and air
traffic control (ATC), as well as increase the likelihood for data
errors caused by pilots during manual input of data. These options also
present increased operational costs.
Changes to Nav-System design have made updating databases a simple
procedure that any pilot can perform. The FAA established the
requirement to have qualified personnel update Nav-System databases to
address the complexity of older systems, for which a person needed
training and specialized equipment and access to installed equipment to
perform the update. Updating newer Nav-Systems is now a simple
procedure that does not require special training or specialized
equipment. Consequently, the safety concerns that existed when the
current regulations were promulgated are no longer valid. We are
therefore proposing to end the requirement for qualified personnel to
perform database updates because the requirement no longer serves the
purpose for which it was established.
If adopted, this rulemaking would reduce workloads for pilots and
ATC and reduce compliance-related operational costs. However, it also
may have a negative economic impact on certificated mechanics and
repair stations that currently perform required updates for affected
operations. Aircraft operated under part 121 are less likely to be
affected because they are not generally equipped with the Nav-Systems
affected by this rulemaking, and they would therefore continue to
require the services of qualified personnel.
The FAA has preliminarily determined there would be minimal costs
imposed by the proposed rule. In practice, the rule would simply allow
the pilot to upload the current database rather than transporting a
certificated mechanic to the aircraft, or flying the aircraft to a
repair station. Benefits from this proposed rulemaking would include
reduced workloads for pilots and ATC, as discussed below in the
Background section. This proposed rulemaking would also reduce the
potential for error in navigational data. In addition, the proposed
rulemaking would foster practices that will contribute to the success
of the Next Generation (NexGen) modernization of the National Aerospace
System (NAS) as it is implemented, resulting in an overall increase in
aviation safety.
II. Background
A. Statement of the Problem
Currently, Sec. 43.3(g) and Appendix A, paragraph (c)(32) require
that updates to databases for Nav-Systems installed on aircraft
operated under parts 121, 125, 129, 133, 135, and 137 (``certificated
operations'') must be performed by qualified personnel. Nav-Systems
affected by this rulemaking could be easily updated using a simple
procedure that pilots can perform without special training or
specialized equipment. The requirement for qualified personnel to
perform the update is therefore no longer necessary to ensure the
update has been performed properly.
A large percentage of aircraft used in certificated operations are
equipped with fully integrated Nav-Systems that rely on data stored in
ATC navigational databases. Data stored in a database serve various
navigational functions. Those functions include providing coordinates
for fixed points in the airspace or on the ground that are used for
basic en route navigation, complex departure and arrival navigation,
fuel planning, and precise vertical navigation. This data is updated by
uploading a current database to the Nav-System, which can be done by
inserting a data storage disc into a slot on a front-instrument panel
or pedestal-mounted Nav-System, similar to inserting a memory card into
a digital camera. Updates of navigation databases are typically
required every 28 days.
The regulatory requirement that allows only authorized mechanics
and repair stations (hereafter referred to as ``qualified personnel'')
to upload the most current data imposes a burden on the system in terms
of workloads and demands on the National Airspace System (NAS). If the
database expires when the aircraft is at a location where qualified
personnel are not available to perform the update, the operator must:
(1) Operate the aircraft with an expired database under the minimum
[[Page 64861]]
equipment list (MEL) procedures, (2) reroute the aircraft to an
authorized repair station, or (3) transport an authorized mechanic to
the aircraft's location. The aircraft also can be flown with an expired
navigational database under Minimum Equipment List (MEL) procedures,
but doing so imposes more duties on the flightcrew and ATC. Each of
these options presents safety concerns and increased operational costs.
In addition, each of these options is problematic because they can
increase the flightcrew's and ATC's workload when controlling the
affected aircraft. Further, they are costly to the operator. This is
particularly true for operations in remote areas. If the operator
decides to move the aircraft to a repair station, the increased
workload associated with rerouting the aircraft, for both flightcrew
and ATC, requires planning an alternative flight route. Similarly, if
the decision is to transport qualified personnel to the aircraft, the
operator must locate personnel and schedule a flight to the aircraft.
If the decision is to operate the aircraft with an expired database, in
accordance with applicable regulations and operations specifications,
among other tasks, the flightcrew must: (1) Verify fixes before
dispatch, (2) verify navigational aid status and suitability for the
flight route, and (3) advise ATC that published area navigational
(RNAV) procedures, RNAV standard instrument departures, and RNAV
airways cannot be used.
RNAV terminal procedures authorizations and some RNAV route
authorizations require a current navigational database. Those
authorizations typically are denied to anyone operating with an expired
database. This is significant because use of RNAV routes and procedures
provide a safer, more efficient National Airspace System (NAS).
Changes to the flightcrew's preflight procedures and to ATC duties
add to already heavy workloads. ATC's workload is increased because it
must assign alternate terminal RNAV procedures and other services to
the affected flightcrew. In both cases, the rate of error can be
increased either by pilot input of inaccurate data during verification,
or by errors in ATC assignments which may occur during redirection of
the flight. Both types of error have the potential to compromise
aviation safety.
The FAA is committed to increasing aviation safety and creating a
more efficient NAS. To that end the FAA has targeted innovative
navigational solutions that rely on Nav-Systems, which in turn are
dependent on accurate and current databases. For instance, Required
Navigation Performance (RNP), an important program for enhancing safety
through establishing a high degree of precision air navigation, allows
for more efficient use of the airspace. In addition, RNP assists in
developing constant angle descent approaches, which increase safety
during approach and landing. RNP operations rely on equipment and
systems that depend on updateable databases for operational accuracy.
The increasing use of Nav-Systems and the criticality of
maintaining current databases for RNP operations under NexGen require
that the two work seamlessly and impose no greater burden on the NAS
than necessary.
We have tentatively determined that the burdens attendant to
compliance with current regulatory requirements for qualified personnel
to perform database updates may no longer be justified. Developments in
navigational system technology have made it possible for pilots to
perform updates properly without special training or equipment.
Therefore, a safety-related reason may no longer exist for continuing
to require that mechanics and repair stations perform updates for
modern Nav-Systems. Absent the safety concerns related to the
complexity of updating an older navigational system that served as the
impetus for the current requirements, there may no longer be reason to
prohibit pilots from performing updates.
B. History
Before 1996, the regulations categorized the task of updating any
navigational system database as maintenance because these systems were
large, complex, and installed on large transport category aircraft. The
FAA required that qualified personnel perform the updates because doing
so required special training and specialized equipment. By 1996, a
second type of Nav-System was developed that was small, self-contained,
and easily accessible. The newer Nav-System was targeted for use on
general aviation aircraft because unlike older navigational systems,
the new Nav-Systems introduced simple updating procedures that enabled
any pilot to update a database without special training or equipment.
The FAA addressed this improvement by amending the regulations.
In 1996, the FAA amended Sec. 43.3 and Appendix A of Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 43 (61 FR 19501, May 1, 1996). Among
other actions, the amendment allowed owners and operators of general
aviation aircraft to update easily updateable Nav-System databases.
However, while the amendment allowed GA pilots to perform updates to
Nav-Systems, it prohibited pilots of aircraft operated under parts 121,
129, and 135 from updating databases on the older navigational systems.
For these operations, the task of updating databases was categorized as
maintenance.
Unlike the older systems, the FAA allowed pilots of smaller general
aviation aircraft to perform updates to Nav-System databases because
the systems were not similar to those installed on aircraft operated
under parts 121, 129, and 135. Newer Nav-Systems were self-contained,
easily accessible and updated, compact devices. Conversely,
navigational systems installed on aircraft operating under parts 121,
129, and 135 were more complex. Those Nav-Systems were frequently
composed of two hardware components. One was a central data storage/
processing unit (CPU), which was installed in a location remote from
the second piece of hardware. The other was the Control Display Unit
(CDU), which was installed in the cockpit. Updating the more complex
systems requires that qualified personnel use specialized equipment to
upload the new data into the CPU.
Since then, the number of newer self-contained Nav-Systems
installed on most non-transport category aircraft has increased.
Updating a Nav-System database is as simple as inserting a memory card
into a digital camera, with automatic verification to the pilot that
the update has been successful occurring via display of the update's
revision number on the CDU.
III. Discussion of the Proposal
The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 43.3 to allow pilots of aircraft
operated under parts 121, 125, 133, 135, and 137 (``certificated
operations'') to update Nav-System databases. The task of updating a
Nav-System is currently categorized as preventive maintenance under
part 43, Appendix A, paragraph (c)(32). As such, Sec. 43.3, which
prescribes who may perform maintenance, requires that it be performed
by a certificated mechanic or repair station unless that preventive
maintenance, as specifically enumerated in Appendix A, ``may be
performed by the holder of a pilot certificate issued under part 61 on
an aircraft owned or operated by that pilot which is not used under
part 121, 129, or 135 * * *'' (emphasis added).
This proposal would extend authorization for pilots on all
[[Page 64862]]
certificated operations to perform Nav-System database updates. The FAA
has determined that the ease of successfully updating modern Nav-
Systems remains the same regardless of the regulatory part under which
the aircraft is operated.
We are proposing to remove paragraph (c)(32) from part 43, Appendix
A, which will remove from the preventive maintenance category the task
of updating ``* * * self-contained front-instrument panel and pedestal-
mounted air traffic control (ATC) navigational software databases
(excluding those of automatic flight control systems, transponders, and
microwave frequency distance measuring equipment (DME)), provided no
disassembly of the unit is required and pertinent instructions are
provided.'' The effect of removing paragraph (c)(32) will be to allow
pilots to update Nav-System databases.
Note that the regulatory text refers to the newer systems targeted
by this rulemaking as navigational systems. For purposes of discussion,
in this preamble, we have used the term ``navigational system'' to
refer to older systems, and ``Nav-System'' to refer to the newer
systems targeted by this rulemaking.
The FAA has considered two alternatives to this proposed
rulemaking. One alternative was to continue to require that qualified
personnel perform updates to Nav-System databases installed on
certificated operations. The FAA has tentatively rejected this
alternative for three reasons. First, the original reasons for creating
the requirement appear to have been invalidated by technology. Second,
eliminating the existing requirements for qualified personnel to
perform the update will reduce pilot and ATC workloads and reduce the
likelihood that pilots will input inaccurate data into the Nav-System.
The cumulative effect of reduced workloads and elimination of data
errors ultimately would improve aviation safety. Third, the costs
imposed on operators to ensure compliance with the existing
requirements may no longer be justified now that special training and
equipment is not required, and safety would not be compromised by
allowing pilots to perform the update.
The second alternative considered was continuing to use the
exemption process as need is demonstrated by operators to enable pilots
of aircraft not operated under part 91 to update Nav-System databases.
However, this approach would not reduce the numerous petitions for
exemption submitted for aircraft operations conducted under parts 121,
129, and 135, which would force the FAA to continue processing an
excessive number of exemptions with a limited workforce, thus requiring
the agency use valuable manpower for administrative purposes. Finally,
the cumulative effect of granting large numbers of petitions for
exemption from the same regulation for the same reason(s) would be the
equivalent of rulemaking by exemption.
For the reasons cited above, the FAA has determined that amending
the regulations to allow pilots on any certificated aircraft equipped
with a specified Nav-System to update databases would improve aviation
safety, would be economically beneficial to operators, and would enable
the FAA to use manpower in areas of greater need.
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there would be no new requirement for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these regulations.
Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct 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 (Pub. L. 96-354)
requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes
on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39)
prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing
U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by state,
local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, (4) would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
(5) would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States, and (6) would not impose an unfunded mandate on
state, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified above.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order allows that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows:
The proposed rule would reduce costs to certificated operators by
allowing their pilots to update databases for self-contained navigation
systems installed either in the front panel or pedestal-mounted in the
cockpit. Allowing pilots to perform the updates would occasionally save
the operator the expense of either a positioning flight to a repair
station or transporting a certificated mechanic to the aircraft to
perform the database update.
The FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and this proposed rule is not ``significant'' as
defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
[[Page 64863]]
Total Estimated Benefits and Costs of This Final Rule
There would be two general benefits from this proposed rule. The
primary benefit would be that affected aircraft operators would no
longer operate aircraft without the most current navigational data. As
previously discussed, the use of Nav-Systems improves safety by
providing the pilot with accurate navigational information, by
increasing access to airports under less than optimal flight
conditions, by increasing workforce efficiency and by encouraging a
more efficient use of the navigable airspace system. Nav-System
database software is updated every 28 days, a recurring task that
cannot always be accomplished within the prescribed timeframe due to
the unavailability of qualified personnel. Increasing airspace
congestion as well as the increasing number of non-Part 91 aircraft
that are equipped with Nav-Systems magnifies the importance for Nav-
Systems to be operating with the most current data. Further, the FAA
knows of no accidents or incidents attributable to pilot error when
part 91 pilots updated navigational database software.
The second benefit would be potential cost savings. Allowing pilots
to update Nav-System databases for aircraft used on certificated
operations would eliminate costs associated with positioning flights to
a repair station or transporting a certificated mechanic to the
aircraft. Estimates from an industry source indicate that the cost of a
single positioning flight could range between $1,000 and $2,500 and
that, depending upon the circumstances, the cost to transport a
certified mechanic to an aircraft are similar. The FAA does not have an
estimate of the number of times an aircraft with an expiring database
would require one of these actions to occur. As such, the FAA cannot
estimate a total potential cost-savings from this proposed rule because
the annual savings would depend upon how often these aircraft encounter
expired database conditions and whether the aircraft is flown to a
repair station or whether a mechanic is transported to the aircraft.
The FAA requests comments on the number of positioning flights
conducted annually for the purpose of updating a database and the
average cost of such a flight, or, alternatively, the costs of
transporting mechanics to the aircraft. Further, for those situations
where the aircraft is operated with an expired database, an estimate of
pilot time expended manually checking database information for
accuracy.
This proposed rule is cost-relieving because an operator would be
able to choose a pilot or a mechanic to upload data into navigational
systems, whereas today, only a certificated mechanic or a repair
station can perform the upload.
Who is potentially affected by this rule?
This proposed rule would affect all operators of certificated
aircraft equipped with self-contained, front-instrument panel or
pedestal-mounted navigational equipment. Large transport category
airplanes generally operated under Part 121 and manufactured by Boeing,
Airbus, McDonnell-Douglas, Bombardier, and Embraer are equipped with
larger and more sophisticated navigational systems that would not be
affected by the proposed rulemaking. Based on a preliminary review, the
FAA has determined that there are no aircraft currently operated under
parts 121 and 129 that are equipped with the Nav-Systems targeted by
this rulemaking. We request comments on this determination.
The avionics equipment for many smaller aircraft used in part 135
operations are in self-contained, front-instrument panel or pedestal-
mounted units. However, this is optional equipment, and older aircraft
may not have it. Many of these aircraft are operated under part 91, and
pilots operating under part 91 are currently allowed to upload these
software updates in these aircraft.
Assumptions and Sources of Information
The primary sources of information were a part 135 operator that
would be affected by the proposed rule and an aircraft electronics
association representative.
Costs of This Proposed Rule
The FAA has preliminarily determined that there would be minimal
costs imposed by the proposed rule because it would simply allow a
pilot to upload the current Nav-System database that currently must be
performed by a certificated mechanic or in a repair station. Thus,
instead of having to call out a certificated mechanic or repair
station, or even fly the aircraft to a certificated mechanic or repair
station, the pilot could perform the update before the next flight.
Time spent by the pilot uploading the current database software and
completing the required records would be part of the pilot's flight
duty time for which the pilot would not receive additional
compensation.
Although the pilot would need to complete the paperwork
demonstrating that the update had been performed, without the rule
change, a certificated mechanic or repair station would still be
required to complete the same paperwork.
However, the FAA anticipates that the majority of these updates
would continue to be completed by a certificated mechanic or repair
station as part of the standard maintenance that the aircraft would
undergo.
Benefits of This Proposed Rule
The Nav-System databases must be updated every 28 days. For certain
part 135 operators, there may be situations when the aircraft is being
operated in remote areas and may not be scheduled to return to the home
base for several days. Under those circumstances and the current rule,
the part 135 operator would either have to make a positioning flight to
the home base or to a repair station or transport a certificated
mechanic to the aircraft. Estimates from an industry source indicate
that the cost of a single positioning flight could range between $1,000
and $2,500 and that, depending upon the circumstances, the cost to
transport a certified mechanic to an aircraft are similar.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. If the agency determines that it would, the agency must
prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the
RFA. However, if an agency determines that a proposed rule is not
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of
the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this
[[Page 64864]]
determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
The net effect of this proposed rule would be to provide regulatory
cost relief. As this proposed rule would reduce costs for small
entities, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. We assessed the
potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that it would not
constitute an obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States,
and, thus, is consistent with the Trade Assessments Act.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one
year by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value
of $140.8 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not
contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II do not
apply to this proposal.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312(f) of the Order and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have
Federalism implications.
Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
VI. Additional Information
A. Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel about this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in
light of the comments it receives.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting
information on a disc or Compact Disc Read-Only Memory (CD-ROM), mark
the outside of the disc or CD-ROM, and identify electronically within
the disc or CD-ROM the specific information that is proprietary or
confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 43
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration
[[Page 64865]]
proposes to amend part 43 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows:
PART 43--MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND
ALTERATION
1. The authority citation for part 43 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44703, 44705,
44707, 44711, 44713, 44717, 44725.
2. Amend Sec. 43.3 by adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 43.3 Persons authorized to perform maintenance, preventive
maintenance, rebuilding, and alterations.
* * * * *
(k) The holder of a pilot certificate issued under part 61 of this
chapter may perform updating of self-contained, front-instrument panel-
mounted and pedestal-mounted air traffic control (ATC) navigational
system databases (excluding those of automatic flight control systems,
transponders, and microwave frequency distance measuring equipment
(DME), and any updates that affect system operating software)
provided--
(1) No disassembly of the unit is required;
(2) The pilot has written procedures available to perform and
evaluate the accomplishment of the task; and
(3) The database is contained in a field-loadable configuration and
imaged on a medium, such as a Compact Disc Read-Only Memory (CD-ROM),
Synchronous Dynamic Random-Access Memory (SDRAM), or other non-
volatile memory that contains database files that are non-corruptible
upon loading, and where integrity of the load can be assured and
verified by the pilot upon completing the loading sequences.
(4) Records of when such database uploads have occurred, the
revision number of the software, and who performed the upload must be
maintained.
(5) The data to be uploaded must not contain system operating
software revisions.
Appendix A to Part 43 [Amended]
3. Amend Appendix A to part 43 by removing paragraph (c)(32).
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 31, 2011.
John W. McGraw,
Deputy Director, Flights Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-27036 Filed 10-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P