[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 3 (Thursday, January 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 541-543]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33787]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0298]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt seven individuals from
the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting
the prescribed vision requirement. The Agency has concluded that
granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without
the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective January 5, 2012. The exemptions
expire on January 5, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the

name of the individual submitting the comment (or of the person signing
the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or
you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On November 10, 2011, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (76 FR 70213). That notice listed seven applicants'
case histories. The seven individuals applied for exemptions from the
vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate
CMVs in interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the seven applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing requirement
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement, but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The seven
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including retinopathy, prosthesis, central scaring, amblyopia,
melanoma and completely detached retina. In most cases, their eye
conditions were not recently developed. Three of the applicants were
either born with their vision impairments or have had them since
childhood. The four individuals sustained their vision conditions as an
adult and have had them for a period of five to twenty seven years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a commercial vehicle,
with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these seven drivers have
been authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though
their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce.
They have driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging
from 5 to 50 years. In the past 3 years, none of the drivers were
involved in crashes, and one was convicted of a moving violation in a
CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the November 10, 2011
notice (76 FR 70213).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of

single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of data,
comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with their
experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the seven applicants, none of the applicants were involved in crashes,
and one was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV; failure to stop
at a traffic signal. All the applicants achieved a record of safety
while driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the
likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate
their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their
vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA
concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the
future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the seven applicants listed in the notice of
November 10, 2011 (76 FR 70213).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the seven individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following:
    (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of
the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the seven exemption applications,
FMCSA exempts Adam O. Carson (MS), Michael P. Eisenreich (MN), Carlton
G. Frank (FL), Roger W. Hammock (AL), John T. Thor (MN), George Ulferts
(IA) and Donald F. Wilton (CA) from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: December 22, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-33787 Filed 1-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67584-67593]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27433]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 121 and 135

[Docket No.: FAA-2011-1136; Notice No. 12-07]
RIN 2120-AJ33

Air Carrier Contract Maintenance Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to amend
the maintenance regulations for domestic, flag, and supplemental
operations, and commuter and on-demand operations for aircraft type
certificated with a passenger seating configuration of 10 seats or more
(excluding any pilot seat). The proposed rules would require these
operators to develop policies, procedures, methods, and instructions
for performing contract maintenance that are acceptable to the FAA and
to include them in their maintenance manuals. The rules would also
require the operators to provide a list to the FAA of all persons with
whom they contract their maintenance. These changes are needed because
contract maintenance has increased to over 70 percent of all air
carrier maintenance, and numerous investigations have shown
deficiencies in maintenance performed by contract maintenance
providers. The proposals would help ensure consistency between contract
and in-house air carrier maintenance and enhance the oversight
capabilities of both the air carriers and the FAA.

DATES: Send comments on or before February 11, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2011-1136
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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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 docket, 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 19477-19478), 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 go to the 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 concerning
this action, contact Patricia K. Williams, Aircraft Maintenance
Division, Air Carrier Maintenance Branch, AFS-330, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Ed Averman,
Office of the Chief Counsel, Airworthiness, Advanced Aircraft, and
Commercial Space Law Branch, AGC-210, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. 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, Section 447, Section 44701(a)(2)(A)
and (B) and (5). Under that section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations and minimum standards in the interest of safety
for inspecting, servicing, and overhauling aircraft, aircraft engines,
propellers, and appliances, and equipment and facilities for, and the
timing of and manner of, the inspecting, servicing and overhauling, and
prescribing regulations the FAA finds necessary for safety and
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority.
    In addition, the ``FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012'' (the
Act), Public Law 112-95 (February 14, 2012), in section 319
(Maintenance providers), requires the FAA to issue regulations
``requiring that covered work on an aircraft used to provide air
transportation under part 121 * * *, be performed by persons in
accordance with subsection (b).'' Subsection (b), in addition to
listing persons authorized under existing regulations, referenced
additional terms and conditions in subsection (c) that would apply to
persons who provide contract maintenance workers, services, or
maintenance functions to a part 121 air carrier for covered work. The
Act defines covered work, and mandates that the applicable part 121 air
carrier must be directly in charge of covered work being performed for
it under contract, and that the work be done under the supervision and
control of the air carrier. These statutory requirements are addressed
in this proposal.

I. Overview of Proposed Rule

    The proposed amendments would apply to certificate holders who
conduct either domestic, flag, or supplemental operations under 14 CFR
part 121, and who conduct either commuter operations or on-demand
operations with aircraft type certificated for a passenger seating
configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of ten seats or more \1\ under
14 CFR part 135, if they contract any of their maintenance, preventive
maintenance, or alteration work to an outside source. The amendments
would require that each certificate holder who contracts for such work
must first have developed policies, procedures, methods, and
instructions for the accomplishment of that work. These must ensure
that, if they are followed, the work will be performed in accordance
with the certificate holder's maintenance program and maintenance
manual. Each certificate holder would also be required to ensure that
its system for the continuing analysis and surveillance of that work
contains procedures for its oversight. All of these policies,
procedures, methods, and instructions would have to be acceptable to
the FAA and be included in the certificate holder's maintenance manual.
In addition, each certificate

holder who contracts any of its maintenance, preventive maintenance, or
alteration work to an outside source would be required to provide to
its local FAA Certificate Holding District Office a list that includes
the name and address of each maintenance provider it uses and a
description of the type of maintenance that would be performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For brevity throughout this preamble, we will refer to these
aircraft as ``10 or more.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirement that any person performing maintenance for an air
carrier must follow the carrier's maintenance program is not new--FAA
regulations have long required this. For example, Sec.  121.363(b)
authorizes a certificate holder to arrange with another person to
perform its maintenance,\2\ and the regulation makes clear that doing
so does not relieve the carrier from remaining primarily responsible
for the airworthiness of its aircraft. Further, Sec.  121.367(a)
requires specifically that maintenance performed by either a
certificate holder, or by another person, must be performed in
accordance with the certificate holder's manual. Similar provisions are
found in Sec. Sec.  135.413 and 135.425. Despite those general
requirements, the Department of Transportation Inspector General (IG)
had noted lapses in the means to ensure air carrier manuals are
followed when contracted maintenance is performed. The deficiencies
noted include a lack of guidance and training for the maintenance
providers, and insufficient oversight of that maintenance. The IG
reports recommended the FAA develop a means to identify these contract
maintenance providers so the agency could better target its inspector
resources in surveilling air carrier maintenance. In a separate
rulemaking the FAA is proposing mandatory training programs for air
carrier maintenance that would have to be approved by the FAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Throughout this preamble, unless otherwise indicated, when
we refer to the generic term ``maintenance,'' the term is meant to
include ``maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    Over the past three decades, air carrier maintenance has evolved
from mostly an ``in-house'' operation to an extended network of
maintenance providers that fulfill contracts with air carriers to
perform their aircraft maintenance. The reasons for this shift are
many, including air carriers lowering costs by employing fewer
maintenance personnel and reducing their inventories of maintenance-
related tools, equipment, and housing by allowing others with
specialized equipment and expertise to work on their aircraft and its
safety-critical components. Thus, air carriers, in making business
decisions, have shifted much of their maintenance to contract
providers.
    By regulation, each air carrier remains primarily responsible for
the airworthiness of its aircraft, whether the maintenance is
contracted to another person or not. Any person performing maintenance
for an air carrier must follow the air carrier's maintenance manual.
(14 CFR 121.363, 121.367(a), 135.413, and 135.425(a).) In addition,
each air carrier is required to document in its general maintenance
manual, both a listing of persons with whom it contracts maintenance
and a general description of the contracted work. (14 CFR 121.369(a),
and 135.427(a).)
    However, air carrier general maintenance manuals often are geared
toward in-house maintenance. They fail to provide the necessary
instructions to maintenance providers to enable them to follow the air
carriers' maintenance programs. This is exacerbated when an air
carrier's manual contains proprietary data, or other confidential
information that an air carrier may not want to share with a
maintenance provider. Often, the maintenance provider may also work on
a competitor's aircraft. Consequently, according to the IG, air
carriers often are reluctant to share such information, and therefore,
often do not.
    In addition, the FAA has found that, although air carriers are
required to list their maintenance providers and a description of the
work to be done in their maintenance manuals, these lists are not
always kept up to date, are not always complete, and are not always in
a format that is readily useful for FAA oversight and analysis
purposes. The FAA needs this information to be complete and readily
available centrally. This data is used by the FAA in planning
surveillance of air carrier maintenance programs and determining the
extent to which maintenance providers are performing their work
according to the air carriers' maintenance manuals. Without accurate
and complete information on the work being performed for air carriers,
the FAA cannot adequately target its inspection resources for
surveillance and make accurate risk assessments.

B. History

    In May 1996, employees of SabreTech, a contract maintenance
provider to air carriers, placed mislabeled and mishandled oxygen
generators into the cargo compartment of a passenger jet. Those
mishandled hazardous materials caused a fire in the cargo hold that
caused Valujet Flight 592 from Miami to Atlanta to crash into the
Everglades in Florida, taking the lives of all 110 people on board.
Since then, the FAA's surveillance of air carrier maintenance and
contract maintenance has been a particular area of focus for the
Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General (DOT/OIG).
The OIG has been performing investigations and audits of the FAA's
safety oversight of air carriers' use of repair stations to perform
their maintenance, the use by air carriers of non-certificated repair
facilities, and the air carriers' outsourcing of maintenance. In each
of those reports (detailed below), the OIG found fault with the FAA's
methods of tracking where air carriers perform their maintenance, who
performs it, and how it is performed.
    A 2003 Department of Transportation IG report \3\ identified a
trend of air carriers increasingly contracting their maintenance to
outside sources such as repair stations. The report revealed that major
air carriers spent approximately $1.5 billion on outsourced maintenance
in 1996 and approximately $2.5 billion in 2002. The report attributed
the trend to cost savings that can be realized by air carriers
contracting their maintenance to outside repair facilities. The report
was based, in part, on investigators' visits to several FAA field
offices and to 21 repair stations to evaluate the effectiveness of the
FAA's oversight of the maintenance work being performed for air
carriers. The investigation identified weaknesses in maintenance
practices at 15 of the 21 repair stations and concluded that a lack of
FAA oversight, especially for repeat issues, contributed to the
deficiencies. The IG report made several recommendations on ways the
FAA could enhance the effectiveness of its oversight of air carrier
contracted maintenance. Among them was that the FAA should develop a
process to identify repair stations air carriers use to perform
aircraft maintenance, and to target FAA inspector resources based on
risk assessments or analysis of the data collected on air carrier
maintenance outsourcing practices (Recommendation 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Review of Air Carriers' Use of Aircraft Repair Stations,
Report No. AV-2003-047 (July 8, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2005, the IG issued a second report on air carriers' use of
outside maintenance providers \4\--this one reporting on the use of
non-certificated repair facilities. The report discussed air

carriers' use of both non-certificated facilities (i.e., maintenance
facilities not certificated by the FAA as repair stations) and
individual mechanics hired on a temporary basis. The report echoed a
recommendation from the 2003 IG report by recommending that the FAA
inventory air carrier vendor lists that include all maintenance
providers working on air carrier aircraft and identify non-certificated
repair facilities that perform critical or scheduled maintenance
(Recommendation 1). The report also recommended that the FAA determine
whether air carriers evaluate the background, experience, and
qualifications of the temporary maintenance personnel used by the
contractors to ensure the work they perform is completed in accordance
with FAA and air carrier requirements (Recommendation 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Air Carrier's Outsourcing Use of Non-Certificated Repair
Facilities, Report No. AV-2006-031 (Dec. 15, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The problem areas discussed above were emphasized at Congressional
hearings in testimony by the Inspector General in 2007. The Inspector
General stated: ``If FAA is to achieve the planned improvements in
oversight of outsourced maintenance, it will need to obtain definitive
data on where air carriers are getting the maintenance performed,
including critical and scheduled maintenance work done at non-
certificated repair facilities, so that it can focus its inspections to
areas of greatest risk.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Scovel, Aviation Safety, FAA Oversight of Repair Stations,
June 20, 2007, CC 2007-076 Senate Committee on Science,
Transportation and Commerce, Subcommittee on Operations, Safety and
Security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, the IG issued a third related report on air carriers'
outsourcing of maintenance.\6\ The report noted a continuing trend of
air carriers outsourcing more of their maintenance. The IG based this
report on its review of nine major air carriers, which sent 71% of
their heavy maintenance checks to repair stations in 2007--up from 34%
in 2003.\7\ The report pointed out the continuing need for better
oversight of contract maintenance, both by the FAA and by air carriers,
especially when the air carriers are contracting repairs of critical
components. In addition, the report found that air carrier maintenance
manuals have traditionally been geared toward in-house maintenance, and
noted that repair stations may perform work for various air carriers,
all with different in-house procedures. In this regard, the report
concluded that the FAA should ensure that air carriers provide well-
defined maintenance procedures and guidance for their outsourced
repairs. The report specifically recommended that the FAA: ``Encourage
the industry best practice of using airworthiness agreements between
air carriers and repair stations that more closely define maintenance
procedures and responsibilities'' (Recommendation 7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Air Carrier's Outsourcing of Aircraft Maintenance, Report
No. AV-2008-090 (Sept. 30, 2008).
    \7\ The report noted that, ``overall, major air carriers
outsourced an average of 64 percent of their maintenance expenses in
2007, compared to only 37 percent in 1996.'' Report No. AV-2008-090
(Sept. 30, 2008) at p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Need for the Rule
    As noted in the IG reports discussed above, air carrier use of
contract maintenance providers continues to grow, averaging 64% of air
carrier maintenance costs in 2007. The air carrier regulations have
long stipulated that each certificate holder is primarily responsible
for the airworthiness of its aircraft, even if maintenance is
contracted to another person. (See Sec. Sec.  121.363 and 135.413.) Air
carriers cannot abrogate this responsibility. Consistent with this
responsibility are the requirements that when persons other than the
certificate holder (i.e., contract maintenance providers) perform
maintenance for it, the maintenance must be performed in accordance
with the certificate holder's maintenance manual.
    Section 121.367 has long required that each certificate holder
shall have a maintenance program that ensures that: ``Maintenance,
preventive maintenance, and alterations performed by it, or by other
persons, are performed in accordance with the certificate holder's
manual.'' (Sec. Sec.  121.367(a) and 135.425(a) (emphasis added).) And,
current Sec.  121.369(b) requires, in pertinent part, that:

    The certificate holder's manual must contain the programs
required by Sec.  121.367 that must be followed in performing
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations of that
certificate holder's airplanes, including airframes, aircraft
engines, propellers, appliances, emergency equipment, and parts
thereof * * *.

    A nearly identical requirement is in Sec.  135.427(b). While these
requirements may be clear, the specifics of how to achieve the result
may not be. As noted in the three IG reports discussed above, the
investigators found numerous problems with maintenance being outsourced
by air carriers. One conclusion reached by the IG was, as noted above,
that air carriers should provide their contract maintenance providers
with well-defined maintenance procedures. Implicit is that these
procedures would be designed by each air carrier so that its
maintenance providers could follow its manual.
    The FAA believes that a root cause of this problem may be that many
air carrier maintenance manuals were written at a time when maintenance
was performed mostly in-house. Thus parts of these manuals may contain
proprietary information obtained from various sources, for example,
original equipment manufacturer (OEM), Type Certificate (TC) holder, or
Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) holder, or the information may have
been developed by the air carrier. Because of the proprietary nature of
the data, an air carrier may be reluctant to provide its maintenance
providers with all of the complete and specific guidance within its
maintenance manual. This reluctance by an air carrier to provide the
specific proprietary guidance/information may indicate that it does not
fully recognize the maintenance provider as an extension of its own
maintenance program. In those situations, the maintenance provider may
be unable to follow the air carrier's program to the extent required by
the regulations.
    Repair stations have been frustrated by their inability to obtain
the necessary applicable portions of some air carrier maintenance
manuals when performing work under contract for them. The repair
station regulations require repair stations to follow the maintenance
manuals of the air carriers for whom they are doing the work. Section
145.205(a) provides that:

    A certificated repair station that performs maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alterations for an air carrier or
commercial operator that has a continuous airworthiness maintenance
program under part 121 or part 135 must follow the air carrier's or
commercial operator's program and applicable sections of its
maintenance manual.

    It stands to reason that if a repair station must follow the air
carrier's or commercial operator's manual in order to comply with this
regulation, then the corresponding part 121 and part 135 regulations
should require the air carrier or commercial operator to provide the
repair station that does the work with the applicable portions of its
maintenance manual. This would be consistent with the air carriers'
remaining primarily responsible for the airworthiness of their aircraft
and the concept that when a maintenance provider performs maintenance
for an air carrier, the provider is an extension of the air carrier's
maintenance program.
    The IG reports placed much emphasis on the need for improved FAA
oversight of air carrier contract maintenance. In order for the FAA to
improve this

oversight, the IG, in 2003, recommended the agency develop a means to
identify repair stations that perform maintenance for air carriers. The
current regulations require only that air carriers put in their manuals
a list of persons with whom they have arranged for the performance of
maintenance and a general description of that work. (See Sec. Sec.
121.369(a) and 135.427(a).) Although the FAA may review these manuals,
no current rule requires air carriers to keep such a list up to date
and to provide it to the FAA in an acceptable format. As explained
below, the FAA has found that the lists maintained by air carriers in
their manuals in some cases are not readily useful for oversight
purposes.
    The requirements that an air carrier put in its maintenance manual
a list of persons with whom it has arranged to perform maintenance,
including a general description of that work, has been in place since
at least 1965. As a consequence of the IG reports, between June and
September 2010, the FAA did an internal investigation to determine the
effectiveness of the requirement that air carriers include in their
manual the list of outside maintenance providers. The agency found
inconsistent compliance with the rule. Some carriers failed to specify
an adequate description of the type of work, and some failed to include
the name and address of their maintenance providers, using instead only
alpha-numeric designators. This piecemeal and inconsistent availability
of the information is not conducive to FAA analysis and targeting of
problem areas.
    The FAA agrees with the IG's recommendations that the agency should
have an accurate, consistent inventory of each air carrier's contract
maintenance providers. Such a list would enable the FAA to more
accurately assess the risk associated with air carriers increasingly
maintaining their fleets by contract maintenance providers. Although
the identity of contract maintenance providers is currently available
to the FAA through the air carriers' manuals and available upon
request, it is not published in a format that readily allows for
analysis, as it may be annotated in various formats, and the
information is not available to the FAA in a single data base. In
accordance with the IG's recommendations, we are proposing this rule so
the FAA would have a dedicated and readily available list in an
acceptable format of all air carrier contract maintenance providers.
These lists would be useful for purposes of FAA analysis and oversight
of both the air carriers that contract portions of their maintenance
and their maintenance providers. The FAA envisions that this list would
be administered via air carriers' operations specifications or through
the agency's new safety assurance system that allows each certificate
holder to enter its own data electronically into the FAA system. This
would provide the FAA with real time data and assist it in meeting its
oversight responsibilities and in making risk assessments.

III. Discussion of the Proposal

    Because current FAA regulations do not clearly address air carrier
requirements for contract maintenance providers, the resulting lack of
standardization makes it difficult for both the air carriers and the
FAA to provide meaningful oversight to ensure proper maintenance that
is vital for the public's continued safety. Consistent with the IG's
recommendations, we propose to address weaknesses in contracted
maintenance on two fronts. The first would add consistency and
structure to the arrangements air carriers make with their outside
maintenance providers, with the goal of ensuring that the air carriers'
maintenance manuals would be followed. The second would assist the FAA
in its oversight of contracted maintenance by requiring each air
carrier that contracts any of its maintenance to provide, and keep
updated, a list of those maintenance providers to the FAA. The list
would include the physical (street) address where the work would be
performed, and a description of the work to be performed by each
maintenance provider.
    While the current regulations do require that any person (whether
certificated or not) with whom an air carrier arranges to perform
maintenance must follow the carrier's manual, the requirement is
broadly stated and often loosely implemented. In order to assure
consistency in any future FAA guidance material, we are proposing in
new Sec. Sec.  121.368 and 135.426 to define a maintenance provider as
any person (whether certificated or not) who performs maintenance for a
certificate holder other than a person who is trained by and employed
by that certificate holder. These new sections would also require each
air carrier that contracts any part of its maintenance to a maintenance
provider to first have policies and procedures in place to ensure that,
if they were followed, the carrier's contracted maintenance would be
performed in accordance with its maintenance program and maintenance
manual. Proprietary data issues could be addressed by carefully drafted
airworthiness agreements between the air carrier and its maintenance
provider, as recommended in the 2008 IG report. Each certificate holder
would also be required to ensure that its system for the continuing
analysis and surveillance of that work contains procedures for its
oversight. All of these policies, procedures, methods, and instructions
would have to be acceptable to the FAA and be included in the
certificate holder's maintenance manual.
    For completeness, we are also proposing a new paragraph (b)(10) to
current Sec. Sec.  121.369 and 135.427 (Manual requirements) to include
the above requirements for procedures and oversight in the air
carriers' maintenance manuals.
    We are also proposing in new Sec. Sec.  121.368 and 135.426 to
require each air carrier that contracts any of its maintenance to an
outside source to provide to its FAA Certificate Holding District
Office, in a format acceptable to the FAA, a list that includes the
name and address of each maintenance provider used by that certificate
holder under contract, and a description of the work that would be
performed. This would enable the FAA to have a meaningful data base
that would show who was doing the work for each air carrier and the
kind of work being done. This would assist the FAA in its oversight
responsibilities, especially in determining which maintenance providers
were performing critical maintenance.
    The FAA recognizes that operators will need time to fully develop
the policies, procedures, methods, and instructions for contract
maintenance and to provide them in an acceptable format to the FAA.
Similarly, they will need time to prepare the list with the required
information of their contract maintenance providers and to provide them
in an acceptable format to their Certificate Holding District Offices.
The FAA will also need time to review the information submitted by the
operators. In view of these considerations, the FAA is proposing to
make the effective date of the final rule one year after its
publication. We are requesting public comments on the reasonableness of
this one-year ``compliance'' period, as well as any other aspect of
this proposal.
    In addition, as explained in the Authority for this Rulemaking
section of this preamble, the ``FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012'' (the Act), Public Law 112-95 (February 14, 2012), in section 319
(Maintenance providers), requires the FAA to issue regulations
``requiring that covered work on an aircraft used to provide air
transportation under part 121 * * *, be performed by persons in
accordance

with subsection (b).'' Subsection (b) of the Act, in addition to
listing persons already authorized to perform maintenance under
existing regulations, referenced additional terms and conditions in
subsection (c) that would apply to persons who provide contract
maintenance workers, services, or maintenance functions to a part 121
air carrier for the performance of covered work. The Act defines
covered work as any of the following: ``(A) Essential maintenance that
could result in a failure, malfunction, or defect endangering the safe
operation of an aircraft if not performed properly or if improper
materials are used. (B) Regularly scheduled maintenance. (C) A required
inspection item (as defined by the Administrator).'' The Act also
requires that covered work be carried out under the supervision and
control of the part 121 air carrier directly in charge of the covered
work being performed for it by a maintenance provider, and that the
covered work be carried out in accordance with the air carrier's
maintenance manual.
    In accordance with these statutory requirements, we are proposing
to include in Sec. Sec.  121.368(a) and 135.426(a) the definition of
covered work set forth in the statute, and to provide definitions of
supervision and control and directly in charge. The definition of
directly in charge would be similar to the current definitions in
Sec. Sec.  121.378 and 135.435. As required by the statute, we are also
proposing: In Sec. Sec.  121.368(b) and 135.426(b), that each
certificate holder must be directly in charge of all covered work it
contracts to a maintenance provider; in Sec. Sec.  121.368(c) and
135.426(c), that all covered work must be carried out in accordance
with the certificate holder's maintenance manual; and in Sec. Sec.
121.368(d) and 135.426(d), that no covered work may be performed by a
maintenance provider unless that work is carried out under the
supervision and control of the certificate holder. Although the statute
mandates these amendments for part 121 air carriers, the FAA believes
that, in the interest of providing an equivalent level of safety for
commuter and on demand operations, the same requirements should apply
to persons conducting operations under part 135 in aircraft configured
with 10 or more passenger seats. Accordingly, we are proposing the
changes mandated by the Act for both part 121 and part 135 (10 or more)
certificate holders.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 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. We suggest
readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a
copy of which we have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    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. These analyses are summarized
below.
Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule
    This proposed rule would ensure consistency between contract and
in-house air carrier maintenance and assist the FAA in its oversight
responsibilities. The DOT IG reports placed much emphasis on the need
for improved FAA oversight of air carrier contract maintenance. In
order for the FAA to better be able to provide this oversight, the IG,
in 2003, recommended the agency develop a means to identify repair
stations that perform maintenance for air carriers.
    In accord with the IG's recommendations, we are proposing this rule
so the FAA would have a dedicated and readily available list in an
acceptable format of all air carrier contract maintenance providers.
These lists would be useful for purposes of FAA analysis and oversight
of both the air carriers that contract portions of their maintenance
and their maintenance providers.
    These new sections would also require each air carrier that
contracts any part of its maintenance to a maintenance provider to
first have policies and procedures in place to ensure that, if they
were followed, the carrier's contracted maintenance would be performed
in accordance with its maintenance program and maintenance manual.
Proprietary data issues could be addressed by carefully drafted
airworthiness agreements between the air carrier and its maintenance
provider, as recommended in the 2008 IG report.
    In addition, this proposed rule responds to a provision (Section
319 on Maintenance Providers) in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act
of 2012 mandating that the FAA issue regulations ``requiring that
covered work on an aircraft used to provide air transportation under
part 121 * * *, be performed by persons in accordance with subsection
(b) [of that section].'' Subsection (b), in addition to listing persons
authorized under existing regulations, referenced additional terms and
conditions in subsection (c) that would apply to persons who provide
contract maintenance workers, services, or maintenance functions to a
part 121 air carrier for covered work. The section defines covered
work, and mandates that the applicable part 121 air carrier must be
directly in charge of covered work being performed for it under
contract, and that the work be done under the supervision and control
of the air carrier. As already explained under Discussion of the
Proposal in this preamble, in the interest of providing an equivalent
level of safety for commuter and on demand operations, we are proposing
the above statutory requirements for certificate holders operating
under part 135 as well as for those operating under part 121.
    Over 10 years, the cost to part 121 and part 135 (10 or more) air
carriers and the FAA would be approximately $2.4

million ($1.6 million, present value at 7%), or essentially minimal
cost.
    The FAA believes the benefits discussed above have value exceeding
the costs.
Who is potentially affected by this rule?
    Part 121 and part 135 (10 or more) air carriers.
    Assumptions:
     The rule is expected to take effect in 2014. The time
horizon for these potential benefits is 10 years, 2014 through 2023.
     All monetary values were expressed in constant 2011
dollars. We calculated the present value of the potential benefit
stream by discounting the monetary values using a 7 percent interest
rate from 2014 to 2023.
     The FAA identified 301 part 121 and part 135 (10 or more)
air carriers that would be affected by this proposed rule.
Benefits of This Rule
    This proposed rule would ensure consistency between contract and
in-house air carrier maintenance and assist the FAA in its oversight
responsibilities. The DOT IG reports placed much emphasis on the need
for improved FAA oversight of air carrier contract maintenance. In
order for the FAA to better be able to provide this oversight, the IG,
in 2003, recommended the agency develop a means to identify repair
stations that perform maintenance for air carriers.
    In accord with the IG's recommendations, we are proposing this rule
so the FAA would have a dedicated and readily available list in an
acceptable format of all air carrier contract maintenance providers.
These lists would be useful for purposes of FAA analysis and oversight
of both the air carriers that contract portions of their maintenance
and their maintenance providers.
    Although the IG reports discussed earlier dealt primarily with
maintenance conducted for part 121 certificate holders, the FAA has
found similar problems with maintenance providers not following the
maintenance programs of certificate holders conducting commuter and on-
demand operations with aircraft type certificated for a passenger
seating configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of ten seats or more
under part 135. In a similar vein, the FAA has also found that some of
these operators conduct insufficient oversight of their maintenance
providers. Even before the passage of Public Law 112-95 in February
2012, the FAA was planning to propose rules for both part 121 and 135
certificate holders that would require additional procedures and
oversight to help ensure that the certificate holders' manuals would be
followed by outside maintenance providers. The statute mandates new
requirements for part 121 certificate holders, including that they be
directly in charge of what it defines as ``covered work.'' Because the
FAA has observed the same types of lapses with maintenance performed
for part 135 certificate holders operating aircraft with 10 or more
seats, we are proposing the same requirements for these operators. The
FAA believes that by requiring part 135 certificate holders to adopt
the new part 121 statutory requirements, a higher level of safety would
be achieved.
Costs of This Rule
    From 2014 to 2023, the cost to part 121 and part 135 (10 or more)
air carriers and the FAA would be approximately $2.4 million ($1.6
million, present value). The FAA solicits comments regarding this
determination and requests that all comments be accompanied by clear
and detailed supporting economic documentation.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    The FAA identified a total of 269 small entities out of 301 air
carriers that would be affected by this proposed rule. For each of
these entities, the FAA attempted to retrieve their annual revenue data
from World Aviation Directory. The FAA found data for 36 of the 269
small entities. The FAA then compared their revenue data with their
annualized costs. The projected annualized costs of the proposed rule
as a percent of revenue would be less than 1 percent for the 36 small
entities, which is not a significant economic impact. Therefore, the
FAA certifies this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits
comments regarding this determination.

C. 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 the 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. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that
the objective is to improve safety: therefore, it would not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million instead of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the

requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA considers the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    This action contains the following proposed amendments to the
existing information collection requirements previously approved under
OMB Control Number 2120-XXXX. As required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these proposed
information collection amendments to OMB for its review.
    Summary: Each operator which seeks to obtain, or is in possession
of, an air carrier operating certificate must comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR part 121 in order to maintain data which is used
to determine if the air carrier is operating in accordance with minimum
safety standards. Original certification is completed in accordance
with part 119.
    Each operator which seeks to obtain, or is in possession of a
commuter or on-demand operating certificate must comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR part 135 in order to maintain data which is used
to determine if the air carrier is operating in accordance with minimum
safety standards. Original certification is completed in accordance
with part 119. Continuing certification is completed in accordance with
part 121 and part 135. One form is used. The use of this form was taken
into account in estimating the burden for this section.
    Use: This information collection supports the Department of
Transportation's strategic goal of safety. Specifically, the goal is to
promote the public health and safety by working toward the elimination
of transportation-related deaths, injuries, and destruction of
property.
    Title 49 U.S.C., Section 44702, empowers the Secretary of
Transportation to issue air carrier operating certificates and to
establish minimum safety standards for the operation of the air carrier
to whom such certificates are issued. Under the authority of Title 49
CFR, Section 44701, Federal Aviation Regulations part 121 and part 135
prescribe the terms, conditions, and limitations as are necessary to
ensure safety in air transportation.
    Respondents (including number of): There are approximately 94 part
121 air carriers and 207 part 135 operators affected by this proposed
rule.
    Frequency: The manual requirements will be submitted as part of the
submission of maintenance manuals to the FAA for acceptance.
    Annual Burden Estimate: The proposed rule would require that the
air carrier's manual has all the policies, procedures, methods, and
instructions for the accomplishment of maintenance by another person to
include the information necessary for certificate holders to ensure all
maintenance is performed in accordance with its maintenance program.
The proposed rule would also require that the air carrier provides a
list with the name and address of each maintenance provider used and
the type of maintenance that is to be performed.
Private Sector Costs
    The proposed rule would require that the air carrier's manual has
all the policies, procedures, methods, and instructions for the
accomplishment of maintenance by another person to include the
information necessary for certificate holders to ensure all maintenance
is performed in accordance with its maintenance program. The proposed
rule would also require that the air carrier provides a list with the
name and address of each maintenance provider used and the type of
maintenance that is to be performed and updates and maintains that
list.
    To calculate the cost of revising the manual and revising and
maintaining the list, the following assumptions were used, paralleling
those in the regulatory evaluation:
     94 part 121 manuals have to be revised in year 1.
     207 part 135 manuals have to be revised in year 1.
     94 part 121 air carriers have to provide a list in year 1.
     207 part 135 air carriers have to provide a list in year
1.
     Part 121: amount of time revising manual (manager): 4
hours.
     Part 121: amount of time revising manual (technical
writer): 40 hours.
     Part 121: amount of time revising manual (editor): 2
hours.
     Part 135: amount of time revising manual (manager): 8
hours.
     Part 121: amount of time to provide the list (manager): 1
hour.
     Part 121: amount of time to provide the list (technical
writer): 3 hours.
     Part 121: amount of time to provide the list (auditor): 10
hours.
     Part 135: amount of time to provide the list (manager): 5
hours.
     Parts 121 & 135: amount of time to maintain list
(manager): 6 hours/year.
     Parts 121 & 135: amount of time to maintain list
(technical writer): 6 hours/year.
     Wage per hour for manager: $69.78.
     Wage per hour for technical writer: $36.76.
     Wage per hour for editor: $43.45.
     Wage per hour for auditor: $49.79.
First Year Costs for Part 121
Cost = 94 x ((4 hours x $69.78) + (40 hours x $36.76) + (2 hours x
$43.45) + (1 hour x $69.78) + (3 hours x $36.76) + (10 hours x $49.79)
+ (6 hours x $69.78) + (6 hours x $36.76)) = $296,454.
Time = 94 x (4 hours + 40 hours + 2 hours + 1 hour + 3 hours + 10 hours
+ 6 hours + 6 hours) = 6,768.
Subsequent Year Costs for Part 121
Cost = 94 x ((6 hours x $69.78) + (6 hours x $36.76)) = $60,091.
Time = 94 x (6 hours + 6 hours) = 1,128.
First Year Costs for Part 135
Cost = 207 x ((8 hours x $69.78) + (5 hours x $69.78) + (6 hours x
$69.78) + (6 hours x $36.76)) = $320,114.
Time = 207 x (8 hours + 5 hours + 6 hours + 6 hours) = 5,175.
Subsequent Year Costs for Part 135
Cost = 207 x ((6 hours x $69.78) + (6 hours x $36.76)) = $132,329.
Time = 207 x (6 hours + 6 hours) = 2,484.
Total Over 10 Years
Cost = ($296,454 + $320,114 + (9 x $60,091) + (9 x $132,329)) =
$2,348,351.
Time = (6,768 hours + 5,175 hours + (9 x 1,128 hours) + (9 x 2,484
hours)) = 44,451.
Average Per Year
Cost = $2,348,351/10 = $234,835.
Time = 44,451/10 = 4,445 hours.
FAA Costs
    The FAA has to ensure that the air carrier's manual has all the
policies, procedures, methods, and instructions for the accomplishment
of maintenance by another person to include the information necessary
for certificate holders to ensure all maintenance is performed in
accordance with its maintenance program.
    To calculate the cost of revising the manual, the following
assumptions were used, paralleling those in the regulatory evaluation:
     94 part 121 manuals have to be revised in year 1.

     207 part 135 manuals have to be revised in year 1.
     Part 121: amount of time revising manual (FAA inspector):
1 hour.
     Part 135: amount of time revising manual (FAA inspector):
1 hour.
     Wage per hour for FAA inspector: $96.14.
First Year Costs for Part 121
Cost = 94 x ((1 hour x $96.14)) = $9,037.
Time = 94 x (1 hour) = 94 hours.
First Year Costs for Part 135
Cost = 207 x ((1 hour x $96.14)) = $19,901.
Time = 207 x (1 hour) = 207 hours.
Total Over 10 Years
Cost = ($9,037 + $19,901) = $28,938.
Time = (94 hours + 207 hours) = 301 hours.
Average Per Year
Cost = $28,938/10 = $2,894.
Time = 301/10 = 30 hours.

    The agency is soliciting comments to--
    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
    (4) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are
to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.
    Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information
collection requirement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this preamble by February 11, 2013. Comments also
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA,
New Executive Office Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20053.

F. International Compatibility

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

G. 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 Chapter 3, paragraph 312d and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. 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.

B. 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 concerning 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 disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM, and identify electronically within the disk 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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

14 CFR Part 121

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 135

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 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), 1153, 40101, 40102, 40103, 41721,
44105, 44106, 44111, 44701-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 44906,
44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, 46103, 46105.

    2. Add new Sec.  121.368 as follows:

Sec.  121.368  Contract maintenance.

    (a) A certificate holder may arrange with another person for the
performance of maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations as
authorized in Sec.  121.379(a) only if all the requirements in this
section are met. For purposes of this section--
    (1) A maintenance provider is any person who performs maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or an alteration for a certificate holder other
than a person who is trained by and employed directly by that
certificate holder.
    (2) Covered work means any of the following:
    (i) Essential maintenance that could result in a failure,
malfunction, or defect endangering the safe operation of an aircraft if
not performed properly or if improper materials are used;
    (ii) Regularly scheduled maintenance; or (iii) A required
inspection item on an aircraft.
    (3) Directly in charge means having responsibility for covered work
performed by a maintenance provider. A representative of the
certificate holder directly in charge of covered work does not need to
physically observe and direct each maintenance provider constantly, but
must be available for consultation on matters requiring instruction or
decision.
    (4) Supervision and control means that a representative of the
certificate holder must be available to personally observe the covered
work being done to the extent necessary to ensure it is being done
properly, and when the representative is not physically present to
observe the work, the representative must be available for consultation
on matters requiring instruction or decision.
    (b) Each certificate holder must be directly in charge of all
covered work done for it by a maintenance provider.
    (c) All covered work must be carried out in accordance with the
certificate holder's maintenance manual.
    (d) No covered work may be performed by a maintenance provider
unless that work is carried out under the supervision and control of
the certificate holder.
    (e) Each certificate holder who contracts for maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alterations to be carried out by a
maintenance provider must develop policies, procedures, methods, and
instructions for the accomplishment of all such maintenance, preventive
maintenance, and alterations, and these policies, procedures, methods,
and instructions must ensure that, if they are followed, the
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations are performed in
accordance with the certificate holder's maintenance program and
maintenance manual.
    (f) Each certificate holder who contracts for maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alterations to be carried out by a
maintenance provider must ensure that its system for the continuing
analysis and surveillance of the maintenance, preventive maintenance,
and alterations carried out by the maintenance provider, as required by
Sec.  121.373(a), contains procedures for oversight of all contracted
covered work.
    (g) The policies, procedures, methods, and instructions required by
paragraph (e) and (f) of this section must be acceptable to the FAA and
included in the certificate holder's maintenance manual as provided in
Sec.  121.369(b)(10).
    (h) Each certificate holder who contracts for maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alterations to be carried out by a
maintenance provider must provide to its FAA Certificate Holding
District Office, in a format acceptable to the FAA, a list that
includes the name and physical (street) address, or addresses, where
the work is carried out for each maintenance provider that performs
work for the certificate holder, and a description of the type of
maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration that is to be
performed at each location. The list must be updated with any changes,
including additions or deletions, and the updated list provided to the
FAA in a format acceptable to the FAA by the last day of each calendar
month.
    3. Amend Sec.  121.369 by adding paragraph (b)(10) as follows:

Sec.  121.369  Manual requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (10) Policies, procedures, methods, and instructions for the
accomplishment of all maintenance, preventive maintenance, and
alterations carried out by a maintenance provider. These policies,
procedures, methods, and instructions must be acceptable to the FAA and
ensure that, when followed by the maintenance provider, the
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations are performed in
accordance with the certificate holder's maintenance program and
maintenance manual.
* * * * *

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702, 44705,
44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 45101-451050.

    5. Add new Sec.  135.426 to read as follows:

Sec.  135.426  Contract maintenance.

    (a) A certificate holder may arrange with another person for the
performance of maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations as
authorized in Sec.  135.437(a) only if all the requirements in this
section are met. For purposes of this section--
    (1) A maintenance provider is any person who performs maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or an alteration for a certificate holder other
than a person who is trained by and employed directly by that
certificate holder.
    (2) Covered work means any of the following: (i) Essential
maintenance that could result in a failure, malfunction, or defect
endangering the safe operation of an aircraft if not performed properly
or if improper materials are used; (ii) Regularly scheduled
maintenance; or (iii) A required inspection item on an aircraft.
    (3) Directly in charge means having responsibility for covered work
performed by a maintenance provider. A representative of the
certificate holder directly in charge of covered work does not need to
physically observe and direct each maintenance provider constantly, but
must be available for consultation on matters requiring instruction or
decision.
    (4) Supervision and control means that a representative of the
certificate holder must be available to personally

observe the covered work being done to the extent necessary to ensure
it is being done properly, and when the representative is not
physically present to observe the work, the representative must be
available for consultation on matters requiring instruction or
decision.
    (b) Each certificate holder must be directly in charge of all
covered work done for it by a maintenance provider.
    (c) All covered work must be carried out in accordance with the
certificate holder's maintenance manual.
    (d) No covered work may be performed by a maintenance provider
unless that work is carried out under the supervision and control of
the certificate holder.
    (e) Each certificate holder who contracts for maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alterations to be carried out by a
maintenance provider must develop policies, procedures, methods, and
instructions for the accomplishment of all contracted maintenance,
preventive maintenance, and alterations, and these policies,
procedures, methods, and instructions must ensure that, if they are
followed, the maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations are
performed in accordance with the certificate holder's maintenance
program and maintenance manual.
    (f) Each certificate holder who contracts for maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alterations to be carried out by a
maintenance provider must ensure that its system for the continuing
analysis and surveillance of the maintenance, preventive maintenance,
and alterations carried out by a maintenance provider under this
section contains procedures for oversight of the contracted work, as
required by Sec.  135.431(a), contains procedures for oversight of all
contracted covered work.
    (g) The policies, procedures, methods, and instructions required by
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section must be acceptable to the FAA
and included in the certificate holder's maintenance manual as provided
in Sec.  135.427(b)(10).
    (h) Each certificate holder who contracts for maintenance,
preventive maintenance, or alterations to be carried out by a
maintenance provider must provide to its FAA Certificate Holding
District Office, in a format acceptable to the FAA, a list that
includes the name and physical (street) address, or addresses, where
the work is carried out for each maintenance provider that performs
work for the certificate holder, and a description of the type of
maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alteration that is to be
performed at each location. The list must be updated with any changes,
including additions or deletions, and the updated list provided to the
FAA in a format acceptable to the FAA by the last day of each calendar
month.
    6. Amend Sec.  135.427 by adding paragraph (b)(10) as follows:

Sec.  135.427  Manual requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (10) Policies, procedures, methods, and instructions for the
accomplishment of all maintenance, preventive maintenance, and
alterations carried out by a maintenance provider. These policies,
procedures, methods, and instructions must be acceptable to the FAA and
ensure that, when followed by the maintenance provider, the
maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations are performed in
accordance with the certificate holder's maintenance program and
maintenance manual.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 6, 2012.
John M. Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-27433 Filed 11-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 131 (Monday, July 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 41162]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14632]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2022-0923]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Part 142,
Certificated Training Centers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection involves Certificated Training Centers.
Operators pay Certificated Training Centers to provide training to
their employees, typically pilots, on different types of equipment if
training is not done in house. The information to be collected is
necessary because it allows aviation safety inspectors (operations) to
review and to provide surveillance to training centers to ensure
compliance with airman training, testing, and certification
requirements specified in other parts of the regulations. If the
information were not collected, inspectors would not be able to
determine if airmen who are clients are being trained, checked or
tested to meet the safety standards established in other parts of the
regulations. To date, FAA inspectors have used the information
collected to determine and assess regulatory compliance during routine
program surveillance.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by September 9, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By mail: Sandra L. Ray, 1187 Thorn Run Road, Suite 200, Coraopolis,
PA 15108.
    By fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Ray by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0570.
    Title: Part 142, Certificated Training Centers.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Part 142 Flight Schools are subject to several
collection requirements. 14 CFR part 142 is one of several Federal
Regulation parts that implement the Public Law. Section 142.11 provides
that application for a training center certificate and training
specifications shall be made in a form and manner prescribed by the
Administrator, shall provide specific information about each
management, instructor position, and evaluator position, and contain
certain other administrative information.
    Section 142.37 provides that application for approval of training
programs must be in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator,
and must provide specific information about curriculum and courses of
the training program.
    Chapter 447, Section 44701 of Title 49, United States Code,
provides, in pertinent part, that the Administrator may find, after
investigation, that a person found to possess proper qualifications for
a position as an airman may be issued such certificate. That
certificate shall contain such terms, conditions, and limitations as to
duration thereof, as well as periodic or special examinations, and
other matters as the Administrator may determine to be necessary to
assure safety in air commerce.
    Section 142.73 requires that training centers maintain records for
a period of one year to show trainee qualifications for training,
testing, or checking, training attempts, training checking, and testing
results, and for one year following termination of employment the
qualification of instructors and evaluators providing those services.
    The respondents may be the Part 142 schools, Part 121 or 135 air
carriers who utilize these schools or new applicants seeking Part 142
certification. The information may be collected in electronic forms. No
specific forms are required. Information reporting may be done in
accordance with the individual FAA office.
    Respondents: Part 142 schools, Part 121 and 135 carriers and new
certifications.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Varies per requirement.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 87,112 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 5, 2022.
Sandra L. Ray,
Aviation Safety Inspector, AFS-260.
[FR Doc. 2022-14632 Filed 7-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P