[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 230 (Thursday, November 29, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71089-71096]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28845]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 43

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0763; Amendment No. 43-45]
RIN 2120-AJ91

Pilot Loading of Aeronautical Database Updates

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends 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. Further, we are adding text to the maintenance regulations
that describes which equipment and, under which conditions, may have
aeronautical databases updated by pilots as a non-maintenance function.
Equipment which does not meet the criteria outlined in the new
regulation will continue to be updated as a maintenance function. This
revision will ensure that pilots using specified avionics equipment
have the most current and accurate data and thereby increase aviation
safety.

DATES: This rule becomes effective January 28, 2013.

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 Aviation Administration, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC
20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions about this action, contact Viola M. Pando,
Office of the Chief Counsel, International Law, Legislation, and
Regulations Division--Policy and Adjudication Branch, AGC-210, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington DC
20591; telephone<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 44701(a)(1), section
44703(b)(1)(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 the manner of servicing of aircraft
appliances. In section 44703(b)(1)(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 or 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 Final Rule

    This final rule allows all pilots operating aircraft equipped with
certificated avionics equipment as described herein to perform updates
of aeronautical databases. In 1996, the FAA updated the regulations
defining preventive maintenance to include updating the navigation
database of self-contained, front-panel or pedestal-mounted navigation
equipment. This allowed the holder of a pilot certificate issued under
part 61 to perform the database upload on any aircraft owned or
operated by that pilot not used under parts 121, 129, or 135 (hereafter
refered to as ``restricted operations''). The safety

record established by pilots performing those database updates, the
evolution of installed avionics equipment, and the expansion of
database use in avionics equipment installed in all classes of
certificated aircraft have prompted changes put into effect by this
final rule.
    In both the 1996 final rule and the NPRM issued for this final
rule, the term ``navigation database'' was used. To create
harmonization with existing guidance (i.e., Advisory Circular AC 20-
153, Paragraph 7--Definitions), the term ``navigation database'' is
changed to ``aeronautical database'' in the discussion of this final
rule.
    This final rule recognizes the installed avionics equipment, the
media upon which databases are stored, and the means by which databases
are uploaded to the avionics equipment have evolved, and they will
continue to do so. Accordingly, language such as ``* * * self-
contained, front-panel or pedestal-mounted navigation equipment * * *''
used in the 1996 final rule has been eliminated and replaced by
conditions which will enable a pilot or operator to determine which
equipment may have aeronautical databases updated by a pilot.

II. Background

    The navigation equipment most prevalent in 1996 can, for the sake
of discussion, be divided into two categories.
    Large transport category aircraft were typically equipped with
Flight Management Systems that were comprised of a Control Display Unit
on the flight deck and a Flight Management Computer in the electronics
bay. These systems were typically updated using a portable dataloader
which was connected to the system via a remote connector. These systems
required the trained skills and knowledge of authorized maintenance
personnel to perform the update.
    Some avionics manufacturers had also been manufacturing systems
that performed similar functions as those installed on the large
transport aircraft, but those systems were small, self-contained units
typically installed on the front panel or pedestal in the flight deck
of smaller transport category and general aviation aircraft. These
systems stored their database on removable media, such as a Secure
Digital (SD) card, rather than in resident memory. The database update
was accomplished by removing the SD card with the old database and
replacing it with the SD card containing the new database.
    On May 1, 1996, the FAA issued regulations (61 FR 19498)
categorizing pilot-performed updates of navigation databases as
preventive maintenance. Pilots operating aircraft under parts 121, 129,
and 135 by regulation are not permitted to perform preventive
maintenance, and therefore, those pilots could not update navigation
databases. The FAA determined at that time that navigation database
updates presented some risk when performed by a pilot on a part 121,
129, or 135 aircraft because they were typically equipped with more
sophisticated equipment that required special tools (a portable
dataloader) and skills to update. However, as a result of pilot-
performed updates, pilots of aircraft used in non-restricted operations
received the benefit of having the most current aeronautical data
available at all times. Much like this final rule, the 1996 final rule
was the FAA's first step toward bringing the regulations up to date
with technology.
    Since implementation of the 1996 final rule, the FAA regularly
receives petitions for exemption from parts 121, 129, and 135 operators
requesting relief from the requirement for authorized personnel to
perform database updates. The FAA has considered the history of
successful and easily-performed, incident-free pilot updates of
databases established on aircraft used in non-restricted operations. As
a result, the FAA has determined that safety-based reasons no longer
exist to justify the requirements for authorized maintenance personnel
to perform database updates on aircraft based upon a regulatory
operating part rather than by the design of the installed avionics
equipment.

A. Statement of the Problem

    Since implementation of the 1996 final rule, installed avionics
equipment has continued to evolve. Manufacturers developed systems for
large transport category aircraft that make use of a permanently-
installed dataloader as part of the certificated system. These systems
eliminate the need for use of special tools (portable dataloaders) to
initiate a database update.
    Similar systems, and the self-contained systems discussed above,
have come into prevalent use on smaller aircraft, from general aviation
aircraft to business jets. Under current regulations, a pilot operating
such an aircraft under part 91 may update databases, while a pilot of
the same type of aircraft with the same installed avionics equipment
operated under parts 121, 129, or 135 cannot update databases.
    At this time, newly-manufactured aircraft--such as the Boeing 787,
Airbus A380, and others--are equipped with technology such as the
Gatelink system which enables wireless updating of systems and
databases. The current regulation does not accommodate such advances in
technology; this final rule does. While the FAA recognizes the need to
allow for future technologies, the FAA also recognizes its inability at
this time to predict what those technologies may be. As such,
certification of future systems must include evaluation of the methods,
means, and materials required for performing aeronautical database
updates. Such equipment must be designed and certified in a manner that
allows clear determination by a pilot or operator of whether or not the
system can be updated by a pilot under this final rule, or must be
updated by authorized maintenance personnel.
    The current requirement for authorized personnel to perform
updates, as it applies to avionics equipment described in this final
rule, can no longer be justified based on safety concerns. It imposes
unnecessary operating costs and operational inefficiencies on
certificate holders conducting operations under parts 121, 129, and
135. To comply with operating regulations, such as those under part
91.503, these operators must ensure the required database is current.
Updates are performed within a prescribed cycle to ensure currency,
which is not always possible if the database expires when the aircraft
is away from the home base or at a station where authorized maintenance
personnel are not available. Operational costs are increased for the
certificate holder whenever an aeronautical database expires while the
aircraft is en route. If the aircraft is en route and located where
authorized personnel are not available to perform the update, the
operator has three options: (1) Operate the aircraft with an expired
database, (2) reroute the aircraft to an authorized repair station, or
(3) transport an authorized mechanic to the aircraft's location. Each
of these options imposes additional operational costs in terms of
operational restrictions, manpower and fuel consumption.
    If the aircraft is operated with an expired database, the pilot
must adhere to operational restrictions, which automatically prohibits
the use of certain routes within the National Airspace System,
resulting in the use of a less direct route to the destination. If the
aircraft is rerouted to a repair station, or authorized personnel are
transported to the aircraft's location, the operator must absorb the
costs of additional fuel consumption, and valuable time can be lost
locating mechanics and transporting them to the aircraft. This is
particularly true for

operations conducted in remote areas where traveling greater distances
to repair stations would be required. Exercising any one of the above-
noted options increases the pilot's workload by requiring the selection
of alternate routes appropriate for an expired database. Air traffic
controller workloads are also increased when the aircraft is re-routed
because certain routes are only available to aircraft using the current
database for any given period. At a minimum, the operator must
facilitate the transport of authorized personnel to the location of the
aircraft. Eliminating the requirement for approved personnel will
increase operational efficiency for certificate holders and contribute
to reduced air traffic control and pilot workloads.
    The stated problem is that the regulations have fallen behind
technology and fail to address the pervasive use of installed avionics
dependent upon aeronautical databases. This final rule acknowledges the
evolution of technology by removing the task of pilot-performed updates
of databases in certain installed avionics from the preventive
maintenance regulations and by allowing pilot-performed updates of
databases in accordance with new regulatory requirements. Differences
between this final rule and its NPRM are the result of the
recommendations made by commenters in response to the NPRM, which are
discussed in greater detail below.
    A benefit from the final rule will be a reduction in the FAA's
issuance of grants of exemption to parts 121, 129, and 135 certificate
holders seeking relief from the requirement for authorized maintenance
personnel to perform the updating task. The FAA's workload has been
impacted by the regular receipt of petitions for exemption requesting
that pilots be allowed to perform updates. The increased workload has
impacted the FAA's ability to more efficiently process petitions for
exemption. Delaying the issuance of a justified exemption, where safety
is not compromised, forces eligible certificate holders to continue
paying for unnecessary services by authorized personnel and bear the
resulting operational inefficiencies and increased costs. This final
rule resolves these issues by eliminating the requirement for parts
121, 129, and 135 operators to use authorized personnel to update
databases in the avionics equipment described herein.

B. Summary of the NPRM

    The FAA proposed to amend the part 43 maintenance regulations in
the NPRM (76 FR 64859, October 19, 2011), by removing the task of
updating databases used in self-contained, front-panel or pedestal-
mounted navigational equipment from the preventive maintenance
category. The primary intended effect of the proposal was to enable
regular use of the most current and accurate navigational data by
allowing pilots using navigation units to perform database updates as
they became due. Specific regulatory text was included to restrict the
type of equipment eligible for pilot-performed updates, including
requirements for the pilot to receive appropriate training and to
verify the upload status to determine if minimum equipment list (MEL)
restrictions need to be followed.

C. Differences Between NPRM and Final Rule

    The final rule represents a departure from the NPRM in terms of the
description of the equipment eligible for pilot-performed updates. In
addition, the regulatory text has been modified from the originally-
proposed text to permit pilot-performed updates on all certificated
aircraft upon compliance with the certificate holder's procedures or
the manufacturer's instructions. The changes from those proposed in the
NPRM arose directly from suggestions made by commenters in response to
the NPRM.

D. Overview of Comments Received

    The comment period for the NPRM closed on December 19, 2011. We
received comments from 52 commenters raising a total of seven
substantive issues. Commenters to the NPRM represented aviation
associations, manufacturers of avionics equipment, aircraft operators,
owners, and other individuals. The commenters, in general, expressed
support for the proposed rule change. Some commenters supplied
alternative recommendations, as discussed more fully in the
``Discussion of the Final Rule'' below.
    The FAA received comments regarding the following proposals:
     Relocation of the requirement from 14 CFR part 43 to other
CFR parts (since performing the updates would no longer be preventive
maintenance);
     Recordkeeping requirements;
     Training for pilots;
     Technological advancements in data-transfer mechanisms and
methods;
     Limitation on types of media that could be used for
storing data;
     Inconsistent references to terrain databases; and
     Possible labor-management issues.

III. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The final rule is consistent with the NPRM to the extent that they
both authorize pilot-performed updates on all certificated aircraft
operating under parts 121, 129, and 135.
    Performing database updates on avionics systems that require tools
or special equipment to accomplish the data transfer continues to be
maintenance and requires that approved personnel perform the update.
    Upon issuance of this rule, all pilots operating appropriately-
equipped aircraft will be permitted to perform database updates in
accordance with the certificate holder's or manufacturer's
instructions. To comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 43.3(k)(iv) and
(v), the certificate holder will be required to revise the existing
procedures for updating the database in its manual. This information
will replace or augment the operator's existing database updating
procedures. Pilot-owners of general aviation aircraft will be required
to include the manufacturer's instructions in their pilot's handbook or
flight manual.
    Requirements and procedures for performing database updates are
established by the aircraft or avionics manufacturer in coordination
with the FAA at the time of certification for its use on the aircraft.
If a manufacturer designs a system that an aircraft owner or operator
would determine meets the criteria for pilot-performed updates of
databases under the conditions of the rule but, due to system
criticality or other factors, that system should only be updated by
authorized maintenance personnel, the manufacturer must specify that
requirement in its instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA). The
ICAs that include these procedures will be accepted by the FAA.
    Under the final rule, if performing an update would require special
access to installed equipment, or use of tools or special equipment,
then the task must still be performed by authorized personnel under the
provisions of part 43 as maintenance, and all pertinent maintenance
regulations would apply. Operators may continue to use authorized
maintenance personnel or facilities to perform the database updates
even if the avionics meet the criteria of this rule.
    Commenters, including Garmin International (``Garmin'') and the
Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA), stated that the proposal to
remove database updates from the preventive maintenance category,
without placing them in another category, would have

resulted in database updates becoming maintenance tasks. The commenters
asserted that doing so would place more burdens on operators.
    We considered the commenters' concerns and determined that the
problem they identify can be resolved by drafting Sec.  43.3(k)
differently. We have removed paragraph (c)(32) of Appendix A to part
43, which pertains to updating navigation databases of certain
equipment installed on aircraft operated under non-restricted operating
regulations. Updating aeronautical databases will not be regulated as
maintenance on specified equipment in accordance with the requirements
set forth under the new paragraph (k) in Sec.  43.3. Updating databases
of other installed avionics has been, and will continue to be,
conducted as maintenance under part 43.
    An anonymous commenter recommended that regulations relating to
updating databases should be placed under the applicable operating
parts (i.e., parts 121, 129, and 135) as preflight duties and should
also require pilot training. In general, we rejected these
recommendations because specified avionics systems are approved for use
on all certificated aircraft regardless of the regulations under which
the aircraft is operated. The intended effect of this rule change is to
regulate pilot-performed database updates by installed avionics
equipment type, rather than by the operating regulations under which
flights are conducted.
    Several commenters, including Garmin, the Aircraft Electronics
Association (AEA), NetJets, and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA), stated that a definition for databases approved for
pilot-performed updates would, in effect, create a barrier to the use
of newer technology and would restrict the selection of databases
approved for use during pilot-performed updates to those approved under
the 1996 final rule, namely navigation and communication. AOPA
suggested that the FAA should write the rule to accommodate later
developments in database capabilities. These commenters recommended we
adopt the definition of ``aeronautical database'' contained in AC 20-
153A. Along the same lines, one commenter recommended that the FAA
should define ``[air traffic control] ATC navigational software data''
because today many databases include active terrain and obstacle
information.
    We agree. To address this concern, aeronautical information service
databases will be authorized for use at the time of certification in
accordance with guidance provided in AC 20-153A. The rule will not
limit database use based on subject-matter descriptions, unlike the
1996 final rule, which specifically addressed ATC navigational
software, thereby limiting database use to that single subject matter.
    Universal Avionics, Honeywell International, Inc. (``Honeywell''),
and Garmin stated that the description used in the NPRM for approved
nav-systems would exclude the use of newer systems and data-transfer
mechanisms such as those employing wireless technology. In the NPRM, we
used the term ``nav-systems'' to describe aeronautical information
avionics devices that are self-contained, front instrument panel-
mounted ATC navigational software database systems.
    The FAA agrees with these commenters. It is our intention for this
rule to be equipment based and allow accommodation of emerging
technology. Therefore, we have changed the description of the avionics
devices that will be eligible for pilot-performed updates. The NPRM
used the same description provided in the 1996 final rule, basically,
``self-contained, front instrument panel-mounted and pedestal-mounted
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--that require no disassembly.'' In this final rule, we are
approving pilot-performed updates of installed avionics if the
equipment is approved by the Administrator and does not require the use
of tools or special equipment. Data-transfer mechanisms, database
storage media, and usable subject databases will be determined by the
FAA and manufacturer at the time the device is certificated for use on
the aircraft.
    These same commenters and some other commenters, expressed concern
about system integrity in terms of how data would be protected with the
newer avionics. This rule does not address the manufacture of avionics
equipment or the development of usable databases, and, as such,
protection of data integrity goes beyond the scope of this rule.
Nonetheless, we note that new technologies approved for use on aircraft
will be developed with attention to data integrity. Current technology
uses databases which are developed in accordance with standards
developed by Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC), which has been the world
standard since 1975. These standards have proven effective in
preserving data integrity. Moreover, protection for the integrity of
the system and data will continue to be addressed under existing
regulations by applicable design, production, installation, and
certification approvals. In all cases, the FAA will work with the
manufacturer to ensure the highest level of integrity for aeronautical
data and data-transfer mechanisms.
    Another individual commenter stated that the phrase used in the
NPRM ``files that are `non-corruptible' upon loading,'' is very
confusing. We agree, the phrase ``files that are non-corruptible, upon
loading'' is confusing and we have omitted this language from the final
rule. To address the same issue with greater clarity, the final rule
requires that to be eligible for pilot-performed updating, written
procedures must be provided to the pilot performing the updates. Those
procedures will identify the status verification function as defined by
the system manufacturer.
    One individual commenter asked when updates can be installed and/or
used. The commenter stated that whether disks are mailed to the user or
downloaded, they are available about 10 days before the due dates. In
this matter, the pilot-operator performs the update in accordance with
the manufacturer's instructions, which should address any limitations,
or contact the manufacturer if the instructions do not address the
point to inquire whether loading the updated database prior to the
effective date would negatively impact system performance.
    Several commenters, including AOPA and NetJets, were concerned
about the requirement for the pilot to record each update in a
maintenance logbook. AOPA expressed concern that the NPRM proposed a
requirement that would create a second recordkeeping requirement and
that the return to service maintenance entry required by Sec.  43.7
would need to be completed by ``qualified personnel.'' NetJets
recommended that the FAA specifically state in the final rule preamble
that no aircraft maintenance entries or signatures are required when
pilots perform aeronautical database updates. We have considered the
comments and agree that it is unnecessary for the pilot to make a
record of the update. Recordkeeping requirements for the pilot have
been eliminated. The current regulations do not require pilot-owners to
record each update in a maintenance logbook, and the absence of such a
requirement has not been problematic.
    Honeywell and NetJets suggested that the FAA focus on the device
used to provide aeronautical information services instead of how the
device is installed (i.e., ``self-contained, front-

instrument panel-mounted and pedestal-mounted''). The commenters were
not as concerned with how the device was installed as with how the
device received data uploads. This point was captured by one commenter
who stated, ``[A]lthough most of the systems have cards that are
accessible from the `front' of the unit, they [can] also have [a]
system that updates by accessing data stored on a `medium' read by a
Data Transfer Unit (DTU), and DTUs can be installed almost anywhere in
the aircraft [sic].''
    We agree. Data-transfer mechanism designs are constantly evolving.
In 1996, floppy disks inserted in portable dataloaders externally
connected to the processor were commonly used to update databases.
Today, floppy disks are still used in those installed systems that have
not been replaced, but floppy disks are not used by currently-produced
systems. Instead, we see the pervasive use of permanently installed
data-transfer mechanisms. These mechanisms can include a slot for an SD
card, an installed dataloader, or even wireless technology. Pilots will
not be permitted to update databases of installed avionics that use
portable dataloaders such as those used with the older navigational
systems installed on large transport category aircraft.
    We have extended the rule to allow all certificated data-transfer
mechanisms, but we specifically exclude means of data transfer that
require physical connection to installed equipment such as portable
dataloaders and laptops.
    The National Air Transportation Association (NATA) stated, ``When
the FAA proposes new regulations affecting air carrier aircraft that
require actions by authorized maintenance personnel, the agency does
not consider as a benefit the fact that certificated mechanics and
repair stations will get more work. Therefore doing the opposite,
considering, as a cost, the loss of business when the FAA deems a
requirement is no longer applicable or necessary, should not occur
either.''
    The FAA concurs. The FAA merely noted that the rule could affect
certain parties. The FAA did not state that such effects are a cost of
the rule and did not ascribe any such cost to the final rule. It bears
noting that this rule is permissive; thus, certificate holders are not
required to approve pilot-performed updates on their operations.
    The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) submitted the only direct
objection to this rulemaking for labor-management reasons. The
objections are set forth below followed by our response.
    ALPA stated that because of the high level of safety achieved by
commercial aviation, airline travel in the U.S. and Canada has been
accomplished by the use of highly trained professionals and technical
specialists performing their respective tasks in a coordinated and
disciplined fashion. ALPA contends that the proposal would make airline
pilots responsible for certain additional aircraft maintenance and
maintenance recordation functions that should continue to be properly
performed by maintenance and ground support personnel.
    We agree that this final rule will give operators the option to
impose the additional responsibility to perform the update on pilots.
However, the pilot-performed updates are allowed only on avionics
equipment where the process of updating is simplified to a point where
it can be performed quickly and easily. Significantly, database uploads
that require the special skills or training or the use of tools or
special equipment will continue to be a maintenance task that
authorized personnel must perform.
    In addition, as discussed below, we have removed all recordkeeping
requirements for pilots who perform these updates. We do not agree with
implicit concern that allowing pilot-performed updates in any way
diminishes safety. As we discussed earlier, at the certification level
continuing measures will be taken to ensure that safety will not be
compromised. Also, as stated earlier, the FAA has not received any
incident reports stating that a pilot's failure to make a maintenance
logbook entry for performing the database update has had any impact on
aviation safety.
    ALPA also contends that the philosophical shift in airline
operational tasks and definitions of employee roles, which this
rulemaking represents, would give rise to a number of issues that would
negatively impact airline pilots and justify rejection. ALPA stated
airline operations depend on quick turn-arounds for on-time departures.
Giving pilots an additional task in the form of updating navigational
systems while they endeavor to achieve an on-time departure would
create additional time pressure and could result in greater risks of
errors in all cockpit duties.
    We note the final rule is permissive in nature. Operators have the
option to require that maintenance personnel perform the database
updates. However, we again emphasize that pilot-performed updates on
applicable avionics equipment is a very simple task that will take only
a couple minutes to perform, as the system is largely automated.
    ALPA also states that pilots would assume a new and additional
responsibility for which no training is approved, including: (1)
Obtaining the storage media from someone within the company in a timely
fashion, (2) safeguarding the media while in their possession so that
it is not lost, stolen, or damaged, (3) properly loading the updates
into the nav-system, (4) recording the updates in maintenance logs and/
or other documents, and (5) returning the storage media to the
appropriate individual within the company when the update is completed,
as required.
    Whether training is required will be a determination made by the
FAA, the operator, and the manufacturer. In any case, minimal training
will be necessary because of the nature of the equipment, and the
pilot's current familiarity with the system. Media-storage issues have
not changed and will continue to be the certificate holder's
responsibility as the subscriber to the database service, and thus, the
operator would be responsible for providing the updates to the pilot.
Protection of the data would not require special skills or action
because data is stored on media similar to an SD card or flash drive.
Further, post-update security is not an issue because the data on the
storage media would have no useable value. Finally, we have eliminated
the proposal to have recordkeeping requirements. We therefore believe
the concerns raised by ALPA have all been addressed.
    ALPA states that provisions in current collective-bargaining
agreements could make the assumption of the responsibility for updating
aeronautical data impossible for pilots at a particular carrier, as
updating may not be included within the scope of pilots'
responsibilities. At a minimum, this proposal could result in labor-
management contention.
    We do not believe the FAA's role is to intervene between
management, labor, and collective-bargaining units on issues arising
from a permissive rulemaking. Should issues arise related to compliance
or concerning FAA expectations with this final rule, we would provide
guidance or legal interpretation upon request.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    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 rule.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA determined that this 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) will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, (5) will not
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States, and (6) will 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 on this rule for the following
reasons:
    The rule is permissive in nature and will provide relief to all
operators of certificated aircraft who elect to allow pilot-performed
updates, rather than to pay for services of an authorized repair
station or mechanic. The rule eliminates the requirement that only
repair stations and authorized mechanics can perform database updates
and allows pilots to perform the update on avionics equipment approved
by the Administrator and described herein. Allowing pilots to perform
the updates will save the operator the expense of either making a
positioning flight to a repair station or transporting an authorized
mechanic to the aircraft to perform the update. Public comments on the
proposed rule supported this change and there were no contrary comments
to the economic analysis in the Regulatory Evaluation.
    Using the cost information supplied by commenters, who provided the
only available data for assessing the impact of this rule, the FAA has
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as
defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and this rule is not
``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

B. Total Estimated Benefits and Costs of This Final Rule

    The two benefits from this rule will arise from increased safety
and reduced operational costs. The primary safety benefit is that
affected aircraft operators will no longer be forced to occasionally
operate aircraft without the most current aeronautical database when
the database expires and authorized personnel are not available to
perform the update. A corollary safety benefit is a reduction in
workloads for pilots and air traffic controllers, which accrues a
benefit to the aircraft operator and to air traffic control. As
previously discussed, the use of avionics systems contributes to
increased safety in four respects: (1) By providing the pilot with
accurate aeronautical information; (2) by increasing access to airports
under less than optimal flight conditions; (3) by increasing workforce
efficiency for both the aircraft pilot and air traffic control; and (4)
by generating more efficient use of the airspace system.
    Avionics systems databases are generally updated every 28 days,
although some are updated as often as every 14 days. The current
regulations allow only pilots of aircraft operated under non-restricted
operating regulations to perform the database update; all other
operators (i.e. those operating under parts 121, 129 and 135) must have
an authorized repair station or mechanic perform the update. This
requirement creates a problem for operations conducted under part 121,
129, 135 and other restricted operators if the database expires when
the aircraft is en route or at a remote location and authorized
personnel are not available to perform the update. If the database
expires, the aircraft operator/pilot has one of three choices: (1) Fly
the aircraft to a location where authorized personnel are available;
(2) fly authorized personnel to the aircraft; or (3) operate the
aircraft under MEL restrictions, which limits the pilot's options in
terms of routes flown and airport accessibility. Each of the three
options results in added operational costs in terms of man-hours and
additional and increased fuel costs. Reducing the number of unnecessary
aircraft operations conducted due to an expired database eliminates
increased pilot and ATC workloads associated with re-vectoring flights
or transporting authorized personnel to perform updates.
    One commenter reported that its airplanes averaged 1.25 operations
a year per aircraft under MEL because the aeronautical database upload
had to be deferred until the aircraft could reach a repair station.
Another commenter reported that its fleet of 12 aircraft had to operate
between 10 and 15 times a year flying under MEL because certificated
maintenance personnel were unavailable at the remote location where the
aircraft was when the aeronautical database needed to be updated.
    Pilots of non-restricted operations have been performing database
updates on these types of avionics systems since 1996 and the FAA knows
of no accidents or incidents attributable to errors by these pilots
from performing these updates. Today, aircraft operated under all parts
of the regulations are regularly equipped with avionics systems whose
database update procedures are similar to those used by pilots who
perform database updates on aircraft in non-restricted operations. The
ease of pilot-performed updates combined with the absence of any
accidents or incidents provides ample evidence that all pilots flying
aircraft equipped with appropriate avionics devices should be permitted
to perform updates. Consequently, allowing pilots of restricted
operations to perform updates will reduce the numbers of route-
restricted flights required by reason of an expired database.
    The second benefit will be cost savings to the operators. Allowing
their pilots to update aeronautical databases eliminates the costs
associated with paying authorized personnel to perform the task and the
costs of a positioning flight to a repair station, or transporting a
certificated mechanic to the aircraft to install the update. In
practice, the costs of having authorized personnel perform database
updates are minimal because the task would be performed concurrent with
a number or other tasks as part of a maintenance service. Even when
done specifically to update the database, the

cost is relatively small. This conclusion is supported by reports
received from commenters stating that the rule would generate such cost
savings. However, only one commenter provided an estimate of the cost
of a positioning flight, which was an average of $7,700 from the
components of crew costs, fuel costs, and lost revenue. In a clarifying
comment to the FAA, that commenter reported that during 2011 its
airplanes incurred $514,333 in direct crew costs and fuel costs for
positioning flights solely to update aeronautical databases. This
commenter also reported that its 600 aircraft made 218 of these
positioning flights, which is an average of about 0.36 positioning
flights per year per aircraft. Thus, its reported average cost per
positioning flight was about $2,360.
    In the Initial Regulatory Evaluation for the proposed rule, the FAA
estimated that the cost of a single positioning flight ranges between
$1,000 and $2,500 and that the cost to transport a certified mechanic
to an aircraft is similar. The FAA has determined that its initial
estimate was reasonable. However, the FAA cannot use one commenter's
statement to quantify a total societal cost-savings from this rule for
two reasons. The first reason is that this operator's experiences may
not be typical of all the operators that will be affected by the rule.
The second reason is that the FAA does not know the number of existing
aircraft or the numbers of future aircraft that will have aeronautical
database systems that will be affected by the rule. Nevertheless, given
the number of commenters who did state that they would receive cost
savings from the rule, the FAA concludes that the rule will result in
reduced man-hours and fuel costs by reducing the numbers of positioning
flights required solely to update the databases.
    A third benefit is that the final rule, which will allow all pilots
operating appropriately equipped aircraft to perform database updates,
which will also pave the way for future technologies. Certification
regulations make approval of new devices contingent upon conforming to
established criteria for approved equipment, which imparts flexibility
allowing the use of newer devices.
    In the Initial Regulatory Evaluation, the FAA determined that the
proposed rule would impose minimal costs because it would allow a pilot
to upload the current database; a task that currently imposes an
additional cost on the operator who must have the update performed by a
certificated mechanic or in a repair station. The comments received in
response to this issue support the FAA's determination.

C. Who is affected by this rule?

    This rule affects all operators of certificated aircraft equipped
with installed avionics that: (1) Have a pilot accessible data transfer
mechanism permanently installed on the flight deck; (2) can be updated
without the use of tools, and (3) is programmed to provide a data load
status. This rule will also affect maintenance personnel and repair
stations that parts 121, 129, and 135 operators were previously
required to pay for updating databases.

D. Sources of Information

    The primary sources of information were the commenters, which
included part 135 operators, part 121 operators, aircraft electronics
manufacturers, an aircraft electronics association representative, a
pilot union, and several individuals.

E. 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 final 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 an initial regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the
RFA. However, if an agency determines that a final rule will not 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 net economic impact of this rule will provide regulatory cost
relief. As this rule will reduce costs for some small entities, the
acting FAA Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

F. 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 rule and determined that it will not
constitute an obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States,
and, thus, is consistent with the Trade Assessments Act.

G. 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 $143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This rule does not contain
such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II do not apply.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 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. We have
determined that there is no information collection burden associated
with this final rule.

I. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    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.
    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

J. 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 final rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312(f) of the Order and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.

K. Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in 14 CFR
in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to consider the
extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than
aviation, and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions.
    The final rule would also provide an incremental benefit to
aircraft providing air transportation to remote parts of Alaska by
relieving pilots from having to fly with operational restrictions when
the database expires.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 12866

    See the ``Regulatory Evaluation'' discussion in the ``Regulatory
Notices and Analyses'' section elsewhere in this preamble.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant regulatory action'' under the executive order because
it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document my be obtained by using
the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document,
may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble.
To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 43

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

The Amendments

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter 1 of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:

PART 43--MAINTENANCE, PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, REBUILDING, AND
ALTERATION

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  43.3 by adding new paragraph (k) to read as follows:

Sec.  43.3  Persons authorized to perform maintenance, preventive
maintenance, rebuilding, and alterations.

* * * * *
    (k) Updates of databases in installed avionics meeting the
conditions of this paragraph are not considered maintenance and may be
performed by pilots provided:
    (1) The database upload is:
    (i) Initiated from the flight deck;
    (ii) Performed without disassembling the avionics unit; and
    (iii) Performed without the use of tools and/or special equipment.
    (2) The pilot must comply with the certificate holder's procedures
or the manufacturer's instructions.
    (3) The holder of operating certificates must make available
written procedures consistent with manufacturer's instructions to the
pilot that describe how to:
    (i) Perform the database update; and
    (ii) Determine the status of the data upload.

0
3. Amend Appendix A to part 43 by removing paragraph (c)(32).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 12, 2012.
Michael P. Huerta,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-28845 Filed 11-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 217 (Monday, November 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77647]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24864]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98860; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-063]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To Adopt an Alternative to the Minimum $4 Price Requirement for
Companies Seeking To List Tier II Securities on the Exchange

November 6, 2023.
    On September 19, 2023, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt an alternative to the minimum $4 price
requirement for companies seeking to list Tier II securities on the
Exchange. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on October 2, 2023.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98532 (Sept. 26,
2023) 88 FR 67852. Comments received on the proposed rule change are
available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-cboebzx-2023-063/srcboebzx2023063.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may
designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-
regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve
the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved. The 45th day after publication of the notice for
this proposed rule change is November 16, 2023. The Commission is
extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the
comments received. Accordingly, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ the Commission designates December 31, 2023, as the date by
which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change (File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-063).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-24864 Filed 11-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P