67584 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1For brevity throughout this preamble, we will 

refer to these aircraft as ‘‘10 or more.’’ 

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 ondemand 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 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

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 (202) 

385–6432; email 

patricia.k.williams@faa.gov. 

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 (202) 267– 

3147; facsimile (202) 267–5106, email 

ed.averman@faa.gov. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 67585 

2Throughout this preamble, unless otherwise 

indicated, when we refer to the generic term 

‘‘maintenance,’’ the term is meant to include 

‘‘maintenance, preventive maintenance, and 

alterations.’’ 

3Review of Air Carriers’ Use of Aircraft Repair 

Stations, Report No. AV–2003–047 (July 8, 2003). 

4Air Carrier’s Outsourcing Use of NonCertificated Repair Facilities, Report No. AV–2006– 

031 (Dec. 15, 2005). 

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. 

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, § 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, § 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 

§§ 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. 

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). 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
67586 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5Scovel, 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. 

6Air Carrier’s Outsourcing of Aircraft 

Maintenance, Report No. AV–2008–090 (Sept. 30, 

2008). 

7The 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. 

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). 

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

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). 

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 

§§ 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.’’ (§§ 121.367(a) and 135.425(a) 

(emphasis added).) And, current 

§ 121.369(b) requires, in pertinent part, 

that: 

The certificate holder’s manual must 

contain the programs required by § 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 

§ 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 67587 

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 

§§ 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 

§§ 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 §§ 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 

§§ 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
67588 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 §§ 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 §§ 121.378 and 135.435. 

As required by the statute, we are also 

proposing: In §§ 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 inhouse 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 67589 

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 inhouse 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-forprofit 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
67590 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 ondemand 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 × ((4 hours × $69.78) + (40 

hours × $36.76) + (2 hours × $43.45) 

+ (1 hour × $69.78) + (3 hours × 

$36.76) + (10 hours × $49.79) + (6 

hours × $69.78) + (6 hours × 

$36.76)) = $296,454. 

Time = 94 × (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 × ((6 hours × $69.78) + (6 

hours × $36.76)) = $60,091. 

Time = 94 × (6 hours + 6 hours) = 1,128. 

First Year Costs for Part 135 

Cost = 207 × ((8 hours × $69.78) + (5 

hours × $69.78) + (6 hours × $69.78) 

+ (6 hours × $36.76)) = $320,114. 

Time = 207 × (8 hours + 5 hours + 6 

hours + 6 hours) = 5,175. 

Subsequent Year Costs for Part 135 

Cost = 207 × ((6 hours × $69.78) + (6 

hours × $36.76)) = $132,329. 

Time = 207 × (6 hours + 6 hours) = 

2,484. 

Total Over 10 Years 

Cost = ($296,454 + $320,114 + (9 × 

$60,091) + (9 × $132,329)) = 

$2,348,351. 

Time = (6,768 hours + 5,175 hours + (9 

× 1,128 hours) + (9 × 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 67591 

• 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 × ((1 hour × $96.14)) = $9,037. 

Time = 94 × (1 hour) = 94 hours. 

First Year Costs for Part 135 

Cost = 207 × ((1 hour × $96.14)) = 

$19,901. 

Time = 207 × (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 (202) 267–9680. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
67592 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 121.368 as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 121.369 by adding 

paragraph (b)(10) as follows: 

§ 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 § 135.426 to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 67593 

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 

§ 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 § 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 § 135.427 by adding 

paragraph (b)(10) as follows: 

§ 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 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

19 CFR Part 360 

[Docket Number 121016549–2549–01] 

RIN 0625–AA93 

Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis 

System 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

publishes this proposed rule to request 

public comments on proposed 

modifications to the regulations for the 

Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis 

(SIMA) System that would extend the 

system until March 2017. This 

extension would continue the 

Department’s ability to track as early as 

possible certain steel mill imports into 

the United States and make the import 

data publicly available approximately 

seven weeks in advance of the full 

public trade data release by the Bureau 

of the Census. Having access to full 

information about imports provides the 

public with greater knowledge to 

evaluate current market conditions. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before 5 p.m. EST, December 13, 

2012. 

Submission of Comments 

As specified above, to be assured of 

consideration, comments must be 

received no later than 30 days after the 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. All comments must be 

submitted through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, into Docket 

Number ITA–2012–0005, unless the 

commenter does not have access to the 

Internet. Commenters that do not have 

access to the Internet may submit the 

original and two copies of each set of 

comments by mail or hand delivery/ 

courier. Please address the written 

comments to the Secretary of 

Commerce, Attention: Steven Presing, 

Director for Industry Support and 

Analysis, Import Administration, Room 

2845, Import Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Constitution 

Avenue and 14th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. The Department 

will not accept comments accompanied 

by a request that part or all of the 

material be treated confidentially 

because of its business proprietary 

nature or for any other reason. All 

comments responding to this notice will 

be a matter of public record and will be 

available for inspection at Import 

Administration’s Central Records Unit 

(Room 7046 of the Herbert C. Hoover 

Building) and on the Department’s Web 

site at http://www.trade.gov/ia/. 

Any questions concerning file 

formatting, document conversion, 

access on the Internet, or other 

electronic filing issues should be 

addressed to Andrew Lee Beller, Import 

Administration Webmaster, at (202) 

482–0866, email address: webmastersupport@trade.gov. 

All Personal Identifying Information 

(for example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Attachments 

to electronic comments will be accepted 

in Microsoft Word or Excel, 

WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats 

only. All Federal Register notices 

regarding the SIMA system can be 

accessed at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/steel/ 

license/SIMA-FR-Notices.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on the SIMA system, please 

contact Steven Presing (202) 482–1672 

or Julie Al-Saadawi (202) 482–1930. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

2, 2002, the Bush Administration 

authorized the implementation of a steel 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with