Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52231 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on August 

9, 2011. 

Mark D. Ward, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern 

Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21284 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 91, 119, 125, 133, 137, 

141, 142, 145, and 147 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–1154; Amendment 

Nos. 91–325, 119–5, 125–61, 133–14, 137– 

16, 141–16, 142–8, 145–29, and 147–7] 

RIN 2120–AJ36 

Restrictions on Operators Employing 

Former Flight Standards Service 

Aviation Safety Inspectors 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule will prohibit any 

person holding a certificate from 

knowingly employing, or making a 

contractual arrangement with, certain 

individuals to act as an agent or a 

representative of the certificate holder 

in any matter before the FAA under 

certain conditions. These restrictions 

will apply if the individual, in the 

preceding 2-year period directly served 

as, or was directly responsible for the 

oversight of, a Flight Standards Service 

Aviation Safety Inspector, and had 

direct responsibility to inspect, or 

oversee the inspection of, the operations 

of the certificate holder. This rule will 

also apply to persons who own or 

manage fractional ownership program 

aircraft that are used to conduct 

operations under specific regulations 

described in this document. This rule 

will establish these restrictions to 

prevent potential organizational 

conflicts of interest which could 

adversely affect aviation safety. 

DATES: Effective Date: This amendment 

becomes effective October 21, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this final 

rule, contact Nancy Lauck Claussen, 

Federal Aviation Administration, Air 

Transportation Division, AFS–200, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–8166; e-mail 

Nancy.L.Claussen@faa.gov. For legal 

questions concerning this final rule, 

contact Paul G. Greer, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone 

202–267–3073; e-mail 

Paul.G.Greer@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, to include the authority 

to issue, rescind, and revise regulations. 

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, chapter 

447, Safety Regulation. Under section 

44701(a) the FAA is charged with 

promoting the safe flight of civil aircraft 

in air commerce by prescribing 

regulations and minimum standards for 

other practices, methods, and 

procedures necessary for safety in air 

commerce and national security. 

I. Background 

On March 5, 2008, the FAA proposed 

a $10.2 million civil penalty against a 

major airline for operating 46 airplanes 

without performing mandatory 

inspections for fuselage fatigue cracking. 

The FAA alleged that the airline 

operated 46 Boeing 737 airplanes on 

almost 60,000 flights from June 2006 to 

March 2007 while failing to comply 

with an existing FAA Airworthiness 

Directive (AD) that required repetitive 

inspections of certain fuselage areas to 

detect fatigue cracking. 

Based on this event, on June 30, 2008, 

the Department of Transportation (DOT) 

Office of Inspector General issued a 

report on its review of the FAA’s 

oversight of airlines and use of 

regulatory partnership programs. The 

report concluded that the FAA 

Certificate Management Office (CMO) 

overseeing the airline that failed to 

perform the required inspections had 

developed an overly collaborative 

relationship with the airline. The report 

recommended that the FAA should 

enhance management controls by 

implementing post-employment 

guidance that includes a ‘‘cooling-off’’ 

period to prohibit an air carrier from 

hiring an FAA Flight Standards Service 

Aviation Safety Inspector (AFS ASI) 

who previously inspected that air 

carrier from acting in any type of liaison 

capacity between it and the FAA. A full 

copy of the report is contained in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

On September 2, 2008, an 

independent review team, appointed by 

former Secretary of Transportation Mary 

E. Peters on May 1, 2008 to examine the 

FAA’s safety culture and its 

implementation of safety management 

systems, issued its report titled, 

‘‘Managing Risks in Civil Aviation: A 

Review of the FAA’s Approach to 

Safety.’’ The report stated that ‘‘[t]he 

FAA, like all other regulators, faces the 

danger of regulatory capture. Capture 

occurs when a regulatory agency draws 

so close to those with whom it deals on 

a daily basis (i.e. the regulated) that the 

agency ends up elevating their concerns 

at the expense of the agency’s core 

mission.’’ A full copy of the report may 

be found in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

A. Summary of the NPRM 

The NPRM was published in the 

Federal Register on November 20, 2009 

(74 FR 60218) and the comment period 

closed on February 18, 2010. The NPRM 

proposed to prohibit any person holding 

a certificate to conduct operations under 

parts 121, 125, 133, 135, 137, 141, 142, 

145 or 147 from knowingly employing, 

or making a contractual arrangement 

with, certain individuals to act as an 

agent or a representative of the 

certificate holder in any matter before 

the FAA under certain conditions. 

These restrictions would apply if the 

individual, in the preceding 2-year 

period: (1) Directly served as, or was 

directly responsible for the oversight of, 

an AFS ASI; and (2) had direct 

responsibility to inspect, or oversee the 

inspection of, the operations of the 

certificate holder. The NPRM also 

proposed to apply to persons who own 

or manage fractional ownership program 

aircraft that are used to conduct 

operations under subpart K of part 91. 

The FAA proposed to establish these 

restrictions to prevent potential 

organizational conflicts of interest 

which could adversely affect aviation 

safety. 

B. Discussion of the Comments 

The FAA received five comments on 

the proposed rule, all from individual 

commenters. The FAA did not receive 

comments from airlines, trade 

associations, or labor organizations. The 

three adverse comments addressed the 

applicability of the rule, and the 

potential burdens the rule could create. 

Two comments expressed support for 

the rule. Commenters also suggested 

changes, as discussed more fully in this 

section. 

1. Applicability of Employment 

Prohibition to Additional FAA 

Employees 

Two individual commenters stated 

that the provisions in the proposed rule 

should be expanded to include FAA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

52232 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

regional and headquarters personnel. 

They commented that individuals in 

regional and headquarters positions 

exert power and influence and should 

also be covered by the provisions in the 

rule. Another individual noted the 

challenge of trying to regulate integrity 

and that, using the same justification as 

stated in the NPRM, all former FAA 

employees should never be allowed to 

become FAA Designees, such as 

Designated Engineering Representatives, 

Designated Airworthiness 

Representatives, Designated 

Manufacturing Inspection 

Representatives, Organizational 

Designated Airworthiness 

Representatives. 

In the final rule, the FAA has limited 

the scope of employment restrictions to 

certain types of operations. The 

restrictions will apply to those persons 

conducting operations under parts 121, 

125, 133, 135, 137, 141, 142, 145, 147, 

and subpart K of part 91 employing 

former FAA personnel who had 

oversight responsibilities for the 

operator [e.g. Office Managers, Assistant 

Office Managers, Branch Managers, Unit 

Supervisors, and Aviation Safety 

Inspectors assigned to a Flight 

Standards District Office (FSDO) or a 

CMO]. AFS ASIs directly engaged in 

certificate management typically 

develop close working relationships 

with other AFS ASIs with whom they 

share direct oversight responsibilities 

for a particular operator. The FAA 

believes that aviation safety could be 

compromised if a former AFS ASI, 

acting on behalf of the operator, is able 

to exert undue influence on current 

FAA employees with whom he or she 

had established close working 

relationships while working at a FSDO 

or a CMO. 

In the final rule the FAA has not 

extended the restrictions to the 

employment of all former FAA regional 

and headquarters personnel. However, 

these individuals are not without 

restrictions regarding post-FAA 

employment, as there are currently 

restrictions that apply to FAA managers 

and executives. Section 207(a)(1) of 

Title 18, United States Code (18 U.S.C.) 

generally places a permanent restriction 

on former executive branch employees 

(including FAA employees) regarding 

their ability to represent a person in 

connection with a particular matter in 

which the United States government has 

a direct and substantial interest and in 

which that person participated 

personally and substantially. 

The FAA has determined that the 

scope of the restrictions in the final rule 

is appropriate. FAA employees not 

directly engaged in certificate 

management typically do not develop 

those close working relationships that 

the agency believes would necessitate 

the imposition of post-employment 

restrictions on certificate holders set 

forth in this final rule. Operators can 

still employ former AFS ASIs in 

numerous positions. However, these 

former AFS ASIs may not represent the 

operator in any matter before the FAA 

if in the preceding 2-year period that 

person (1) directly served as, or was 

directly responsible for the oversight of 

an AFS ASI, and (2) had direct 

responsibility to inspect, or oversee the 

inspection of that operator. 

Although a commenter stated that the 

rule should impose restrictions that 

would prohibit former FAA employees 

from becoming designees, FAA 

designees do not represent the interest 

of certificate holders, but rather serve as 

representatives of the Administrator. 

Additionally, the NPRM did not 

propose the establishment of such 

restrictions and the agency considers 

the comments to be outside the scope of 

the notice. 

2. Burden on Former AFS Employees 

One commenter stated that the 

provisions in the proposed rule create a 

hardship for FAA employees who are 

leaving the agency, and suggested that 

the restriction on employment be 

reduced to 6 months, instead of the 

proposed 2 years. The same commenter 

also suggested that the restriction not be 

applied to anyone who was fired or has 

retired, and also suggested that the 

restriction be limited to part 121 

operators since the FAA has no data 

indicating that this action is warranted 

for certificate holders engaged in 

activities under other parts. 

The FAA selected a 2-year period for 

the duration of this restriction. This 

regulation will mirror a corresponding 

requirement found in current AFS 

policy which provides for a 2-year 

‘‘cooling off’’ period for newly 

employed AFS ASIs. This AFS policy 

prohibits new ASIs from having 

certificate management responsibilities 

for their former aviation employer 

during this 2-year period. The final rule 

will not change this longstanding FAA 

policy. It will, however, create a 

corresponding requirement applicable 

to operators who seek to employ certain 

former FAA AFS ASIs and those 

responsible for their oversight. 

In response to the comment that the 

restriction not be applied to anyone who 

was fired or has retired, the FAA notes 

that the method by which an AFS ASI’s 

employment is terminated does not 

have any bearing on potential conflicts 

of interest. Therefore, the restrictions 

apply regardless of the manner by 

which the AFS ASI terminates his or her 

employment with the agency. 

In response to the comment that the 

provisions in the rule should be limited 

to part 121 certificate holders the FAA 

notes that close working relationships 

leading to potential conflicts of interest 

can occur regardless of the type of 

operation being conducted. Therefore, 

the FAA has determined these 

restrictions should apply to those 

persons conducting operations under 

parts 121, 125, 133, 135, 137, 141, 142, 

145, and subpart K of part 91. 

3. Necessity for Proposed Restrictions 

Two commenters stated that the 

proposed rule is necessary. One 

individual commented that a former 

AFS ASI should not be able to work 

directly for the companies that were 

under the AFS ASI’s oversight for 2 

years, but should be able to work for 

companies that were not under the AFS 

ASI’s oversight. A second individual 

commented that airlines should not be 

allowed to hire aviation safety 

inspectors because it is clearly a conflict 

of interest and a danger to passengers. 

The FAA recognizes the adverse 

safety effects of ‘‘regulatory capture’’ 

and conflict of interest when certain 

former FAA employees leave the FAA 

and are employed by an operation for 

which that person formerly had 

oversight duties. However, the FAA is 

also required to evaluate the safety 

benefits of the final rule against 

potential regulatory burdens. To achieve 

the safety benefits of this final rule, the 

FAA does not find it necessary to 

prohibit a former FAA employee from 

being hired for positions such as a pilot, 

flight attendant, mechanic, training 

instructor, etc. for an operation for 

which they formally had oversight, as 

long as the former FAA employee does 

not represent that operator to the FAA. 

In addition, the FAA does not find it 

necessary to permanently bar a former 

FAA employee from any job for any 

aviation employer after that former FAA 

employee has completed a 2-year 

‘‘cooling off’’ period. 

Therefore, in the final rule, these 

restrictions would only apply if the 

individual, in the preceding 2-year 

period: Directly served as, or was 

directly responsible for the oversight of, 

an AFS ASI; and had direct 

responsibility to inspect, or oversee the 

inspections of the operator and that 

individual acts as an agent or a 

representative of the operator in any 

matter before the FAA. The restrictions 

would not apply to operators for whose 

oversight the AFS ASI was not directly 

responsible. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52233 

C. Summary of the Final Rule 

This final rule will prohibit any 

person holding a certificate to conduct 

operations under parts 121, 125, 133, 

135, 137, 141, 142, 145, or 147 from 

knowingly employing, or making a 

contractual arrangement with, certain 

individuals to act as an agent or a 

representative of the certificate holder 

in any matter before the FAA under 

certain conditions. These restrictions 

will apply if the individual, in the 

preceding 2-year period: directly served 

as, or was directly responsible for the 

oversight of, an AFS ASI; and had direct 

responsibility to inspect, or oversee the 

inspection of, the operations of the 

certificate holder. This final rule will 

also apply to persons who own or 

manage fractional ownership program 

aircraft that are used to conduct 

operations under subpart K of part 91. 

This final rule will establish these 

restrictions to prevent potential 

organizational conflicts of interests 

which could adversely affect aviation 

safety. The final rule is identical to the 

proposal. 

II. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there is no 

new requirement for information 

collection associated with this final 

rule. 

III. 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 that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these regulations. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (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, the 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. 

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 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows: 

Who Will Be Potentially Affected by 

This Final Rule 

This final rule will affect current and 

future AFS ASIs and persons 

responsible for their oversight who 

would perform work after the effective 

date of the rule for an operator for 

which they had direct oversight 

responsibilities when employed by the 

FAA. It will also affect operators that 

would have hired former FAA 

employees who had direct oversight 

responsibilities for those operators. 

Finally, this rule will apply to fractional 

owners or fractional ownership program 

managers who conduct operations 

under subpart K of part 91. 

Potential Benefits and Costs 

The final rule’s primary benefit will 

be to prevent potential organizational 

conflicts of interest. The nonquantifiable benefits resulting from this 

effect will be to minimize any potential 

public perception that: (1) An AFS ASI 

could compromise current aviation 

safety if that individual were to be 

promised post-FAA employment by an 

operator over which that individual has 

direct oversight responsibilities; and (2) 

a former FAA employee working for an 

operator were to attempt to exert undue 

influence on current FAA employees 

with whom that former employee had 

established close working relationships. 

This post-employment prohibition also 

applies to the more likely case of former 

AFS ASIs who would become 

consultants to the operator. By 

prohibiting such relationships, the 

public will have greater confidence in 

the FAA’s independence from the 

aviation industry and in the integrity of 

the FAA inspection system. Such 

benefits from this increased public 

confidence in the integrity of the FAA 

inspection process cannot be quantified. 

The final rule also creates some minor 

inefficiencies. An operator can benefit 

from employing a former AFS ASI who 

had direct oversight responsibilities for 

that operator because that AFS ASI not 

only knows more about FAA processes 

than someone who had not worked for 

the FAA, but also, would know more 

about the operator than other former 

AFS ASIs. Further, a former AFS ASI 

from a specific FSDO or CMO will have 

greater knowledge about that office (as 

well as be better acquainted with the 

people in that office) than would a 

former AFS ASI from a different office. 

For example, some operators may 

believe that employing a former AFS 

ASI who recently had direct oversight 

responsibilities for their operations 

would reduce the time to obtain FAA 

approval for manual upgrades and 

revisions partially due to the personal 

relationships between the former AFS 

ASI and current FAA employees. In 

such a case, an operator would be more 

likely to employ this former AFS ASI 

than to employ a former AFS ASI who 

did not have direct oversight 

responsibilities for that operator. Due to 

the general similarities among the 

groups of operators, the potential 

inefficiencies from employing a former 

AFS ASI who did not have direct 

oversight responsibilities for that 

operator will not be significant. Thus, 

from the societal point of view, the 

overall losses to some individual former 

FAA inspectors will be largely offset by 

gains to other former FAA inspectors or 

other qualified personnel. Although the 

final rule will create income transfers 

among individuals, at this time, we 

cannot quantify this overall loss on an 

individual basis. From a societal basis, 

the safety differential paid for the 

incremental loss in knowledge will be 

very small. We received no public 

comments quantifying the amount of 

losses that any individual will face from 

this rule. 

The number of former AFS ASIs who 

leave the FAA varies from year to year. 

We used fiscal year 2008 (October 1, 

2008, through September 30, 2009), as a 

representative year-long period to 

evaluate the number of potentially 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

52234 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

affected FAA employees. There were a 

total of 163 AFS ASIs who left FAA 

employment during this fiscal year. 

Fifteen of these were from FAA 

headquarters and not specifically 

assigned to a certificate holder. These 

AFS ASIs would not have been affected 

by the rule. As shown in Table 1, of the 

remaining 148 inspectors who left FAA 

employment, 103 voluntarily retired, 5 

retired due to disability, 17 resigned, 1 

was removed, 6 were terminated during 

their probation period, 2 had their 

appointments terminated, and 14 died. 

Thus, the maximum number of former 

inspectors who could have been affected 

had the rule been in effect are the 125 

non-headquarters personnel who retired 

(voluntarily or with disability) or 

resigned. 

TABLE 1—REASONS THAT THE 148 

NON–HEADQUARTERS INSPECTORS

LEFT FAA EMPLOYMENT BETWEEN

10/1/08 AND 9/30/09 

Reason for separation Number of 

inspectors 

VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT 103 

DISABILITY RETIREMENT .. 5 

RESIGNATION ..................... 17 

REMOVAL ............................ 1 

TERMINATION DURING 

PROBATION PERIOD ...... 6 

TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT ..................... 2 

DEATH .................................. 14 

TOTAL .................................. 148 

As concluded in the NPRM, we stated 

that few of these former AFS ASIs will 

become involved in post-FAA 

retirement employment. We further 

stated that this overall economic impact 

will be minimal, with the potential 

benefits exceeding the costs. We 

requested comments on this economic 

analysis and received none. 

Although the overall economic impact 

will be minimal, with the potential 

benefits exceeding the costs this rule is 

considered a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ for other reasons as defined in 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 

and is ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

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 widerange of small entities, including small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

The final rule will only prevent an 

AFS ASI and persons responsible for 

their oversight from acting as an agent 

or representative of an operator before 

the FAA when those persons had direct 

oversight responsibilities for that 

operator in the preceding two years. The 

cost to an operator of being unable to 

employ a specific individual will be 

minimal because other individuals with 

similar professional qualifications as 

those possessed by the former AFS ASI 

will be available. Therefore the FAA 

certifies that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. 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 

$140.8 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

V. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has 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, on 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. 

VI. 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 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

VII. Regulations That Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 

Use 

The FAA analyzed this final 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 is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

VIII. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

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 (202) 267–9680. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52235 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

IX. 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 

14 CFR Part 91 

Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation 

safety. 

14 CFR Part 119 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 125 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 133 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 137 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 141 

Educational facilities, Schools. 

14 CFR Part 142 

Educational facilities, Schools. 

14 CFR Part 145 

Aircraft, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 147 

Aircraft, Educational facilities, 

Schools. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 

40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 

44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 

44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506– 

46507, 47122, 47508, 47528–47531, articles 

12 and 29 of the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180). 

■ 2. Add § 91.1050 to read as follows: 

§ 91.1050 Employment of former FAA 

employees. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section, no fractional owner 

or fractional ownership program 

manager may knowingly employ or 

make a contractual arrangement which 

permits an individual to act as an agent 

or representative of the fractional owner 

or fractional ownership program 

manager in any matter before the 

Federal Aviation Administration if the 

individual, in the preceding 2 years— 

(1) Served as, or was directly 

responsible for the oversight of, a Flight 

Standards Service aviation safety 

inspector; and 

(2) Had direct responsibility to 

inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the 

operations of the fractional owner or 

fractional ownership program manager. 

(b) For the purpose of this section, an 

individual shall be considered to be 

acting as an agent or representative of a 

fractional owner or fractional ownership 

program manager in a matter before the 

agency if the individual makes any 

written or oral communication on behalf 

of the fractional owner or fractional 

ownership program manager to the 

agency (or any of its officers or 

employees) in connection with a 

particular matter, whether or not 

involving a specific party and without 

regard to whether the individual has 

participated in, or had responsibility 

for, the particular matter while serving 

as a Flight Standards Service aviation 

safety inspector. 

(c) The provisions of this section do 

not prohibit a fractional owner or 

fractional ownership program manager 

from knowingly employing or making a 

contractual arrangement which permits 

an individual to act as an agent or 

representative of the fractional owner or 

fractional ownership program manager 

in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual was employed by the 

fractional owner or fractional ownership 

program manager before October 21, 

2011. 

PART 119—CERTIFICATION: AIR 

CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL 

OPERATORS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 119 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 

40102, 40103, 40113, 44105, 44106, 44111, 

44701–44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 

44906, 44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, 46103, 

46105. 

■ 4. Add § 119.73 to read as follows: 

§ 119.73 Employment of former FAA 

employees. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section, no certificate holder 

conducting operations under part 121 or 

135 of this chapter may knowingly 

employ or make a contractual 

arrangement which permits an 

individual to act as an agent or 

representative of the certificate holder 

in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual, in the preceding 2 years— 

(1) Served as, or was directly 

responsible for the oversight of, a Flight 

Standards Service aviation safety 

inspector; and 

(2) Had direct responsibility to 

inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the 

operations of the certificate holder. 

(b) For the purpose of this section, an 

individual shall be considered to be 

acting as an agent or representative of a 

certificate holder in a matter before the 

agency if the individual makes any 

written or oral communication on behalf 

of the certificate holder to the agency (or 

any of its officers or employees) in 

connection with a particular matter, 

whether or not involving a specific 

party and without regard to whether the 

individual has participated in, or had 

responsibility for, the particular matter 

while serving as a Flight Standards 

Service aviation safety inspector. 

(c) The provisions of this section do 

not prohibit a certificate holder from 

knowingly employing or making a 

contractual arrangement which permits 

an individual to act as an agent or 

representative of the certificate holder 

in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual was employed by the 

certificate holder before October 21, 

2011. 

PART 125—CERTIFICATION AND 

OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A 

SEATING CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE 

PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM 

PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000 

POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES 

GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD 

SUCH AIRCRAFT 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 125 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44702, 44705, 44710–44711, 44713, 44716– 

44717, 44722. 

■ 6. Add § 125.26 to read as follows: 

§ 125.26 Employment of former FAA 

employees. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section, no certificate holder 

may knowingly employ or make a 

contractual arrangement which permits 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

52236 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

an individual to act as an agent or 

representative of the certificate holder 

in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual, in the preceding 2 years— 

(1) Served as, or was directly 

responsible for the oversight of, a Flight 

Standards Service aviation safety 

inspector; and 

(2) Had direct responsibility to 

inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the 

operations of the certificate holder. 

(b) For the purpose of this section, an 

individual shall be considered to be 

acting as an agent or representative of a 

certificate holder in a matter before the 

agency if the individual makes any 

written or oral communication on behalf 

of the certificate holder to the agency (or 

any of its officers or employees) in 

connection with a particular matter, 

whether or not involving a specific 

party and without regard to whether the 

individual has participated in, or had 

responsibility for, the particular matter 

while serving as a Flight Standards 

Service aviation safety inspector. 

(c) The provisions of this section do 

not prohibit a certificate holder from 

knowingly employing or making a 

contractual arrangement which permits 

an individual to act as an agent or 

representative of the certificate holder 

in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual was employed by the 

certificate holder before October 21, 

2011. 

PART 133—ROTORCRAFT EXTERNALLOAD OPERATIONS 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 133 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44702. 

■ 8. Add § 133.22 to read as follows: 

§ 133.22 Employment of former FAA 

employees. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section, no certificate holder 

may knowingly employ or make a 

contractual arrangement which permits 

an individual to act as an agent or 

representative of the certificate holder 

in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual, in the preceding 2 years— 

(1) Served as, or was directly 

responsible for the oversight of, a Flight 

Standards Service aviation safety 

inspector; and 

(2) Had direct responsibility to 

inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the 

operations of the certificate holder. 

(b) For the purpose of this section, an 

individual shall be considered to be 

acting as an agent or representative of a 

certificate holder in a matter before the 

agency if the individual makes any 

written or oral communication on behalf 

of the certificate holder to the agency (or 

any of its officers or employees) in 

connection with a particular matter, 

whether or not involving a specific 

party and without regard to whether the 

individual has participated in, or had 

responsibility for, the particular matter 

while serving as a Flight Standards 

Service aviation safety inspector. 

(c) The provisions of this section do 

not prohibit a certificate holder from 

knowingly employing or making a 

contractual arrangement which permits 

an individual to act as an agent or 

representative of the certificate holder 

in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual was employed by the 

certificate holder before October 21, 

2011. 

PART 137—AGRICULTURAL 

AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS 

■ 9. The authority citation for part 137 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

44701–44702. 

■ 10. Add § 137.40 to read as follows: 

§ 137.40 Employment of former FAA 

employees. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section, no certificate holder 

may knowingly employ or make a 

contractual arrangement which permits 

an individual to act as an agent or 

representative of the certificate holder 

in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual, in the preceding 2 years— 

(1) Served as, or was directly 

responsible for the oversight of, a Flight 

Standards Service aviation safety 

inspector; and 

(2) Had direct responsibility to 

inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the 

operations of the certificate holder. 

(b) For the purpose of this section, an 

individual shall be considered to be 

acting as an agent or representative of a 

certificate holder in a matter before the 

agency if the individual makes any 

written or oral communication on behalf 

of the certificate holder to the agency (or 

any of its officers or employees) in 

connection with a particular matter, 

whether or not involving a specific 

party and without regard to whether the 

individual has participated in, or had 

responsibility for, the particular matter 

while serving as a Flight Standards 

Service aviation safety inspector. 

(c) The provisions of this section do 

not prohibit a certificate holder from 

knowingly employing or making a 

contractual arrangement which permits 

an individual to act as an agent or 

representative of the certificate holder 

in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual was employed by the 

certificate holder before October 21, 

2011. 

PART 141—PILOT SCHOOLS 

■ 11. The authority citation for part 141 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44703, 44707, 44709, 44711, 45102–45103, 

45301–45302. 

■ 12. Add § 141.34 to read as follows: 

§ 141.34 Employment of former FAA 

employees. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section, no holder of a pilot 

school certificate or a provisional pilot 

school certificate may knowingly 

employ or make a contractual 

arrangement which permits an 

individual to act as an agent or 

representative of the certificate holder 

in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual, in the preceding 2 years— 

(1) Served as, or was directly 

responsible for the oversight of, a Flight 

Standards Service aviation safety 

inspector; and 

(2) Had direct responsibility to 

inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the 

operations of the certificate holder. 

(b) For the purpose of this section, an 

individual shall be considered to be 

acting as an agent or representative of a 

certificate holder in a matter before the 

agency if the individual makes any 

written or oral communication on behalf 

of the certificate holder to the agency (or 

any of its officers or employees) in 

connection with a particular matter, 

whether or not involving a specific 

party and without regard to whether the 

individual has participated in, or had 

responsibility for, the particular matter 

while serving as a Flight Standards 

Service aviation safety inspector. 

(c) The provisions of this section do 

not prohibit a holder of a pilot school 

certificate or a provisional pilot school 

certificate from knowingly employing or 

making a contractual arrangement 

which permits an individual to act as an 

agent or representative of the certificate 

holder in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual was employed by the 

certificate holder before October 21, 

2011. 

PART 142—TRAINING CENTERS 

■ 13. The authority citation for part 142 

continues to read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 162 / Monday, August 22, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 52237 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 

44101, 44701–44703, 44705, 44707, 44709– 

44711, 45102–45103, 45301–45302. 

■ 14. Add § 142.14 to read as follows: 

§ 142.14 Employment of former FAA 

employees. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section, no holder of a 

training center certificate may 

knowingly employ or make a 

contractual arrangement which permits 

an individual to act as an agent or 

representative of the certificate holder 

in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual, in the preceding 2 years— 

(1) Served as, or was directly 

responsible for the oversight of, a Flight 

Standards Service aviation safety 

inspector; and 

(2) Had direct responsibility to 

inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the 

operations of the certificate holder. 

(b) For the purpose of this section, an 

individual shall be considered to be 

acting as an agent or representative of a 

certificate holder in a matter before the 

agency if the individual makes any 

written or oral communication on behalf 

of the certificate holder to the agency (or 

any of its officers or employees) in 

connection with a particular matter, 

whether or not involving a specific 

party and without regard to whether the 

individual has participated in, or had 

responsibility for, the particular matter 

while serving as a Flight Standards 

Service aviation safety inspector. 

(c) The provisions of this section do 

not prohibit a holder of a training center 

certificate from knowingly employing or 

making a contractual arrangement 

which permits an individual to act as an 

agent or representative of the certificate 

holder in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual was employed by the 

certificate holder before October 21, 

2011. 

PART 145—REPAIR STATIONS 

■ 15. The authority citation for part 145 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44702, 44707, 44709, 44717. 

■ 16. Add § 145.160 to read as follows: 

§ 145.160 Employment of former FAA 

employees. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section, no holder of a repair 

station certificate may knowingly 

employ or make a contractual 

arrangement which permits an 

individual to act as an agent or 

representative of the certificate holder 

in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual, in the preceding 2 years— 

(1) Served as, or was directly 

responsible for the oversight of, a Flight 

Standards Service aviation safety 

inspector; and 

(2) Had direct responsibility to 

inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the 

operations of the certificate holder. 

(b) For the purpose of this section, an 

individual shall be considered to be 

acting as an agent or representative of a 

certificate holder in a matter before the 

agency if the individual makes any 

written or oral communication on behalf 

of the certificate holder to the agency (or 

any of its officers or employees) in 

connection with a particular matter, 

whether or not involving a specific 

party and without regard to whether the 

individual has participated in, or had 

responsibility for, the particular matter 

while serving as a Flight Standards 

Service aviation safety inspector. 

(c) The provisions of this section do 

not prohibit a holder of a repair station 

certificate from knowingly employing or 

making a contractual arrangement 

which permits an individual to act as an 

agent or representative of the certificate 

holder in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual was employed by the 

certificate holder before October 21, 

2011. 

PART 147—AVIATION MAINTENANCE 

TECHNICIAN SCHOOLS 

■ 17. The authority citation for part 147 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44702, 44707–44709. 

■ 18. Add § 147.8 to subpart A to read 

as follows: 

§ 147.8 Employment of former FAA 

employees. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(c) of this section, no holder of an 

aviation maintenance technician 

certificate may knowingly employ or 

make a contractual arrangement which 

permits an individual to act as an agent 

or representative of the certificate 

holder in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual, in the preceding 2 years— 

(1) Served as, or was directly 

responsible for the oversight of, a Flight 

Standards Service aviation safety 

inspector; and 

(2) Had direct responsibility to 

inspect, or oversee the inspection of, the 

operations of the certificate holder. 

(b) For the purpose of this section, an 

individual shall be considered to be 

acting as an agent or representative of a 

certificate holder in a matter before the 

agency if the individual makes any 

written or oral communication on behalf 

of the certificate holder to the agency (or 

any of its officers or employees) in 

connection with a particular matter, 

whether or not involving a specific 

party and without regard to whether the 

individual has participated in, or had 

responsibility for, the particular matter 

while serving as a Flight Standards 

Service aviation safety inspector. 

(c) The provisions of this section do 

not prohibit a holder of an aviation 

maintenance technician school 

certificate from knowingly employing or 

making a contractual arrangement 

which permits an individual to act as an 

agent or representative of the certificate 

holder in any matter before the Federal 

Aviation Administration if the 

individual was employed by the 

certificate holder before October 21, 

2011. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 5, 

2011. 

J. Randolph Babbitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21315 Filed 8–19–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 97 

[Docket No. 30798; Amdt. No. 3439] 

Standard Instrument Approach 

Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums 

and Obstacle Departure Procedures; 

Miscellaneous Amendments 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final Rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, 

suspends, or revokes Standard 

Instrument Approach Procedures 

(SIAPs) and associated Takeoff 

Minimums and Obstacle Departure 

Procedures for operations at certain 

airports. These regulatory actions are 

needed because of the adoption of new 

or revised criteria, or because of changes 

occurring in the National Airspace 

System, such as the commissioning of 

new navigational facilities, adding new 

obstacles, or changing air traffic 

requirements. These changes are 

designed to provide safe and efficient 

use of the navigable airspace and to 

promote safe flight operations under 

instrument flight rules at the affected 

airports. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 22, 

2011. The compliance date for each 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES