Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 64859 

Reason 

(e) The mandatory continuing 

airworthiness information (MCAI) states: 

During a routine inspection, deformation 

was found at the neck of the pressure 

regulator body on the oxygen Cylinder and 

Regulator Assemblies (CRA) of a BD–700– 

1A11 aeroplane. 

An investigation by the vendor * * * 

revealed that the deformation was attributed 

to two (2) batches of raw material that did not 

meet the required tensile strength. This may 

cause elongation of the pressure regulator 

neck, which could result in rupture of the 

oxygen cylinder and in the case of cabin 

depressurization, oxygen not being available 

when required. 

* * * * * 

Compliance 

(f) You are responsible for having the 

actions required by this AD performed within 

the compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

Actions 

(g) For airplanes having serial numbers 

20003 through 20291 inclusive: Within 750 

flight hours after the effective date of this AD, 

do an inspection of oxygen pressure 

regulators having P/N 806370–06 or 806370– 

14, to determine the serial number, in 

accordance with paragraph 2.B.(2) of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 100–35–05, Revision 02, 

dated January 31, 2011. 

(1) If the serial number of the oxygen 

pressure regulator is listed in Table 2 of the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier 

Service Bulletin 100–35–05, Revision 02, 

dated January 31, 2011, replace the affected 

oxygen CRA, in accordance with paragraph 

2.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 100–35–05, 

Revision 02, dated January 31, 2011. 

(2) If the serial number of the oxygen 

pressure regulator is not listed in Table 2 of 

the Accomplishment Instructions of 

Bombardier Service Bulletin 100–35–05, 

Revision 02, dated January 31, 2011, no 

further action is required by this paragraph. 

Parts Installation 

(h) For all airplanes: As of the effective 

date of this AD, no person may install an 

oxygen pressure regulator (P/N 806370–06 or 

806370–14) having any serial number listed 

in Table 2 of Bombardier Service Bulletin 

100–35–05, Revision 02, dated January 31, 

2011, on any airplane, unless a suffix ‘‘-A’’ 

is beside the serial number. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: 

The MCAI applicability specifies only 

airplanes having certain serial numbers and 

prohibits installation of the affected part on 

those airplanes. Because the affected part 

could be rotated onto any of the Model BD– 

100–1A10 (Challenger 300) airplanes, this 

AD applies to serial numbers 20003 and 

subsequent. This difference has been 

coordinated with Transport Canada Civil 

Aviation (TCCA). 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(i) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), ANE–170, FAA, 

has the authority to approve AMOCs for this 

AD, if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 

39.19, send your request to your principal 

inspector or local Flight Standards District 

Office, as appropriate. If sending information 

directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: 

Program Manager, Continuing Operational 

Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart 

Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 

11590; telephone 516–228–7300; fax 516– 

794–5531. Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

Related Information 

(j) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness 

Directive CF–2011–09, dated May 13, 2011; 

and Bombardier Service Bulletin 100–35–05, 

Revision 02, dated January 31, 2011; for 

related information. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 

11, 2011. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27011 Filed 10–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 43 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0763; Notice No. 11– 

05] 

RIN 2120–AJ91 

Pilot Loading of Navigation and Terrain 

Awareness Database Updates 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend 

the maintenance regulations by 

removing from the preventive 

maintenance category the task of 

updating databases used in selfcontained, front-panel or pedestalmounted navigation equipment. This 

change would allow pilots who operate 

certificated aircraft to update the 

specified databases and eliminate the 

requirement for certificated mechanics 

or repair stations to perform the update. 

The effect of this revision would be to 

ensure that pilots using specified 

navigation equipment have the most 

current and accurate navigational data 

and thereby increase aviation safety. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

December 19, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number [Docket No. FAA– 

2011–0763; Notice No. 11–05] using any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

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

any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket Web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78), as 

well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions about this 

rulemaking action, contact Chris Parfitt, 

Flight Standards Service, Aircraft 

Maintenance Division—Avionics 

Maintenance Branch, AFS–360, Federal 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64860 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Aviation Administration, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024; 

telephone (202) 385–6398; facsimile 

(202) 385–6474; e-mail 

chris.parfitt@faa.gov. 

For legal questions about this action, 

contact Viola Pando, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, Regulations Division—Policy 

and Adjudication Branch, AGC–210, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Ave., SW., Washington, 

DC 20591; telephone (202) 493–5293; 

e-mail viola.pando@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the 

‘‘Additional Information’’ section for 

information on how to comment on this 

proposal and how the FAA will handle 

comments received. The ‘‘Additional 

Information’’ section also contains more 

information about the docket, privacy, 

and handling of proprietary or 

confidential business information. In 

addition, there is information on 

obtaining copies of related rulemaking 

documents. 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, 

§ 44701(a)(1), section 44703 (a)(D), and 

section 44711(a)(2). In section 

44701(a)(1), the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations and minimum 

standards in the interest of safety for 

and the manner of servicing of aircraft 

appliances. In section 44703(a)(D), the 

FAA is charged with specifying the 

capacity in which the holder of a 

certificate may serve as an airman with 

respect to an aircraft. Section 

44711(a)(2) prohibits any person from 

serving in any capacity as an airman 

with respect to a civil aircraft, aircraft 

appliance used, or intended for use, in 

air commerce—without an airman 

certificate authorizing the airman to 

serve in the capacity for which the 

certificate was issued. This regulation is 

within the scope of the cited authority. 

I. Overview of the Proposed Rule 

This rulemaking would allow pilots of 

all certificated aircraft equipped with 

self-contained, front-panel or pedestalmounted navigational systems (‘‘NavSystems’’) to update the database. 

Currently, only pilots of aircraft 

operated under part 91 (general 

aviation) are allowed to perform the 

update. Nav-Systems provide many 

services for pilots, including 

navigational information for which 

accuracy of data is critical to the safe 

operation of an aircraft. Accuracy of 

navigational data is achieved by 

maintaining current data, which is 

ensured by performing database updates 

that are typically required every 28 

days. 

Under the current regulations, except 

general aviation aircraft, updates to NavSystem databases must be performed by 

certificated mechanics and repair 

stations (‘‘qualified personnel’’). 

Consequently, if the database were to 

expire when the aircraft is not 

accessible to qualified personnel, the 

aircraft would have to be operated with 

an expired database, rerouted to the 

nearest repair station, or have a 

certificated mechanic transported to the 

aircraft to perform the update. Each of 

these options increase the workload for 

pilots and air traffic control (ATC), as 

well as increase the likelihood for data 

errors caused by pilots during manual 

input of data. These options also present 

increased operational costs. 

Changes to Nav-System design have 

made updating databases a simple 

procedure that any pilot can perform. 

The FAA established the requirement to 

have qualified personnel update NavSystem databases to address the 

complexity of older systems, for which 

a person needed training and 

specialized equipment and access to 

installed equipment to perform the 

update. Updating newer Nav-Systems is 

now a simple procedure that does not 

require special training or specialized 

equipment. Consequently, the safety 

concerns that existed when the current 

regulations were promulgated are no 

longer valid. We are therefore proposing 

to end the requirement for qualified 

personnel to perform database updates 

because the requirement no longer 

serves the purpose for which it was 

established. 

If adopted, this rulemaking would 

reduce workloads for pilots and ATC 

and reduce compliance-related 

operational costs. However, it also may 

have a negative economic impact on 

certificated mechanics and repair 

stations that currently perform required 

updates for affected operations. Aircraft 

operated under part 121 are less likely 

to be affected because they are not 

generally equipped with the NavSystems affected by this rulemaking, 

and they would therefore continue to 

require the services of qualified 

personnel. 

The FAA has preliminarily 

determined there would be minimal 

costs imposed by the proposed rule. In 

practice, the rule would simply allow 

the pilot to upload the current database 

rather than transporting a certificated 

mechanic to the aircraft, or flying the 

aircraft to a repair station. Benefits from 

this proposed rulemaking would 

include reduced workloads for pilots 

and ATC, as discussed below in the 

Background section. This proposed 

rulemaking would also reduce the 

potential for error in navigational data. 

In addition, the proposed rulemaking 

would foster practices that will 

contribute to the success of the Next 

Generation (NexGen) modernization of 

the National Aerospace System (NAS) as 

it is implemented, resulting in an 

overall increase in aviation safety. 

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

Currently, § 43.3(g) and Appendix A, 

paragraph (c)(32) require that updates to 

databases for Nav-Systems installed on 

aircraft operated under parts 121, 125, 

129, 133, 135, and 137 (‘‘certificated 

operations’’) must be performed by 

qualified personnel. Nav-Systems 

affected by this rulemaking could be 

easily updated using a simple procedure 

that pilots can perform without special 

training or specialized equipment. The 

requirement for qualified personnel to 

perform the update is therefore no 

longer necessary to ensure the update 

has been performed properly. 

A large percentage of aircraft used in 

certificated operations are equipped 

with fully integrated Nav-Systems that 

rely on data stored in ATC navigational 

databases. Data stored in a database 

serve various navigational functions. 

Those functions include providing 

coordinates for fixed points in the 

airspace or on the ground that are used 

for basic en route navigation, complex 

departure and arrival navigation, fuel 

planning, and precise vertical 

navigation. This data is updated by 

uploading a current database to the NavSystem, which can be done by inserting 

a data storage disc into a slot on a frontinstrument panel or pedestal-mounted 

Nav-System, similar to inserting a 

memory card into a digital camera. 

Updates of navigation databases are 

typically required every 28 days. 

The regulatory requirement that 

allows only authorized mechanics and 

repair stations (hereafter referred to as 

‘‘qualified personnel’’) to upload the 

most current data imposes a burden on 

the system in terms of workloads and 

demands on the National Airspace 

System (NAS). If the database expires 

when the aircraft is at a location where 

qualified personnel are not available to 

perform the update, the operator must: 

(1) Operate the aircraft with an expired 

database under the minimum 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 64861 

equipment list (MEL) procedures, (2) 

reroute the aircraft to an authorized 

repair station, or (3) transport an 

authorized mechanic to the aircraft’s 

location. The aircraft also can be flown 

with an expired navigational database 

under Minimum Equipment List (MEL) 

procedures, but doing so imposes more 

duties on the flightcrew and ATC. Each 

of these options presents safety 

concerns and increased operational 

costs. 

In addition, each of these options is 

problematic because they can increase 

the flightcrew’s and ATC’s workload 

when controlling the affected aircraft. 

Further, they are costly to the operator. 

This is particularly true for operations 

in remote areas. If the operator decides 

to move the aircraft to a repair station, 

the increased workload associated with 

rerouting the aircraft, for both flightcrew 

and ATC, requires planning an 

alternative flight route. Similarly, if the 

decision is to transport qualified 

personnel to the aircraft, the operator 

must locate personnel and schedule a 

flight to the aircraft. If the decision is to 

operate the aircraft with an expired 

database, in accordance with applicable 

regulations and operations 

specifications, among other tasks, the 

flightcrew must: (1) Verify fixes before 

dispatch, (2) verify navigational aid 

status and suitability for the flight route, 

and (3) advise ATC that published area 

navigational (RNAV) procedures, RNAV 

standard instrument departures, and 

RNAV airways cannot be used. 

RNAV terminal procedures 

authorizations and some RNAV route 

authorizations require a current 

navigational database. Those 

authorizations typically are denied to 

anyone operating with an expired 

database. This is significant because use 

of RNAV routes and procedures provide 

a safer, more efficient National Airspace 

System (NAS). 

Changes to the flightcrew’s preflight 

procedures and to ATC duties add to 

already heavy workloads. ATC’s 

workload is increased because it must 

assign alternate terminal RNAV 

procedures and other services to the 

affected flightcrew. In both cases, the 

rate of error can be increased either by 

pilot input of inaccurate data during 

verification, or by errors in ATC 

assignments which may occur during 

redirection of the flight. Both types of 

error have the potential to compromise 

aviation safety. 

The FAA is committed to increasing 

aviation safety and creating a more 

efficient NAS. To that end the FAA has 

targeted innovative navigational 

solutions that rely on Nav-Systems, 

which in turn are dependent on 

accurate and current databases. For 

instance, Required Navigation 

Performance (RNP), an important 

program for enhancing safety through 

establishing a high degree of precision 

air navigation, allows for more efficient 

use of the airspace. In addition, RNP 

assists in developing constant angle 

descent approaches, which increase 

safety during approach and landing. 

RNP operations rely on equipment and 

systems that depend on updateable 

databases for operational accuracy. 

The increasing use of Nav-Systems 

and the criticality of maintaining 

current databases for RNP operations 

under NexGen require that the two work 

seamlessly and impose no greater 

burden on the NAS than necessary. 

We have tentatively determined that 

the burdens attendant to compliance 

with current regulatory requirements for 

qualified personnel to perform database 

updates may no longer be justified. 

Developments in navigational system 

technology have made it possible for 

pilots to perform updates properly 

without special training or equipment. 

Therefore, a safety-related reason may 

no longer exist for continuing to require 

that mechanics and repair stations 

perform updates for modern NavSystems. Absent the safety concerns 

related to the complexity of updating an 

older navigational system that served as 

the impetus for the current 

requirements, there may no longer be 

reason to prohibit pilots from 

performing updates. 

B. History 

Before 1996, the regulations 

categorized the task of updating any 

navigational system database as 

maintenance because these systems 

were large, complex, and installed on 

large transport category aircraft. The 

FAA required that qualified personnel 

perform the updates because doing so 

required special training and 

specialized equipment. By 1996, a 

second type of Nav-System was 

developed that was small, selfcontained, and easily accessible. The 

newer Nav-System was targeted for use 

on general aviation aircraft because 

unlike older navigational systems, the 

new Nav-Systems introduced simple 

updating procedures that enabled any 

pilot to update a database without 

special training or equipment. The FAA 

addressed this improvement by 

amending the regulations. 

In 1996, the FAA amended § 43.3 and 

Appendix A of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, part 43 (61 FR 19501, May 

1, 1996). Among other actions, the 

amendment allowed owners and 

operators of general aviation aircraft to 

update easily updateable Nav-System 

databases. However, while the 

amendment allowed GA pilots to 

perform updates to Nav-Systems, it 

prohibited pilots of aircraft operated 

under parts 121, 129, and 135 from 

updating databases on the older 

navigational systems. For these 

operations, the task of updating 

databases was categorized as 

maintenance. 

Unlike the older systems, the FAA 

allowed pilots of smaller general 

aviation aircraft to perform updates to 

Nav-System databases because the 

systems were not similar to those 

installed on aircraft operated under 

parts 121, 129, and 135. Newer NavSystems were self-contained, easily 

accessible and updated, compact 

devices. Conversely, navigational 

systems installed on aircraft operating 

under parts 121, 129, and 135 were 

more complex. Those Nav-Systems were 

frequently composed of two hardware 

components. One was a central data 

storage/processing unit (CPU), which 

was installed in a location remote from 

the second piece of hardware. The other 

was the Control Display Unit (CDU), 

which was installed in the cockpit. 

Updating the more complex systems 

requires that qualified personnel use 

specialized equipment to upload the 

new data into the CPU. 

Since then, the number of newer selfcontained Nav-Systems installed on 

most non-transport category aircraft has 

increased. Updating a Nav-System 

database is as simple as inserting a 

memory card into a digital camera, with 

automatic verification to the pilot that 

the update has been successful 

occurring via display of the update’s 

revision number on the CDU. 

III. Discussion of the Proposal 

The FAA proposes to amend § 43.3 to 

allow pilots of aircraft operated under 

parts 121, 125, 133, 135, and 137 

(‘‘certificated operations’’) to update 

Nav-System databases. The task of 

updating a Nav-System is currently 

categorized as preventive maintenance 

under part 43, Appendix A, paragraph 

(c)(32). As such, § 43.3, which 

prescribes who may perform 

maintenance, requires that it be 

performed by a certificated mechanic or 

repair station unless that preventive 

maintenance, as specifically enumerated 

in Appendix A, ‘‘may be performed by 

the holder of a pilot certificate issued 

under part 61 on an aircraft owned or 

operated by that pilot which is not used 

under part 121, 129, or 135 * * *’’ 

(emphasis added). 

This proposal would extend 

authorization for pilots on all 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64862 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

certificated operations to perform NavSystem database updates. The FAA has 

determined that the ease of successfully 

updating modern Nav-Systems remains 

the same regardless of the regulatory 

part under which the aircraft is 

operated. 

We are proposing to remove 

paragraph (c)(32) from part 43, 

Appendix A, which will remove from 

the preventive maintenance category the 

task of updating ‘‘* * * self-contained 

front-instrument panel and pedestalmounted air traffic control (ATC) 

navigational software databases 

(excluding those of automatic flight 

control systems, transponders, and 

microwave frequency distance 

measuring equipment (DME)), provided 

no disassembly of the unit is required 

and pertinent instructions are 

provided.’’ The effect of removing 

paragraph (c)(32) will be to allow pilots 

to update Nav-System databases. 

Note that the regulatory text refers to 

the newer systems targeted by this 

rulemaking as navigational systems. For 

purposes of discussion, in this 

preamble, we have used the term 

‘‘navigational system’’ to refer to older 

systems, and ‘‘Nav-System’’ to refer to 

the newer systems targeted by this 

rulemaking. 

The FAA has considered two 

alternatives to this proposed 

rulemaking. One alternative was to 

continue to require that qualified 

personnel perform updates to NavSystem databases installed on 

certificated operations. The FAA has 

tentatively rejected this alternative for 

three reasons. First, the original reasons 

for creating the requirement appear to 

have been invalidated by technology. 

Second, eliminating the existing 

requirements for qualified personnel to 

perform the update will reduce pilot 

and ATC workloads and reduce the 

likelihood that pilots will input 

inaccurate data into the Nav-System. 

The cumulative effect of reduced 

workloads and elimination of data 

errors ultimately would improve 

aviation safety. Third, the costs imposed 

on operators to ensure compliance with 

the existing requirements may no longer 

be justified now that special training 

and equipment is not required, and 

safety would not be compromised by 

allowing pilots to perform the update. 

The second alternative considered 

was continuing to use the exemption 

process as need is demonstrated by 

operators to enable pilots of aircraft not 

operated under part 91 to update NavSystem databases. However, this 

approach would not reduce the 

numerous petitions for exemption 

submitted for aircraft operations 

conducted under parts 121, 129, and 

135, which would force the FAA to 

continue processing an excessive 

number of exemptions with a limited 

workforce, thus requiring the agency use 

valuable manpower for administrative 

purposes. Finally, the cumulative effect 

of granting large numbers of petitions 

for exemption from the same regulation 

for the same reason(s) would be the 

equivalent of rulemaking by exemption. 

For the reasons cited above, the FAA 

has determined that amending the 

regulations to allow pilots on any 

certificated aircraft equipped with a 

specified Nav-System to update 

databases would improve aviation 

safety, would be economically 

beneficial to operators, and would 

enable the FAA to use manpower in 

areas of greater need. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there would 

be no new requirement for information 

collection associated with this proposed 

rule. 

International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these regulations. 

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct that each Federal agency shall 

propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that the 

benefits of the intended regulation 

justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) 

requires agencies to analyze the 

economic impact of regulatory changes 

on small entities. Third, the Trade 

Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96–39) 

prohibits agencies from setting 

standards that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. In developing U.S. 

standards, this Trade Act requires 

agencies to consider international 

standards and, where appropriate, that 

they be the basis of U.S. standards. 

Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits, and other effects 

of proposed or final rules that include 

a federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by state, local, or Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation with 

base year of 1995). This portion of the 

preamble summarizes the FAA’s 

analysis of the economic impacts of this 

proposed rule. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this proposed rule: 

(1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) 

is not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures, (4) 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, (5) would not create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States, and 

(6) would not impose an unfunded 

mandate on state, local, or Tribal 

governments, or on the private sector by 

exceeding the threshold identified 

above. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

allows that a statement to that effect and 

the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this proposed rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows: 

The proposed rule would reduce costs 

to certificated operators by allowing 

their pilots to update databases for selfcontained navigation systems installed 

either in the front panel or pedestalmounted in the cockpit. Allowing pilots 

to perform the updates would 

occasionally save the operator the 

expense of either a positioning flight to 

a repair station or transporting a 

certificated mechanic to the aircraft to 

perform the database update. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined 

that this proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, and this proposed rule is 

not ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 64863 

Total Estimated Benefits and Costs of 

This Final Rule 

There would be two general benefits 

from this proposed rule. The primary 

benefit would be that affected aircraft 

operators would no longer operate 

aircraft without the most current 

navigational data. As previously 

discussed, the use of Nav-Systems 

improves safety by providing the pilot 

with accurate navigational information, 

by increasing access to airports under 

less than optimal flight conditions, by 

increasing workforce efficiency and by 

encouraging a more efficient use of the 

navigable airspace system. Nav-System 

database software is updated every 28 

days, a recurring task that cannot always 

be accomplished within the prescribed 

timeframe due to the unavailability of 

qualified personnel. Increasing airspace 

congestion as well as the increasing 

number of non-Part 91 aircraft that are 

equipped with Nav-Systems magnifies 

the importance for Nav-Systems to be 

operating with the most current data. 

Further, the FAA knows of no accidents 

or incidents attributable to pilot error 

when part 91 pilots updated 

navigational database software. 

The second benefit would be potential 

cost savings. Allowing pilots to update 

Nav-System databases for aircraft used 

on certificated operations would 

eliminate costs associated with 

positioning flights to a repair station or 

transporting a certificated mechanic to 

the aircraft. Estimates from an industry 

source indicate that the cost of a single 

positioning flight could range between 

$1,000 and $2,500 and that, depending 

upon the circumstances, the cost to 

transport a certified mechanic to an 

aircraft are similar. The FAA does not 

have an estimate of the number of times 

an aircraft with an expiring database 

would require one of these actions to 

occur. As such, the FAA cannot 

estimate a total potential cost-savings 

from this proposed rule because the 

annual savings would depend upon 

how often these aircraft encounter 

expired database conditions and 

whether the aircraft is flown to a repair 

station or whether a mechanic is 

transported to the aircraft. 

The FAA requests comments on the 

number of positioning flights conducted 

annually for the purpose of updating a 

database and the average cost of such a 

flight, or, alternatively, the costs of 

transporting mechanics to the aircraft. 

Further, for those situations where the 

aircraft is operated with an expired 

database, an estimate of pilot time 

expended manually checking database 

information for accuracy. 

This proposed rule is cost-relieving 

because an operator would be able to 

choose a pilot or a mechanic to upload 

data into navigational systems, whereas 

today, only a certificated mechanic or a 

repair station can perform the upload. 

Who is potentially affected by this rule? 

This proposed rule would affect all 

operators of certificated aircraft 

equipped with self-contained, frontinstrument panel or pedestal-mounted 

navigational equipment. Large transport 

category airplanes generally operated 

under Part 121 and manufactured by 

Boeing, Airbus, McDonnell-Douglas, 

Bombardier, and Embraer are equipped 

with larger and more sophisticated 

navigational systems that would not be 

affected by the proposed rulemaking. 

Based on a preliminary review, the FAA 

has determined that there are no aircraft 

currently operated under parts 121 and 

129 that are equipped with the NavSystems targeted by this rulemaking. We 

request comments on this 

determination. 

The avionics equipment for many 

smaller aircraft used in part 135 

operations are in self-contained, frontinstrument panel or pedestal-mounted 

units. However, this is optional 

equipment, and older aircraft may not 

have it. Many of these aircraft are 

operated under part 91, and pilots 

operating under part 91 are currently 

allowed to upload these software 

updates in these aircraft. 

Assumptions and Sources of 

Information 

The primary sources of information 

were a part 135 operator that would be 

affected by the proposed rule and an 

aircraft electronics association 

representative. 

Costs of This Proposed Rule 

The FAA has preliminarily 

determined that there would be minimal 

costs imposed by the proposed rule 

because it would simply allow a pilot to 

upload the current Nav-System database 

that currently must be performed by a 

certificated mechanic or in a repair 

station. Thus, instead of having to call 

out a certificated mechanic or repair 

station, or even fly the aircraft to a 

certificated mechanic or repair station, 

the pilot could perform the update 

before the next flight. Time spent by the 

pilot uploading the current database 

software and completing the required 

records would be part of the pilot’s 

flight duty time for which the pilot 

would not receive additional 

compensation. 

Although the pilot would need to 

complete the paperwork demonstrating 

that the update had been performed, 

without the rule change, a certificated 

mechanic or repair station would still be 

required to complete the same 

paperwork. 

However, the FAA anticipates that the 

majority of these updates would 

continue to be completed by a 

certificated mechanic or repair station 

as part of the standard maintenance that 

the aircraft would undergo. 

Benefits of This Proposed Rule 

The Nav-System databases must be 

updated every 28 days. For certain part 

135 operators, there may be situations 

when the aircraft is being operated in 

remote areas and may not be scheduled 

to return to the home base for several 

days. Under those circumstances and 

the current rule, the part 135 operator 

would either have to make a positioning 

flight to the home base or to a repair 

station or transport a certificated 

mechanic to the aircraft. Estimates from 

an industry source indicate that the cost 

of a single positioning flight could range 

between $1,000 and $2,500 and that, 

depending upon the circumstances, the 

cost to transport a certified mechanic to 

an aircraft are similar. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. If the agency determines that it 

would, the agency must prepare an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the RFA. However, if an 

agency determines that a proposed rule 

is not expected to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, section 605(b) 

of the RFA provides that the head of the 

agency may so certify and a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. The 

certification must include a statement 

providing the factual basis for this 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
64864 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

determination, and the reasoning should 

be clear. 

The net effect of this proposed rule 

would be to provide regulatory cost 

relief. As this proposed rule would 

reduce costs for small entities, the FAA 

certifies that this proposed rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. We assessed the 

potential effect of this proposed rule 

and determined that it would not 

constitute an obstacle to the foreign 

commerce of the United States, and, 

thus, is consistent with the Trade 

Assessments Act. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation with the 

base year 1995) in any one year by state, 

local, and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$140.8 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore, the 

requirements of Title II do not apply to 

this proposal. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312(f) of the Order and 

involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, would not have Federalism 

implications. 

Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this document. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, explain 

the reason for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data. To 

ensure the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, commenters 

should send only one copy of written 

comments, or if comments are filed 

electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel about this 

proposed rulemaking. Before acting on 

this proposal, the FAA will consider all 

comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The agency may 

change this proposal in light of the 

comments it receives. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Commenters should not 

file proprietary or confidential business 

information in the docket. Such 

information must be sent or delivered 

directly to the person identified in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document, and marked as 

proprietary or confidential. If submitting 

information on a disc or Compact Disc 

Read-Only Memory (CD–ROM), mark 

the outside of the disc or CD–ROM, and 

identify electronically within the disc or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, the agency does not 

place it in the docket. It is held in a 

separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA processes such a request 

under Department of Transportation 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 43 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2011 / Proposed Rules 64865 

proposes to amend part 43 of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 43—MAINTENANCE, 

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, 

REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION 

1. The authority citation for part 43 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44703, 44705, 44707, 44711, 44713, 44717, 

44725. 

2. Amend § 43.3 by adding paragraph 

(k) to read as follows: 

§ 43.3 Persons authorized to perform 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

rebuilding, and alterations. 

* * * * * 

(k) The holder of a pilot certificate 

issued under part 61 of this chapter may 

perform updating of self-contained, 

front-instrument panel-mounted and 

pedestal-mounted air traffic control 

(ATC) navigational system databases 

(excluding those of automatic flight 

control systems, transponders, and 

microwave frequency distance 

measuring equipment (DME), and any 

updates that affect system operating 

software) provided— 

(1) No disassembly of the unit is 

required; 

(2) The pilot has written procedures 

available to perform and evaluate the 

accomplishment of the task; and 

(3) The database is contained in a 

field-loadable configuration and imaged 

on a medium, such as a Compact Disc 

Read-Only Memory (CD–ROM), 

Synchronous Dynamic Random-Access 

Memory (SDRAM), or other nonvolatile memory that contains database 

files that are non-corruptible upon 

loading, and where integrity of the load 

can be assured and verified by the pilot 

upon completing the loading sequences. 

(4) Records of when such database 

uploads have occurred, the revision 

number of the software, and who 

performed the upload must be 

maintained. 

(5) The data to be uploaded must not 

contain system operating software 

revisions. 

Appendix A to Part 43 [Amended] 

3. Amend Appendix A to part 43 by 

removing paragraph (c)(32). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 31, 

2011. 

John W. McGraw, 

Deputy Director, Flights Standards Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27036 Filed 10–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CPSC–2011–0078] 

16 CFR Chapter II 

Review of Commission’s Regulations; 

Request for Comments and 

Information 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Request for comments and 

information. 

SUMMARY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC’’ or ‘‘we’’) staff is 

considering the appropriate process and 

substance of a plan to review existing 

CPSC regulations. CPSC has conducted 

reviews of rules in the past and intends 

to build on that experience to develop 

a plan of review that also satisfies recent 

direction from President Obama, set 

forth in Executive Order 13579, 

‘‘Regulation and Independent 

Regulatory Agencies’’ (76 FR 41587 

(July 14, 2011)), which states that 

independent regulatory agencies should 

follow certain key principles when 

developing new regulations and should 

review existing significant regulations. 

To that end, Executive Order 13579 

(‘‘E.O. 13579’’) emphasizes the 

importance of retrospective analysis of 

rules and the need to develop a plan 

under which the agency will conduct 

periodic reviews of existing regulations. 

We invite comments on the issues 

discussed in this document to help us 

formulate a plan that builds on our past 

review efforts while incorporating the 

principles outlined in E.O. 13579. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

December 19, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2011– 

0078, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (e-mail), except through 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of 

the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided to: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

electronically. Such information should 

be submitted in writing and marked as 

confidential. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert J. Howell, Deputy Executive 

Director for Safety Operations, U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, 

Maryland 20814; telephone (301) 504– 

7621; e-mail rhowell@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Previous Review Programs 

1. The Systematic Review Program 

(2004 to 2007) 

In 2004, CPSC began a program to 

review existing regulations. This review 

resulted from an initiative by the Office 

of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’), 

the Program Assessment Rating Tool 

(‘‘PART’’), which was intended to 

provide a consistent approach to rating 

programs across the federal government. 

OMB recommended that the CPSC 

develop a plan to systematically review 

its regulations to ensure consistency 

among them in accomplishing program 

goals. In fiscal year (FY) 2004, we 

conducted a pilot review program as the 

initial step in implementing that 

recommendation. The notice 

announcing the pilot program appeared 

in the Federal Register on January 28, 

2004 (69 FR 4095), and we continued 

the program for several years thereafter 

(see 70 FR 18338 (April 11, 2005); 71 FR 

32882 (June 7, 2006); 72 FR 40265 (July 

24, 2007)). 

The rule review focused on 

determining whether the CPSC’s 

regulations were: 

• Consistent with CPSC’s program 

goals; 

• Consistent with other CPSC 

regulations; 

• Current with respect to technology, 

economic, or market conditions, and 

other mandatory or voluntary standards; 

and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS