Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71089 

(vii) For main rotor hub, P/N 70070– 

10046–055, establish a life limit of 5,100 

hours TIS. 

(viii) For main rotor blade, P/N 70080– 

15001–041, establish a life limit of 5,000 

hours TIS. 

(ix) For tail rotor blade, P/N 70080–15002– 

041, establish a life limit of 5,000 hours TIS. 

(x) For main rotor blade, P/N 70080– 

15003–041, establish a life limit of 5,000 

hours TIS. 

(xi) For tail rotor blades, P/N 70080– 

15004–041 and P/N 70080–15005–041, 

establish a life limit of 5,000 hours TIS. 

(xii) For main landing gear shock strut 

piston assembly, P/N 70250–12067–102, 

establish a life limit of 9,000 hours TIS. 

(xiii) For Number 2 crossfeed breakaway 

valve, P/N 70307–03600–103, establish a life 

limit of 1,500 hours TIS; 

(xiv) For main module planetary carrier 

assembly, P/N 70351–08175–043, –044, and 

–045, establish a life limit of 1,400 hours TIS; 

and for P/N 70351–08175–046 establish a life 

limit of 12,000 hours TIS. 

(xv) For dowel pins, P/N 70351–08404– 

101, –102, and –103 on main transmission 

housings, P/N 70351–08110–044 and –045, 

establish a life limit of 3,000 hours TIS; for 

dowel pins, P/N 70351–08404–101, –102, 

–103, and –104 on main transmission 

housings, P/N 70351–28110–043 and –044, 

establish a life limit of 7,300 hours TIS; for 

dowel pins, P/N 70351–08404–101, –103, 

and –104, on main transmission housings, 

P/N 70351–38110–043, –044, and –045, 

establish a life limit of 11,000 hours TIS. 

(xvi) For dowel pin, flight control support 

mounting to main transmission housing, P/N 

70531–04805–101, 70531–04805–102, and 

70531–08405–103, establish a life limit of 

3,000 hours TIS. 

(xvii) For dowel pin, flight control support 

mounting to transmission case, P/N 70351– 

28404–101, on main transmission housings, 

P/N 70351–08110–044 and –045, reduce the 

life limit from 4,300 hours TIS to 3,000 hours 

TIS. 

(xviii) For main module planetary carrier 

assembly, P/N 70351–38175–041, establish a 

life limit of 6,500 hours TIS. 

(xvix) For dowel pin, flight control support 

mounting to transmission case, P/N 70351– 

38404–101, on main transmission housings, 

P/N 70351–38110–043, –044, and –045, 

reduce the life limit from 20,000 hours TIS 

to 11,000 hours TIS. 

(xx) For the tail rotor servo, P/N 70410– 

06520–044, –045, and –046, establish a life 

limit of 15,000 hours TIS. 

(2) Remove from service any part with a 

number of hours time-in-service equal to or 

greater than the part’s retirement life as 

stated in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. 

(f) Special Flight Permit 

Special flight permits to allow flight in 

excess of life limits will not be issued. 

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOC) 

(1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft 

Certification Office, FAA, may approve 

AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: 

Michael Davison, Flight Test Engineer, New 

England Regional Office, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

phone: (781) 238–7156; email: 

michael.davison@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under 14 CFR 

part 119 operating certificate or under 14 

CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you 

notify your principal inspector, or lacking a 

principal inspector, the manager of the local 

flight standards district office or certificate 

holding district office before operating any 

aircraft complying with this AD through an 

AMOC. 

(h) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Codes: 7921 Engine Oil Cooler, 6210 Main 

Rotor Blades, 6320 Tail Rotor Head, 6410 

Tail Rotor Blades, 6720 Tail Rotor Control 

System, 3213 Main Landing Gear Strut/Axle/ 

Truck, 2824 Fuel Transfer Valve, and 1430 

Fasteners. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 

2, 2012. 

Kim Smith, 

Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–28427 Filed 11–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 43 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0763; Amendment 

No. 43–45] 

RIN 2120–AJ91 

Pilot Loading of Aeronautical Database 

Updates 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action amends the 

maintenance regulations by removing 

from the preventive maintenance 

category the task of updating databases 

used in self-contained, front-panel or 

pedestal-mounted navigation 

equipment. Further, we are adding text 

to the maintenance regulations that 

describes which equipment and, under 

which conditions, may have 

aeronautical databases updated by pilots 

as a non-maintenance function. 

Equipment which does not meet the 

criteria outlined in the new regulation 

will continue to be updated as a 

maintenance function. This revision 

will ensure that pilots using specified 

avionics equipment have the most 

current and accurate data and thereby 

increase aviation safety. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective 

January 28, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions about this 

rulemaking action, contact Chris Parfitt, 

Flight Standards Service, Aircraft 

Maintenance Division—Avionics 

Maintenance Branch, AFS–360, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024; 

telephone (202) 385–6398; facsimile 

(202) 385–6474; email 

chris.parfitt@faa.gov. 

For legal questions about this action, 

contact Viola M. Pando, Office of the 

Chief Counsel, International Law, 

Legislation, and Regulations Division— 

Policy and Adjudication Branch, AGC– 

210, Federal Aviation Administration, 

800 Independence Ave. SW., 

Washington DC 20591; telephone (202) 

493–5293; email viola.pando@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 

106 describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 

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

section 44711(a)(2). In section 

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

prescribing regulations and minimum 

standards in the interest of safety for the 

manner of servicing of aircraft 

appliances. In section 44703(b)(1)(D), 

the FAA is charged with specifying the 

capacity in which the holder of a 

certificate may serve as an airman with 

respect to an aircraft. Section 

44711(a)(2) prohibits any person from 

serving in any capacity as an airman 

with respect to a civil aircraft or aircraft 

appliance used, or intended for use, in 

air commerce without an airman 

certificate authorizing the airman to 

serve in the capacity for which the 

certificate was issued. This regulation is 

within the scope of the cited authority. 

I. Overview of the Final Rule 

This final rule allows all pilots 

operating aircraft equipped with 

certificated avionics equipment as 

described herein to perform updates of 

aeronautical databases. In 1996, the 

FAA updated the regulations defining 

preventive maintenance to include 

updating the navigation database of selfcontained, front-panel or pedestalmounted navigation equipment. This 

allowed the holder of a pilot certificate 

issued under part 61 to perform the 

database upload on any aircraft owned 

or operated by that pilot not used under 

parts 121, 129, or 135 (hereafter refered 

to as ‘‘restricted operations’’). The safety 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
71090 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

record established by pilots performing 

those database updates, the evolution of 

installed avionics equipment, and the 

expansion of database use in avionics 

equipment installed in all classes of 

certificated aircraft have prompted 

changes put into effect by this final rule. 

In both the 1996 final rule and the 

NPRM issued for this final rule, the term 

‘‘navigation database’’ was used. To 

create harmonization with existing 

guidance (i.e., Advisory Circular AC 20– 

153, Paragraph 7—Definitions), the term 

‘‘navigation database’’ is changed to 

‘‘aeronautical database’’ in the 

discussion of this final rule. 

This final rule recognizes the installed 

avionics equipment, the media upon 

which databases are stored, and the 

means by which databases are uploaded 

to the avionics equipment have evolved, 

and they will continue to do so. 

Accordingly, language such as ‘‘* * * 

self-contained, front-panel or pedestalmounted navigation equipment * * *’’ 

used in the 1996 final rule has been 

eliminated and replaced by conditions 

which will enable a pilot or operator to 

determine which equipment may have 

aeronautical databases updated by a 

pilot. 

II. Background 

The navigation equipment most 

prevalent in 1996 can, for the sake of 

discussion, be divided into two 

categories. 

Large transport category aircraft were 

typically equipped with Flight 

Management Systems that were 

comprised of a Control Display Unit on 

the flight deck and a Flight Management 

Computer in the electronics bay. These 

systems were typically updated using a 

portable dataloader which was 

connected to the system via a remote 

connector. These systems required the 

trained skills and knowledge of 

authorized maintenance personnel to 

perform the update. 

Some avionics manufacturers had also 

been manufacturing systems that 

performed similar functions as those 

installed on the large transport aircraft, 

but those systems were small, selfcontained units typically installed on 

the front panel or pedestal in the flight 

deck of smaller transport category and 

general aviation aircraft. These systems 

stored their database on removable 

media, such as a Secure Digital (SD) 

card, rather than in resident memory. 

The database update was accomplished 

by removing the SD card with the old 

database and replacing it with the SD 

card containing the new database. 

On May 1, 1996, the FAA issued 

regulations (61 FR 19498) categorizing 

pilot-performed updates of navigation 

databases as preventive maintenance. 

Pilots operating aircraft under parts 121, 

129, and 135 by regulation are not 

permitted to perform preventive 

maintenance, and therefore, those pilots 

could not update navigation databases. 

The FAA determined at that time that 

navigation database updates presented 

some risk when performed by a pilot on 

a part 121, 129, or 135 aircraft because 

they were typically equipped with more 

sophisticated equipment that required 

special tools (a portable dataloader) and 

skills to update. However, as a result of 

pilot-performed updates, pilots of 

aircraft used in non-restricted 

operations received the benefit of 

having the most current aeronautical 

data available at all times. Much like 

this final rule, the 1996 final rule was 

the FAA’s first step toward bringing the 

regulations up to date with technology. 

Since implementation of the 1996 

final rule, the FAA regularly receives 

petitions for exemption from parts 121, 

129, and 135 operators requesting relief 

from the requirement for authorized 

personnel to perform database updates. 

The FAA has considered the history of 

successful and easily-performed, 

incident-free pilot updates of databases 

established on aircraft used in nonrestricted operations. As a result, the 

FAA has determined that safety-based 

reasons no longer exist to justify the 

requirements for authorized 

maintenance personnel to perform 

database updates on aircraft based upon 

a regulatory operating part rather than 

by the design of the installed avionics 

equipment. 

A. Statement of the Problem 

Since implementation of the 1996 

final rule, installed avionics equipment 

has continued to evolve. Manufacturers 

developed systems for large transport 

category aircraft that make use of a 

permanently-installed dataloader as part 

of the certificated system. These systems 

eliminate the need for use of special 

tools (portable dataloaders) to initiate a 

database update. 

Similar systems, and the selfcontained systems discussed above, 

have come into prevalent use on smaller 

aircraft, from general aviation aircraft to 

business jets. Under current regulations, 

a pilot operating such an aircraft under 

part 91 may update databases, while a 

pilot of the same type of aircraft with 

the same installed avionics equipment 

operated under parts 121, 129, or 135 

cannot update databases. 

At this time, newly-manufactured 

aircraft—such as the Boeing 787, Airbus 

A380, and others—are equipped with 

technology such as the Gatelink system 

which enables wireless updating of 

systems and databases. The current 

regulation does not accommodate such 

advances in technology; this final rule 

does. While the FAA recognizes the 

need to allow for future technologies, 

the FAA also recognizes its inability at 

this time to predict what those 

technologies may be. As such, 

certification of future systems must 

include evaluation of the methods, 

means, and materials required for 

performing aeronautical database 

updates. Such equipment must be 

designed and certified in a manner that 

allows clear determination by a pilot or 

operator of whether or not the system 

can be updated by a pilot under this 

final rule, or must be updated by 

authorized maintenance personnel. 

The current requirement for 

authorized personnel to perform 

updates, as it applies to avionics 

equipment described in this final rule, 

can no longer be justified based on 

safety concerns. It imposes unnecessary 

operating costs and operational 

inefficiencies on certificate holders 

conducting operations under parts 121, 

129, and 135. To comply with operating 

regulations, such as those under part 

91.503, these operators must ensure the 

required database is current. Updates 

are performed within a prescribed cycle 

to ensure currency, which is not always 

possible if the database expires when 

the aircraft is away from the home base 

or at a station where authorized 

maintenance personnel are not 

available. Operational costs are 

increased for the certificate holder 

whenever an aeronautical database 

expires while the aircraft is en route. If 

the aircraft is en route and located 

where authorized personnel are not 

available to perform the update, the 

operator has three options: (1) Operate 

the aircraft with an expired database, (2) 

reroute the aircraft to an authorized 

repair station, or (3) transport an 

authorized mechanic to the aircraft’s 

location. Each of these options imposes 

additional operational costs in terms of 

operational restrictions, manpower and 

fuel consumption. 

If the aircraft is operated with an 

expired database, the pilot must adhere 

to operational restrictions, which 

automatically prohibits the use of 

certain routes within the National 

Airspace System, resulting in the use of 

a less direct route to the destination. If 

the aircraft is rerouted to a repair 

station, or authorized personnel are 

transported to the aircraft’s location, the 

operator must absorb the costs of 

additional fuel consumption, and 

valuable time can be lost locating 

mechanics and transporting them to the 

aircraft. This is particularly true for 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71091 

operations conducted in remote areas 

where traveling greater distances to 

repair stations would be required. 

Exercising any one of the above-noted 

options increases the pilot’s workload 

by requiring the selection of alternate 

routes appropriate for an expired 

database. Air traffic controller 

workloads are also increased when the 

aircraft is re-routed because certain 

routes are only available to aircraft 

using the current database for any given 

period. At a minimum, the operator 

must facilitate the transport of 

authorized personnel to the location of 

the aircraft. Eliminating the requirement 

for approved personnel will increase 

operational efficiency for certificate 

holders and contribute to reduced air 

traffic control and pilot workloads. 

The stated problem is that the 

regulations have fallen behind 

technology and fail to address the 

pervasive use of installed avionics 

dependent upon aeronautical databases. 

This final rule acknowledges the 

evolution of technology by removing the 

task of pilot-performed updates of 

databases in certain installed avionics 

from the preventive maintenance 

regulations and by allowing pilotperformed updates of databases in 

accordance with new regulatory 

requirements. Differences between this 

final rule and its NPRM are the result of 

the recommendations made by 

commenters in response to the NPRM, 

which are discussed in greater detail 

below. 

A benefit from the final rule will be 

a reduction in the FAA’s issuance of 

grants of exemption to parts 121, 129, 

and 135 certificate holders seeking relief 

from the requirement for authorized 

maintenance personnel to perform the 

updating task. The FAA’s workload has 

been impacted by the regular receipt of 

petitions for exemption requesting that 

pilots be allowed to perform updates. 

The increased workload has impacted 

the FAA’s ability to more efficiently 

process petitions for exemption. 

Delaying the issuance of a justified 

exemption, where safety is not 

compromised, forces eligible certificate 

holders to continue paying for 

unnecessary services by authorized 

personnel and bear the resulting 

operational inefficiencies and increased 

costs. This final rule resolves these 

issues by eliminating the requirement 

for parts 121, 129, and 135 operators to 

use authorized personnel to update 

databases in the avionics equipment 

described herein. 

B. Summary of the NPRM 

The FAA proposed to amend the part 

43 maintenance regulations in the 

NPRM (76 FR 64859, October 19, 2011), 

by removing the task of updating 

databases used in self-contained, frontpanel or pedestal-mounted navigational 

equipment from the preventive 

maintenance category. The primary 

intended effect of the proposal was to 

enable regular use of the most current 

and accurate navigational data by 

allowing pilots using navigation units to 

perform database updates as they 

became due. Specific regulatory text 

was included to restrict the type of 

equipment eligible for pilot-performed 

updates, including requirements for the 

pilot to receive appropriate training and 

to verify the upload status to determine 

if minimum equipment list (MEL) 

restrictions need to be followed. 

C. Differences Between NPRM and Final 

Rule 

The final rule represents a departure 

from the NPRM in terms of the 

description of the equipment eligible for 

pilot-performed updates. In addition, 

the regulatory text has been modified 

from the originally-proposed text to 

permit pilot-performed updates on all 

certificated aircraft upon compliance 

with the certificate holder’s procedures 

or the manufacturer’s instructions. The 

changes from those proposed in the 

NPRM arose directly from suggestions 

made by commenters in response to the 

NPRM. 

D. Overview of Comments Received 

The comment period for the NPRM 

closed on December 19, 2011. We 

received comments from 52 commenters 

raising a total of seven substantive 

issues. Commenters to the NPRM 

represented aviation associations, 

manufacturers of avionics equipment, 

aircraft operators, owners, and other 

individuals. The commenters, in 

general, expressed support for the 

proposed rule change. Some 

commenters supplied alternative 

recommendations, as discussed more 

fully in the ‘‘Discussion of the Final 

Rule’’ below. 

The FAA received comments 

regarding the following proposals: 

• Relocation of the requirement from 

14 CFR part 43 to other CFR parts (since 

performing the updates would no longer 

be preventive maintenance); 

• Recordkeeping requirements; 

• Training for pilots; 

• Technological advancements in 

data-transfer mechanisms and methods; 

• Limitation on types of media that 

could be used for storing data; 

• Inconsistent references to terrain 

databases; and 

• Possible labor-management issues. 

III. Discussion of the Final Rule 

The final rule is consistent with the 

NPRM to the extent that they both 

authorize pilot-performed updates on all 

certificated aircraft operating under 

parts 121, 129, and 135. 

Performing database updates on 

avionics systems that require tools or 

special equipment to accomplish the 

data transfer continues to be 

maintenance and requires that approved 

personnel perform the update. 

Upon issuance of this rule, all pilots 

operating appropriately-equipped 

aircraft will be permitted to perform 

database updates in accordance with the 

certificate holder’s or manufacturer’s 

instructions. To comply with the 

requirements of 14 CFR 43.3(k)(iv) and 

(v), the certificate holder will be 

required to revise the existing 

procedures for updating the database in 

its manual. This information will 

replace or augment the operator’s 

existing database updating procedures. 

Pilot-owners of general aviation aircraft 

will be required to include the 

manufacturer’s instructions in their 

pilot’s handbook or flight manual. 

Requirements and procedures for 

performing database updates are 

established by the aircraft or avionics 

manufacturer in coordination with the 

FAA at the time of certification for its 

use on the aircraft. If a manufacturer 

designs a system that an aircraft owner 

or operator would determine meets the 

criteria for pilot-performed updates of 

databases under the conditions of the 

rule but, due to system criticality or 

other factors, that system should only be 

updated by authorized maintenance 

personnel, the manufacturer must 

specify that requirement in its 

instructions for continued airworthiness 

(ICA). The ICAs that include these 

procedures will be accepted by the 

FAA. 

Under the final rule, if performing an 

update would require special access to 

installed equipment, or use of tools or 

special equipment, then the task must 

still be performed by authorized 

personnel under the provisions of part 

43 as maintenance, and all pertinent 

maintenance regulations would apply. 

Operators may continue to use 

authorized maintenance personnel or 

facilities to perform the database 

updates even if the avionics meet the 

criteria of this rule. 

Commenters, including Garmin 

International (‘‘Garmin’’) and the 

Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA), 

stated that the proposal to remove 

database updates from the preventive 

maintenance category, without placing 

them in another category, would have 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
71092 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

resulted in database updates becoming 

maintenance tasks. The commenters 

asserted that doing so would place more 

burdens on operators. 

We considered the commenters’ 

concerns and determined that the 

problem they identify can be resolved 

by drafting § 43.3(k) differently. We 

have removed paragraph (c)(32) of 

Appendix A to part 43, which pertains 

to updating navigation databases of 

certain equipment installed on aircraft 

operated under non-restricted operating 

regulations. Updating aeronautical 

databases will not be regulated as 

maintenance on specified equipment in 

accordance with the requirements set 

forth under the new paragraph (k) in 

§ 43.3. Updating databases of other 

installed avionics has been, and will 

continue to be, conducted as 

maintenance under part 43. 

An anonymous commenter 

recommended that regulations relating 

to updating databases should be placed 

under the applicable operating parts 

(i.e., parts 121, 129, and 135) as 

preflight duties and should also require 

pilot training. In general, we rejected 

these recommendations because 

specified avionics systems are approved 

for use on all certificated aircraft 

regardless of the regulations under 

which the aircraft is operated. The 

intended effect of this rule change is to 

regulate pilot-performed database 

updates by installed avionics equipment 

type, rather than by the operating 

regulations under which flights are 

conducted. 

Several commenters, including 

Garmin, the Aircraft Electronics 

Association (AEA), NetJets, and the 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

(AOPA), stated that a definition for 

databases approved for pilot-performed 

updates would, in effect, create a barrier 

to the use of newer technology and 

would restrict the selection of databases 

approved for use during pilot-performed 

updates to those approved under the 

1996 final rule, namely navigation and 

communication. AOPA suggested that 

the FAA should write the rule to 

accommodate later developments in 

database capabilities. These commenters 

recommended we adopt the definition 

of ‘‘aeronautical database’’ contained in 

AC 20–153A. Along the same lines, one 

commenter recommended that the FAA 

should define ‘‘[air traffic control] ATC 

navigational software data’’ because 

today many databases include active 

terrain and obstacle information. 

We agree. To address this concern, 

aeronautical information service 

databases will be authorized for use at 

the time of certification in accordance 

with guidance provided in AC 20–153A. 

The rule will not limit database use 

based on subject-matter descriptions, 

unlike the 1996 final rule, which 

specifically addressed ATC navigational 

software, thereby limiting database use 

to that single subject matter. 

Universal Avionics, Honeywell 

International, Inc. (‘‘Honeywell’’), and 

Garmin stated that the description used 

in the NPRM for approved nav-systems 

would exclude the use of newer systems 

and data-transfer mechanisms such as 

those employing wireless technology. In 

the NPRM, we used the term ‘‘navsystems’’ to describe aeronautical 

information avionics devices that are 

self-contained, front instrument panelmounted ATC navigational software 

database systems. 

The FAA agrees with these 

commenters. It is our intention for this 

rule to be equipment based and allow 

accommodation of emerging technology. 

Therefore, we have changed the 

description of the avionics devices that 

will be eligible for pilot-performed 

updates. The NPRM used the same 

description provided in the 1996 final 

rule, basically, ‘‘self-contained, front 

instrument panel-mounted and 

pedestal-mounted ATC navigational 

system databases—excluding those of 

automatic flight control systems, 

transponders, and microwave frequency 

distance measuring equipment (DME), 

and any updates that affect system 

operating software—that require no 

disassembly.’’ In this final rule, we are 

approving pilot-performed updates of 

installed avionics if the equipment is 

approved by the Administrator and does 

not require the use of tools or special 

equipment. Data-transfer mechanisms, 

database storage media, and usable 

subject databases will be determined by 

the FAA and manufacturer at the time 

the device is certificated for use on the 

aircraft. 

These same commenters and some 

other commenters, expressed concern 

about system integrity in terms of how 

data would be protected with the newer 

avionics. This rule does not address the 

manufacture of avionics equipment or 

the development of usable databases, 

and, as such, protection of data integrity 

goes beyond the scope of this rule. 

Nonetheless, we note that new 

technologies approved for use on 

aircraft will be developed with attention 

to data integrity. Current technology 

uses databases which are developed in 

accordance with standards developed 

by Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC), 

which has been the world standard 

since 1975. These standards have 

proven effective in preserving data 

integrity. Moreover, protection for the 

integrity of the system and data will 

continue to be addressed under existing 

regulations by applicable design, 

production, installation, and 

certification approvals. In all cases, the 

FAA will work with the manufacturer to 

ensure the highest level of integrity for 

aeronautical data and data-transfer 

mechanisms. 

Another individual commenter stated 

that the phrase used in the NPRM ‘‘files 

that are ‘non-corruptible’ upon 

loading,’’ is very confusing. We agree, 

the phrase ‘‘files that are noncorruptible, upon loading’’ is confusing 

and we have omitted this language from 

the final rule. To address the same issue 

with greater clarity, the final rule 

requires that to be eligible for pilotperformed updating, written procedures 

must be provided to the pilot 

performing the updates. Those 

procedures will identify the status 

verification function as defined by the 

system manufacturer. 

One individual commenter asked 

when updates can be installed and/or 

used. The commenter stated that 

whether disks are mailed to the user or 

downloaded, they are available about 10 

days before the due dates. In this matter, 

the pilot-operator performs the update 

in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

instructions, which should address any 

limitations, or contact the manufacturer 

if the instructions do not address the 

point to inquire whether loading the 

updated database prior to the effective 

date would negatively impact system 

performance. 

Several commenters, including AOPA 

and NetJets, were concerned about the 

requirement for the pilot to record each 

update in a maintenance logbook. 

AOPA expressed concern that the 

NPRM proposed a requirement that 

would create a second recordkeeping 

requirement and that the return to 

service maintenance entry required by 

§ 43.7 would need to be completed by 

‘‘qualified personnel.’’ NetJets 

recommended that the FAA specifically 

state in the final rule preamble that no 

aircraft maintenance entries or 

signatures are required when pilots 

perform aeronautical database updates. 

We have considered the comments and 

agree that it is unnecessary for the pilot 

to make a record of the update. 

Recordkeeping requirements for the 

pilot have been eliminated. The current 

regulations do not require pilot-owners 

to record each update in a maintenance 

logbook, and the absence of such a 

requirement has not been problematic. 

Honeywell and NetJets suggested that 

the FAA focus on the device used to 

provide aeronautical information 

services instead of how the device is 

installed (i.e., ‘‘self-contained, frontVerDate Mar<15>2010 13:45 Nov 28, 2012 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\29NOR1.SGM 29NOR1

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71093 

instrument panel-mounted and 

pedestal-mounted’’). The commenters 

were not as concerned with how the 

device was installed as with how the 

device received data uploads. This point 

was captured by one commenter who 

stated, ‘‘[A]lthough most of the systems 

have cards that are accessible from the 

‘front’ of the unit, they [can] also have 

[a] system that updates by accessing 

data stored on a ‘medium’ read by a 

Data Transfer Unit (DTU), and DTUs can 

be installed almost anywhere in the 

aircraft [sic].’’ 

We agree. Data-transfer mechanism 

designs are constantly evolving. In 1996, 

floppy disks inserted in portable 

dataloaders externally connected to the 

processor were commonly used to 

update databases. Today, floppy disks 

are still used in those installed systems 

that have not been replaced, but floppy 

disks are not used by currentlyproduced systems. Instead, we see the 

pervasive use of permanently installed 

data-transfer mechanisms. These 

mechanisms can include a slot for an SD 

card, an installed dataloader, or even 

wireless technology. Pilots will not be 

permitted to update databases of 

installed avionics that use portable 

dataloaders such as those used with the 

older navigational systems installed on 

large transport category aircraft. 

We have extended the rule to allow 

all certificated data-transfer 

mechanisms, but we specifically 

exclude means of data transfer that 

require physical connection to installed 

equipment such as portable dataloaders 

and laptops. 

The National Air Transportation 

Association (NATA) stated, ‘‘When the 

FAA proposes new regulations affecting 

air carrier aircraft that require actions by 

authorized maintenance personnel, the 

agency does not consider as a benefit 

the fact that certificated mechanics and 

repair stations will get more work. 

Therefore doing the opposite, 

considering, as a cost, the loss of 

business when the FAA deems a 

requirement is no longer applicable or 

necessary, should not occur either.’’ 

The FAA concurs. The FAA merely 

noted that the rule could affect certain 

parties. The FAA did not state that such 

effects are a cost of the rule and did not 

ascribe any such cost to the final rule. 

It bears noting that this rule is 

permissive; thus, certificate holders are 

not required to approve pilot-performed 

updates on their operations. 

The Air Line Pilots Association 

(ALPA) submitted the only direct 

objection to this rulemaking for labormanagement reasons. The objections are 

set forth below followed by our 

response. 

ALPA stated that because of the high 

level of safety achieved by commercial 

aviation, airline travel in the U.S. and 

Canada has been accomplished by the 

use of highly trained professionals and 

technical specialists performing their 

respective tasks in a coordinated and 

disciplined fashion. ALPA contends 

that the proposal would make airline 

pilots responsible for certain additional 

aircraft maintenance and maintenance 

recordation functions that should 

continue to be properly performed by 

maintenance and ground support 

personnel. 

We agree that this final rule will give 

operators the option to impose the 

additional responsibility to perform the 

update on pilots. However, the pilotperformed updates are allowed only on 

avionics equipment where the process 

of updating is simplified to a point 

where it can be performed quickly and 

easily. Significantly, database uploads 

that require the special skills or training 

or the use of tools or special equipment 

will continue to be a maintenance task 

that authorized personnel must perform. 

In addition, as discussed below, we 

have removed all recordkeeping 

requirements for pilots who perform 

these updates. We do not agree with 

implicit concern that allowing pilotperformed updates in any way 

diminishes safety. As we discussed 

earlier, at the certification level 

continuing measures will be taken to 

ensure that safety will not be 

compromised. Also, as stated earlier, the 

FAA has not received any incident 

reports stating that a pilot’s failure to 

make a maintenance logbook entry for 

performing the database update has had 

any impact on aviation safety. 

ALPA also contends that the 

philosophical shift in airline operational 

tasks and definitions of employee roles, 

which this rulemaking represents, 

would give rise to a number of issues 

that would negatively impact airline 

pilots and justify rejection. ALPA stated 

airline operations depend on quick turnarounds for on-time departures. Giving 

pilots an additional task in the form of 

updating navigational systems while 

they endeavor to achieve an on-time 

departure would create additional time 

pressure and could result in greater 

risks of errors in all cockpit duties. 

We note the final rule is permissive in 

nature. Operators have the option to 

require that maintenance personnel 

perform the database updates. However, 

we again emphasize that pilotperformed updates on applicable 

avionics equipment is a very simple task 

that will take only a couple minutes to 

perform, as the system is largely 

automated. 

ALPA also states that pilots would 

assume a new and additional 

responsibility for which no training is 

approved, including: (1) Obtaining the 

storage media from someone within the 

company in a timely fashion, (2) 

safeguarding the media while in their 

possession so that it is not lost, stolen, 

or damaged, (3) properly loading the 

updates into the nav-system, (4) 

recording the updates in maintenance 

logs and/or other documents, and (5) 

returning the storage media to the 

appropriate individual within the 

company when the update is completed, 

as required. 

Whether training is required will be a 

determination made by the FAA, the 

operator, and the manufacturer. In any 

case, minimal training will be necessary 

because of the nature of the equipment, 

and the pilot’s current familiarity with 

the system. Media-storage issues have 

not changed and will continue to be the 

certificate holder’s responsibility as the 

subscriber to the database service, and 

thus, the operator would be responsible 

for providing the updates to the pilot. 

Protection of the data would not require 

special skills or action because data is 

stored on media similar to an SD card 

or flash drive. Further, post-update 

security is not an issue because the data 

on the storage media would have no 

useable value. Finally, we have 

eliminated the proposal to have 

recordkeeping requirements. We 

therefore believe the concerns raised by 

ALPA have all been addressed. 

ALPA states that provisions in current 

collective-bargaining agreements could 

make the assumption of the 

responsibility for updating aeronautical 

data impossible for pilots at a particular 

carrier, as updating may not be included 

within the scope of pilots’ 

responsibilities. At a minimum, this 

proposal could result in labormanagement contention. 

We do not believe the FAA’s role is 

to intervene between management, 

labor, and collective-bargaining units on 

issues arising from a permissive 

rulemaking. Should issues arise related 

to compliance or concerning FAA 

expectations with this final rule, we 

would provide guidance or legal 

interpretation upon request. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct that each Federal agency shall 

propose or adopt a regulation only upon 

a reasoned determination that the 

benefits of the intended regulation 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
71094 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory 

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

requires agencies to analyze the 

economic impact of regulatory changes 

on small entities. Third, the Trade 

Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96–39) 

prohibits agencies from setting 

standards that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. In developing U.S. 

standards, this Trade Act requires 

agencies to consider international 

standards and, where appropriate, that 

they be the basis of U.S. standards. 

Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires 

agencies to prepare a written assessment 

of the costs, benefits, and other effects 

of proposed or final rules that include 

a federal mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by state, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation with 

base year of 1995). This portion of the 

preamble summarizes the FAA’s 

analysis of the economic impacts of this 

rule. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

determined that this rule: (1) Has 

benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not 

an economically ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, (3) is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures, (4) 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, (5) will not create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States, and (6) will not impose 

an unfunded mandate on state, local, or 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector by exceeding the threshold 

identified above. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

allows that a statement to that effect and 

the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made on 

this rule for the following reasons: 

The rule is permissive in nature and 

will provide relief to all operators of 

certificated aircraft who elect to allow 

pilot-performed updates, rather than to 

pay for services of an authorized repair 

station or mechanic. The rule eliminates 

the requirement that only repair stations 

and authorized mechanics can perform 

database updates and allows pilots to 

perform the update on avionics 

equipment approved by the 

Administrator and described herein. 

Allowing pilots to perform the updates 

will save the operator the expense of 

either making a positioning flight to a 

repair station or transporting an 

authorized mechanic to the aircraft to 

perform the update. Public comments 

on the proposed rule supported this 

change and there were no contrary 

comments to the economic analysis in 

the Regulatory Evaluation. 

Using the cost information supplied 

by commenters, who provided the only 

available data for assessing the impact 

of this rule, the FAA has determined 

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and this 

rule is not ‘‘significant’’ as defined in 

DOT’s Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures. 

B. Total Estimated Benefits and Costs of 

This Final Rule 

The two benefits from this rule will 

arise from increased safety and reduced 

operational costs. The primary safety 

benefit is that affected aircraft operators 

will no longer be forced to occasionally 

operate aircraft without the most current 

aeronautical database when the database 

expires and authorized personnel are 

not available to perform the update. A 

corollary safety benefit is a reduction in 

workloads for pilots and air traffic 

controllers, which accrues a benefit to 

the aircraft operator and to air traffic 

control. As previously discussed, the 

use of avionics systems contributes to 

increased safety in four respects: (1) By 

providing the pilot with accurate 

aeronautical information; (2) by 

increasing access to airports under less 

than optimal flight conditions; (3) by 

increasing workforce efficiency for both 

the aircraft pilot and air traffic control; 

and (4) by generating more efficient use 

of the airspace system. 

Avionics systems databases are 

generally updated every 28 days, 

although some are updated as often as 

every 14 days. The current regulations 

allow only pilots of aircraft operated 

under non-restricted operating 

regulations to perform the database 

update; all other operators (i.e. those 

operating under parts 121, 129 and 135) 

must have an authorized repair station 

or mechanic perform the update. This 

requirement creates a problem for 

operations conducted under part 121, 

129, 135 and other restricted operators 

if the database expires when the aircraft 

is en route or at a remote location and 

authorized personnel are not available 

to perform the update. If the database 

expires, the aircraft operator/pilot has 

one of three choices: (1) Fly the aircraft 

to a location where authorized 

personnel are available; (2) fly 

authorized personnel to the aircraft; or 

(3) operate the aircraft under MEL 

restrictions, which limits the pilot’s 

options in terms of routes flown and 

airport accessibility. Each of the three 

options results in added operational 

costs in terms of man-hours and 

additional and increased fuel costs. 

Reducing the number of unnecessary 

aircraft operations conducted due to an 

expired database eliminates increased 

pilot and ATC workloads associated 

with re-vectoring flights or transporting 

authorized personnel to perform 

updates. 

One commenter reported that its 

airplanes averaged 1.25 operations a 

year per aircraft under MEL because the 

aeronautical database upload had to be 

deferred until the aircraft could reach a 

repair station. Another commenter 

reported that its fleet of 12 aircraft had 

to operate between 10 and 15 times a 

year flying under MEL because 

certificated maintenance personnel were 

unavailable at the remote location 

where the aircraft was when the 

aeronautical database needed to be 

updated. 

Pilots of non-restricted operations 

have been performing database updates 

on these types of avionics systems since 

1996 and the FAA knows of no 

accidents or incidents attributable to 

errors by these pilots from performing 

these updates. Today, aircraft operated 

under all parts of the regulations are 

regularly equipped with avionics 

systems whose database update 

procedures are similar to those used by 

pilots who perform database updates on 

aircraft in non-restricted operations. The 

ease of pilot-performed updates 

combined with the absence of any 

accidents or incidents provides ample 

evidence that all pilots flying aircraft 

equipped with appropriate avionics 

devices should be permitted to perform 

updates. Consequently, allowing pilots 

of restricted operations to perform 

updates will reduce the numbers of 

route-restricted flights required by 

reason of an expired database. 

The second benefit will be cost 

savings to the operators. Allowing their 

pilots to update aeronautical databases 

eliminates the costs associated with 

paying authorized personnel to perform 

the task and the costs of a positioning 

flight to a repair station, or transporting 

a certificated mechanic to the aircraft to 

install the update. In practice, the costs 

of having authorized personnel perform 

database updates are minimal because 

the task would be performed concurrent 

with a number or other tasks as part of 

a maintenance service. Even when done 

specifically to update the database, the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 71095 

cost is relatively small. This conclusion 

is supported by reports received from 

commenters stating that the rule would 

generate such cost savings. However, 

only one commenter provided an 

estimate of the cost of a positioning 

flight, which was an average of $7,700 

from the components of crew costs, fuel 

costs, and lost revenue. In a clarifying 

comment to the FAA, that commenter 

reported that during 2011 its airplanes 

incurred $514,333 in direct crew costs 

and fuel costs for positioning flights 

solely to update aeronautical databases. 

This commenter also reported that its 

600 aircraft made 218 of these 

positioning flights, which is an average 

of about 0.36 positioning flights per year 

per aircraft. Thus, its reported average 

cost per positioning flight was about 

$2,360. 

In the Initial Regulatory Evaluation 

for the proposed rule, the FAA 

estimated that the cost of a single 

positioning flight ranges between $1,000 

and $2,500 and that the cost to transport 

a certified mechanic to an aircraft is 

similar. The FAA has determined that 

its initial estimate was reasonable. 

However, the FAA cannot use one 

commenter’s statement to quantify a 

total societal cost-savings from this rule 

for two reasons. The first reason is that 

this operator’s experiences may not be 

typical of all the operators that will be 

affected by the rule. The second reason 

is that the FAA does not know the 

number of existing aircraft or the 

numbers of future aircraft that will have 

aeronautical database systems that will 

be affected by the rule. Nevertheless, 

given the number of commenters who 

did state that they would receive cost 

savings from the rule, the FAA 

concludes that the rule will result in 

reduced man-hours and fuel costs by 

reducing the numbers of positioning 

flights required solely to update the 

databases. 

A third benefit is that the final rule, 

which will allow all pilots operating 

appropriately equipped aircraft to 

perform database updates, which will 

also pave the way for future 

technologies. Certification regulations 

make approval of new devices 

contingent upon conforming to 

established criteria for approved 

equipment, which imparts flexibility 

allowing the use of newer devices. 

In the Initial Regulatory Evaluation, 

the FAA determined that the proposed 

rule would impose minimal costs 

because it would allow a pilot to upload 

the current database; a task that 

currently imposes an additional cost on 

the operator who must have the update 

performed by a certificated mechanic or 

in a repair station. The comments 

received in response to this issue 

support the FAA’s determination. 

C. Who is affected by this rule? 

This rule affects all operators of 

certificated aircraft equipped with 

installed avionics that: (1) Have a pilot 

accessible data transfer mechanism 

permanently installed on the flight 

deck; (2) can be updated without the use 

of tools, and (3) is programmed to 

provide a data load status. This rule will 

also affect maintenance personnel and 

repair stations that parts 121, 129, and 

135 operators were previously required 

to pay for updating databases. 

D. Sources of Information 

The primary sources of information 

were the commenters, which included 

part 135 operators, part 121 operators, 

aircraft electronics manufacturers, an 

aircraft electronics association 

representative, a pilot union, and 

several individuals. 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

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

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a final rule will have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis as 

described in the RFA. However, if an 

agency determines that a final rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, section 605(b) of the RFA 

provides that the head of the agency 

may so certify and a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. The 

certification must include a statement 

providing the factual basis for this 

determination, and the reasoning should 

be clear. 

The net economic impact of this rule 

will provide regulatory cost relief. As 

this rule will reduce costs for some 

small entities, the acting FAA 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

F. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. We assessed the 

potential effect of this rule and 

determined that it will not constitute an 

obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 

United States, and, thus, is consistent 

with the Trade Assessments Act. 

G. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation with the 

base year 1995) in any one year by state, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II do not apply. 

H. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that 

the FAA consider the impact of 

paperwork and other information 

collection burdens imposed on the 

public. We have determined that there 

is no information collection burden 

associated with this final rule. 

I. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
71096 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 230 / Thursday, November 29, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

comply with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards 

and Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these regulations. 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

J. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this final 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312(f) of the Order and 

involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

K. Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the Administrator, when 

modifying regulations in 14 CFR in a 

manner affecting intrastate aviation in 

Alaska, to consider the extent to which 

Alaska is not served by transportation 

modes other than aviation, and to 

establish appropriate regulatory 

distinctions. 

The final rule would also provide an 

incremental benefit to aircraft providing 

air transportation to remote parts of 

Alaska by relieving pilots from having 

to fly with operational restrictions when 

the database expires. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 12866 

See the ‘‘Regulatory Evaluation’’ 

discussion in the ‘‘Regulatory Notices 

and Analyses’’ section elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 

determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government and, therefore, will 

not have federalism implications. 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

VI. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document my be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking 

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

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

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

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (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 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document, may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 43 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The Amendments 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter 1 of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 43—MAINTENANCE, 

PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE, 

REBUILDING, AND ALTERATION 

■ 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 new 

paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 43.3 Persons authorized to perform 

maintenance, preventive maintenance, 

rebuilding, and alterations. 

* * * * * 

(k) Updates of databases in installed 

avionics meeting the conditions of this 

paragraph are not considered 

maintenance and may be performed by 

pilots provided: 

(1) The database upload is: 

(i) Initiated from the flight deck; 

(ii) Performed without disassembling 

the avionics unit; and 

(iii) Performed without the use of 

tools and/or special equipment. 

(2) The pilot must comply with the 

certificate holder’s procedures or the 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

(3) The holder of operating certificates 

must make available written procedures 

consistent with manufacturer’s 

instructions to the pilot that describe 

how to: 

(i) Perform the database update; and 

(ii) Determine the status of the data 

upload. 

■ 3. Amend Appendix A to part 43 by 

removing paragraph (c)(32). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 12, 

2012. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2012–28845 Filed 11–28–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES