14912 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 46 / Friday, March 8, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9W, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 8, 2012, and 

effective September 15, 2012, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6005: Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface. 

* * * * * 

AGL SD E5 Hot Springs, SD [Amended] 

Hot Springs Municipal Airport, SD 

(Lat. 43°22′06′′ N., long. 103°23′18′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 7.4-mile 

radius of Hot Springs Municipal Airport, and 

within 2 miles each side of the 021° bearing 

from the airport extending from the 7.4-mile 

radius to 12.1 miles north of the airport. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 

12, 2013. 

David P. Medina, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO 

Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05214 Filed 3–7–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 129 

International Aviation Safety 

Assessment (IASA) Program Change 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Policy statement. 

SUMMARY: This statement describes a 

policy change to the FAA’s International 

Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) 

program. The FAA wants to ensure that 

countries do not remain on this listing 

when the results of the FAA’s IASA 

determinations as to those countries 

might no longer be accurate or 

reasonably current. The FAA is 

accordingly adopting a procedure to 

remove a country from the IASA 

program summary listing when that 

country’s air carriers no longer provide 

air service to the United States, none of 

the country’s air carriers participates in 

code-share arrangements with U.S. air 

carriers, and the country’s civil aviation 

authority (CAA) has ceased interacting 

with the FAA for an extended period of 

time. The FAA is making this change to 

improve the quality of the IASA 

summary listing. This statement also 

explains IASA Categories 1 and 2 in 

terms of what the flying public may 

reasonably take them to mean. This 

document modifies the IASA policies 

previously announced by the FAA. 

DATES: Effective date: April 8, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Manager of the International Programs 

and Policy Division (AFS–50), Flight 

Standards Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 

(202) 385–8070. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Removal of Inactive Countries; and 

Public Expectations of IASA Categories 

Removal of Inactive Countries 

Under the IASA program, the FAA 

assesses whether another country’s 

oversight of its air carriers that operate, 

or seek to operate, into the U.S., or 

codeshare with a U.S. air carrier, 

complies with international aviation 

safety standards established by the 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO). The FAA 

maintains and publishes a country-bycountry summary listing of the results of 

its IASA determinations. Some 

countries continue to be listed on the 

IASA summary, whether in Category 1 

or 2, even though the countries have no 

air carriers that are serving the United 

States or code sharing with one or more 

U.S. partner airlines. Because of the lack 

of air service to the United States, there 

is minimal, if any, interaction between 

the FAA and the subject CAAs. To date, 

countries have not been removed from 

the category listing for inactivity, even 

though the safety oversight information 

previously collected may become stale 

and unreliable. To improve the quality 

of information on the IASA program 

summary category listing, the FAA is 

initiating a process to remove inactive 

countries from the listing. 

Information generated by the IASA 

program is used by the U.S. and foreign 

governments, the aviation industry, and 

the traveling public. IASA information 

disseminated should be accurate and 

reasonably current. To this end, 

countries whose IASA information can 

no longer be considered accurate and 

reasonably current will be removed 

from the published IASA summary 

listing. 

In determining whether a country’s 

IASA information is no longer accurate 

and reasonably current, we will proceed 

on the basis that if, after a four year 

period, a country has no air carrier 

providing air transport service to the 

United States, none of the country’s air 

carriers participates in code-share 

arrangements with U.S. air carriers, and 

the CAA does not interact significantly 

with the FAA, the FAA will remove that 

country from the IASA summary 

category listing. These criteria will be 

applied immediately in a review of 

countries currently on the list and on a 

continual basis going forward. 

Before the FAA removes a country 

from the IASA program listing, the 

country’s CAA will receive formal 

notification prior to the removal. Just as 

it does when a country is added to the 

list or a country’s IASA category is 

changed, the FAA will notify the public 

regarding the removal of a country from 

the IASA summary listing. 

Once a country is removed from the 

IASA summary listing, a full 

reassessment of the CAA must be 

conducted before the country can be 

rated in the IASA program and before a 

carrier subject to that country’s aviation 

safety oversight can serve the United 

States using its own aircraft or can put 

a U.S. carrier code on its flights. 

Public Expectations of IASA Category 

Ratings 

Members of the public have asked 

what the IASA category rating for a 

country means when they are making 

transportation choices. Category 1 

means that the FAA has found that the 

country meets ICAO Standards for 

safety oversight of civil aviation. 

Category 2 means that the FAA has 

found that the country does not meet 

those Standards. The ICAO Standards 

are presumptively binding on ICAO 

Member States as signatories to the 

Chicago Convention. The Standards are 

promulgated from time to time by ICAO 

and grouped by subject matter (for 

example, airline personnel licensing or 

operation of aircraft) in Annexes to the 

Chicago Convention. 

The FAA normally determines the 

appropriate IASA category rating for a 

country using information collected 

during an in-country assessment of that 

country’s CAA. The FAA also may 

consider other reliable sources of 

information on a CAA’s compliance 

with international standards when 

making a determination of safety 

oversight under the IASA program. The 

FAA may use the information 

developed by these other sources to 

supplement the information developed 

during an FAA assessment of the CAA, 

or to entirely replace the assessment 

altogether, when making an IASA 

category determination. 

In conducting its IASA assessments, 

the FAA uses a standardized checklist 

that groups the ICAO Standards on 

safety oversight into eight critical 

elements: (1) Primary aviation 

legislation, (2) specific operating 

regulations, (3) organization structure 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 46 / Friday, March 8, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 14913 

and safety oversight functions, (4) 

technical personnel qualification and 

training, (5) technical guidance, (6) 

certification personnel and procedures, 

(7) surveillance obligations, and (8) 

resolution of safety issues. To achieve 

Category 1, the country must 

demonstrate that it meets the ICAO 

Standards for each of the eight elements. 

Category 2 means that the CAA was 

noncompliant in at least one critical 

element. The IASA assessment typically 

is conducted over the course of one 

week by a team consisting of a team 

leader and at least one expert in 

operations, maintenance, and aviation 

law. Each FAA expert works through 

the checklist with host country officials 

for each of the critical elements. The 

team looks at a representative sampling 

of records and processes, and it follows 

up with host country aviation officials 

if deficiencies appear. 

The FAA assessment focuses on the 

ability of the host country’s aeronautical 

authorities to oversee the operational 

safety of its airlines. It does not assess 

the safety compliance of any particular 

air carrier (nor does it address aviation 

security, airports, or air traffic 

management). Although the FAA 

assessment team typically visits one or 

more air carriers during its mission, it 

does so only to verify the relationship 

between the carrier and the country’s 

aviation safety officials, not to assess the 

carrier itself. 

Finally, the IASA category rating 

applies only to services to and from the 

United States and to codeshare 

operations when the code of a U.S. air 

carrier is placed on a foreign carrier 

flight. The category ratings do not apply 

to a foreign carrier’s domestic flights or 

to flights by that carrier between its 

homeland and a third country. The 

assessment team looks at those flights 

only to the extent that they reflect on 

the country’s oversight of operations to 

and from the United States and to 

codeshare operations where a U.S. air 

carrier code is placed on a flight 

conducted by a foreign operator. 

In short, a category 1 rating means 

that, as to the operations by a category 

1 country’s carriers between that 

country and the United States, and 

when the code of a U.S. air carrier is 

placed on a foreign carrier flight, the 

FAA has found that the country’s civil 

aviation authorities exercise safety 

oversight over those carriers consistent 

with international safety standards. A 

Category 2 rating, on the other hand, 

means the FAA has found that, in at 

least one critical area, the safety 

measures applied by the country’s civil 

aviation authorities do not meet 

international standards. 

Current IASA category determinations 

for countries included in the IASA 

categorization system are available on 

the FAA Web site at: http:// 

www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/iasa. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 25, 

2013. 

Margaret Gilligan, 

Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05452 Filed 3–7–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

14 CFR Part 254 

RIN 2105–AE21 

[Docket DOT–OST–2013–0044] 

Domestic Baggage Liability 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with existing 

regulations, this final rule raises the 

minimum limit on domestic baggage 

liability applicable to air carriers to 

reflect inflation since July 2008, the 

basis month of the most recent previous 

revision to the liability limit. DOT 

regulations require that the Department 

of Transportation periodically revise the 

limit to reflect changes in the Consumer 

Price Index for All Urban Consumers 

(CPI–U). This revision adjusts the 

minimum limit of liability from the 

current amount of $3,300, set by the 

Department in November 2008, to 

$3,400, to take into account the changes 

in consumer prices since the prior 

revision. 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 6, 

2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicholas Lowry, Senior Attorney, Office 

of the General Counsel, Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. 

SE., Washington, DC 20590; 202–366– 

9351, nick.lowry@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Revision of Liability Limit 

Part 254 of the Department’s rules (14 

CFR part 254) establishes minimum 

baggage liability limits applicable to 

domestic air service. Section 254.6 of 

this rule requires the Department to 

review every 2 years the minimum limit 

of liability prescribed in Part 254 in 

light of changes in the CPI–U and to 

revise the limit of liability to reflect 

changes in that index as of July of each 

review year. Section 254.6 prescribes 

the use of a specific formula to calculate 

the revised minimum liability amount 

when making these periodic 

adjustments. The formula is below. 

$2500 × (a/b) rounded to the nearest 

$100 

Where: 

a = July CPI–U of year of current adjustment 

b = the CPI–U figure in December 1999 when 

the inflation adjustment provision was 

added to part 254. 

The review in 2010 indicated that no 

inflation adjustment was required. In 

2012, the review indicated that an 

inflation adjustment is required. 

Applying the formula to price index 

changes occurring between December 

1999 (the basis month required by the 

formula) and July 2012 (the month for 

each biannual adjustment as specified 

in the formula), the appropriate 

inflation adjustment is $2,500 × 

228.723/168.8 [$2,500 × 1.355], which 

yields $3,387.50. (The base amount of 

$2,500 in the formula was the minimum 

liability limit in Part 254 at the time that 

this biennial indexing provision was 

added to the rule, 228.723 was the CPI– 

U for July 2012, and 168.8 was the CPI– 

U for December 1999. The CPI–U data 

are from the seasonally adjusted series.) 

Section 254.6 requires us to round the 

adjustment to the nearest $100, or to 

$3,400 in this case. 

In its rule ‘‘Enhancing Airline 

Passenger Protections’’ (76 FR 23110, 

Apr. 25, 2011), the Department required 

the amount of compensation due to 

passengers in instances of denied 

boarding (DBC) to be adjusted to reflect 

CPI–U changes. Under 14 CFR 250.5(e), 

the review of denied boarding 

compensation was to take place every 2 

years, with the first such review 

occurring in July 2012, to coincide with 

our review of the baggage liability 

amount. We have reviewed the 

compensation amounts stated in the 

2011 rule according to the formula set 

out in section 250.5(e) and found that 

no change in DBC amounts is warranted 

in 2012. 

II. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) contains a ‘‘good 

cause’’ exemption which allows 

agencies to dispense with notice and 

comment if those procedures are 

impracticable, unnecessary or contrary 

to the public interest. We have 

determined that under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B) good cause exists for 

dispensing with a notice of proposed 

rulemaking and public comment as the 

application of this rule does not involve 

any agency discretion. This rulemaking 

is required by the terms of 14 CFR 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES