Overview
Title
Intent To Request Extension From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: Aircraft Repair Station Security
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The TSA wants to know what people think about some rules for keeping airplanes safe at places where they get fixed. There are many places like this, and the rules help make sure airplanes aren't left all alone and that someone can check that the rules are being followed.
Summary AI
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is seeking public feedback on an information collection request related to aircraft repair station security. This request, which has been approved before, needs an extension from the Office of Management and Budget. TSA requires aircraft repair stations with FAA certification to follow specific security measures, such as having a TSA contact and ensuring that aircraft are not left unattended. Owners and operators of these stations must keep accurate records and can appeal if TSA finds security issues that might lead to certificate suspension. There are over 4,000 such stations in the U.S. and more than 900 abroad, and complying with these rules is expected to take 412 hours collectively each year.
Abstract
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0060 that we will submit to OMB for an extension in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves recordkeeping requirements and petitions for reconsideration by owners and/or operators of repair stations certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document represents an announcement from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) regarding an ongoing information collection request related to the security of aircraft repair stations. This request has been previously approved and is now seeking an extension from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Repair stations that are certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are required to follow specific security protocols, including maintaining a TSA contact and ensuring that aircraft are not left unattended. The TSA's push for public comment is a typical procedure meant to ensure transparency and gather feedback on the burden and utility of these security measures.
Summary of the Document
The TSA is inviting the public to comment on its Information Collection Request (ICR) which pertains to security requirements for FAA-certified aircraft repair stations. The document outlines that there are more than 4,000 such repair stations located in the United States and over 900 outside of it. The station owners and operators need to adhere to certain guidelines, such as having a TSA contact and maintaining employment records. TSA uses this information to ensure compliance with security regulations, and failure to meet these requirements might lead to the suspension of their certification.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several issues stand out in the document which may need attention:
Lack of Specificity: The document does not provide clear details on the specific security measures that need to be implemented. Understanding these requirements is key to assessing their practical utility for the station operators.
Complexity and Length: The document is lengthy and may use technical language that can be challenging for the average reader to comprehend, which could limit effective public engagement.
Undefined Criteria: The document does not specify what constitutes "security deficiencies," which could make it difficult for operators to align their protocols with TSA expectations.
Financial Burden: There is no discussion regarding the financial costs that repair stations might incur in complying with these requirements, posing potential concerns about economic impact.
Burden Estimation Transparency: The document estimates a total of 412 hours of collective compliance work annually, but it does not transparently explain how this figure was calculated.
Scale and Impact Analysis: Although the document mentions the number of repair stations, it does not offer any analysis on how these requirements might affect different types or scales of repair operations.
Public and Stakeholder Impact
Broad Public Impact: On a general level, the document underlines TSA's role in ensuring aviation security, which is of public interest for maintaining safe air travel. However, the lack of clear communication in the document might reduce its effectiveness in gathering valuable public feedback.
Specific Stakeholder Impact: For the repair station operators, especially smaller businesses, the lack of clarity around the requirements and potential financial burdens could be challenging. Larger operators may have better resources to cope with these requirements, but smaller establishments could find them cumbersome and costly. Additionally, international stations are subject to these security audits, which might impact their operations depending on the local context and regulations.
Conclusion
While the TSA's effort to gather public input on its security regulations for aircraft repair stations is a step towards transparency and accountability, the document could benefit from clearer communication regarding the specific requirements and the rationale behind them. Addressing these concerns would not only foster better compliance but also lead to more constructive feedback from stakeholders, ensuring that the measures put in place effectively enhance aviation security without imposing unnecessary burdens.
Issues
• The document lacks clarity on specific security measures that repair stations need to implement, which might help in understanding the practical utility of the information requirement.
• The document is lengthy and complex, which might make it challenging for the average reader to fully comprehend without specialized knowledge.
• The document does not specify any criteria for what constitutes 'security deficiencies,' leaving it open to subjective interpretation.
• No information is provided regarding the potential costs incurred by repair stations to comply with these requirements, raising concerns about financial burden.
• The estimation of burden (412 hours annually) lacks transparency on how this figure was calculated.
• The document mentions over 4,000 repair stations in the U.S. and more than 900 internationally but provides no context or analysis regarding the scale or impact on different types or sizes of repair operations.