2120-0662 blh 03 01 18 - OMB REVIEW MG

Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

NOTICE OF PROPOSED OUTDOOR LASER OPERATION(S) OMB No 2120-0662

INTRODUCTION

This information collection will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to request a reinstatement of information collection entitled, NOTICE OF PROPOSED OUTDOOR LASER OPERATION(S), (OMB Control No. 2120-0662.

Part A. Justification

1. Circumstances that make collection of information necessary. Under Title 49 of the US Code, the Administrator of the FAA is responsible to ensure the safety of aircraft and efficient use of airspace. In order for the FAA to be able to ensure safety it must collect this information from potential outdoor laser operators. The FAA then reviews the proposed laser activity against air traffic operations and verifies that the laser operation will not be interfering with air traffic operations.

2. How, by whom, and for what purpose is the information used. The FAA uses the information gathered from laser operators planning to conduct outdoor laser operations to evaluate potential hazards to aircraft operating in the National Airspace System (NAS). Ultimately, the goal is to prevent an aircraft from being hit by the laser operation. The information is reviewed by one of the three FAAs service centers and sent to the facility, which can be a Tower, TRACON or Center, that is being impacted by the operation. The faculty will review the proposed operation and state no objection or list an objection to the operation. If the facility lists an objection, then the service center will contact the proponent and see if adjustments can be made to the proposed operation. This information is mandatory upon each occasion of planned activity.

3. Extent of automated information collection. The information is gathered via a pdf document online and can be emailed, faxed or mailed to the FAA. 90% are emailed.

4. Efforts to identify duplication. There is no known duplication of data being collected.

5. Efforts to minimize the burden on small businesses. The only proponents required to submit the data are the operators that conduct lasers operations outdoors. The form only asks for the minimum information necessary for the FAA to be able to evaluate the potential impact to air traffic operations.

6. Impact of less frequent collection of information. If the data is not collected, the FAA cannot evaluate the proposed operations which may lead to an unacceptable risk being introduced to the NAS. If an aircraft is hit by a laser, the pilots may suffer from vitreous hemorrhage, retinal burns, corneal burns or laser glare. While all of these can lead to temporary loss of vison and temporary situational disorientation which can lead to lose of life especially at critical phases of flight, such as take-off or landing, some of these effects can result in permanent damage to the pilot’s eyes.

7. Special circumstances. Laser operators are required to submit a form for each outdoor operation. Each laser operation is unique and requires the FAA to determine the potential impact to the NAS.

8. Compliance with 5 CFR 1320.8: The FAA has worked with SAE International, which is made up of 145,000 members. They produce thousands of industry standards including lasers. The FAA has worked with them to valid the type of information one would need to accurately determine the impact to the NAS. They have also provided the FAA with the same mathematical formulas the industry uses today.

In addition, a Federal Register Notice published on August 31, 2017 (82 FR 56851) solicited public comment. No comments were received.

9. Payments or gifts to respondents. No gifts or payments are made.

10. Assurance of confidentiality: There is no assurance of confidentiality. As the proponents provide their information to one of the FAA’s three service centers, they are processed locally and a determination is returned to the proponent. The information is not shared with other proponents.

11. Justification for collection of sensitive information: No sensitive information is collected.

12. Estimate of burden hours for information requested: The number of responses varies month to month, however the total amount collected for FY 2017 was 405 responses. The time it takes the proponent to complete the form is estimated at 4 hours. This time was derived from talking with our three service centers which deal with the proponents directly. The estimate for 2017 time for proponents to complete the form was 4*405 = 1620 hours. The burden can vary based on the number of lasers involved. The average small business owner benefits + salary is $68,000 per year. This works out to $34 per hour. At $34/hour the cost to complete the forms would be approximately $55,000 per year.

13. Estimate of total annual costs to respondents. There is no material cost. Proponents are only filling in a form which asks for information they would normally be familiar with. They can email, fax or mail it to one of our three service centers.

14. Estimate of cost to the Federal government. The FAA spent an average of 4 hours working one request for FY 2016.  For FY 2016 the FAA spent approximately 4*405 = 1620 hours. The approximate cost to the federal government for a government employee working as a support specialist across the United States at grade K is $130,000/year, or $62.29/hour (which includes a locality adjustment), for a cumulative government cost of $100,910.

15. Explanation of program changes or adjustments. Whereas the number of laser operators is unknown. The FAA knows the number of planned laser operations requesting clearance. Laser operators are required to submit a form for each outdoor operation. Each laser operation is unique and requires the FAA to determine the potential impact to the NAS. Thus with this submission each operation is documented as an individual respondent in ROCIS. The number of respondents is recorded as 405 because in FY 2017 there were 405 responses.

Also in this submission the time it takes the proponent to complete the form is now estimated at 4 hours instead of the previous 11 hours. The 11 hours was an estimate during the past submission, in this submission the hours of burden to the public was based on our three service centers talking directly to the proponent and asking them how much time they spent completing the form.

16. Publication of results of data collection. The results will not be published.

17. Approval for not displaying the expiration date of OMB approval. We will be displaying the expiration date on the form.

18. Exceptions to certification statement. There are no exceptions to the certification statement.

3