[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7652]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 31, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Parts 121, 129, and 135
Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System, TCAS I; Proposed Rule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 121, 129, and 135
[Docket No. 27663; Notice No. 94-6]
RIN 2120-AF24
Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System, TCAS I
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking to amend effective date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposal would revise the Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR) to extend the compliance date from February 9, 1995, to March 31,
1997, for installing an approved traffic alert and collision avoidance
system (TCAS I). This amendment is necessary due to technical problems
that have resulted in delays in the equipment approval and
manufacturing process. By extending the compliance date, the FAA would
have time to resolve the technical issues and finalize a technical
standards order (TSO) for the TCAS I equipment. This action would
lessen the economic impact of the current rule and delay the
implementation of TCAS I for certain air carriers.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 2, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this amendment may be mailed in triplicate or
delivered to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 27663, 800 Independence
Avenue, Washington, DC 20591.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary E. Davis, Project Development
Branch, AFS-240, Air Transportation Division, Office of Flight
Standards, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-8096.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy,
federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the
proposals in this notice are also invited. Substantive comments should
be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments should identify the
regulatory docket or notice number and should be submitted in
triplicate to the Rules Docket address specified above. All comments
received on or before the closing date for comments specified will be
considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed
rulemaking. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in
light of comments received. All comments received will be available,
both before and after the closing date for comment, in the Rules Docket
for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each
substantive public contact with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must include a preaddressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 27663.'' The postcard will be date stamped and mailed to
the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any persons may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs,
Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-430, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. Communications must
identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
NPRMs should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which
describes the application procedure.
Background
In a petition for exemption dated October 12, 1992, the Regional
Airline Association (RAA) petitioned on behalf of its affected member
airlines and other similarly situated airlines for a temporary
exemption from the February 9, 1995, deadline to install an approved
TCAS I system (Docket No. 27008). The exemption was requested for
operators of turbine-powered airplanes with 10 to 30 passenger seats.
The FAA denied the petition on May 27, 1993. The FAA stated in its
denial that the general relief requested by the RAA would more
appropriately be handled by rulemaking rather than exemption. This
action is the subsequent rulemaking response to the RAA petition for
exemption that the FAA denied. The RAA's petition also sought a
temporary exemption from the April 20, 1994, deadline to install an
approved Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS), which the FAA has also
denied and is not an issue in this rulemaking.
The RAA states that extension of the compliance date is needed
because of delays in the development and operational testing of
prototype TCAS I equipment. The RAA states that when Amendment No. 135-
30 established the TCAS I requirements on January 6, 1989, the FAA
acknowledged that no TCAS I design had been approved, and no
manufacturer had built a TCAS I unit. The FAA considered these points
in establishing a compliance date for installation and operation of
TCAS I six years from the effective date of the amendment.
RAA states that it was informed early in 1990 by ARINC Research
Corporation (ARINC), the FAA's TCAS I program contractor, that
equipment would be available for a Limited Installation Program (LIP)
testing by April 1991, and that it would be completed in approximately
one year. RAA states that ARINC has recently advised it that the
development program for prototype TCAS I equipment is still not
complete, and that the LIP for the operational evaluation is not
expected to begin for at least several months.
RAA states that because of this the TCAS I development and
operational evaluation program is more than 18 months behind its
original planned schedule, no TCAS I equipment has yet received a
technical standards order (TSO) approval, and to the RAA's knowledge
only one manufacturer is currently accepting orders for TCAS I
deliveries. Air carriers are naturally reluctant to place orders for
this equipment before a TSO is issued and before the LIP has confirmed
the validity of the equipment design.
RAA asserts that an extension of time is required to permit the
evaluation and procurement of TCAS I equipment, to develop and obtain
approval of supplemental type certificates (STC) for each affected
airplane model, and to schedule equipment installations with minimum
disruptions to scheduled service.
RAA points out that simultaneously with the adoption of Amendment
No. 135-30, Amendment No. 121-201 was also adopted which required
development and installation of TCAS II on airplanes operating under
part 121. This amendment required that all affected airplanes be
equipped with TCAS II by December 30, 1991. After receiving numerous
objections from operators and other sources, the FAA reconsidered this
requirement and revised the installation dates; Amendment No. 121-217
established a phased installation schedule and delayed the full
compliance TCAS II installation date to December 30, 1993.
RAA submits that the arguments that supported the extension of time
for TCAS II support a similar extension and phased installation
schedule for TCAS I installations. Based on current projections that
the TCAS I LIP will not be completed until at least late 1994 and the
lack of any approved equipment today, the RAA expects that operators
will not be able to complete equipment selections and installations on
all airplanes by February 9, 1995.
RAA's petition for exemption also states that FAA should rejustify
the need for a TCAS I rule. Its rationale is that the rule has a
significantly higher-than-estimated cost to the airline industry. RAA
and its member carriers continue to support realistic and achievable
improvements in safety where the benefits clearly justify the costs. It
believes that the cost of safety-related equipment must be compared to
the potential benefits and the capability of the industry to afford it;
the FAA should also consider alternative approaches.
Aircraft seating 10 to 30 passengers and operating under part 121,
129, or 135 must be equipped with TCAS I by February 9, 1994, in
accordance with the regulation issued January 5, 1989 (54 FR 940). RAA
believes that the FAA should consider implementing a phased compliance
schedule as was done for part 121 carriers that were required to
install TCAS II (14 CFR 121.356), rather than adhere to the deadlines
in affected regulations. The FAA in this rulemaking is soliciting
comment on whether a compliance schedule for the retrofit of TCAS I
should be adopted. The following is a proposed compliance schedule
similar to that requested by RAA in its petition for exemption:
1. 50 percent of all covered airplanes equipped by March 31, 1996, and
2. 100 percent of all covered airplanes equipped by March 31, 1997.
The FAA requests comments regarding the appropriateness of the
proposed compliance schedule. In response to those comments, this
schedule may be shortened or extended in the final rule.
The air carriers represented by RAA believe that extending the
compliance schedule for TCAS I would not adversely affect safety
because it would allow affected airlines to devote limited economic
resources to the orderly completion of TCAS I installations, along with
other airworthiness and safety-related requirements. They believe the
general public will benefit by allowing for a more efficient allocation
of an operator's resources, and by reducing the number of disruptions
of scheduled service due to excessive unscheduled removal of aircraft
from service for equipment installation, or cessation of scheduled
service altogether by some airlines due to the inability to pay for
TCAS I installations.
In addition, RAA believes that there will be significantly higher-
than-estimated costs of installed TCAS I systems once they become
available. RAA states that estimates received by its member airlines
and one equipment manufacturer for TCAS I are as high as $80,000 per
airplane, which is far above the FAA's estimate of $12,300 per airplane
when the rule was published. The RAA also asserts that the quoted costs
do not include the cost of spare parts or the lost revenue resulting
from aircraft down-time for equipment installation.
RAA believes that concurrent installation of GPWS and TCAS I could
result in significant reductions of manpower and downtime and would be
consistent with FAA's revision to the part 121 windshear equipment
installation program, which extended the compliance date to permit
combined installation of windshear and TCAS II systems required in
Amendment No. 121-216.
RAA estimates that combining the installations of GPWS and TCAS I
could save as much as 200 to 300 man-hours and one additional week of
airplane downtime. In the current economic conditions most airlines are
facing, the RAA believes that the survival of many regional carriers is
threatened by the tremendously high costs involved in separate
equipment installation.
A summary of the RAA petition for exemption was published in the
Federal Register on December 1, 1992 (57 FR 56946), and thirteen
comments were received. Eight regional airlines, two Members of
Congress, and one U.S. Senator were in support of changing the rule.
Opposing comments were received from Sundstrand Data Control Company
(Sundstrand) and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).
The comments in support of the petition are based on and agree with
RAA's position. They proffer the same arguments for extension that RAA
asserts: first, delays in the development and operational testing of
prototype TCAS I equipment; second, higher-than-estimated costs of
installed TCAS I and GPWS systems; and third, increased costs incurred
in removal of the affected aircraft from scheduled service twice for
separate installations, instead of combining the TCAS I and GPWS
installations into one aircraft modification program.
Sundstrand opposes the petition as it pertains to GPWS equipment;
it makes no reference to the TCAS part of the petition.
ALPA recommends that the TCAS I implementation be delayed, but not
to the extent sought by RAA. ALPA agrees that TCAS I implementation is
significantly behind schedule, due to vendor development problems.
Therefore, ALPA believes a reasonable delay in the TCAS I
implementation program is justified. It proposes a 12 month delay but,
if implementation cannot be accomplished, TCAS II should become
required, instead of TCAS I.
Discussion of the Proposal
The FAA has considered all the facts and circumstances presented by
the RAA and commenters and proposes to extend the compliance date for
the installation of TCAS I in parts 121, 129, and 135 until March 31,
1997.
The RAA has presented the problems involved in obtaining and
installing TCAS I for part 135 operators. The FAA agrees that
circumstances may not warrant requiring the affected operators to
install TCAS I before February 9, 1995. A TSO has just been issued. The
first aircraft received a supplemental type certificate (STC) for a
TCAS I installation in late July, and the TCAS I LIP is still in the
initial phase. Therefore, the FAA is proposing an extension of the
compliance date. The FAA finds that if the proposal is adopted, there
would be no degradation of safety and it would be in the public
interest, in that the use of scarce financial resources could be
planned more efficiently and effectively by the certificate holders
required to comply with the rule. Since parts 121 and 129 contain a
similar rule for operators of aircraft with 30 seats or less, the FAA
is proposing an extension for those operators as well.
The FAA has included in this notice a proposal to require that all
affected aircraft be equipped with TCAS I by March 31, 1997, using a
phased compliance schedule similar to the schedule that currently
exists for TCAS II. The FAA seeks comments on the most economical and
feasible compliance schedule to meet this overall goal. The FAA also
invites public comment on any issue discussed in this rulemaking, and
will fully consider each commenter's position before making any final
decision on extending the TCAS I compliance date.
After considering all comments, the FAA may adopt a phased
compliance schedule in the final rule establishing specific dates and
timeframes.
Regulatory Analyses
The FAA has determined that this rulemaking is not ``significant''
as defined by Executive Order 12866, and therefore no regulatory impact
analysis is required. Nevertheless, in accordance with Department of
Transportation policies and procedures, the FAA has evaluated the
anticipated costs and benefits which are summarized below.
The proposed rule would extend the compliance date to install an
approved traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS I) from
February 9, 1995, to March 31, 1997. This rule would apply to turbine-
powered aircraft with 10 to 30 seats operated under parts 121, 129, and
135. This extension of the compliance deadline is necessitated by
delays in the development and operational testing of prototype TCAS I
equipment.
The potential benefits of this rule would be the cost-savings
realized by operators of turbine-powered aircraft with a passenger
seating configuration of 10 to 30 seats who would have an additional
two years in which to install TCAS I systems in their aircraft. These
operators would therefore be afforded an opportunity to invest the
money required to install TCAS I in other aspects of their business
during this grace period.
For the purpose of determining the total cost-savings of this
proposed rule change, the FAA estimates that approximately 500 turbine-
powered aircraft operated under part 135 would be affected by this rule
and that the cost, as provided by an aviation equipment manufacturer,
of installing TCAS I would be $35,000 per airplane. The total
installation cost would therefore be $17,500,000. The FAA assumes for
the purpose of quantifying the resulting benefit that these operators
would be able to earn a marginal pretax rate of return on an average
investment of 7 percent (as determined by the Office of Management and
Budget). The expected return on this amount of capital would be $2.54
million (undiscounted) or $2.29 million (discounted) over a 2 year
period using the 7 percent rate established by OMB. The potential
benefits are therefore expected to amount to an estimated $2.29
million.
Since the development of TCAS I was delayed, there will probably
not be a sufficient number of TCAS I units available by February 9,
1995, to equip all the subject aircraft. The proposed rule change,
therefore, would not impose any potential costs on society in the form
of a reduction in safety because the original deadline for installation
is no longer attainable due to delays in developing the system. For all
the reasons above, the FAA concludes that this proposed rule change
would be cost-beneficial.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not necessarily burdened by
government regulations. The RFA requires agencies to review rules that
may have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.'' The proposed rule change is of a cost relieving
nature and would therefore afford cost savings to individual operators.
Under FAA Order 2100.14A, the criterion for a ``substantial
number'' is a number that is not less than 11 and that is more than
one-third of the small entities subject to the rule. For operators of
aircraft for hire, a small operator is one that owns, but not
necessarily operates, nine or fewer aircraft. This proposal would
mainly affect part 135 scheduled operators, although some unscheduled
operators could be affected as well. The FAA's criterion for a
``significant impact'' is $116,300 or more per year for a scheduled
operator and $4,600 or more for an unscheduled operator. The extent of
cost savings would be $2,450 per aircraft (.07 x $35,000). The maximum
extent of these savings per operator for determining these impacts
would therefore be $22,050 (9 x $2,450), which is above the threshold
for unscheduled operators but below the threshold for scheduled
operators. Although the criterion for a ``significant impact'' would be
satisfied for unscheduled operators if they had two or more aircraft
with 10 to 30 passenger seats, the FAA believes that the criterion for
a ``substantial number'' (i.e., one-third of small entities) would not
be satisfied for these operators. It is unlikely that one-third or more
of these operators would have two or more aircraft with 10-30 seats in
their fleets. The FAA solicits comments from the air taxi industry
regarding the makeup of operator fleets with respect to size of
aircraft.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the
effects of regulatory changes on international trade. The impact of the
proposed rule change on international trade should be limited by the
regionalized nature of the routes that are typically flown by aircraft
with 10 to 30 seats. In addition, the fact that this rule would have
the same economic impact on both the domestic (parts 121 and 135) and
foreign operators (part 129) of this size range of aircraft would limit
its impact on competitive relationships between these two classes of
operators. Based on this information, the FAA concludes that the
proposed rule change would have a negligible impact on international
trade.
Federalism Implications
The regulation proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no requirements for information collection associated
with this rule that would require approval from the Office of
Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980
(Pub. L. 96-511).
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the FAA certifies that
this proposed regulation is not significant under Executive Order
12866. In addition, this proposal, if adopted, would not have a
significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. This proposal is considered nonsignificant under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Safety.
14 CFR Part 129
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety.
14 CFR Part 135
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airplanes, Air taxis, Air transportation,
Aviation safety, Charter flights, Safety, Transportation.
The Proposed Rule
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend parts 121, 129, and 135 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 121, 14 CFR part 129, and 14 CFR part
135) as follows:
PART 121--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND
SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF LARGE
AIRCRAFT
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1355, 1356, 1357, 1401, 1421-
1430, 1472, 1485, and 1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g) (Revised Pub. L. 97-
449, January 12, 1993).
2. Section 121.356 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 121.356 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System.
(a) * * *
(b) After March 31, 1997, no person may operate a combination
cargo/passenger airplane that has a passenger seat configuration,
excluding any pilot seat, of 10 to 30 seats unless it is equipped with
an approved traffic alert and collision avoidance system.
* * * * *
PART 129--OPERATIONS: FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN OPERATORS OF
U.S. REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON CARRIAGE
3. The authority citation for 129 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. App 1346, 1354(a), 1356, 1357, 1421, 1502,
and 1511, 49 U.S.C. 106(g); Sec. 101 et seq., Pub. L. 101-604, 104
Stat. 3066.
4. Section 129.18 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 129.18 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System.
(a) * * *
(B) After March 31, 1997, no foreign air carrier may operate in the
United States a turbine powered airplane that has a passenger seating
configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of 10 to 30 seats unless it is
equipped with an approved traffic alert and collision avoidance system.
If a TCAS II system is installed, it must be capable of coordinating
with TCAS units that meet TSO C-119.
PART 135--AIR TAXI OPERATORS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS
5. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. app. 1301(7), 1303, 1344, 1348, 1352
through 1355, 1401, 1421 through 1431, 1471, 1472, 1502, 1510, 1522,
and 2121 through 2125; articles 12, 29, 31, and 32(a) of the
Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180); 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq; E.O. 11514, 35 FR 4247, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp.,
p. 902; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).
6. Section 135.180 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 135.180 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System.
(a) After March 31, 1997, no person may operate a turbine powered
airplane that has a passenger seating configuration, excluding any
pilot seat, of 10 to 30 seats unless it is equipped with an approved
traffic alert and collision avoidance system.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 23, 1994.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 94-7652 Filed 3-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M