[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43113-43115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-20834]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
[Docket No. 28661]


Procedures for Processing Petitions for Interim Compliance 
Waivers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document presents a review of the procedures and 
information necessary for an operator of a Stage 2 noise level airplane 
subject to the phaseout regulations, resulting from the Airport Noise 
and Capacity Act of 1990, to submit a request for a compliance waiver. 
As a result of its experience preceding the first interim Stage 2 
phaseout compliance date, December 31, 1994, the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) reminds all affected operators of the procedures 
for applying for interim compliance waivers. This document also serves 
as a reminder to operators that as of March 14, 1995, new compliance 
arrangements that rely on sharing Stage 3 airplanes for noise 
compliance purposes by placing them on the operators specifications of 
more than one operator are prohibited, and that existing share 
arrangements may not be used for compliance with the December 31, 1996, 
requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. William W. Albee, Policy and Regulatory Division (AEE-300), Office 
of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3553, facsimile (202) 267-5594.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Sections 91.865 and 91.867 of 14 CFR each require that as of 
December 31, 1996, an operator of Stage 2 airplanes either reduce the 
number of Stage 2 airplanes it operates by 50% from its base level, 
achieve a fleet mix of airplanes that is 65% Stage 3 airplanes, or in 
the case of a new entrant, achieve a fleet mix that is 50% Stage 3 
airplanes. Section 91.871 allows operators to request waivers from 
interim compliance dates in limited circumstances. In order to 
facilitate compliance with the December 31, 1996, requirement, the FAA 
is summarizing the regulatory requirements for waiver requests from the 
Stage 3 transition regulations.

Filing Requests

    As stated in Sec. 91.871, applications for waivers must be filed at 
least 120 days prior to the compliance date from which the waiver is 
requested. This means that applications must be filed no later than 
Tuesday, September 3, 1996, to ensure that they will be considered 
before the December 31, 1996, compliance date.
    Each petition for an interim compliance waiver will be reviewed to 
determine whether it meets the basic criteria listed 14 CFR 91.871. If 
the criteria are not met, the petitioner will receive a letter 
indicating that all of the required information has not been submitted. 
Petitioners will have an opportunity to submit missing information 
before any disposition is final.

Criteria (14 CFR 91.871)

    All applications for a waiver must contain all of the following:
    1. The operator's plan to achieve interim and final compliance;
    2. An explanation of the operator's efforts to date to achieve 
compliance; and
    3. Evidence or other information showing that a grant of the 
requested waiver is in the public interest.
    In addition to the three criteria listed above, each petitioner 
must also explain why compliance with the December 31, 1996, 
requirement would be at least one of the following:
    1. Financially onerous;
    2. Physically impossible;
    3. Technologically infeasible; or
    4. Have an adverse effect either on competition or service to small 
communities.

Scope of Request

    Each waiver will be considered only for the airplanes operated by 
he petitioner on the date the petition was submitted to the FAA. 
Operators are expected to have submitted viable compliance plans and 
abided by them. The FAA's analysis of any petition will take into 
account the total circumstances of the operator, including all actions 
taken up to the date of the petition.

Publication

    Upon completion of the review and determination that the petition 
is complete in accordance with the criteria described above, a summary 
of the petition will be published in the Federal Register for public 
comment for a minimum of 14 days. A docket will be opened that contains 
the petition, any other pertinent information, and any comments 
received.

Response

    After the close of the comment period, the Office of Environment 
and Energy (AEE) will analyze each request and draft a response that 
contains a narrative analysis of each required element. If the results 
of the analysis show that the petitioner has met the criteria, AEE will 
prepare documentation to grant the petition for waiver. If the analysis 
shows that the petitioner has failed to meet the criteria, AEE will 
prepare documentation to deny the petition. Part of a request may also 
be granted at the agency's discretion, depending on the circumstances. 
A copy of the approval or denial document will be placed in the docket, 
and it will be made available for public inspection.

Length of Waiver

    Any waiver granted will be for the shortest possible time as 
required by the circumstances presented by the petitioner and the 
findings of the FAA. If the petitioner cannot achieve compliance within 
the time frame provided in a waiver, the petitioner must submit a new 
petition that will be evaluated under the same criteria as the original 
petition. New petitions that fail to provide more information than the 
original will be denied.

Summary of 1994 Interim Waiver Denials

    Ten operators petitioned the FAA for interim compliance waivers in 
1994; seven petitions were denied and three were withdrawn. For 
operators that may

[[Page 43114]]

be contemplating applying for a waiver from the 1996 compliance date, 
the following summaries of the 1994 denials are provided to illustrate 
the FAA's analysis of such requests for compliance with the Stage 3 
transition regulations.
    No. 1 petitioner: By petition dated August 29, 1994, Docket No. 
27894, the petitioner petitioned the FAA for a waiver that would allow 
it to import Stage 2 airplanes from foreign markets, and begin and 
continue operation with an all-Stage 2 fleet beyond the interim 
compliance date of December 31, 1994. At the time of the waiver 
petition, it did not own or operate any airplanes.
    Denial of Waiver: It is FAA policy to consider for the possibility 
of waiver only those airplanes in operation by an operator on the date 
of the petition. In this instance, the petitioner did not have any 
airplanes in operation. It is also FAA policy that no prospective 
relief be granted. Since the petitioner had not yet achieved FAA 
certification to operate, it was not yet operating under the provisions 
of Sec. 91.867 to be considered a new entrant or to ask relief from 
that regulation.
    No. 2 petitioner: By petition dated September 1, 1994, Docket No. 
27899, the petitioner petitioned the FAA for a waiver that would allow 
it to operate an all-Stage 2 fleet until June 30, 1995.
    The petitioner began service in June 1994 flying passenger 
charters; it began scheduled passenger service in early October 1994. 
At the time it petitioned, the petitioner was operating two leased 
Stage 2 Boeing 737-200 airplanes. It planned to acquire two more Stage 
2 737-200 airplanes in late 1994, and one more in the spring of 1995. 
Under Sec. 91.867, the addition of the two airplanes in late 1994 would 
require one of the resulting total of four airplanes in its fleet to be 
a Stage 3 airplane after December 31, 1994. The petitioner's plans to 
acquire the described Stage 2 airplanes led to its waiver request.
    Denial of Waiver: It is FAA policy to consider for the possibility 
of waiver only those airplanes in operation by an operator on the date 
of the petition. In this instance, the petitioner had not yet leased 
the airplanes for which it requested a waiver. Also, the petitioner 
submitted no information as to why its current business plan did not 
take into account the upcoming compliance date without needing a 
waiver. An operator must plan to achieve compliance without reliance on 
a waiver in order for FAA to consider that a viable plan was made but 
could not be adhered to.
    No. 3 petitioner: By letter dated August 30, 1994, Docket No. 
27888, the petitioner petitioned the FAA for a waiver that would allow 
it to operate a fleet of six Stage 2 airplanes until December 31, 1996.
    The petitioner is a foreign operator of the Stage 2 AN-124 
airplane, and at the same time the waiver was submitted, the petitioner 
was operating a fleet of six of these airplanes on its U.S. operations 
specifications, conducting 25 to 50 charter flights per year to the 
U.S. The petitioner is a new entrant that received its authority to 
operate in the U.S. on May 28, 1993. The petitioner would have been 
eligible to operate three AN-124 airplanes past the December 31, 1994, 
compliance date without a waiver. If the petitioner wanted to continue 
operating all six of its AN-124 airplanes past the December 31, 1994, 
compliance date, it needed to add one Stage 3 airplane to its U.S. 
operations specifications to obtain the proper fleet mix for a new 
entrant under Sec. 91.867. The petitioner otherwise had to remove three 
of the Stage 2 AN-124 airplanes from its U.S. operations 
specifications.
    Denial of Waiver: The petitioner stated that a waiver was in the 
public interest because of the unique cargo capability of the AN-124 
airplane and its operation as an ad hoc charter rather than regularly 
scheduled service. The FAA determined that a grant of the petitioner's 
request for a waiver would not be in the public interest. The FAA found 
that since the petitioner did not show that, given its record of use, 
specialized shipping needs could not be met with three rather than six 
airplanes, and since they had the ability to change the individual 
airplanes that appeared on the operations specifications at any given 
time, there was no public benefit to be gained by granting a waiver to 
an operator for the purpose of making its operations scheduling easier. 
Further, the petitioner did not show that it ever had a plan to meet 
the December 1994 compliance date, or that it made any effort to do so. 
Evidence of a viable compliance plan and a good faith effort to achieve 
compliance are considered critical elements of any request for a 
waiver, as indicated by the presence of these criteria in 
Sec. 91.871(c), the criteria that all applicants must meet. Since the 
FAA had no compliance plan information on file and the petitioner did 
not submit any with its application for waiver, the FAA concluded that 
the petitioner had never developed any plan to comply with the December 
1994 compliance date.
    No. 4 petitioner: By petition dated September 1, 1994, Docket No. 
27898, counsel for the petitioner petitioned the FAA on behalf of the 
petitioner for a waiver that would allow the petitioner to operate an 
all-Stage 2 fleet until it obtained an installed hushkits that were 
under development at the time of the petition.
    The petitioner operates scheduled and charter interstate and 
foreign air cargo operations. It began operating on November 11, 1992, 
under a temporary DOT certificate and obtained permanent DOT authority 
in April 1994. As of July 22, 1994, the petitioner's fleet consisted of 
10 DC-8 series airplanes, all of which were Stage 2. To comply with the 
December 31, 1994, interim compliance requirement, the petitioner 
needed to retrofit or ground seven of its airplanes, or to add three 
Stage 3 airplanes to continue operating all 10 of its Stage 2 DC-8's.
    Denial of Waiver: In its first required filing, the petitioner 
reported that, as a new entrant, it would comply with Sec. 91.967. In a 
subsequent report (for 1993), the petitioner stated that it ``intends 
to apply for an exemption or waiver from the requirements for 
compliance for the December 31, 1994, compliance date.'' At the time of 
its petition, the petitioner reported a fleet of 10 Stage 2 DC-8's with 
a plan to add two more before the end of 1994, and that it had no plans 
to acquire any other type of airplane. It is FAA policy to consider for 
the possibility of waiver only those airplanes in operation by an 
operator on the date of the petition. Further, the FAA could not find 
to be viable a plan that relied solely on the grant of a waiver. The 
petitioner also stated that its principles had contracted for hushkit 
development and that ``the expected date of certification for this 
Stage 3 project is early 1995.'' While the FAA found a public benefit 
in the development of a hushkit for the subject DC-8 airplanes, that 
benefit had no logical connection to the waiver requested by an 
individual operator that knew the hushkit would not be available before 
the compliance date but chose to take no other action.
    No. 5 operator: By petition dated September 1, 1994, Docket No. 
27906, the petitioner petitioned the FAA for a waiver that would allow 
it to operate a fleet of five Stage 2 airplanes until December 31, 
1995.
    The petitioner began scheduled service in July 1994. From August to 
October 1994, the petitioner expanded its service. The petitioner began 
operating with three Stage 2 Boeing 737-200 airplanes. The petitioner 
took delivery of two more airplanes of the same model in September and 
October 1994. Under Sec. 91.867, the fourth airplane in the 
petitioner's fleet would be required to be Stage 3 after December 31, 
1994; the planned acquisition of the

[[Page 43115]]

fourth and fifth airplanes led to this request for a waiver.
    Denial of Waiver: It is FAA policy to consider for the possibility 
of waiver only those airplanes in operation by an operator on the date 
of the petition. In this instance, the petitioner was operating three 
Boeing 737-200 airplanes, but it had already committed to leasing two 
more that were scheduled for delivery in September and October 1994. As 
early as March 1994, before its airplane leases began, the petitioner 
was investigating bringing the airplanes it planned to operate into 
compliance. However, since the petitioner elected to lease a Stage 2 
airplane as its fourth airplane and take delivery of it in September, 
as well as a fifth airplane in October, the FAA found that the 
petitioner was apparently unwilling to adapt its business plans to 
achieve compliance with a regulation that predates the existence of the 
airline. During this time, the petitioner also began discussions 
regarding the lease of a Stage 3 airplane, and indicated to the FAA 
that even if such a lease were negotiated, it could not bring the 
airplane into service in time to meet the compliance date. The FAA 
found that commencing such complex actions so close to the compliance 
date was not a viable compliance plan nor did it demonstrate a good 
faith effort to comply. Also, the FAA was unable to conclude that the 
public interest claimed by the petitioner in its providing service 
outweighed the larger public interest in compliance and the integrity 
of the phased transition to an all Stage 3 fleet by the year 2000.
    No. 6 petitioner: By petition dated August 3, 1994, Docket No. 
27869, counsel for the petitioner petitioned the FAA on behalf of the 
petitioner for a waiver that would allow the petitioner to operate all 
of its Stage 2 airplanes beyond the interim compliance date of December 
31, 1994.
    The petitioner operates an all-cargo service on a charter basis 
worldwide and by scheduled service between the United States and 
Central and South America. The petitioner operated a fleet of four 
Stage 2 airplanes, three Boeing 707's and one McDonnell Douglas DC-8. 
To comply with the December 31, 1994, interim compliance date in 
Sec. 91.865, the petitioner needed to retrofit or ground one of its 
four airplanes or replace it with a Stage 3 airplane.
    Denial of Waiver: The petitioner initially reported to the FAA that 
it planned to meet the compliance requirements by ``retirement of Stage 
2 or addition of Stage 3 aircraft.'' In two subsequent reports, the 
petitioner indicated that it planned to comply in 1994 by phasing out 
25% of its Stage 2 airplanes without further detail. The petitioner's 
petition did not contain any information as to changed circumstances or 
why the retirement of one airplane was no longer feasible. The FAA 
cannot accept the nonexistence of retrofit equipment as the basis for a 
waiver. If it did, the agency would be obligated to grant a waiver to 
every operator of such equipment, ostensibly for the entire interim 
compliance period. In this case, the FAA determined that no good faith 
effort had been demonstrated, since the petitioner did not show a 
willingness to adhere to its own compliance plan, but appeared to be 
relying on the existence of the waiver provision to continue the same 
level of operations after the December 31, 1994, compliance date.
    No. 7 petitioner: By petition dated December 7, 1994, Docket No. 
27994, the petitioner petitioned the FAA for a waiver that would allow 
it to operate a fleet of four all Stage 2 airplanes until January 31, 
1995.
    The petitioner is a new entrant air carrier that began service on 
December 4, 1994. At the time the petitioner petitioned for a waiver on 
December 7, 1994, it operated a fleet of two Stage 2 airplanes. The 
petitioner exercised an option to add two additional Stage 2 airplanes 
to its fleet and was awaiting delivery of another airplane currently 
undergoing installation of Stage 3 hushkits. Since this Stage 3 
airplane was not to be delivered to the petitioner until January 16, 
1995, to comply with the December 31, 1994, interim compliance date in 
Sec. 91.867, the petitioner would have had to ground one of its four 
Stage 2 airplanes.
    Denial of Waiver: After the petitioner knew that there was a 
possibility that its hushkitted airplane would be delayed until after 
the compliance date, it chose to apply for a waiver for airplanes it 
had not yet exercised its option to lease. The petitioner then 
exercised the lease option, apparently doing so knowing that the 
possibility of delay existed for the delivery of its Stage 3 airplane. 
Accordingly, the FAA cannot accept the argument that the petitioner 
made a good faith effort to comply or conclude that a waiver was even 
necessary when the application was submitted. When the petitioner 
exercised its option to lease the airplanes, it made a business 
decision to possibly put itself out of compliance, and knew that on the 
compliance date it might possibly possess a fleet of airplanes that 
required a waiver to operate fully. If the petitioner had committed to 
leasing the two additional Stage 2 airplanes and later been informed 
that the delivery of its Stage 3 airplane would be delayed until after 
the compliance date, the FAA might have been able to look at the 
circumstances more favorably given the petitioner's efforts to secure 
the timely delivery of a Stage 3 airplane. But the statement in the 
petitioner's petition that it knew there might be a problem before it 
exercised its lease option denies that this was the case. The FAA is 
unable to conclude that the petitioner's statements reflect a net 
public benefit in the grant of a waiver. The possibility that the 
petitioner would have had to ground one of its airplanes for a short 
time, partially because of its own actions taken after it was told of a 
possible problem with the delivery of its Stage 3 airplane, does not 
outweigh the significant public interest inherent in full compliance 
with the rule.

Use of Interchange Agreements for Noise Compliance

    The FAA reminds all operators of Stage 2 noise level airplanes 
subject to the phaseout under Secs. 91.865 or 91.867 that, as of March 
14, 1995, new compliance arrangements that rely on sharing Stage 3 
airplanes by placing them on the operators specifications of more than 
one operator are prohibited, and that existing arrangements cannot be 
used to comply with December 31, 1996, and subsequent requirements. 
This prohibition applies to U.S. and non-U.S. operators of Stage 2 
airplanes covered by the Stage 3 transition rules. A full statement of 
this policy and the reasons for its adoption were published in the 
Federal Register on March 14, 1995, at 60 FR 13627.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 9, 1996.
James D. Erickson,
Director of Environment and Energy.
[FR Doc. 96-20834 Filed 8-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M