[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 130 (Thursday, July 8, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37026-37031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17359]



[[Page 37025]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 139



Year 2000 Airport Safety Inspections; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 130 / Thursday, July 8, 1999 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 37026]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 139

[Docket  No.  FAA-1999-5924;  SFAR  No.   85-]
RIN 2120-AG83


Year 2000 Airport Safety Inspections

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This rulemaking proposes to require certain airport operators 
to conduct a one-time readiness check of certain airfield equipment and 
systems starting January 1, 2000, and report the results of these 
checks to the FAA. In addition, this proposal would temporarily revise 
the time period these airport operators have to repair or replace 
certain emergency equipment. This proposal is needed to ensure that 
airport operators identify and address any unforeseen problems with 
date-sensitive airfield equipment and systems. These proposed changes 
are intended to maintain the current level of airport safety on and 
after January 1, 2000.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 9, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rulemaking should be mailed or 
delivered, in duplicate, to: U.S. Department of Transportation Dockets, 
Docket No. FAA-1999-5924, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room Plaza 401, 
Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also be sent electronically to the 
following Internet address: [email protected]. Comments may be filed 
and/or examined in Room Plaza 401 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert E. David, Airport Safety and 
Operations Division (AAS-300), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
8721.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking 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 document 
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, as well as a report summarizing each 
substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this rulemaking, will 
be filed in the docket. The docket is available for public inspection 
before and after the comment closing date.
    The Administrator will consider all comments received on or before 
the closing date before taking action on this proposed rulemaking. 
Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable. The 
proposals contained in this notice may be changed in light of the 
comments received.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
submitted in response to this notice must include a pre-addressed, 
stamped postcard with those comments on which the following statement 
is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-1999-5924.'' The postcard will be 
date stamped and mailed to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section 
of the FedWorld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339), the Government Printing Office's electronic bulletin board 
service (telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee Bulletin Board service (telephone: (800)322-2722 or 
(202)267-5948).
    Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the Government Printing Office's WebPages at 
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to recently published 
rulemaking documents.
    Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request 
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling 
(202)267-9680. Communications must identify the notice number or docket 
number of this NPRM.
    Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future 
NPRM's should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular 
No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, that 
describes the application procedure.

Background

History

    Since 1970, the FAA Administrator has had the statutory authority 
to issue airport operating certificates to airports serving certain air 
carriers and to establish safety standards for the operation of those 
airports. This authority is currently found in Title 49, United States 
Code (U.S.C.) Sec. 44706, Airport operating certificates. The FAA has 
used this authority to issue requirements for the certification and 
operation of certain land airports. These requirements are contained in 
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations part 139 (14 CFR part 139), 
Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving Certain Air 
Carriers.
    Under part 139, the FAA requires airports to comply with certain 
safety requirements prior to serving operations of large air carrier 
aircraft (aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats). When an airport 
satisfactorily complies with these requirements, the FAA issues to that 
facility an airport operating certificate that permits the airport to 
serve commercial operations using these aircraft. These safety 
requirements cover a broad range of airport operations, including the 
maintenance of runway pavement, markings, and lighting, notification to 
air carriers of unsafe or changed conditions, and preparedness for 
aircraft accidents and other emergencies. The FAA periodically inspects 
these airports to ensure continued compliance with part 139 safety 
requirements.
    Many airport operators use computers or equipment with embedded 
microprocessors to meet certain part 139 requirements. For example, an 
operator of a certificated airport may have computer systems that 
control when airfield lighting is turned on, or that control access to 
the airfield through vehicle and passenger gates. Safety and 
maintenance vehicles, such fire fighting trucks, and emergency 
communications systems may likewise have computerized systems.
    On January 1, 2000, many computers worldwide could malfunction or 
shut down because the year will change from 1999 to 2000. The problem, 
often referred to as the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, is the result of how 
computers and other microprocessors have traditionally recorded and 
computed dates. Typically, these machines have used two digits to 
represent the year, such as ``98'' for 1998, to save electronic storage 
space and reduce operating costs. However, this format fails to 
distinguish the year 2000 (represented as ``00'') from the year 1900. 
Software

[[Page 37027]]

and computer experts are concerned that this could cause computers and 
equipment with internal microprocessors to malfunction in unforeseen 
ways or to fail completely.

FAA Y2K Monitoring and Compliance

    In preparing for the year 2000, the FAA is working with airport 
operators to ensure that all airfield equipment and systems used to 
support compliance with part 139 requirements are Y2K compliant, or 
that the airport operator has developed an alternative means of 
complying with the part 139 requirements.
    In June 1998, the FAA sent a letter to the operators of the 
approximately 5,300 public-use airports in the U. S. to alert them that 
they may have systems on their airports that could be affected by date 
change to January 1, 2000. A follow-on letter was subsequently sent in 
October 1998 to the operators of airports certificated under part 139. 
This letter emphasized the need for these operators to take the 
necessary steps to ensure that Y2K issues would not affect any 
equipment and systems containing computers or microprocessors that are 
used to comply with part 139. It also stated that airport operators 
could develop an alternative means of meeting the regulation's 
requirements that did not rely on systems with computers or 
microprocessors, and provided some criteria for determining Y2K 
compliance.
    At the same time, the FAA also formed an airport Y2K airport team 
to contact operators of certificated airports to monitor the Y2K status 
of each of these operator's systems that are used to support compliance 
with part 139 requirements. The results of these contacts have shown 
that airport operators are working to address Y2K issues at their 
airports. The Y2K airport team will continue to work with the operators 
of certificated airports throughout the remainder of 1999 to ensure 
that the agency is kept informed of the Y2K status at each part 139 
airport.

Current Requirements

Self-Inspection of Airport Safety Systems

    Part 139 currently requires operators of certificated airports to 
conduct daily inspections of their facilities to ensure compliance with 
the regulation. Such inspections include a visual check of movement 
areas (areas used by air carriers to land, takeoff, and taxi) and 
operational tests of equipment and systems used to comply with part 139 
requirements. However, these required inspections are conducted at 
times determined by the airport operator. Typically, various elements 
of the self-inspection are conducted throughout the day. As such, the 
existing inspection requirement does not require inspection early on 
January 1, before most operations begin, and does not necessarily 
require the kind of tests that would determine if there is a Y2K-
related problem that was not detected by pre-January Y2K validation 
testing. Certain equipment required by part 139, unlike other aviation 
systems, is intended for use only in an emergency. If special early 
testing is not required, a Y2K problem might only be detected when the 
equipment was needed for an actual emergency.
    While part 139 also requires reporting of aircraft rescue and fire 
fighting (ARFF) equipment outages and conditions that affect air 
carrier operations, those reports would not be received until the 
equipment was tested or used, which could be after operations begin. 
The FAA believes that there is a substantial need for a system-wide 
reporting of Y2K testing results to quickly identify any effects of Y2K 
on the national airport system. This will permit the FAA to coordinate 
solutions at airports throughout the U.S. that use similar models of 
equipment, and to provide early assurances to the public that 
operations are normal, if in fact there are no Y2K problems.

ARFF Index

    In addition, part 139 provisions regarding the repair or 
replacement of inoperative ARFF vehicles are not well adapted to the 
unique circumstances of the Y2K effect on equipment. The provisions of 
Sec. 139.319(h)(3) allow an airport operator a 48-hour grace period to 
repair or replace inoperative ARFF vehicles, with no effect on the 
airport's ARFF index. The ARFF index for an airport, which is 
determined by the size of aircraft using the airport and number of 
daily departures, determines the number and size of ARFF trucks needed 
and, thereby, limits the size of aircraft that the airport can serve. 
The 48-hour provision is intended to allow airport operators sufficient 
time to acquire parts to repair a required ARFF vehicle or arrange for 
a replacement vehicle.
    Under normal operations, this is an acceptable procedure as an 
inoperative ARFF vehicle is a rare occurrence, and parts can be 
obtained quickly. However, since some ARFF vehicles may have embedded 
computer chips, a Y2K-related problem, while highly unlikely, is 
possible. Since similar models of ARFF vehicles are widely used, a 
failure of even one model of ARFF equipment could affect many airports. 
Therefore, a delay in repairing a Y2K problem at a number of airports 
could have a system-wide impact.

Alternatives Considered by the FAA

    The FAA considered four alternatives to this rulemaking. These 
alternatives would affect all currently certificated airports, 
including those considered to be small business entities (owned and 
operated by a municipality with less than 49,999 population). In 
analyzing these alternatives, the FAA addressed the concerns of 
airports of varying sizes and operations, including those classified as 
small business entities.
    First, the FAA considered not making changes to part 139 for the 
January 1, 2000, date rollover. Under this alternative, operators of 
certificated airports would continue to comply with current part 139 
requirements. Scheduled operations could be conducted before emergency 
equipment was checked, and could continue for 48 hours, even if ARFF 
equipment experiences a Y2K problem. Airport operators would rely 
exclusively on pre-January tests to predict Y2K compliance, and might 
only become aware of an unexpected Y2K problem when a piece of 
equipment was needed for an actual emergency. Also, this approach would 
make it significantly more difficult for individual airport operators 
and the FAA to react to outages of airfield safety equipment if the 
problems were identified only in the course of actual operations over 
several days or weeks, rather than in a pre-test conducted at a 
specified time.
    Second, the FAA arguably could determine Y2K compliance an 
``unusual condition'' under Sec. 139.327(a)(2) and require all 
certificate holders to conduct an inspection within a specified time 
period to identify and correct any deficiencies. While this approach is 
within the scope of part 139, there is no regulatory provision that 
would address the possibility, however remote, of widespread failure of 
ARFF vehicles.
    Third, the FAA considered requiring the inspections only at 
airports holding an airport operating certificate and serving scheduled 
operations of air carrier aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats 
(as opposed to a holder of a limited airport operating certificate that 
serves unscheduled air carrier operations). However, many operators of 
limited certificated airports serve scheduled operations by aircraft 
with 10-30 passenger seats, and persons using those airports could 
benefit from the confirmation that ARFF and other airfield safety 
equipment at the airport are not affected by Y2K.

[[Page 37028]]

    Fourth, the FAA considered mandating both the self-inspection and 
reporting requirement, as well as the suspension of the 48-hour grace 
period for repair of ARFF vehicles. For the reasons discussed in the 
first three alternatives above, the FAA is proposing this alternative. 
Of the four alternatives considered to continue the current level of 
safety after January 1, 2000, the fourth alternative is the most 
comprehensive and the most costly. However, the costs are still minimal 
and only marginally greater than the other alternatives, and the 
benefits of the certainty of mandatory safety inspections fully justify 
this approach.

Discussion of the Proposal

    This proposed rule would affect the approximately 566 civilian 
airports certificated under part 139, and would temporarily amend the 
regulation to require Y2K testing to determine the affects of the date 
rollover and to ensure adequate emergency support service as of January 
1, 2000.
    Section 139.327(a) requires operators of certificated airports to 
conduct regular facility inspections to ensure compliance with the 
regulation. However, as noted above, this does not require inspections 
on January 1, 2000, prior to air carrier operations, and would not 
necessarily require the kind of tests that would determine if there was 
a Y2K-related problem that was not detected by pre-January Y2K 
validation testing. To address these concerns and provide for thorough 
Y2K testing, the proposed Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 
would require specific equipment and systems tests.
    This proposal also would temporarily modify reporting requirements 
of Sec. 139.327. Currently, this section requires airport operators to 
have a reporting system that ensures prompt correction of any unsafe 
conditions found during the self-inspections. These records are checked 
by the FAA during periodic inspections. This proposal would temporarily 
modify this requirement by requiring operators of certificated airports 
to report to the FAA the results of Y2K inspections and testing and the 
steps to be taken to resolve any discrepancies. The FAA has determined 
that this would efficiently provide the FAA with information that the 
566 certificated airports remain compliant with part 139 requirements 
immediately after the unique circumstances of the Y2K date rollover. 
This information cannot be obtained by FAA inspection, because it would 
be impossible for the small number of FAA airport certification safety 
inspectors to visit more than a very few of the 566 certificated 
airports on January 1.
    This special testing would apply only to systems identified by the 
FAA at each airport as critical to airfield safety and efficiency, and 
used by the airport to meet part 139 requirements. Generally these 
systems include ARFF equipment, airfield communications, emergency 
alarm systems, and airfield lighting. The specific systems on each 
airport that the FAA considers to be covered by this proposed 
requirement will be provided to the airport operator by the FAA Y2K 
representative for the FAA region in which the airport is located, 
after consultation with the airport operator, no later than October 
1999.
    The FAA proposes that as of January 1, 2000, each operator of a 
certificated airport be required to complete readiness tests at least 
one hour before the first air carrier operation is scheduled to occur. 
For example, if the first air carrier operation is scheduled for 10:00 
a.m. on Monday, January 3, 2000, the airport operator would have to 
complete all required tests by 9:00 a.m. on that date. The FAA 
recognizes that this may not be possible at those few airports were the 
first air carrier operation would occur before 2 a.m. on January 1, 
2000. To accommodate those early flights that would not allow testing 
to be completed one hour prior to the operation, e.g., an air carrier 
aircraft arrival at 12:30 a.m., the FAA proposes that the operators of 
these airports initiate required testing as soon as possible after 
12:00 a.m. and be completed by 1:00 a.m. In any case, airport operators 
would be required to complete required tests before January 5, 2000, 
even if the airport operator does not serve air carrier operations 
(scheduled or unscheduled) before this date.
    Finally, the provisions of Sec. 139.319(h)(3) that allow an airport 
operator a 48-hour grace period to repair or replace inoperative ARFF 
vehicles, with no effect on the airport?s ARFF index, would be 
temporarily suspended. The 48-hour provision is intended to allow 
airport operators sufficient time to acquire parts to repair a required 
ARFF vehicle or arrange for a replacement vehicle. As noted above, 
under normal conditions this is an acceptable procedure as an 
inoperative ARFF vehicle is a rare occurrence, and parts can be 
obtained quickly. However, some ARFF vehicles may rely on computers or 
microprocessors, and since similar models of ARFF vehicles are widely 
used, a failure of even one model of ARFF equipment could affect many 
airports.
    A temporary suspension of the 48-hour grace period would 
effectively require that airports have a backup plan for ARFF coverage 
for the first few days of January 2000 if they want to ensure they will 
maintain their current ARFF index. This would serve both to handle 
actual Y2K problems and also to provide assurance to the public that 
ARFF coverage will continue on January 1, 2000, in the event of Y2K 
problems. If the ARFF equipment was needed to maintain the airport?s 
ARFF index, and the airport had not provided for backup coverage, a 
temporary reduction in the size of aircraft serving the airport would 
be required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Information collection requirements in this proposal are small and 
have previously been approved for part 139 by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and have been assigned OMB Control Number 
2120-0063. This authorization was renewed in May 1999, and in 
anticipation of possible Y2K testing, the hour burden of this 
proposal's one-time, small information collection were included in the 
renewal. However, it should be noted that this proposal would not 
require new inspections or reports that are not already required by 
part 139, but would only require that those reports be done within a 
specified period.

Compatibility With ICAO Standards

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.
    The Joint Aviation Authorities, an associated body of the European 
Civil Aviation Conference, develop Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) in 
aircraft design, manufacture, maintenance, and operations for adoption 
by participating member civil aviation authority. The JAR does not 
address airport certification.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.

[[Page 37029]]

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze the 
economic effect of regulatory changes on small business and other small 
entities. Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies 
to assess the effect of regulatory changes on international trade.
    However, if an agency determines that the expected impact is so 
minimal that the proposal does not warrant a full evaluation, a 
statement to that effect, and the basis for it, is included in the 
proposed regulation. The FAA has determined that this proposed rule 
meets this criteria. The expected impacts of this rule would be so 
minimal as to not warrant a full regulatory evaluation, and a full 
evaluation in the docket was not prepared.
    This SFAR would establish a one-time self-test and reporting 
requirement that is essentially identical to the existing requirement, 
except for the timing, and would require that certain airports arrange 
for backup ARFF services or reduce their ARFF index if ARFF vehicles 
fail the test. Since self-inspection and reporting are already required 
under Sec. 139.327(a), this regulation imposes little additional costs 
on airport operators. The FAA estimates that the tests required by this 
proposal may be completed in less than two hours, including reporting 
test results to the FAA. In addition, the expense of an ARFF backup 
requirement is both small and considered a low-probability event.
    The proposed requirement that certificated airports provide 
immediate ARFF backup would require these airports to either maintain 
the current ARFF index or reduce their ARFF index. Operators of most 
certificated airports are required to maintain ARFF index to serve 
current scheduled air carrier operations. Many of these operators 
already provide for an ARFF backup plan, and if not, can relatively 
inexpensively and quickly make such arrangements. A satisfactory backup 
plan could be a prearranged plan with other local fire departments for 
auxiliary coverage.
    An economic impact could occur in the following scenario. For those 
operators of certificated airports that are required to meet a 
specified ARFF index, this proposed rule does not allow the currently-
permitted 48-hour grace period to repair or replace inoperative ARFF 
equipment. This rule may result in ARFF costs equal to the 48-hour 
expense of providing sufficient ARFF support, or reducing the level of 
support to current scheduled service to the airport.
    The FAA believes the cost of maintaining an airport ARFF index for 
48 hours is very low in terms of airport overall expenses. Secondly, 
for such an expense to occur, all of the following conditions must be 
met:
    1. A vehicle necessary to maintain the ARFF index does not pass the 
Y2K readiness check.
    2. No other ARFF equipment is readily available to maintain the 
ARFF index.
    3. Air carrier aircraft serving the airport that day do not allow 
the airport operator to temporarily step down to a lower ARFF index.
    The probability of an outcome, which depends upon a series of 
connected events in which each event must occur, is calculated by 
multiplying across all events the probability assigned to each event. 
In this case, the probability of the first event, a required ARFF 
vehicle does not pass the Y2K readiness check, is multiplied by the 
probability assigned to the second, and then multiplied by the 
probability of the third event. If the probability of just two events 
each equal 10 percent, the probability assigned to an airport incurring 
an ARFF expense resulting from this rule cannot be higher than one 
percent. Thus the FAA believes that while an ARFF expense can occur, 
the expected likelihood is thought to be very low.
    The FAA has determined that it is unlikely that all three events 
will occur. However, in the event an airport does incur the cost of 
having backup ARFF vehicles available, only the first 48-hours of that 
cost is attributable to this proposed rule because the current rule 
imposes the same requirement after a 48-hour grace period. The cost for 
an airport that might need to provide a backup vehicle could be zero, 
if the vehicle were obtained from other fire units of the airport 
owner, or from other local governments through a mutual aid agreement. 
Accordingly, the expected cost is very small that an airport operator 
would be required under the proposed rule to incur costs for obtaining 
one or more backup ARFF vehicles. Finally, if the ARFF index was 
affected, an airport operator could choose to accept a lower ARFF index 
temporarily, with no effect on scheduled service, if aircraft currently 
used for scheduled service at the airport do not require the higher 
index. Thus the FAA expects this element of the proposed rule to be 
minimal.
    The benefit of the proposed rule is that it will provide assurance 
that airport operator's preparations for Y2K have been effective and 
that compliance with part 139 requirements is not compromised due to 
the January 1, 2000 date rollover. In the unlikely event that this date 
rollover were to interrupt systems that are used to comply with part 
139, the proposal would ensure an early knowledge of such interruption 
and facilitate immediate action to maintain safety, if necessary.
    The FAA solicits comments from affected entities with respect to 
the cost and benefit assessment in the regulatory evaluation and 
requests that commenters provide supporting data or analyses.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject 
to regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small 
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and 
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the determination is that it would, the 
agency must prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) as 
described in the Act. However, if an agency determines that a proposed 
or final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities, Sec. 605(b) of the 1980 Act 
provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a 
statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the 
reasoning should be clear.
    As detailed above in the regulatory evaluation there are two costs 
that may be incurred. First, the proposed inspection costs are expected 
to be minimal as the expected inspection time is thought to be two 
hours or less. Second, the probability that the proposed requirement 
may impose an ARFF cost is expected to be very low. Of the 566 
certificated airports, 177 meet the criteria for small entities. Fully 
135 of those 177 airports are approved for air carrier operations using 
mutual aid, or have other arrangements that do not require the airport 
operator to have

[[Page 37030]]

on the airfield ARFF equipment to meet a particular index requirement. 
These airports would not be financially affected by the suspension of 
the 48-hour ARFF grace period. The remaining 42 airports that are 
considered small entities do have an assigned ARFF index, and 
potentially could be affected by the proposed SFAR. The expected ARFF 
cost that this rule could impose on these 42 airports is expected to be 
minimal.
    The proposed rule does not allow airports the currently-permitted 
48-hour grace period to repair or replace inoperative ARFF equipment. 
Thus, the rule may impose an ARFF cost equal to a 48-hour expense of 
providing sufficient ARFF support, or reducing the level of support to 
current scheduled service to the airport.
    The FAA believes the cost of maintaining an airport ARFF index for 
48 hours is very low in terms of airport overall expenses. Secondly, 
for such an expense to occur all of the following conditions must be 
met:
    1. A vehicle necessary to maintain the ARFF index does not pass 
theY2K readiness check.
    2. No other ARFF equipment is readily available to maintain the 
ARFF index.
    3. Air carrier aircraft serving the airport that day do not allow 
the airport operator to temporarily step down to a lower ARFF index.
    The probability of an outcome, which depends upon a series of 
connected events in which each event must occur, is calculated by 
multiplying across all events the probability assigned to each event. 
In this case, the probability of the first event, a required ARFF 
vehicle does not pass the Y2K readiness check, is multiplied by the 
probability assigned to the second, and then multiplied by the 
probability of the third event. If the probability of just two events 
each equal 10 percent, the probability assigned to an airport incurring 
an ARFF expense resulting from this rule cannot be higher than one 
percent. Thus the FAA believes, for reasons discussed above, that an 
ARFF expense can occur, but the expected likelihood is thought to be 
very low. In addition, the actual cost is expected to be low as mutual 
aid agreements with other fire departments and the potential of a lower 
ARFF index still permit the operation of scheduled flights.
    Accordingly, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 
605(b), the Federal Aviation Administration certifies that this rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The FAA solicits comments from affected entities with 
respect to this finding and determination and requests that commenters 
provide supporting data or analyses.

International Trade Impact Analysis

    The proposed rule would not constitute a barrier to international 
trade, including the export of U.S. goods and services to foreign 
countries, or the import of foreign goods and services into the United 
States.

Federalism Implications

    The regulations herein will 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 rule will not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism 
assessment.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
codified as 2 U.S.C. 1501-1571, requires each Federal agency, to the 
extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the effects 
of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may 
result in the expenditure of $100 million or more adjusted annually for 
inflation in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector.
    Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal 
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by 
elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, and tribal 
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A 
``significant intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any 
provision in a Federal agency regulation that would impose an 
enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments in the 
aggregate of $100 million adjusted annually for inflation in any one 
year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section 
204(a), provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the 
agency shall have developed a plan that among other things, provides 
for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a 
meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development 
of regulatory proposals.
    This proposed rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental 
or private sector mandates. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically 
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In 
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this 
rulemaking action qualifies for a categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

    The energy impact of the proposed rule has been assessed in 
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and Pub. 
L. 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). It has been determined that it 
is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 139

    Air carriers, Airports, Aviation safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend part 139 of Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 139--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: LAND AIRPORTS SERVING 
CERTAIN AIR CARRIERS

    1. The authority citation for part 139 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C 106(g), 40113, 44701-44706, 44709, and 
44719.

    2. Part 139 is amended by adding Special Federal Aviation 
Regulation No.      to read as follows:
    SFAR    --YEAR 2000 AIRPORT SAFETY INSPECTIONS
    1. Test requirements. 
    (a) Each certificate holder shall test each piece of equipment 
and system described in (b) and (c) of this paragraph to ensure that 
compliance with part 139 requirements has not been affected by the 
date change to January 1, 2000. Testing shall demonstrate that the 
equipment or system is sufficiently operational to continue to 
support the airport operator's compliance with the requirements of 
part 139.
    (b) Equipment and systems to be tested include--
    (1) Runway and taxiway lighting required under Sec. 139.311;
    (2) Emergency alarm/communication systems required under 
Sec. 139.319(j)(6);
    (3) ARFF vehicles and associated equipment required under 
Secs. 139.213(b)(11), 139.317, and 139.319;

[[Page 37031]]

    (4) Communication systems required under Sec. 139.329; and (5) 
Any other system or unit of equipment that the Administrator 
determines--
    (i) Relies on or contains a computer or microprocessor;
    (ii) Is used in support of the holder's compliance with part 139 
requirements; and
    (iii) Is critical to the safety and efficiency of aircraft 
operations.
    (c) Tests of ARFF vehicles shall include the discharge of fire 
extinguishing agents.
    (d) After consultation with each certificate holder, the 
Administrator will make a final determination of equipment and 
systems to be tested and provide written notification of this 
determination by October 31, 1999.
    2. Reporting Requirements. No later than one hour following the 
completion of testing required under paragraph 1 of this SFAR, each 
certificate holder shall report the results of each test to the 
Regional Airports Division Manager.
    3. Test Schedule.
    (a) Each certificate holder shall complete the tests prescribed 
in paragraph 1 of this SFAR, as follows:
    (1) By 1:00 a.m. on January 1, 2000, if the first air carrier 
operation is scheduled to occur before 2:00 a.m. on this date.
    (2) At least one hour before the first air carrier operation is 
scheduled to occur, if the operation is scheduled to occur after 
2:00 a.m. on January 1, 2000.
    (b) All required tests shall be completed before January 5, 
2000, regardless of whether the airport has received air carrier 
operations from January 1 through January 4, 1999.
    4. Vehicle readiness. Notwithstanding Sec. 139.319(h)(3), until 
January 5, 2000, any required vehicle that becomes inoperative to 
the extent that it cannot perform as required by Sec. 139.319(h)(1) 
shall be replaced immediately with equipment having at least equal 
capabilities. If the required Index level is not restored 
immediately after the testing required by this SFAR, the airport 
operator shall notify the Regional Airports Division Manager and 
limit air carrier operations on the airport to those compatible with 
the Index corresponding to the remaining operative rescue and fire 
fighting equipment.
    5. Self-inspection requirements. The requirements of this SFAR 
do not relieve the certificate holder from self-inspection 
obligations required under Sec. 139.327. However, testing conducted 
in compliance with this SFAR may be used to fulfill applicable part 
139 requirements.
    6. Effective times. All of the times described in this SFAR are 
in local time at the airport.
    7. Expiration. This Special Federal Aviation Regulation expires 
on January 5, 2000.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 1, 1999.
David L. Bennett,
Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-17359 Filed 7-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P