Federal Register, Volume 66 Issue 212 (Thursday, November 1, 2001)

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 212 (Thursday, November 1, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55506-55521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-27340]

[[Page 55505]]

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

Part III

Department of Transportation

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

Federal Aviation Administration

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

14 CFR Parts 121, 125, and 129

Collision Avoidance Systems; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 212 / Thursday, November 1, 2001 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 55506]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 121, 125 and 129

[Docket No. FAA-2001-10910; Notice No. 01-12]
RIN 2120-AG90

Collision Avoidance Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to use airplane weight and performance
characteristics to require a collision avoidance system on airplanes
operating under part 121, 125, or 129. The current traffic alert and
collision avoidance system (TCAS) rules for parts 121 and 125 require
use of TCAS based on airplane weight and passenger-seating
configuration criteria and, in some cases, combination passenger/cargo
configuration criteria. Part 129 uses passenger-seating configuration
and the type of airplane power plant. This proposal would require use
of a collision avoidance system by all-cargo airplanes for the first
time, and would standardize the requirements for all-cargo and
passenger-carrying airplanes. In the past, cargo air carriers had small
fleets which operated primarily at night. However, the air cargo
industry has experienced rapid growth and cargo fleets are expanding.
Also, cargo operations are increasingly occurring around the clock and
those operations occur in airspace shared with passenger airplanes.
Therefore, the FAA is proposing collision avoidance system
requirements for certain cargo airplanes to minimize the possibility of
midair collisions involving a cargo airplane. In addition, this
proposal would standardize the collision avoidance system requirements
for part 121, 125, and 129 airplanes.

DATES: Send your comments on or before December 31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Address your comments to the Docket Management System, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number [FAA-
2000-10910] at the beginning of your comments, and you should submit
two copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that
the FAA received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped
postcard.
You may also submit comments through the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov. You may review the public docket containing comments to
these proposed regulations in person in the Dockets office between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Dockets office is on the plaza level of the NASSIF Building at the
Department of Transportation at the above address. Also, you may review
public dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alberta Brown, Air Carrier Operations
Branch, Flight Standards Service, AFS-220, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone (202) 267-8321.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written
comments.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public
inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to
review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the
Internet at the web address in the ADDRESSES section.
Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we
receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider
comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments
we receive.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this
proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard
on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the
postcard and mail it to you.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the
following steps:
(1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page http://dms.dot.gov/search.
(2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket
number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on ``search.''
(3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number of the item
you wish to view.
You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the
Office of Rulemaking's web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm
or the Federal Register's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
You can also get a copy 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. Make
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.

Background

Regulatory History

On January 5, 1989, the FAA issued the ``Traffic Alert and
Collision Avoidance System; Final Rule'' (54 FR 940, January 10, 1989),
which established requirements for the installation and use of TCAS on
passenger-carrying airplanes used under parts 121, 125, 129, and 135.
The final rule required parts 121 and 125 operators of large airplanes
with a passenger seating configuration of more than 30 seats to have
TCAS II installed and operational by December 30, 1991. Part 129
operators of turbine-powered airplanes, with a passenger seating
configuration of more than 30 seats, were required to install TCAS II
in those airplanes by December 30, 1991. Part 135 operators (known at
the time as air taxi and commuter operators) and part 129 operators of
turbine-powered airplanes, with a passenger seating configuration of
10-30 seats, were required to install TCAS I by February 9, 1995. Part
121 operators of combination cargo/passenger (combi) airplanes, with a
passenger seating configuration of 10-30 seats, were required to
install TCAS I by February 9, 1995.

[[Page 55507]]

During this rulemaking effort, Congress enacted the Airport and
Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-223),
which among other things, directed the FAA to require TCAS II by
December 30, 1991, on airplanes with a maximum passenger seating
configuration of more than 30 seats.

Amendments to the TCAS Rule

In response to concerns that the aviation community could not
comply with the statutory schedule for TCAS II equipage, the FAA
proposed a modified schedule to phase-in TCAS II installation. Public
Law 101-236, enacted on December 15, 1989, allowed the Administrator to
extend the deadline for TCAS II installation for no more than 2 years.
On April 3, 1990, the FAA amended the compliance schedule for TCAS II
installation for parts 121, 125, and 129 operators (68 FR 13242, April
9, 1990). The revised phase-in compliance schedule required all
affected airplanes to be equipped with TCAS II by December 30, 1993.
In October 1992, the Regional Airline Association petitioned for a
temporary exemption and urged the FAA to extend the compliance date for
the installation of TCAS I. Because of delays in equipment development
and testing, the complexity of the equipment, and requirements for
supplemental type certification, the FAA extended the compliance date
for installing TCAS I for 1 year to December 31, 1995 (59 FR 67584,
December 29, 1994).
On December 12, 1995, the FAA issued the ``Commuter Operations and
General Certification and Operations Requirements; Final Rule'' (60 FR
65832, December 20, 1995), which, in part, required certain part 135
operators to conduct operations under part 121. The rule affected part
135 operators with airplanes having a passenger seating configuration
of 10-30 seats. Before the ``Commuter Rule,'' only combi airplanes were
included under the 10-30 passenger seat criteria in Sec. 121.356(b),
which required TCAS I. The ``Commuter Rule'' added passenger airplanes
to Sec. 121.356(b) to cover the remaining 10-30 passenger seat
airplanes transitioning from part 135 to part 121. In part 135, the
TCAS rule for airplanes with a passenger seating configuration of 10-30
seats applies only to turbine-powered airplanes, but in part 121, the
TCAS rule applies to all airplanes with a passenger seating
configuration of 10-30 seats. Consequently, some piston-powered
airplanes with a passenger seating configuration of 10-30 seats that
were not required to have TCAS before the ``Commuter Rule'' were
required to have TCAS after the compliance date of that rule. The
amendment also revised the TCAS rule by including reference to TCAS I
in Sec. 121.356(c), which covers flight manuals.

Current Requirements

Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) is a general
term for a family of airborne devices that function independently of
the ground-based air traffic control (ATC) system and provide collision
avoidance protection for a broad spectrum of airplane types. It is
designed to serve as a safety back-up to the ATC system.
TCAS I provides proximity warnings to pilots in the form of traffic
advisories (TAs), which display the intruding transponder-equipped
traffic relative to the TCAS-equipped airplane. Traffic advisories
generally include the range, altitude, and bearing of the intruding
airplane. Current rules require at least TCAS I on: (1) Passenger or
combi airplanes with a passenger seating configuration of 10-30 seats
operated under part 121, and (2) turbine-powered airplanes with a
passenger seating configuration of 10-30 seats operated under part 129
or 135.
TCAS II provides both TAs and recommended vertical escape
maneuvers, known as resolution advisories (RAs). Resolution advisories
provide pilots with information to change a flight path or prevent a
maneuver that could cause insufficient separation between airplanes.
TCAS II also coordinates RAs between two TCAS-equipped airplanes (i.e.,
each pilot would receive an RA that would not conflict with the other
RA). Current rules require TCAS II on: (1) Large airplanes with a
passenger seating configuration of more than 30 seats operated under
part 121 or 125, and (2) turbine-powered airplanes with a passenger
seating configuration of more than 30 seats operated in the United
States under part 129.
The current TCAS requirements for parts 121, 125, and 129 are
summarized in the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment
14 CFR Classification requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
121.356(a).................. Large airplane, a TCAS II and a Mode S
passenger seating transponder.
configuration of
more than 30 seats,
excluding any pilot
seat.
121.356(b).................. Passenger or combi An approved traffic
airplane, a alert and collision
passenger seating avoidance system;
configuration of 10- if TCAS II is
30 seats, excluding installed, it must
any pilot seat. coordinate with
TCAS units that
meet TSO C-119.
125.224(a).................. Large airplane, a TCAS II and a Mode S
passenger seating transponder.
configuration of
more than 30 seats,
excluding any pilot
seat.
129.18(a)(1)................ Turbine-powered TCAS II and a Mode S
airplane, a transponder.
passenger seating
configuration of
more than 30 seats,
excluding any pilot
seat.
129.18(b)................... Turbine-powered An approved traffic
airplane, a alert and collision
passenger seating avoidance system;
configuration of 10- if TCAS II is
30 seats, excluding installed, it must
any pilot seat. coordinate with
TCAS units that
meet TSO C-119.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

TCAS transmits interrogations that elicit replies from radar beacon
transponders in nearby airplanes. The level of protection provided by
TCAS depends on the type of transponder the intruding airplane is
carrying. For example, nearby airplanes equipped with a Mode A
transponder will provide only range and azimuth information to the
TCAS-equipped airplane; whereas, an airplane equipped with a Mode C or
Mode S transponder will provide range, azimuth, and altitude
information to the TCAS-equipped airplane. Mode S is a more precise
transponder because it transmits in 25-foot increments; whereas, Mode C
transmits in 100-foot increments. TCAS provides protection only from
airplanes with an operating transponder.

Purpose of the Proposal

The FAA promulgated the TCAS rule in 1989 to protect air carrier
passengers from midair collisions. This has the added benefit of
protecting persons on the ground. Because the cargo air carriers
traditionally transported few passengers, operated few airplanes, and
operated primarily at night, the FAA determined that those cargo
airplanes

[[Page 55508]]

did not represent a significant risk to passenger-carrying airplanes,
which operated primarily during the day.
The FAA recognized that those few cargo airplanes would benefit
some from the TCAS requirement for passenger airplanes because
transponder-equipped cargo airplanes are displayed to pilots of TCAS-
equipped passenger airplanes. Cargo airplanes also benefit because of
the large number of passenger airplanes that are equipped with TCAS. In
addition, the FAA determined that the cost/benefit analysis and risk
level at that time did not support requiring cargo operators to equip
their airplanes with TCAS.
In 1987, prior to the TCAS rule, the air cargo industry operated
approximately 375 airplanes. Today, cargo air carriers operate
approximately 1,150 airplanes and the demand for air cargo services is
expected to continue growing at a rate of 5-6 percent per year over the
next 10-20 years. The FAA believes that because the U.S. air cargo
industry and daytime cargo operations have grown rapidly at high-
density hubs, an increased risk of near midair collisions (NMACs)
involving cargo and passenger airplanes exists. Furthermore, large
total traffic volume and complexity within the National Airspace System
(NAS) increase the challenge of maintaining safe separation among
aircraft.
On February 6, 1999, a cargo airplane and a passenger airplane were
involved in a hazardous situation when they passed within 1 mile
horizontally, and 600 feet vertically from each other. The passenger
airplane was equipped with TCAS and its pilot took action to avoid the
cargo airplane. On March 2, 1999, a NMAC occurred over Salina, Kansas
involving two cargo airplanes. Neither airplane was equipped with TCAS
and the airplanes passed within an estimated one-half mile horizontal
and 0 feet vertical separation of each other. These occurrences
illustrate the potential of a collision between cargo and passenger
airplanes or two cargo airplanes.
According to FAA data, since the installation of TCAS began, the
number of pilot-reported NMACs dropped from 454 reports in 1990 to an
all-time low of 194 in 1996. FAA data also disclose that from January
1, 1994, to January 1, 1999, pilots flying cargo airplanes filed four
NMAC reports. Two incidents involved Federal Express airplanes, one
NMAC involved an Empire Airlines, Inc., airplane, and one involved an
Airborne Express, Inc., airplane. The NTSB has reported that no midair
collisions involving large all-cargo transport airplanes have occurred.
However, the FAA believes that the potential risk exists of a NMAC or a
midair collision occurring involving a cargo airplane.
Therefore, the FAA proposes to use airplane weight and performance
characteristics to encompass cargo as well as passenger airplanes and
to standardize and clarify parts 121, 125, and 129. The FAA believes
this would reduce the risk of midair collisions, increasing public
safety in the air and on the ground.

Petition for Rulemaking

Summary of the Petition for Rulemaking

The Independent Pilots Association (IPA), representing pilots from
United Parcel Service, petitioned the FAA in September 1996 to amend
Sec. 121.356 to require TCAS II on transport category airplanes flown
in all-cargo, part 121 operations. According to IPA, requiring
transport category cargo airplanes to be equipped with TCAS II may
prevent collisions between cargo airplanes and between cargo and
passenger airplanes operating in the same airspace. IPA maintains that
a TCAS II equipage requirement would reduce the risk of death and
serious injury to pilots, passengers of other airplanes, and persons on
the ground.
IPA maintains that TCAS has a proven track record in reducing the
risk of midair collisions. Further, the FAA has reported to Congress
that TCAS provides an additional safety margin against midair
collisions. According to IPA, the FAA and the National Air and Space
Administration's Aviation Safety Reporting System have received several
reports indicating that TCAS II was credited with preventing midair
collisions.
IPA asserts that the FAA articulated its belief that TCAS provides
a valuable backup to visual collision avoidance, right-of-way rules,
and air traffic separation services when it issued the ``Notification
to Air Traffic Control (ATC) of Deviations from ATC Clearances in
Response to Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System Resolution
Advisories; Final Rule'' (60 FR 50676). This rule authorizes pilots to
deviate from their ATC clearance to respond to a TCAS RA.
IPA states that the cargo industry has experienced rapid growth
over the past 15 years, and the cargo industry's present operations
more closely resemble those of the passenger carriers. IPA asserts that
cargo air carriers are now operating numerous daytime flights in
addition to nighttime flights and share the same airspace with
passenger airplanes. IPA states that cargo air carriers operate within
a hub and spoke system in which large banks of flights arrive at and
depart from the same airport within a short period of time. IPA
believes this contributes to an increased workload for air traffic
controllers and is further reason to require on-board collision
avoidance for cargo airplanes. IPA also claims that late-night ATC
system maintenance, sleep-deprived controllers, ATC computer and
communications outages, and the development of the ``Free Flight''
program are all additional reasons to require TCAS.

Comments on the Petition for Rulemaking

The FAA published a summary of IPA's petition for rulemaking in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1996 (61 FR 55230). The FAA received
350 comments in support of the petition, and none opposing it. A copy
of the petition for rulemaking and comments received in response to the
petition have been placed in the docket.
Commenters included the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Allied
Pilots Association (APA), Air Traffic Control Association, Inc. (ATCA),
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT), and Airline Professionals
Association Teamsters Local 1224 (APAT). The FAA also received comments
from 3 individual pilots, 314 pilots employed by Airborne Express, and
28 pilots employed by DHL Airways, Inc. (DHL). In addition, two
comments were received from members of Congress, who forwarded
correspondence from their constituents.
The APA states that the 1989 TCAS rule excluded small commuter
airplanes that operate out of low traffic airports from the TCAS
requirements. The APA also states that the regulation excluded cargo
airplanes, which was an oversight. An individual pilot states that the
lack of a uniform regulation that includes all transport category
airplanes negates some of the safety enhancements gained by the
introduction of TCAS. The IBT endorses and supports the FAA's
recognition that TCAS is an effective collision avoidance system. The
IBT comments that the FAA's confidence in TCAS permits, by regulation
(14 CFR Sec. 91.123), pilots to deviate from an ATC clearance in
response to a TCAS resolution advisory.
The APAT and ALPA note that the FAA requires sophisticated
equipment on cargo and passenger airplanes, such as ground proximity
warning systems, airborne weather radar, windshear detection systems,
altitude alerters, cockpit voice recorders, and flight data

[[Page 55509]]

recorders. These commenters add that the safety item not common to
passenger and cargo airplane operations is TCAS II. Many commenters
generally indicate that the lack of TCAS on cargo airplanes compromises
the safety of the traveling public. They state that cargo airplanes
share the same airspace as passenger airplanes and that since the
requirement to carry TCAS on passenger-carrying airplanes was issued,
cargo operations have expanded significantly. The IBT theorizes that an
increase in cargo operations increases the statistical probability of a
midair collision involving a cargo air carrier.
Airborne Express pilots comment that there are over 700 arrivals
and departures of cargo airplanes under control of the Indianapolis Air
Route Traffic Control Center between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:30
a.m. According to this group of commenters, these airplanes, which are
not equipped with TCAS, fly over densely populated cities and may be
carrying hazardous materials. Additionally, the APAT notes that
passenger-carrying airplanes often conduct ``red eye'' flights at
night, which may result in an increased risk for collisions. According
to APAT, during the hours air carriers conduct ``red eye'' flights,
airplanes often fly at flight levels not typically assigned for the
direction the airplane is flying.
Airborne Express pilots and the APAT maintain that certain ATC
computer functions are shut down for routine maintenance between the
hours of 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. They argue that at such times, ATC
uses its backup computers, which do not have the collision warning
system that is installed on the primary computers. As such, the
commenters believe that airborne collision avoidance systems are
necessary.
The IBT, the APAT, and the Airborne Express pilots addressed the
effects of nighttime operations on human circadian rhythms. According
to those commenters, pilots and controllers who work at night suffer
the effects of the body's circadian low-point, which results in a
reduction of mental alertness and performance. Those commenters contend
that it is during such periods that the air traffic facilities also are
often shut down for maintenance. According to the commenters, pilots
who feel the effects of this circadian low rely heavily on controllers
during times of reduced ATC computer functions.
The FAA received several comments regarding the positive effect
TCAS has had on rates of midair and near midair collisions. According
to the APA, since the requirement to carry TCAS on passenger-carrying
airplanes became effective in 1993, FAA statistics disclose a decline
in reported NMACs from 38 in 1993 to 20 in 1996. The APAT states that
pilot reports of all NMACs have dropped from 454 in 1990 to 240 in
1995.
Other commenters addressed specific fatal midair collisions. The
APAT comments that the NTSB found that the collision between a
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and a Piper PA-12 over Cerritos, California, in
1986 might have been avoided if either the pilots or the controller had
an automated collision avoidance system available to them. ALPA noted
that the use of the see-and-avoid requirement to prevent midair
collisions has severe limitations caused by physiological constraints
of the human eye, cockpit window configurations, and current ATC
procedures. ALPA cited the November 12, 1996, midair collision over
India between a Saudi Boeing B-747 and a Kazakh Ilyushin IL-76 as
evidence that highly experienced pilots cannot consistently visually
detect and avoid traffic threats. In addition, ALPA indicated that TCAS
II equipment may have prevented the accident.
ALPA also comments that ground fatalities do occur as a result of
midair collisions. Specifically, ALPA refers to the 1978 midair
collision over San Diego, California, which caused 7 deaths on the
ground, and the Cerritos midair collision, which caused 15 deaths on
the ground.
Regarding general safety issues, DHL pilots, ALPA, APAT, and IBT
refer to the FAA's stated goal of ``one level of safety.'' Those
commenters indicate that this goal should include equipping cargo
airplanes with TCAS. Also, they comment that one effect of the ``one
level of safety'' goal is the requirement for certain commuter
operators that formerly operated under the requirements of part 135 to
now operate under the requirements of part 121. Those operators have
been required to install TCAS in airplanes with a passenger seating
configuration of 10 to 19 seats. However, ALPA points out that
airplanes with a passenger seating configuration of 30 seats or less
are only required to be equipped with TCAS I. ALPA states that TCAS I
is an inferior system and does not provide pilots with RAs. According
to ALPA, pilots using TCAS I are required to identify visually the
``threat aircraft'' before initiating avoidance maneuvers. DHL pilots
state that all cargo airplanes must be equipped with TCAS if the FAA
has a ``zero accident'' objective.
The FAA received comments stating that requiring TCAS on all
transport airplanes would enhance safety and close a ``loophole'' that
does not require cargo airplanes to be equipped with TCAS. The
commenters indicate that the ``loophole'' requires certain passenger-
carrying airplanes to carry TCAS, but excludes cargo airplanes from the
same requirement.
The DHL pilots note that TCAS II has 360-degree traffic alerting
capability in all weather. An individual pilot commented that the pilot
of an airplane equipped with TCAS II would not know which direction a
non-TCAS II-equipped airplane would turn during a traffic conflict.
Commenters state that the FAA is falling behind Europe and Japan in
aviation safety improvements. Some commenters state that in the year
2000, the Europeans and Japanese will require TCAS on airplanes with 30
or more passenger seats, or weighing more than 33,000 pounds.
ALPA states that pilots have found TCAS II to be invaluable when
operating in foreign airspace that has marginal ATC services.
Commenters express the need for TCAS in North Atlantic operations
because of ICAO's initiative to establish Reduced Vertical Separation
Minimum (RVSM) in the nonradar environment of the oceanic airspace.
ALPA states that the RVSM program reduces vertical separation to 1,000
feet for aircraft operating between 29,000 feet and 41,000 feet. The
commenter states that it cannot find any requirement for TCAS II on
those airplanes exercising RVSM privileges.

FAA Response to the Petition for Rulemaking

The FAA believes that this NPRM is responsive to the IPA's petition
for rulemaking, although it is broader in scope. Inclusion of airplanes
operating under parts 121, 125, and 129 would ensure that airplanes of
similar weight and performance capability would be equipped with
collision avoidance systems. This action will serve as the FAA's
response to the petitioner's request to amend Sec. 121.356.

Congressional Hearing

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, held a hearing on February
26, 1997, to discuss whether to require TCAS II on cargo airplanes. The
hearing also addressed four near midair collisions that occurred in
February 1997 and involved military aircraft and passenger airplanes.
Individuals from the FAA, NTSB, United States Air Force (USAF), United
States Navy (USN), ALPA, Nations Air Express, Inc.,

[[Page 55510]]

Independent Pilots Association (IPA), International Teamsters Airline
Division (Teamsters), the National Air Transport Association (NATA),
and the Cargo Airline Association (CAA) (formerly known as the Air
Freight Association) testified at the hearing. Most witnesses supported
requiring TCAS on cargo airplanes. NATA rejected the proposal citing
minimal safety increases and an unjustifiable financial burden to air
carriers. A transcript of the hearing and written testimonies submitted
by the witnesses are in the public docket.

NTSB Recommendation

On September 9, 1999, the NTSB recommended that the FAA amend
Secs. 121.356, 125.224, and 129.18. The NTSB cited two NMACs that
occurred in early 1999 involving airplanes that were not required to
have TCAS II equipment installed. The NTSB recommended that the FAA
require all aircraft of 15,000 kilograms (1kg. = 2.2lb.; 2.2 x
15,000= 33,000 pounds) or greater MCTOW, or more than 30 passenger
seats, be equipped with TCAS II and an appropriate Mode S transponder.
The NTSB states that a valuable feature of TCAS II is its ability
to coordinate escape maneuvers with TCAS II equipment on opposing
airplanes. But when two potentially conflicting airplanes are not
equipped with TCAS II, avoidance maneuvers chosen by the pilots may be
uncoordinated and the two flight paths may continue to converge. The
same outcome could result if one airplane is equipped with TCAS II and
the other is not equipped with TCAS.
According to the NTSB, a draft implementation plan published by the
European Civil Aviation Conference states that by January 1, 2000,
passenger and cargo airplanes weighing more than 15,000 kilograms, or
configured with more than 30 seats must be equipped with TCAS II to fly
within European airspace. Several other countries are implementing
similar TCAS requirements.
The NTSB also discusses the developing technology known as ADS-B.
It states that although ADS-B may have a future as a collision
avoidance system, that is not its primary function and no firm schedule
or implementation plan has been established. The NTSB further states
that many technical and research issues remain to be resolved before
ADS-B can provide anti-collision capability comparable to that of TCAS
equipment. A copy of the NTSB's recommendation is included in the
public docket.

Recent Legislation

On April 5, 2000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act (AIR-21) was enacted (Pub. L. 106-181). AIR-21 directs the
FAA to require all cargo airplanes of more than 15,000 kilograms MCTOW
to be equipped with collision avoidance equipment by December 31, 2002.
AIR-21 also provides for an extension of up to 2 years for safety or
public interest reasons.
AIR-21 defines collision avoidance equipment as ``equipment that
provides protection from mid-air collisions using technology that
provides cockpit-based detection and conflict resolution guidance,
including display of traffic; and a margin of safety of at least the
same level as provided by the collision avoidance system known as TCAS
II.'' This proposal is consistent with the statutory definition and
mandate.

The Proposal

The FAA is proposing to amend Secs. 121.356, 125.224, and 129.18 by
changing the applicability criteria for collision avoidance system
requirements. Rather than retaining the current passenger-seating
configuration criterion to determine applicability, the FAA would use
revised weight and performance criteria. As such, this proposed rule
would standardize the collision avoidance system requirements for
airplanes of similar size and performance capability. It would apply to
cargo airplanes and other airplanes that are not required to have TCAS
under current regulations.
Turbine-powered airplanes of more than 33,000 pounds maximum
certificated takeoff weight (MCTOW) operated under part 121, 125, or
129 would be required to be equipped with TCAS II, or equivalent, and
an appropriate Mode S transponder. Turbine-powered airplanes of 33,000
pounds or less MCTOW operated under part 121, 125, or 129 would be
required to be equipped with at least TCAS I, or equivalent. All
piston-powered airplanes, regardless of weight, conducting operations
under part 121 or 125 would be required to be equipped with TCAS I, or
equivalent.
This proposal incorporates the NTSB's regulatory recommendation.
However, the FAA has excluded piston-powered airplanes of more than
33,000 pounds MCTOW from these proposed TCAS II requirements. The FAA
has determined that TCAS I is more appropriate for those airplanes,
considering their reduced performance characteristics.
The FAA's proposal is broader than the NTSB's recommendation. This
proposal would require TCAS I on certain turbine-powered airplanes
weighing 33,000 pounds or less MCTOW. Finally, the FAA notes that TCAS
II and an appropriate Mode S transponder already are required for
airplanes with a passenger seating configuration of more than 30 seats
and most of these airplanes weigh more than 33,000 pounds MCTOW.

General Discussion of the Proposals

Current Applicability

Current rules require TCAS II on: (1) Large airplanes with a
passenger seating configuration of more than 30 seats operated under
part 121 or 125, and (2) turbine-powered airplanes with a passenger
seating configuration of more than 30 seats operated in the United
States under part 129.
Part 121 certificate holders operating passenger or combi
airplanes, and part 129 turbine-powered airplanes that have a passenger
seating configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of 10 to 30 seats must
equip those airplanes with an approved traffic alert and collision
avoidance system. (Part 125 only applies to airplanes with 20 or more
passenger seats.)

Proposed Applicability

This proposed rule would, in part, provide for the installation and
use of an appropriate collision avoidance system on all airplanes used
under part 121, and most airplanes used under part 125 or 129. The
proposal would standardize TCAS requirements based on airplane
performance characteristics (either piston- or turbine-powered) and
airplane weight. Although TCAS technology can apply to all aircraft,
this proposal would apply only to airplanes. The proposal is not
intended to apply to aircraft that are not airplanes (e.g.,
helicopters).
The FAA intends to eliminate the current passenger-seating
threshold test for determining collision avoidance equipage. The
passenger-seating configuration criteria excludes cargo airplanes and
airplanes with fewer than 10 passenger seats. The FAA has determined
that, in the interest of meeting its safety goals, implementing weight
and performance capability thresholds for collision avoidance system
applicability would better reflect the type of airplanes that should be
equipped with a collision avoidance system. As such, this proposed rule
would include airplanes that may have been excepted from the TCAS
requirements since 1989.

[[Page 55511]]

The Weight Threshold

A large airplane (defined in 14 CFR 1.1 as an airplane of more than
12,500 pounds MCTOW) that has a passenger seating configuration of more
than 30 seats is 33,000 pounds or greater. The current TCAS rules have
resulted in TCAS II equipage for airplanes of 33,000 pounds or greater
MCTOW. Therefore, the FAA's proposal to use a weight criteria of 33,000
pounds MCTOW for TCAS II requirements does not change TCAS II
requirements for the passenger-carrying airplanes.
The 33,000-pound MCTOW threshold is consistent with ICAO's TCAS
equipage recommendation, which uses 15,000 kilograms MCTOW (33,000
pounds). The weight threshold would divide affected airplanes into two
categories: (1) Airplanes that weigh more than 33,000 pounds MCTOW; and
(2) airplanes that weigh 33,000 pounds or less MCTOW. In addition, the
proposal specifies whether the requirements apply to turbine-powered or
piston-powered airplanes.
The FAA recognized that the current TCAS rule language differs
among parts 121, 125, and 129, especially in describing which airplanes
are covered by the rule. Some of these differences can be standardized.
This proposal would standardize those collision avoidance rules to the
greatest extent possible. The FAA intends for the proposal to continue
to cover all airplanes that currently are covered by the part 121, 125,
and 129 TCAS rules.

Part 135

This proposal does not apply to airplanes operated under part 135.
In 1995, the FAA transitioned all part 135 commuter air carriers with
airplanes having 10 or more passenger seats into part 121, and they are
currently required to have TCAS. The transition plan required the part
135 air carriers to meet the TCAS standards in part 121. The only
scheduled carriers remaining in part 135 operate are those with 9 or
less passenger seats. The NTSB did not recommend requiring collision
avoidance equipment for part 135 operators.
While safety may be enhanced by requiring collision avoidance
systems on part 135 cargo airplanes, it is appropriate for the FAA to
study this issue for possible future rulemaking.
As in all rulemaking proposals, the FAA conducts extensive research
to determine which airplanes should be included in any proposed rule.
The FAA uses the best available data when developing and justifying new
rules. The FAA recognizes that changes to its data may occur as it is
updated and that some data may be inconclusive. For that reason, the
FAA encourages the public to comment on the scope of the proposed rule,
particularly on the airplanes to be covered by the proposed rule.

Equivalent

Unlike the current TCAS rules, this proposal would allow an
equivalent system to be used in lieu of TCAS. However, as explained in
the section entitled ``ADS-B Technology'' below, FAA approval would be
required. To be considered as an alternative to TCAS, the system must
be equivalent to and interoperable with TCAS. The FAA is interested in
new technology that could improve safety.

Proposed Requirements for TCAS II, or Equivalent

This proposal would require TCAS II, or an approved equivalent
collision avoidance system, on part 121, 125, and 129 turbine-powered
airplanes of more than 33,000 pounds MCTOW. In addition, those
airplanes would be required to be equipped with a Mode S transponder.
By using the term ``turbine-powered airplane,'' the FAA would
exclude piston-powered airplanes from TCAS II requirements, reducing
the scope of the current Secs. 121.356 and 125.18. The FAA is aware
that current Secs. 121.356 and 125.18 do not exclude piston-powered
airplanes with a passenger seating configuration of more than 30 seats
from TCAS II requirements. Several petitioners operating those
airplanes requested exemptions from the TCAS II requirements and the
FAA denied those requests. Since the 1989 TCAS rule, the FAA has
learned that piston-powered airplanes lack the performance necessary to
respond to TCAS II resolution advisories. These airplanes (mostly 1940s
vintage) generally operate at low altitudes, where airplanes normally
have TCAS I, rather than at altitudes, where airplanes normally have
TCAS II.
The FAA is aware of piston-powered airplanes operating under part
121 that would be allowed to have less than TCAS II, even though they
weigh more than 33,000 pounds MCTOW--the Douglas DC-6 and the Convair
CV-240/340/440 series. However, these airplanes may no longer be
conducting passenger-carrying operations with more than 30 passenger
seats. The FAA believes that some Convairs (e.g., 600-series) converted
to turbine engines may still be operating. The FAA specifically
requests comments regarding piston-powered airplanes weighing more than
33,000 pounds MCTOW operating under part 121 or 125 and the reduction
of scope of this proposed rule on piston-powered airplanes with a
passenger seating configuration of more than 30 seats operating under
part 121.

Proposed Requirements for TCAS I, or Equivalent

This proposal would require TCAS I or an approved equivalent
collision avoidance system on: (1) Turbine-powered airplanes of 33,000
pounds or less MCTOW operated under part 121, 125, or 129; and (2) all
piston-powered airplanes, regardless of weight, operated under part 121
or 125. This would capture the remaining part 121 and 125 airplanes not
covered under existing TCAS II requirements. Operators would be allowed
to equip the affected airplanes with TCAS II, or an equivalent system,
in lieu of TCAS I.
Part 129 includes certain piston-powered airplanes that are too
small to be operated practically with a collision avoidance system.
Such airplanes do not operate at high altitudes or airspeeds.
Therefore, TCAS I requirements under part 129 would continue to apply
only to turbine-powered airplanes.
This proposal would set forth a new requirement for passenger
airplanes operating under part 125 with a passenger seating
configuration of 30 seats or less (i.e., 20-30 passenger seats). Unlike
parts 121 and 129, part 125 currently does not include TCAS I
requirements for those airplanes. The FAA has determined that airplanes
of similar weight, performance capability, and operating environment
should be equipped with similar collision avoidance systems. The FAA is
aware that this proposal for part 125, similar to part 121, may require
a collision avoidance system on DC-6s and Convairs. However, consistent
with the TCAS I requirements proposed in part 121, turbine-powered
airplanes of 33,000 pounds or less MCTOW, and any piston-powered
airplane regardless of weight under part 125 would be required to be
equipped with TCAS I.

Plain Language in Government Writing

In response to the June 1, 1998, Presidential memorandum regarding
the use of plain language, the FAA re-examined the writing style
currently used in the development of regulations. The memorandum
requires Federal agencies to communicate clearly with the public. You
can find more information about the Presidential memorandum and the
plain language initiative at http: www.plainlanguage.gov.

[[Page 55512]]

The FAA is proposing amendments to Secs. 121.356, 125.224, and
129.18 in a table format. The FAA specifically requests comments on
whether these proposed amendments are in clear language, and whether
the table format is easy for the reader to understand.

Use of ``You'' versus ``Pilot'' or ``Certificate Holder''

Under current Secs. 121.356, 125.224, and 129.18, the FAA uses the
terms ``person'' and ``certificate holder'' to indicate who the rule
applies to. The FAA proposes to standardize this and use the term
``you'' to apply to certificate holders and pilots operating the
affected airplanes. Specifically, in part 121, this revision would
clarify that the pilots, in addition to the certificate holder, are
responsible for ensuring that an airplane meets the appropriate
collision avoidance requirements before operating that airplane.
Section 91.221(b) of 14 CFR states that ``[e]ach person operating an
aircraft equipped with an operable traffic alert and collision
avoidance system shall have that system on and operating.'' The FAA
would reiterate this responsibility in the proposed collision avoidance
rules in parts 121 and 125.
Pilots operating non-U.S.-registered airplanes under part 129 are
not required to possess U.S. pilot certificates. Furthermore, foreign
air carriers operating under part 129 primarily operate foreign-
registered airplanes; therefore, the proposed rule would be applicable
only to the foreign air carrier. The term ``you'' would not mean the
pilots.

Compliance Schedule

The FAA proposes that operators be required to equip affected
airplanes by October 31, 2003. The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment
and Reform Act (Public Law 106-181) directs the FAA to require
collision avoidance equipment by December 31, 2002, and allows a 2-year
extension for safety or public interest reasons. ICAO recommended a
compliance date of January 1, 2003.
The FAA determined that a compliance date of October 31, 2003,
would provide adequate time for air carriers to schedule the
installation of TCAS equipment during a major C or D maintenance check.
The FAA chose October 31, 2003, to avoid logistical problems that may
occur during the holiday season and to ensure air carriers encounter
few complications meeting the compliance date. It would not be the
FAA's policy to grant exemptions when this rule is final.

Technical Standard Orders (TSOs)

The FAA issued TSO C-119a for production of TCAS II units, which
required all manufacturers to use a version of the collision avoidance
system logic designated as TCAS II version 6.02. Use of TCAS II version
6.02 revealed many shortcomings. As a result, the FAA issued
Airworthiness Directives (ADs) requiring all operators to upgrade their
system logic to version 6.04A Enhanced. Operators were required to
comply with the ADs by December 31, 1994. Airplanes currently required
to have TCAS II are equipped with version 6.04A Enhanced or version
7.0.
TCAS II version 7.0, manufactured under TSO C-119b, contains
several enhancements to surveillance performance and changes to the
collision avoidance logic software. Some of the more significant
changes include: (1) Permitting a reversal of an RA in TCAS-TCAS
encounters in which one airplane does not follow its RA, (2) improving
performance in multiple airplane encounters, (3) clarifying potentially
ambiguous phrases in aural advisories, (4) adding a horizontal miss
distance filter to reduce nuisance RAs, and (5) eliminating false/
nuisance TAs in RVSM operations.
TSO C-119b also provides the basis for design approval of the
system known as Airborne Collision Avoidance System (ACAS II). ACAS II
is the International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) designation for
the collision avoidance system required by many foreign civil aviation
authorities. ACAS II is equivalent to TCAS II version 7.0.

Grandfathering

This proposal would not require a retrofit of TCAS II version 7.0
for airplanes already equipped with TCAS II version 6.04A Enhanced
before the publication date of this NPRM. Technology changes rapidly
and the FAA attempts to balance the application of new technology with
its role to promulgate reasonable regulations. The FAA has a
responsibility to apply the latest technology, but it must do so
without overwhelming certificate holders with equipment retrofits.
Although the FAA desires all TCAS II version 6.04A Enhanced units to be
replaced with version 7.0, the FAA proposes to allow operators with
airplanes equipped with TCAS II version 6.04A Enhanced to continue to
operate those airplanes with that system until the TCAS needs
replacement (i.e., can no longer meet TSO standards).
Certificate holders electing or required to install TCAS II on
their airplanes would have to install TCAS II version 7.0 on airplanes
that do not have TCAS II equipment before November 1, 2001. This also
would apply to airplanes that are placed on a certificate holder's
operations specifications after October 31, 2003.
Certificate holders operating airplanes installed with TCAS II
version 6.04A Enhanced before November 1, 2001, would be able to
continue to operate those airplanes with that TCAS unit beyond October
31, 2003, until the TCAS unit can no longer be repaired to TSO C-119a
standards (version 6.04A Enhanced). At that time, the certificate
holder must replace the unit with TCAS II version 7.0. This
grandfathering privilege also would apply to those operators that buy,
sell, or lease airplanes with existing version 6.04A Enhanced units
installed. The FAA expects operators would encounter minimal costs to
upgrade existing TCAS II units (version 6.04A Enhanced) to version 7.0.
Operators could upgrade many of the existing units with a software
change and/or a single chip.

Early Compliance

The FAA is proposing a new paragraph at the end of existing
sections 121.356, 125.224, and 129.18, which would apply until the
principal revision takes effect November 1, 2003. These new paragraphs
apply to all airplanes on which TCAS II is installed for the first time
after the publication of the NPRM. These new paragraphs would require
that such airplanes be operated with TCAS II, version 7.0. We believe
that it would be in the public interest to require that these TCAS
units take full advantage of TCAS II, version 7.0. We note that this
would require that operators preparing to comply on November 1, 2003,
who install TCAS II, in effect would be required to comply early for
that airplane when they first operate the airplane with version 7.0
installed. This operational requirement would include fully trained
flight crews for that airplane. We specifically invite comments on this
part of the proposal.

Training

All-cargo operators with pilots who have never used TCAS and must
now comply with any collision avoidance final rule will have to train
their pilots on the use of TCAS. Passenger-carrying operators with
pilots who have used TCAS all along will need to train their pilots for
differences training between version 6.04A Enhanced and version 7.0.
While there are differences between the two versions, most differences
are not readily discernible to the pilot. The differences that may be
discernible

[[Page 55513]]

(aural annunciation and display) should be easily understood once
pilots are aware of them. Differences training would be required with a
minimum of a bulletin to pilots. There are no special markings added by
the manufacturer of the TCAS equipment or by the FAA that would make
the pilot aware of which version is installed. Airplane operating
practices recommended for version 6.04A Enhanced should be continued
when operating with version 7.0.

ADS-B Technology

Groups within the aviation industry have urged the FAA and Congress
to allow for the development of an alternative collision avoidance
system before imposing a requirement that cargo carriers equip their
airplanes with TCAS. UPS Aviation Technologies, formerly known as II
Morrow, Inc., is developing a technology called Automatic Dependent
Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B).
ADS-B is intended to support surveillance of aircraft while
airborne and on the ground. Surveillance capabilities include primary
radar and secondary surveillance radar. Primary radar, a ground-based
system, detects actual aircraft location by measuring reflected energy
from the target. Secondary surveillance radar, also known as Mode S,
interrogates aircraft transponders and determines aircraft location and
other information through the reply. ADS-B uses the global positioning
system (GPS) and a radio frequency link to broadcast information
between aircraft equipped with ADS-B as well as between aircraft and
ground-based ADS-B receivers. An aircraft equipped with ADS-B would
broadcast its aircraft identification, along with position, velocity,
and other time-sensitive surveillance information to other aircraft and
would receive the same information from other aircraft. These
capabilities are only fully realized when all aircraft in the system
have an operating ADS-B system.
ADS-B may have a number of potential surveillance capabilities that
may enhance aircrew situational awareness, and provide enhanced
surveillance capabilities for ATC where none currently exists (e.g.,
oceanic airspace and areas not currently under positive control), and
may provide a basis for collaborative activities, such as closely
spaced parallel approaches. The FAA, UPS Aviation Technologies, ICAO,
air cargo operators, manufacturers, and other industry segments have
formed a working group referred to as Radio Technical Commission for
Aeronautics (RTCA) Special Committee No. 186 (SC-186) to develop
standards for ADS-B.
The FAA recognizes that ADS-B is being evaluated as a potential
equivalent collision avoidance system to that of TCAS II, and believes
that ADS-B technology may be promising as a surveillance tool,
providing situational awareness for flight crewmembers. The cockpit
display of traffic information also will enhance situational awareness
in positive control airspace. However, the FAA believes there are
several significant issues that pose challenges to its use as a
collision avoidance system and thus its consideration as an equivalent
system to TCAS II. Nonetheless, the FAA has structured this proposal to
allow the use of ADS-B (or any other future technology) as an
alternative to TCAS as long as these challenges are resolved. Any
equivalent must be shown to provide the same level of safety and
coordinated maneuvers as presently available with TCAS.
The FAA has determined that any equivalent to TCAS II must be
interoperable with TCAS II. While ADS-B may provide an opportunity for
early detection of traffic, ADS-B has not been developed to provide RAs
or to perform coordinated maneuvers with the many TCAS- and
transponder-equipped aircraft in the NAS. The current proposed version
of ADS-B operates only with ADS-B-equipped airplanes and ground-based
ADS-B receivers; whereas, TCAS II-equipped airplanes are afforded
collision avoidance protection from other TCAS II- and all transponder-
equipped airplanes. ADS-B will allow like-equipped airplanes to be
displayed at considerable ranges, although only an airplane equipped
with ADS-B will be able to detect another airplane equipped with ADS-B.
Considering the worldwide magnitude of TCAS installations and projected
increase in TCAS II/ACAS II installations to meet international
requirements, a system that is not interoperable with TCAS would
require significant costs for the high levels of equipage to realize
the safety benefits equivalent to TCAS. For the FAA to accept ADS-B as
an alternative to TCAS II, those wishing to make the case for ADS-B
before the FAA must fully resolve these issues before the FAA will
consider such a proposal.
Airplanes that may be equipped with ADS-B and TCAS II would assign
priority to TCAS II as the collision avoidance system of last resort,
with ADS-B as part of an airborne surveillance system. The FAA is
concerned about the possible display of traffic from multiple sources
such as TCAS II, ADS-B, and Traffic Information Services (TIS). How it
is to be displayed and how the data may or may not be fused together
into the display are but some of the issues that must be resolved when
multiple traffic information is displayed to the flight crew. The
problems related to data fusion and the fact that this data may come
from avionics certified to different levels may be difficult to
resolve. Those wishing to introduce multiple sources of data into the
cockpit have the burden of resolving those issues to the satisfaction
of the FAA. The FAA currently approves ADS-B for VFR-only flight in a
non-radar environment.
The FAA has relied upon independent communication, navigation, and
surveillance (CNS) capabilities for decades to provide safety in the
NAS. The FAA recognizes that these are not the only components
contributing to safety; however, independence of CNS capabilities
allows a pilot to complete a flight safely to a destination even with
the loss of any one of the airplane's CNS components. For example, with
the loss of surveillance, whether it is primary radar or secondary
surveillance radar, a pilot can still navigate and report the
airplane's position through communications with ATC. This independence
is compromised in a system where navigation and surveillance functions
are tied to a single system. ADS-B relies on output from on-board
navigation systems for position information. This navigation
information provides a dependent surveillance system. A failure in the
navigation system, whether on-board the airplane or a broader systemic
failure, would result in simultaneous loss of navigation capability and
the surveillance function (situational awareness).
Today, TCAS II functions independently from ground-based
communication, navigation, and surveillance systems. TCAS II provides
its own accuracy and is designed to provide collision avoidance in the
event of a mechanical or human operational failure. ADS-B functioning
as the method of primary ATC and as a replacement for TCAS II creates a
scenario whereby a failure in ADS-B could affect the primary and backup
means of separation. Any use of ADS-B as a replacement to TCAS II must
be able to address this independence issue and demonstrate other
acceptable methods of achieving this redundancy.
The international aviation community also has expressed concern
about the potential use of ADS-B data for

[[Page 55514]]

collision avoidance. The ICAO Secondary Surveillance Radar Improvements
and Collision Avoidance Systems Panel/Working Group 2 (SICASP/WG2)
forwarded a position paper to RTCA-SC186 on July 31, 1997, on the use
of ADS-B data for collision avoidance. The SICASP is responsible to the
ICAO Air Navigation Commission for developing and reviewing proposals
for operational technical procedures of airborne separation assurance
systems, as well as drafting ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
(SARPs) relating to airborne collision avoidance systems and SSR
improvements.
The SICASP/WG2 argues that ACAS II (TCAS II version 7.0) is a last
resort safety function. Its purpose is to prevent collision when other
means of separation assurance have failed. Therefore, it must be
independent of those other means of separation assurance because a risk
of collision implies a failure in the other means of separation
assurance.
SICASP/WG2 states that ADS-B is expected to broadcast an aircraft's
navigation data, and that separation assurance could use such
navigation data. They further argue that this, however, increases the
need for collision avoidance to provide protection that is independent
of ADS-B. Where any proposed collision avoidance function is based on
ADS-B data, it must be proved that the data and the overall design
provide sufficient integrity, reliability and availability, bearing in
mind the elements common to separation assurance and collision
avoidance.
SICASP/WG2 states that it believes ADS-B can be used to improve
ACAS II provided such use does not undermine the present degree of ACAS
II independence. The working group states that any new collision
avoidance system based on ADS-B would need to:
(i) Have the other aircraft fitted with some component (e.g., ADS-
B);
(ii) Coordinate resolution advisories when both aircraft in an
encounter are equipped with ADS-B;
(iii) Coordinate with the existing ACAS II; and
(iv) Be demonstrated to meet all the performance requirements of
ACAS II.
Any proposals to provide ADS-B as a replacement to TCAS II must
address the above issues raised by ICAO to the satisfaction of ICAO.
The FAA will continue to support the development of ADS-B and any
other technology that has the potential to improve the collision risk
reduction, which currently is provided by TCAS II. ADS-B technology is
still in a development phase and many of the technical standards for
ADS-B have not been developed in the United States or internationally.
It is not known when this technology will be fully developed or
available to the industry; therefore, its potential is also unknown.
Furthermore, the global mandates for TCAS II, NAS modernization and
future changes in operations (e.g., Free Flight) provide the impetus
for a strong fundamental system that will allow for changes to take
place in a manner that does not compromise safety.
In summary, any alternatives to TCAS II deemed to be potential
equivalents must demonstrate performance of the same functions and
provide interoperability with TCAS II to function in an NAS environment
that will exist for many years to come. The FAA believes that TCAS II
features such as automated TAs, RAs, and coordinated maneuvers with
other TCAS II-equipped airplanes are essential to any collision
avoidance system of the future. Also critical is the need to have the
largest practicable population of airplanes in the local sky available
to the collision avoidance system so that the maximum amount of
protection can be provided. While the FAA today believes that TCAS II
may be the only system that can meet these safety criteria, it is
willing to support any other systems that meet those same safety
criteria. The FAA has always been open to innovative solutions to
safety.

Related Activity

Other Countries Requiring Collision Avoidance Systems

Some countries already require, and several countries are moving
toward mandating, the installation and use of collision avoidance
systems. The Eurocontrol Airborne Collision Avoidance System Policy
Task Force completed a policy, which specifies that ACAS II be required
for airplanes operating in certain European airspace effective January
1, 2000. The policy requires implementation of ACAS II by all air
carriers operating airplanes with more than 30 passenger seats, or
weighing more than 15,000 kilograms (33,000 pounds). This policy also
requires cargo airplanes to be equipped with ACAS II (TCAS II version
7.0) and applies to any operator entering Eurocontrol-member countries.
Also, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have issued
regulations implementing this policy with the provision that a
petitioner may request relief from the rule until March 31, 2001, only
if ACAS II equipment is unavailable.
In addition, the Japanese Government recently mandated TCAS
operation within its airspace effective January 1, 2001, for all
Japanese-registered airplanes with more than 30 passenger seats, or
weighing more than 15,000 kilograms. Equipage of other airplanes
desiring to fly in Japanese airspace will be achieved through regional
agreements.
India mandated TCAS II for all airplanes operating in Indian
airspace on January 1, 1999, and Australia has issued regulations
requiring TCAS II equipage on airplanes operating in Australian
airspace no later than January 1, 2000. Canada currently has rulemaking
in progress that contains provisions for installation of TCAS on
passenger and cargo airplanes.

TCAS II Version 7.0 for RVSM Operations

The FAA is beginning to plan implementation of Reduced Vertical
Separation Minimum (RVSM) operations in U.S. domestic airspace and has
considered a preliminary target year of 2004-2005. After a detailed
review of implementation costs, benefits and tasks, the FAA will
coordinate a firm implementation date with the user community. Federal
regulations and ICAO documents base RVSM approval on stringent criteria
for altimetry system error, automatic altitude-keeping, altitude alert,
and transponders.
RVSM has an effect on TCAS II requirements. The FAA anticipates
that when RVSM is implemented in U.S. domestic airspace, those
airplanes that are required to be equipped with TCAS II will be
required to upgrade to TCAS II version 7.0, as amended. In oceanic RVSM
operations, TCAS II version 6.04A Enhanced has produced unwarranted TAs
and, in some slow overtake situations, has produced multiple nuisance
TAs. The FAA does not believe this situation will be acceptable in the
high-density air traffic environment of domestic RVSM operations in the
United States. Further, the FAA also is recommending version 7.0
modification for RVSM operations in oceanic airspace, in the interest
of global mandates for TCAS II version 7.0.

Reference Material

Estimating Potential Risk Reduction Associated With TCAS II Equipage of
Cargo Airplanes

MITRE Corporation analyzed the relative risk reduction resulting
from TCAS II equipage of cargo airplanes. MITRE sampled 14 terminal
areas that exhibit significant air cargo activity, but that also
include diverse traffic types.

[[Page 55515]]

Using flight data from each terminal area, MITRE estimated the
frequency of encounters between airplanes in different operational
categories (cargo, passenger, and general aviation).
By combining the estimates of encounter frequencies with risk
reduction factors for TCAS II version 7.0, MITRE (1) compared the risk
of a midair collision in a pre-TCAS environment to that existing with
equipage of TCAS on passenger airplanes; and (2) estimated the
potential risk reduction with TCAS II equipage of cargo airplanes.
MITRE based its safety data for the report only on TCAS II version 7.0.
The difference between the risk reduction factors of TCAS II version
7.0 and version 6.04A Enhanced is nonconsequential; therefore, the FAA
has determined that the findings in this report are applicable to TCAS
II version 6.04A Enhanced.
MITRE estimated that installing TCAS II on passenger airplanes has
led to an overall 90-percent reduction in the risk of a midair
collision for all airplane types, including cargo airplanes. If cargo
airplanes were equipped with TCAS II, the remaining 10-percent
reduction of risk of a midair collision could be further reduced by
another 3 percent. MITRE estimated that the risk reduction to cargo
airplanes alone would be significant. A copy of MITRE's report is in
the docket.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Information collection requirements in the proposed amendment to
parts 121, 125, and 129 previously have been approved 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 No. 2120-0008. The potential paperwork burden is any
recordkeeping required to maintain the list of those pilots who have
completed training and are certified as to their proficiency on the
collision avoidance system operation. These recordkeeping requirements
already are covered under the Paperwork Reduction Report entitled
``Operating Requirements; Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental
Operations.''

Compatibility With ICAO Standards

International Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), Annex 6
to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Part I, seventh
edition, July 1998 has the following four recommendations addressing
collision avoidance systems:
6.18 Aeroplanes Required To Be Equipped With an Airborne Collision
Avoidance System (ACAS II)
6.18.1 From 1 January 2003, all turbine-engined aeroplanes of a
maximum certificated take-off mass in excess of 15,000 kg. or
authorized to carry more than 30 passengers shall be equipped with an
airborne collision avoidance system (ACAS II).
6.18.2 From 1 January 2005, all turbine-engined aeroplanes of a
maximum certificated take-off mass in excess of 5,700 kg. or authorized
to carry more than 19 passengers shall be equipped with an airborne
collision avoidance system (ACAS II).
6.18.3 Recommendation.--All aeroplanes should be equipped with an
airborne collision avoidance system (ACAS II).
6.18.4 An airborne collision avoidance system shall operate in
accordance with the relevant provisions of Annex 10, Volume IV.

FAA Discussion of ICAO SARPs

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with ICAO
SARPs to the maximum extent practicable. If this NPRM is adopted
unchanged with respect to the ICAO SARPs, the FAA intends to file a
difference with ICAO. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO SARPs
and has identified the following differences with these proposed
regulations.
The FAA believes that ICAO should actively encourage the use of
ACAS II and agrees in principle with the SARPs. However, the FAA is
concerned that some aspects of the SARPs may be unrealistic. ACAS II is
appropriate for large, transport category airliners, which have been
successfully using the equivalent (TCAS II) in the United States for
several years. However, some small airplanes lack the performance
capability to respond to RAs provided by ACAS II (TCAS II version 7.0)
and therefore would receive no benefit from the recommendation. The FAA
believes that this NPRM provides a reasonable alternative for those
airplanes for which ACAS II would be inappropriate. The FAA has
considered the aerodynamic capability of certain airplanes and does not
agree that ACAS II/TCAS II is the appropriate level for airplanes with
10-30 passenger seats. The FAA currently mandates TCAS I for those
airplanes and has done so for more than 10 years. Many of the 10-30
passenger-seat airplanes currently using TCAS I weigh less than 5,700
kilograms (12,500 pounds). The FAA also has considered the cost of
installing equipment that cannot be fully utilized by certain
airplanes. The FAA notes, however, that this proposal partially exceeds
ICAO SARPs in that the FAA also requires TCAS equipage for those
airplanes with a passenger seating configuration of 10-30 seats,
instead of 19-30 seats.
The FAA fully desires that all TCAS II/ACAS II users have the
latest version (version 7.0) and the FAA believes that TCAS II version
7.0 has additional benefits. However, many airplanes currently required
to have TCAS II have had version 6.04A Enhanced installed for several
years. As described in the section entitled ``Grandfathering,'' an
alternative proposed in this NPRM is to allow airplanes that already
are equipped with TCAS II version 6.04A Enhanced to continue using that
version until those particular units can no longer be repaired to TSO
C-119a standards. Air carriers that are subject to a TCAS II mandate
for the first time must equip their applicable airplanes with TCAS II
version 7.0. Eventually, airplanes operating under parts 121, 125, and
129 that are required to have TCAS II would be required to be equipped
with TCAS II version 7.0 by virtue of the fact that version 6.04A
Enhanced units will need replacement in the future.

Economic Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates
Assessment

Proposed 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. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies
to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act also requires the consideration of
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub.L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the
costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal

[[Page 55516]]

governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation).
In conducting these analyses the FAA has determined that this
proposed rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; is ``a
significant regulatory action,'' as defined in Executive Order 12866;
and is ``significant,'' as defined in the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034,
February 26, 1979); (2) would have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities; (3) would not constitute a
barrier to international trade; and (4) would not impose an unfunded
mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.
These analyses are available in the docket and are summarized below.
The FAA invites the public to provide comments and supporting data on
the assumptions made in this evaluation. All comments received will be
considered in any final regulatory evaluation.

Introduction

This regulatory evaluation examines the economic impacts of a
notice of proposed rulemaking to require part 121, 125, and 129
operators to install and use certain collision avoidance systems (CAS)
by October 31, 2003. Part 121, part 125, and part 129 passenger
airplanes must currently comply with the existing TCAS requirements,
which are based, in part, on passenger-seating configuration. The
proposed rule extends the collision avoidance system requirements to
part 121, part 125, and part 129 all-cargo airplane operations, and to
part 125 operators of passenger airplanes configured with 20-30 seats.
However, the FAA is not aware of any part 125 operators that conduct
passenger service with airplanes with 20-30 passenger seats that would
be affected by this rule.

Benefits

The expected benefit of this rule is a reduction in the risk of
midair collisions involving at least one cargo airplane. The risk of
midair collisions for the potentially affected operators is very small,
not one has occurred since the issuance of ``Traffic Alert and
Collision Avoidance System; Final Rule'' (54 FR 940, January 10, 1989)
requiring TCAS on passenger air carrier airplanes. However, the risk of
midair collision involving cargo airplanes is real and such a collision
could involve a passenger airplane.
The FAA performed a risk assessment in order to approximate the
risk reduction that would be provided by this proposed rule. This
assessment approximated that there would be a 40 percent chance of at
least one Mid-Air Collision (MAC) involving a cargo airplane in U.S.
airspace during the next 20 years. This proposed rule would reduce that
risk to approximately one percent.
It is estimated that cargo airplanes could experience a reduction
in their MAC risk by about 94 percent as compared to the current risk
by installing TCAS II.
In addition, if this proposed rule is implemented, it is estimated
that passenger airplanes would experience approximately a 17-percent
risk reduction, as compared to the present risk.

Costs

Operators of existing all-cargo airplanes that have not been
equipped with TCAS and newly manufactured all-cargo airplanes would
incur the cost of the proposed rule. Over a 20-year horizon, the
present value total cost of the proposed rule is projected to be $176
million. This cost does not include the cost of air carriers that have
voluntarily equipped their fleets with TCAS or the costs of airplanes
that have been equipped with TCAS because TCAS is required by a foreign
government.
The proposed rule would require the installation of TCAS II, or
equivalent, only on turbine-powered all-cargo airplanes of more than
33,000 pounds MCTOW (Maximum Certificated Takeoff Weight) which are
operated by part 121, 125 or 129 operators. The proposed rule would
also require the installation of TCAS I, or equivalent, on other all-
cargo airplanes operated by part 121and 125 operators. In general, this
would include turbine-powered cargo airplanes of 33,000 pounds or less
MCTOW and all piston-powered cargo airplanes regardless of weight.

TCAS II, Part 121 Costs

The three TCAS II manufacturers reported that the average cost of
TCAS II elements, as described above, for a transport category cargo
airplane is between $130,000 and $200,000. One company indicated that
if purchased in quantity, the cost of a TCAS II system would be between
$80,000 to $145,000 per airplane. The manufacturers also estimated that
it would cost between $50,000 and $70,000 (depending upon the specific
airplane model) to install a TCAS II unit on an existing airplane. This
results in a possible range of prices for a TCAS II system installed in
an existing airplane of $130,000 to $270,000 or an average of $200,000.
The actual price would depend on a number of factors including: the
type of unit installed, the number of units ordered, whether or not it
was necessary to include a display unit in the purchase price, etc.
Some airplanes may not need a separate TCAS display unit because the
TCAS information can be displayed on an airplane's existing EFIS
(Electronic Flight Information Display System).
Based on these reported costs, for cost calculating purposes, the
FAA used $211,000 for the initial costs of installing a TCAS II system
into an existing airplane. This figure is estimated to include the
necessary spare parts inventory.
The three TCAS II manufacturers reported that the TCAS II element
costs would be identical for new and for existing airplanes. The FAA
estimates that the initial (equipment plus installation) cost per newly
manufactured cargo airplane would be $171,000.
In addition to the initial costs of the TCAS II units, the air
carriers would also incur annual O&M expenses. The FAA estimates that
the annual O&M expenses for TCAS II units to be $1 per flight hour.
Based on an estimated utilization rate of 2,000 hours per airplane per
year, and the fleet flight hours estimated in Tables VI-1 and VI-2, the
FAA estimates that the total non-discounted O&M expenses for the
existing fleet would be approximately $16,000,000 and $6,000,000 for
the newly manufactured fleet.
The FAA estimates that the incremental fuel costs resulting in the
weight added by the TCAS II System would be approximately $0.36 per
flight hour. This results in a total non-discounted incremental fuel
cost of approximately $6,000,000 for the existing fleet and $2,000,000
for the newly manufactured fleet.
The FAA estimates that the cost of pilot training would be
approximately 0.05 times the cost of the TCAS unit itself. This results
in a training cost of approximately $7,000 per unit per year. The total
non-discounted cost of pilot training, for the 20 year analysis period,
is estimated to be approximately $57,000,000 for the existing fleet and
$22,000,000 for newly manufactured cargo airplanes.
The FAA has estimated that the total undiscounted TCAS II costs of
the proposed rule, for the existing fleet during the 20 year analysis
period, would be approximately $166,000,000 and that the discounted
present value of the total costs of the proposed rule, for the existing
fleet over the next 20 years, would be approximately $117,000,000.

[[Page 55517]]

The FAA has estimated that the total undiscounted TCAS II costs of
the proposed rule, for the newly manufactured fleet during the 20-year
analysis period, would be approximately $82,000,000 and that the
discounted present value of the total costs of the proposed rule, for
the newly manufactured fleet over the next 20 years, would be
approximately $40,000,000.
The FAA has estimated that the total undiscounted costs of the
proposed rule during the 20 year analysis period would be approximately
$248,000,000 and the discounted present value of the total costs of the
proposed rule over the next 20 years would be approximately
$157,000,000.

TCAS I, Part 121 Costs

The FAA estimates that the undiscounted costs of retrofitting the
existing all-cargo fleet with TCAS I would be about $7,000,000.
The FAA estimates that the total non-discounted Operating &
Maintenance (O&M) expenses for the existing fleet would be
approximately $4,000,000.
The FAA estimates that the total non-discounted incremental fuel
cost is approximately $1,000,000 for the existing fleet.
The FAA estimates that the total non-discounted incremental pilot
training cost is approximately $7,000,000 for the existing fleet. The
FAA estimates that the total undiscounted TCAS I costs of the proposed
rule, for the existing fleet during the 20-year analysis period, would
be approximately $19,000,000 and that the discounted present value of
the total costs of the proposed rule, for the existing fleet over the
next 20 years, would be approximately $13,000,000.
The FAA estimates that the total undiscounted costs of the proposed
TCAS rules for the part 121 all-cargo fleet during the 20-year analysis
period would be approximately $268,000,000 and the discounted present
value of the total costs of the proposed rule over the next 20 years
would be approximately $169,000,000.

TCAS II, Part 125 Costs

The FAA estimates that the total undiscounted costs of installing
TCAS II units on the existing part 125 Commercial Operator Fleet are
approximately $4,000,000. The corresponding discounted amount is
estimated to be approximately $2,800,000.
It is anticipated that the existing part 125 Commercial Operator
Fleet that would require TCAS II installation as a result of this
proposed rule would remain at about its current size. Therefore, no
forecast of newly manufactured airplanes is provided.

TCAS I, Part 125 Costs

The FAA estimates that the total undiscounted costs of installing
TCAS I units on the existing part 125 Commercial Operator Fleet is
approximately $6,200,000. The corresponding discounted amount is
estimated to be approximately $4,000,000 million.
It is anticipated that the existing part 125 Commercial Operator
Fleet that would require TCAS I installation as a result of this
proposed rule would remain at about its current size. Therefore, no
forecast of newly manufactured airplanes is provided.
The total estimated costs of TCAS II and TCAS I installations on
part 125 commercial operators, as a result of this proposed rule, are
estimated to be approximately $10,100,000. The corresponding discounted
costs are estimated to be approximately $6,800,000.

Total Incremental Costs of the Proposed Rule

The total estimated non-discounted costs of TCAS II and TCAS I
installations on part 121 all-cargo airplanes and part 125 commercial
operators that would be required as a result of this proposed
rulemaking are estimated to be $278,000,000 over the next 20 years. The
corresponding discounted costs are estimated to be approximately
$176,000,000.
The costs in this regulatory evaluation are the costs of TCAS II or
I, as appropriate, because these are the only collision avoidance
systems currently approved by the FAA. However, the proposal would
allow for a system equivalent to TCAS II or I to be used. Because no
equivalent system currently exists, cost estimates cannot be made for
them. However, in a competitive market, should equivalent systems be
developed, they should cost no more than the currently available
equipment.

Benefit Cost Comparison

A midair collision involving a cargo airplane could result in
accident values from under $10 million to potentially hundreds of
millions of dollars. In the least costly case, a cargo airplane could
have a midair collision with a general aviation airplane with no
collateral damage. A collision with a passenger airplane, with no
collateral damage, can result in costs in excess of $300 million. In
the event of midair collisions over Los Angeles, San Diego, and other
metropolitan areas, significant collateral damage can easily exceed
hundreds of millions of dollars. In its risk analysis, prepared for the
FAA, MITRE estimated that slightly more than 50 percent of all midair
collisions are expected to occur over the suburbs or cities.
A recent incident over mainland China illustrates the potential
costs of midair collisions. On June 28, 1999, a British Airways (BA) B-
747 carrying 400 passengers to Hong Kong came within 200 meters of a
Korean Air B-747 freighter. The BA aircraft received a TCAS Resolution
Advisory (RA), the flight crew responded to it, and a collision was
avoided. With over 400 people onboard these two airplanes, the
estimated dollar loss of such an accident exceeds a billion dollars.
This proposed rule is estimated to reduce the risk of a cargo and
passenger midair collision by 17 percent. In the United States a DC-10
and L-1011 All-Cargo Airplanes nearly collided in March, 1999.
The FAA believes the above approximated reduction in the very real
risk of midair collisions justifies the $176 million present value cost
of this rulemaking.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 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 RFA requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions. The RFA 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 will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the RFA.
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, section 605(b) of the RFA 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.

[[Page 55518]]

Under the RFA, the FAA must determine whether or not a proposed
rule significantly affects a substantial number of small entities. This
determination is typically based on small entity size and cost
thresholds that vary depending on the affected industry. The FAA has
conducted the required review and determined that this proposed rule
would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, a regulatory analysis was conducted as required
by the RFA, and is summarized in this section.
Entities potentially affected by the proposed rule include:
scheduled air transportation carriers, air courier services, and
nonscheduled air transportation carriers. The FAA used SBA criteria of
1,500 employees or less per firm as the criteria for the determination
of a small business.
The FAA estimates that 59 part 121 firms would be affected by the
proposed rule. By the SBA criteria, 34 of these firms are small
businesses. The FAA estimates that 22 part 125 firms would be affected
by the proposed rule. All of these 22 firms are small businesses, under
the SBA criteria. In all there are a total of 56 small businesses that
would be affected by the proposed rule. Financial information was
available for 39 of these firms.
The FAA estimated the impact on small entities in two steps. First,
the FAA used a compliance cost per airplane multiplied by the
operator's fleet size to obtain the estimated 1-year cost of this
rulemaking for each operator. Then the FAA calculated an affordability
measure by dividing this cost by the operator's 1998 (parent company)
revenues. As 2 percent is often less than the annual rate-of-inflation,
the FAA believes that a compliance cost of 2 percent or less is
affordable.
Of the 39 firms considered to be small, and for which information
was available, nearly 40 percent are estimated to have costs less than
2 percent of annual revenue. For these firms the FAA believes
compliance is affordable. For the remaining 60 percent of the firms
with annual costs greater than 2 percent, and perhaps for firms where
financial data was not available, the impact of this proposed rule
ranges from affordable to significantly negative. No impact is likely
for some part 125 operators, as those firms may choose not to operate
for hire. By part 125 regulation, these firms already can not solicit
business.
Nearly all of the firms considered to be small entities and with an
affordability measure greater than 2 percent appear to operate in
markets with little or no competition. These markets require very
specialized service such as remote air delivery service. Of the 18 part
121 (Group 2 operators--part 121 all-cargo air carriers operating
turbine-powered airplanes of 33,000 pounds or less MCTOW and piston-
powered airplanes regardless of weight) only 2 were headquartered in
the same city and most were located in remote locations. All of the
part 125 operators, by regulation, provide non-competitive services.
Part 125 operators are restricted from offering for-hire services to
the public, such as advertising or marketing. To provide for-hire
services, these operators must, in effect, have the customer find them.
Thus in terms of competition, this rulemaking is expected to have a
minimal competitive impact.
Relative to larger air cargo operators, smaller air cargo operators
are likely to be disproportionately impacted by this rulemaking. Large
cargo air carriers are expected to incur costs, which are a relatively
smaller percentage of annual revenue, than those of the smaller cargo
air carriers.
Slightly more than 20 firms have compliance costs greater than two
percent of their annual revenue. Four part 121 or 125 operators have
compliance costs exceeding 10%, but less than 20 percent of their
annual revenue. One or more of these firms could potentially face a
business closure due to this proposed rulemaking. The FAA does not have
sufficient information to provide a more refined estimate of the
potential business closures. The FAA has attempted to mitigate the
impacts on these firms by considering alternatives, such as extending
the compliance deadline for small entities. Alternatives are limited
because this rule is basically required by statute. The alternatives
are discussed in the full initial regulatory evaluation associated with
this rule.

International Trade Impact Assessment

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related activity that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards.
In accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it would
have minimal affect on trade-sensitive activities. The proposed rule
could affect foreign-owned airplanes operated in the United States
under part 129. However, the FAA has determined that this proposed rule
would have a minimal impact on international trade because all air-
cargo airplanes operating internationally are already, or will very
shortly, be required by many foreign governments to be equipped with
TCAS II, or its equivalent, by rules requiring its use in other
airspaces, such as Eurocontrol's airspace.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532-1538) is
intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded
Federal mandates on State, local and tribal governments. It requires
each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the
effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that
may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for
inflation) in any 1 year by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be
a ``significant regulatory action.''
This proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental or
private sector mandate that exceeds $100 million in any 1 year.
Therefore, the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action would not have a substantial direct effect 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, we determined that this notice of proposed
rulemaking would not have federalism implications.

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, this proposed action qualifies for a
categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

The energy impact of the notice has been assessed in accordance
with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act

[[Page 55519]]

(EPCA) Public Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order
1053.1. It has been determined that the proposed rule is not a major
regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 121

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Charter flights,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 125

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 129

Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend parts 121, 125, and 129 of Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-
44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-
44904, 44912, 46105.

2. In Sec. 121.356, revise the section heading and add paragraph
(d) to read as follows, effective on the date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register:

Sec. 121.356 Collision avoidance system.

* * * * *
(d) If TCAS II is installed in an airplane for the first time
between December 3, 2001 and October 31, 2003, you must operate that
airplane with a TCAS II that meets TSO C-119b (version 7.0), or a later
version.
3. Section 121.356 would be revised, effective November 1, 2003, to
read as follows:

Sec. 121.356 Collision avoidance system.

Effective November 1, 2003, any airplane you operate under this
part must be equipped and operated according to the following table:

Airplane Criteria and Required Collision Avoidance Equipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After October 31, 2003, if you operate then you must operate that
any* * * airplane with* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Turbine-powered airplane of more (1) A Mode S transponder that
than 33,000 pounds maximum meets Technical Standard Order
certificated takeoff weight. (TSO) C-112, or a later
version, and one of the
following approved units--
(i) TCAS II that meets TSO C-
119b (version 7.0), or a later
version.
(ii) TCAS II that meets TSO C-
119a (version 6.04A Enhanced)
that was installed in that
airplane before November 1,
2001. If that TCAS II version
6.04A Enhanced no longer can
be repaired to TSO C-119a
standards, it must be replaced
with a TCAS II that meets TSO
C-119b (version 7.0), or a
later version.
(iii) A collision avoidance
system equivalent to TSO C-
119b (version 7.0), or a later
version, capable of
coordinating with units that
meet TSO C-119a (version 6.04A
Enhanced), or a later version.
(b) Turbine-powered airplane of 33,000 (1) TCAS II that meets TSO C-
pounds or less maximum certificated 119b (version 7.0), or a later
takeoff weight. version.
(2) TCAS II that meets TSO C-
119a (version 6.04A Enhanced)
that was installed in that
airplane before November 1,
2001. If that TCAS II version
6.04A Enhanced no longer can
be repaired to TSO C-119a
standards, it must be replaced
with a TCAS II that meets TSO
C-119b (version 7.0), or a
later version.
(3) A collision avoidance
system equivalent to TSO C-
119b (version 7.0), or a later
version, capable of
coordinating with units that
meet TSO C-119a (version 6.04A
Enhanced), or a later version.
(4) TCAS I that meets TSO C-
118, or a later version.
(5) A collision avoidance
system equivalent to TSO C-
118, or a later version.
(c) Piston-powered airplane, regardless (1) TCAS II that meets TSO C-
of weight. 119b (version 7.0), or a later
version.
(2) TCAS II that meets TSO C-
119a (version 6.04A Enhanced)
that was installed in that
airplane before November 1,
2001. If that TCAS II version
6.04A Enhanced no longer can
be repaired to TSO C-119a
standards, it must be replaced
with a TCAS II that meets TSO
C-119b (version 7.0), or a
later version.
(3) A collision avoidance
system equivalent to TSO C-
119b (version 7.0), or a later
version, capable of
coordinating with units that
meet TSO C-119a (version 6.04A
Enhanced), or a later version.
(4) TCAS I that meets TSO C-
118, or a later version.
(5) A collision avoidance
system equivalent to TSO C-
118, or a later version.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 55520]]

PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH
AIRCRAFT

4. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-
44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.

5. In Sec. 125.224, revise the section heading and add paragraph
(c) to read as follows, effective on the date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register:

Sec. 125.224 Collision avoidance system.

* * * * *
(c) If TCAS II is installed in an airplane for the first time
between December 3, 2001 and October 31, 2003, you must operate that
airplane with a TCAS II that meets TSO C-119b (version 7.0), or a later
version.
6. Section 125.224 would be revised, effective November 1, 2003, to
read as follows:

Sec. 125.224 Collision avoidance system.

Effective November 1, 2003, any airplane you operate under this
part 125 must be equipped and operated according to the following
table:

PART 129--OPERATIONS: FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN OPERATORS OF
U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON CARRIAGE

7. The authority citation for part 129 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40104-40105, 40113, 40119, 41706,
44701-44702, 44712, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901-44904, 44906.

8. In Sec. 129.18, revise the section heading and add paragraph (c)
to read as follows, effective on the date of publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register:

Sec. 129.18 Collision avoidance system.

* * * * *
(c) If TCAS II is installed in an airplane for the first time
between December 3, 2001 and October 31, 2003, you must operate that
airplane with a TCAS II that meets TSO C-119b (version 7.0), or a later
version.
9. Section 129.18 would be revised, effective November 1, 2003, to
read as follows:

Sec. 129.18 Collision avoidance system.

Effective November 1, 2003, any airplane you operate under part 129
must be equipped and operated according to the following table:

[[Page 55521]]

Airplane Criteria and Required Collision Avoidance Equipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After October 31, 2003, if you operate then you must operate that
in the United States any * * * airplane with* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Turbine-powered airplane of more (1) A Mode S transponder that
than 33,000 pounds maximum meets Technical Standard Order
certificated takeoff weight. (TSO) C-112, or a later
version, and one of the
following approved units--
(i) TCAS II that meets TSO C-
119b (version 7.0), or a later
version.
(ii) TCAS II that meets TSO C-
119a (version 6.04A Enhanced)
that was installed in that
airplane before [November 1,
2001]. If that TCAS II version
6.04A Enhanced no longer can
be repaired to TSO C-119a
standards, it must be replaced
with a TCAS II that meets TSO
C-119b (version 7.0), or a
later version.
(iii) A collision avoidance
system equivalent to TSO C-
119b (version 7.0), or a later
version, capable of
coordinating with units that
meet TSO C-119a (version 6.04A
Enhanced), or a later version.
(b) Turbine-powered airplane of 33,000 (1) TCAS II that meets TSO C-
pounds or less maximum certificated 119b (version 7.0), or a later
takeoff weight. version.
(2) TCAS II that meets TSO C-
119a (version 6.04A Enhanced)
that was installed in that
airplane before [November 1,
2001]. If that TCAS II version
6.04A Enhanced no longer can
be repaired to TSO C-119a
standards, it must be replaced
with a TCAS II that meets TSO
C-119b (version 7.0), or a
later version.
(3) A collision avoidance
system equivalent to TSO C-
119b (version 7.0), or a later
version, capable of
coordinating with units that
meet TSO C-119a (version 6.04A
Enhanced), or a later version.
(4) TCAS I that meets TSO C-
118, or a later version.
(5) A collision avoidance
system equivalent to TSO C-
118, or a later version.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 24, 2001.
Ava L. Mims,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 01-27340 Filed 10-31-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P