[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 27, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21618-21619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-8453]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2004-19947; Amendment No. 91-285]
RIN 2120-AI42


Pyrotechnic Signaling Device Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Disposition of comments on direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On December 27, 2004, the FAA published a direct final rule to 
remove the requirement for a pyrotechnic signaling device required for 
aircraft operated for hire over water and beyond power off gliding 
distance from shore for air carriers operating under part 121 unless it 
is a part of a required life raft. All other operators continue to be 
required to have onboard one pyrotechnic signaling device if they 
operate aircraft for hire over water and beyond power off gliding 
distance from shore. The rule was effective February 7, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The complete docket for the final rule on pyrotechnic 
signaling devices may be examined through the Department of 
Transportation's Docket Management System at http://www.dms.dot.gov. 
Use the Simple Search selection and type in the docket number, 19947.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Keenan, AFS-200, Air 
Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 
telephone (202) 267-9579.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The final rule, request for comment, was published in response to 
several requests that the FAA eliminate the requirement that aircraft 
that operate for hire, over water, and beyond power off gliding 
distance from shore, carry one pyrotechnic signaling device in addition 
to those signaling devices required as part of each required life raft. 
The FAA considered petitioners arguments that the requirement of an 
additional pyrotechnic device, or flare gun, was unnecessary because 
other requirements, such as air traffic control, dispatch/flight 
following systems, and advanced communications provide an equivalent, 
if not greater, level of safety as that provided by the pyrotechnic 
signaling device. This requirement was limited to those operators 
conducting operations under Part 121 because all of the additional 
safety redundancies, such as dispatch/flight following, do not exist to 
the same extent in other operations.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA received seven comments on the pyrotechnic signaling device 
final rule. Three were from individuals, three were from air carriers 
(Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, and Net Jets), and one was from 
a trade association (the Regional Airline Association). Most comments 
favor the change. One individual commenter did not reflect support or 
opposition to the change. None of the comments reflect an adverse 
position to this final rule. The FAA's response to the comments 
follows:

Safety

    All but one commenter expressed concerns about the safety and 
security of pyrotechnic signaling devices. One individual commenter 
stated that the devices were a high-pilferage item and pose a hazard of 
becoming a potential terrorist weapon. Another individual commenter 
expressed a general concern about a security hazard to the flight crew. 
Southwest Airlines and Net Jets inferred that pyrotechnic signaling 
devices are lethal weapons and constitute hazardous materials on the 
flight deck.
    Three commenters, including American Airlines, inferred that these 
devices do not enhance safety. Southwest Airlines stated that the 
device would provide minimal value in locating an aircraft following a 
ditching at sea, assuming that a pilot could find it.
    The FAA does not agree that pyrotechnic signaling devices are 
unsafe if stored and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's 
instructions and personnel are properly trained in their use. 
Pyrotechnic signaling devices are still required whenever life rafts 
are required to be onboard. The FAA does not agree that a pyrotechnic 
signaling device might be hard to locate in a ditching emergency. FAA 
regulations require a passenger briefing composed of instructions to 
use in preparation for a ditching. Part of this preparation

[[Page 21619]]

includes use of emergency equipment, including life rafts and 
associated equipment (such as pyrotechnic signaling devices), before 
the actual ditching occurs. Crewmembers are required to be trained in 
the proper use of emergency equipment. Moreover, when pyrotechnic 
signaling devices are required as part of a life raft's survival 
equipment, they are generally inaccessible without removing the raft 
itself. In cases where the life raft's survival kit is stored 
separately from the raft, locations are typically not readily available 
for passenger access until actually needed.

Part 135 Relief

    An individual commenter, Net Jets, and the Regional Airline 
Association stated they are in favor of including relief for part 135 
operations. An individual commenter stated that all of the 
justification for part 121 operations is true for part 135 operations, 
as well. Net Jets stated that similarly situated part 135 operators 
should be provided with the same relief as part 121 operators, and 
noted the similarities between part 121 dispatch/flight following 
systems and the flight locating requirements of part 135. Net Jets also 
stated that the Part 125/135 Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) is 
addressing the issue as it applies to part 135 operations. Net Jets 
stated that a complete power loss of a part 25 certificated turbojet 
airplane is extremely low.
    Although the requirements differ, the FAA agrees that similarities 
may exist between part 121 flight following requirements and part 135 
flight locating requirements. Also, while some 135 operators conduct 
operations very similar to part 121 operators, many do not so it would 
not be appropriate to provide the same blanket relief to all 135 
operators. However, if a particular part 135 operator's flight locating 
system meets all of the requirements of a part 121 flight following 
system, relief provided in this rule change may be sought by that 
operator and evaluated by the FAA through the exemption process.
    The FAA agrees that complete engine failure of a part 25-
certificated airplane is extremely low. However, engine failure is not 
the only precursor to a forced ditching. Onboard fires, flight control 
malfunctions, and fuel exhaustion have also resulted in ditching 
incidents.
    The FAA looks forward to receiving recommendations from the Part 
125/135 ARC when they are complete.

Pyrotechnic Signaling Devices Required as Part of a Life Raft

    An individual commenter stated that the rule should contain a 
requirement for positive proof that a pyrotechnic device required as 
part of a life raft is, in fact, onboard and goes on to question how an 
operator would determine that the device is installed in the life raft.
    It is incumbent upon an operator to demonstrate compliance with any 
applicable requirements for a particular operation. For example, an 
operator may maintain an inventory of life raft-related equipment to 
satisfy this requirement when the equipment must be carried onboard for 
over-water operations.

Conclusion

    After consideration of the comments submitted in response to the 
final rule, the FAA has determined that no further rulemaking action is 
necessary. Amendment 91-285 remains in effect as adopted.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21, 2005.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-8453 Filed 4-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P