[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 130 (Thursday, July 8, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37026-37031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17359]
[[Page 37025]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 139
Year 2000 Airport Safety Inspections; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 130 / Thursday, July 8, 1999 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 37026]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 139
[Docket No. FAA-1999-5924; SFAR No. 85-]
RIN 2120-AG83
Year 2000 Airport Safety Inspections
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rulemaking proposes to require certain airport operators
to conduct a one-time readiness check of certain airfield equipment and
systems starting January 1, 2000, and report the results of these
checks to the FAA. In addition, this proposal would temporarily revise
the time period these airport operators have to repair or replace
certain emergency equipment. This proposal is needed to ensure that
airport operators identify and address any unforeseen problems with
date-sensitive airfield equipment and systems. These proposed changes
are intended to maintain the current level of airport safety on and
after January 1, 2000.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 9, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rulemaking should be mailed or
delivered, in duplicate, to: U.S. Department of Transportation Dockets,
Docket No. FAA-1999-5924, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Room Plaza 401,
Washington, DC 20590. Comments may also be sent electronically to the
following Internet address: [email protected] Comments may be filed
and/or examined in Room Plaza 401 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert E. David, Airport Safety and
Operations Division (AAS-300), Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
8721.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments relating to the environmental, energy, federalism, or economic
impact that might result from adopting the proposals in this document
are also invited. Substantive comments should be accompanied by cost
estimates. Comments should identify the regulatory docket or notice
number and should be submitted in triplicate to the Rules Docket
address specified above.
All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this rulemaking, will
be filed in the docket. The docket is available for public inspection
before and after the comment closing date.
The Administrator will consider all comments received on or before
the closing date before taking action on this proposed rulemaking.
Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable. The
proposals contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must include a pre-addressed,
stamped postcard with those comments on which the following statement
is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-1999-5924.'' The postcard will be
date stamped and mailed to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section
of the FedWorld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703-321-
3339), the Government Printing Office's electronic bulletin board
service (telephone: 202-512-1661), or the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking
Advisory Committee Bulletin Board service (telephone: (800)322-2722 or
(202)267-5948).
Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the Government Printing Office's WebPages at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to recently published
rulemaking documents.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling
(202)267-9680. Communications must identify the notice number or docket
number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
NPRM's should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, that
describes the application procedure.
Background
History
Since 1970, the FAA Administrator has had the statutory authority
to issue airport operating certificates to airports serving certain air
carriers and to establish safety standards for the operation of those
airports. This authority is currently found in Title 49, United States
Code (U.S.C.) Sec. 44706, Airport operating certificates. The FAA has
used this authority to issue requirements for the certification and
operation of certain land airports. These requirements are contained in
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations part 139 (14 CFR part 139),
Certification and Operations: Land Airports Serving Certain Air
Carriers.
Under part 139, the FAA requires airports to comply with certain
safety requirements prior to serving operations of large air carrier
aircraft (aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats). When an airport
satisfactorily complies with these requirements, the FAA issues to that
facility an airport operating certificate that permits the airport to
serve commercial operations using these aircraft. These safety
requirements cover a broad range of airport operations, including the
maintenance of runway pavement, markings, and lighting, notification to
air carriers of unsafe or changed conditions, and preparedness for
aircraft accidents and other emergencies. The FAA periodically inspects
these airports to ensure continued compliance with part 139 safety
requirements.
Many airport operators use computers or equipment with embedded
microprocessors to meet certain part 139 requirements. For example, an
operator of a certificated airport may have computer systems that
control when airfield lighting is turned on, or that control access to
the airfield through vehicle and passenger gates. Safety and
maintenance vehicles, such fire fighting trucks, and emergency
communications systems may likewise have computerized systems.
On January 1, 2000, many computers worldwide could malfunction or
shut down because the year will change from 1999 to 2000. The problem,
often referred to as the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, is the result of how
computers and other microprocessors have traditionally recorded and
computed dates. Typically, these machines have used two digits to
represent the year, such as ``98'' for 1998, to save electronic storage
space and reduce operating costs. However, this format fails to
distinguish the year 2000 (represented as ``00'') from the year 1900.
Software
[[Page 37027]]
and computer experts are concerned that this could cause computers and
equipment with internal microprocessors to malfunction in unforeseen
ways or to fail completely.
FAA Y2K Monitoring and Compliance
In preparing for the year 2000, the FAA is working with airport
operators to ensure that all airfield equipment and systems used to
support compliance with part 139 requirements are Y2K compliant, or
that the airport operator has developed an alternative means of
complying with the part 139 requirements.
In June 1998, the FAA sent a letter to the operators of the
approximately 5,300 public-use airports in the U. S. to alert them that
they may have systems on their airports that could be affected by date
change to January 1, 2000. A follow-on letter was subsequently sent in
October 1998 to the operators of airports certificated under part 139.
This letter emphasized the need for these operators to take the
necessary steps to ensure that Y2K issues would not affect any
equipment and systems containing computers or microprocessors that are
used to comply with part 139. It also stated that airport operators
could develop an alternative means of meeting the regulation's
requirements that did not rely on systems with computers or
microprocessors, and provided some criteria for determining Y2K
compliance.
At the same time, the FAA also formed an airport Y2K airport team
to contact operators of certificated airports to monitor the Y2K status
of each of these operator's systems that are used to support compliance
with part 139 requirements. The results of these contacts have shown
that airport operators are working to address Y2K issues at their
airports. The Y2K airport team will continue to work with the operators
of certificated airports throughout the remainder of 1999 to ensure
that the agency is kept informed of the Y2K status at each part 139
airport.
Current Requirements
Self-Inspection of Airport Safety Systems
Part 139 currently requires operators of certificated airports to
conduct daily inspections of their facilities to ensure compliance with
the regulation. Such inspections include a visual check of movement
areas (areas used by air carriers to land, takeoff, and taxi) and
operational tests of equipment and systems used to comply with part 139
requirements. However, these required inspections are conducted at
times determined by the airport operator. Typically, various elements
of the self-inspection are conducted throughout the day. As such, the
existing inspection requirement does not require inspection early on
January 1, before most operations begin, and does not necessarily
require the kind of tests that would determine if there is a Y2K-
related problem that was not detected by pre-January Y2K validation
testing. Certain equipment required by part 139, unlike other aviation
systems, is intended for use only in an emergency. If special early
testing is not required, a Y2K problem might only be detected when the
equipment was needed for an actual emergency.
While part 139 also requires reporting of aircraft rescue and fire
fighting (ARFF) equipment outages and conditions that affect air
carrier operations, those reports would not be received until the
equipment was tested or used, which could be after operations begin.
The FAA believes that there is a substantial need for a system-wide
reporting of Y2K testing results to quickly identify any effects of Y2K
on the national airport system. This will permit the FAA to coordinate
solutions at airports throughout the U.S. that use similar models of
equipment, and to provide early assurances to the public that
operations are normal, if in fact there are no Y2K problems.
ARFF Index
In addition, part 139 provisions regarding the repair or
replacement of inoperative ARFF vehicles are not well adapted to the
unique circumstances of the Y2K effect on equipment. The provisions of
Sec. 139.319(h)(3) allow an airport operator a 48-hour grace period to
repair or replace inoperative ARFF vehicles, with no effect on the
airport's ARFF index. The ARFF index for an airport, which is
determined by the size of aircraft using the airport and number of
daily departures, determines the number and size of ARFF trucks needed
and, thereby, limits the size of aircraft that the airport can serve.
The 48-hour provision is intended to allow airport operators sufficient
time to acquire parts to repair a required ARFF vehicle or arrange for
a replacement vehicle.
Under normal operations, this is an acceptable procedure as an
inoperative ARFF vehicle is a rare occurrence, and parts can be
obtained quickly. However, since some ARFF vehicles may have embedded
computer chips, a Y2K-related problem, while highly unlikely, is
possible. Since similar models of ARFF vehicles are widely used, a
failure of even one model of ARFF equipment could affect many airports.
Therefore, a delay in repairing a Y2K problem at a number of airports
could have a system-wide impact.
Alternatives Considered by the FAA
The FAA considered four alternatives to this rulemaking. These
alternatives would affect all currently certificated airports,
including those considered to be small business entities (owned and
operated by a municipality with less than 49,999 population). In
analyzing these alternatives, the FAA addressed the concerns of
airports of varying sizes and operations, including those classified as
small business entities.
First, the FAA considered not making changes to part 139 for the
January 1, 2000, date rollover. Under this alternative, operators of
certificated airports would continue to comply with current part 139
requirements. Scheduled operations could be conducted before emergency
equipment was checked, and could continue for 48 hours, even if ARFF
equipment experiences a Y2K problem. Airport operators would rely
exclusively on pre-January tests to predict Y2K compliance, and might
only become aware of an unexpected Y2K problem when a piece of
equipment was needed for an actual emergency. Also, this approach would
make it significantly more difficult for individual airport operators
and the FAA to react to outages of airfield safety equipment if the
problems were identified only in the course of actual operations over
several days or weeks, rather than in a pre-test conducted at a
specified time.
Second, the FAA arguably could determine Y2K compliance an
``unusual condition'' under Sec. 139.327(a)(2) and require all
certificate holders to conduct an inspection within a specified time
period to identify and correct any deficiencies. While this approach is
within the scope of part 139, there is no regulatory provision that
would address the possibility, however remote, of widespread failure of
ARFF vehicles.
Third, the FAA considered requiring the inspections only at
airports holding an airport operating certificate and serving scheduled
operations of air carrier aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats
(as opposed to a holder of a limited airport operating certificate that
serves unscheduled air carrier operations). However, many operators of
limited certificated airports serve scheduled operations by aircraft
with 10-30 passenger seats, and persons using those airports could
benefit from the confirmation that ARFF and other airfield safety
equipment at the airport are not affected by Y2K.
[[Page 37028]]
Fourth, the FAA considered mandating both the self-inspection and
reporting requirement, as well as the suspension of the 48-hour grace
period for repair of ARFF vehicles. For the reasons discussed in the
first three alternatives above, the FAA is proposing this alternative.
Of the four alternatives considered to continue the current level of
safety after January 1, 2000, the fourth alternative is the most
comprehensive and the most costly. However, the costs are still minimal
and only marginally greater than the other alternatives, and the
benefits of the certainty of mandatory safety inspections fully justify
this approach.
Discussion of the Proposal
This proposed rule would affect the approximately 566 civilian
airports certificated under part 139, and would temporarily amend the
regulation to require Y2K testing to determine the affects of the date
rollover and to ensure adequate emergency support service as of January
1, 2000.
Section 139.327(a) requires operators of certificated airports to
conduct regular facility inspections to ensure compliance with the
regulation. However, as noted above, this does not require inspections
on January 1, 2000, prior to air carrier operations, and would not
necessarily require the kind of tests that would determine if there was
a Y2K-related problem that was not detected by pre-January Y2K
validation testing. To address these concerns and provide for thorough
Y2K testing, the proposed Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR)
would require specific equipment and systems tests.
This proposal also would temporarily modify reporting requirements
of Sec. 139.327. Currently, this section requires airport operators to
have a reporting system that ensures prompt correction of any unsafe
conditions found during the self-inspections. These records are checked
by the FAA during periodic inspections. This proposal would temporarily
modify this requirement by requiring operators of certificated airports
to report to the FAA the results of Y2K inspections and testing and the
steps to be taken to resolve any discrepancies. The FAA has determined
that this would efficiently provide the FAA with information that the
566 certificated airports remain compliant with part 139 requirements
immediately after the unique circumstances of the Y2K date rollover.
This information cannot be obtained by FAA inspection, because it would
be impossible for the small number of FAA airport certification safety
inspectors to visit more than a very few of the 566 certificated
airports on January 1.
This special testing would apply only to systems identified by the
FAA at each airport as critical to airfield safety and efficiency, and
used by the airport to meet part 139 requirements. Generally these
systems include ARFF equipment, airfield communications, emergency
alarm systems, and airfield lighting. The specific systems on each
airport that the FAA considers to be covered by this proposed
requirement will be provided to the airport operator by the FAA Y2K
representative for the FAA region in which the airport is located,
after consultation with the airport operator, no later than October
1999.
The FAA proposes that as of January 1, 2000, each operator of a
certificated airport be required to complete readiness tests at least
one hour before the first air carrier operation is scheduled to occur.
For example, if the first air carrier operation is scheduled for 10:00
a.m. on Monday, January 3, 2000, the airport operator would have to
complete all required tests by 9:00 a.m. on that date. The FAA
recognizes that this may not be possible at those few airports were the
first air carrier operation would occur before 2 a.m. on January 1,
2000. To accommodate those early flights that would not allow testing
to be completed one hour prior to the operation, e.g., an air carrier
aircraft arrival at 12:30 a.m., the FAA proposes that the operators of
these airports initiate required testing as soon as possible after
12:00 a.m. and be completed by 1:00 a.m. In any case, airport operators
would be required to complete required tests before January 5, 2000,
even if the airport operator does not serve air carrier operations
(scheduled or unscheduled) before this date.
Finally, the provisions of Sec. 139.319(h)(3) that allow an airport
operator a 48-hour grace period to repair or replace inoperative ARFF
vehicles, with no effect on the airport?s ARFF index, would be
temporarily suspended. The 48-hour provision is intended to allow
airport operators sufficient time to acquire parts to repair a required
ARFF vehicle or arrange for a replacement vehicle. As noted above,
under normal conditions this is an acceptable procedure as an
inoperative ARFF vehicle is a rare occurrence, and parts can be
obtained quickly. However, some ARFF vehicles may rely on computers or
microprocessors, and since similar models of ARFF vehicles are widely
used, a failure of even one model of ARFF equipment could affect many
airports.
A temporary suspension of the 48-hour grace period would
effectively require that airports have a backup plan for ARFF coverage
for the first few days of January 2000 if they want to ensure they will
maintain their current ARFF index. This would serve both to handle
actual Y2K problems and also to provide assurance to the public that
ARFF coverage will continue on January 1, 2000, in the event of Y2K
problems. If the ARFF equipment was needed to maintain the airport?s
ARFF index, and the airport had not provided for backup coverage, a
temporary reduction in the size of aircraft serving the airport would
be required.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Information collection requirements in this proposal are small and
have previously been approved for part 139 by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and have been assigned OMB Control Number
2120-0063. This authorization was renewed in May 1999, and in
anticipation of possible Y2K testing, the hour burden of this
proposal's one-time, small information collection were included in the
renewal. However, it should be noted that this proposal would not
require new inspections or reports that are not already required by
part 139, but would only require that those reports be done within a
specified period.
Compatibility With ICAO Standards
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.
The Joint Aviation Authorities, an associated body of the European
Civil Aviation Conference, develop Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) in
aircraft design, manufacture, maintenance, and operations for adoption
by participating member civil aviation authority. The JAR does not
address airport certification.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.
[[Page 37029]]
Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze the
economic effect of regulatory changes on small business and other small
entities. Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies
to assess the effect of regulatory changes on international trade.
However, if an agency determines that the expected impact is so
minimal that the proposal does not warrant a full evaluation, a
statement to that effect, and the basis for it, is included in the
proposed regulation. The FAA has determined that this proposed rule
meets this criteria. The expected impacts of this rule would be so
minimal as to not warrant a full regulatory evaluation, and a full
evaluation in the docket was not prepared.
This SFAR would establish a one-time self-test and reporting
requirement that is essentially identical to the existing requirement,
except for the timing, and would require that certain airports arrange
for backup ARFF services or reduce their ARFF index if ARFF vehicles
fail the test. Since self-inspection and reporting are already required
under Sec. 139.327(a), this regulation imposes little additional costs
on airport operators. The FAA estimates that the tests required by this
proposal may be completed in less than two hours, including reporting
test results to the FAA. In addition, the expense of an ARFF backup
requirement is both small and considered a low-probability event.
The proposed requirement that certificated airports provide
immediate ARFF backup would require these airports to either maintain
the current ARFF index or reduce their ARFF index. Operators of most
certificated airports are required to maintain ARFF index to serve
current scheduled air carrier operations. Many of these operators
already provide for an ARFF backup plan, and if not, can relatively
inexpensively and quickly make such arrangements. A satisfactory backup
plan could be a prearranged plan with other local fire departments for
auxiliary coverage.
An economic impact could occur in the following scenario. For those
operators of certificated airports that are required to meet a
specified ARFF index, this proposed rule does not allow the currently-
permitted 48-hour grace period to repair or replace inoperative ARFF
equipment. This rule may result in ARFF costs equal to the 48-hour
expense of providing sufficient ARFF support, or reducing the level of
support to current scheduled service to the airport.
The FAA believes the cost of maintaining an airport ARFF index for
48 hours is very low in terms of airport overall expenses. Secondly,
for such an expense to occur, all of the following conditions must be
met:
1. A vehicle necessary to maintain the ARFF index does not pass the
Y2K readiness check.
2. No other ARFF equipment is readily available to maintain the
ARFF index.
3. Air carrier aircraft serving the airport that day do not allow
the airport operator to temporarily step down to a lower ARFF index.
The probability of an outcome, which depends upon a series of
connected events in which each event must occur, is calculated by
multiplying across all events the probability assigned to each event.
In this case, the probability of the first event, a required ARFF
vehicle does not pass the Y2K readiness check, is multiplied by the
probability assigned to the second, and then multiplied by the
probability of the third event. If the probability of just two events
each equal 10 percent, the probability assigned to an airport incurring
an ARFF expense resulting from this rule cannot be higher than one
percent. Thus the FAA believes that while an ARFF expense can occur,
the expected likelihood is thought to be very low.
The FAA has determined that it is unlikely that all three events
will occur. However, in the event an airport does incur the cost of
having backup ARFF vehicles available, only the first 48-hours of that
cost is attributable to this proposed rule because the current rule
imposes the same requirement after a 48-hour grace period. The cost for
an airport that might need to provide a backup vehicle could be zero,
if the vehicle were obtained from other fire units of the airport
owner, or from other local governments through a mutual aid agreement.
Accordingly, the expected cost is very small that an airport operator
would be required under the proposed rule to incur costs for obtaining
one or more backup ARFF vehicles. Finally, if the ARFF index was
affected, an airport operator could choose to accept a lower ARFF index
temporarily, with no effect on scheduled service, if aircraft currently
used for scheduled service at the airport do not require the higher
index. Thus the FAA expects this element of the proposed rule to be
minimal.
The benefit of the proposed rule is that it will provide assurance
that airport operator's preparations for Y2K have been effective and
that compliance with part 139 requirements is not compromised due to
the January 1, 2000 date rollover. In the unlikely event that this date
rollover were to interrupt systems that are used to comply with part
139, the proposal would ensure an early knowledge of such interruption
and facilitate immediate action to maintain safety, if necessary.
The FAA solicits comments from affected entities with respect to
the cost and benefit assessment in the regulatory evaluation and
requests that commenters provide supporting data or analyses.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended,
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject
to regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the determination is that it would, the
agency must prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) as
described in the Act. However, if an agency determines that a proposed
or final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities, Sec. 605(b) of the 1980 Act
provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a
statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the
reasoning should be clear.
As detailed above in the regulatory evaluation there are two costs
that may be incurred. First, the proposed inspection costs are expected
to be minimal as the expected inspection time is thought to be two
hours or less. Second, the probability that the proposed requirement
may impose an ARFF cost is expected to be very low. Of the 566
certificated airports, 177 meet the criteria for small entities. Fully
135 of those 177 airports are approved for air carrier operations using
mutual aid, or have other arrangements that do not require the airport
operator to have
[[Page 37030]]
on the airfield ARFF equipment to meet a particular index requirement.
These airports would not be financially affected by the suspension of
the 48-hour ARFF grace period. The remaining 42 airports that are
considered small entities do have an assigned ARFF index, and
potentially could be affected by the proposed SFAR. The expected ARFF
cost that this rule could impose on these 42 airports is expected to be
minimal.
The proposed rule does not allow airports the currently-permitted
48-hour grace period to repair or replace inoperative ARFF equipment.
Thus, the rule may impose an ARFF cost equal to a 48-hour expense of
providing sufficient ARFF support, or reducing the level of support to
current scheduled service to the airport.
The FAA believes the cost of maintaining an airport ARFF index for
48 hours is very low in terms of airport overall expenses. Secondly,
for such an expense to occur all of the following conditions must be
met:
1. A vehicle necessary to maintain the ARFF index does not pass
theY2K readiness check.
2. No other ARFF equipment is readily available to maintain the
ARFF index.
3. Air carrier aircraft serving the airport that day do not allow
the airport operator to temporarily step down to a lower ARFF index.
The probability of an outcome, which depends upon a series of
connected events in which each event must occur, is calculated by
multiplying across all events the probability assigned to each event.
In this case, the probability of the first event, a required ARFF
vehicle does not pass the Y2K readiness check, is multiplied by the
probability assigned to the second, and then multiplied by the
probability of the third event. If the probability of just two events
each equal 10 percent, the probability assigned to an airport incurring
an ARFF expense resulting from this rule cannot be higher than one
percent. Thus the FAA believes, for reasons discussed above, that an
ARFF expense can occur, but the expected likelihood is thought to be
very low. In addition, the actual cost is expected to be low as mutual
aid agreements with other fire departments and the potential of a lower
ARFF index still permit the operation of scheduled flights.
Accordingly, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Federal Aviation Administration certifies that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The FAA solicits comments from affected entities with
respect to this finding and determination and requests that commenters
provide supporting data or analyses.
International Trade Impact Analysis
The proposed rule would not constitute a barrier to international
trade, including the export of U.S. goods and services to foreign
countries, or the import of foreign goods and services into the United
States.
Federalism Implications
The regulations herein will not have substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 12612, it is determined that this rule will not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism
assessment.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act),
codified as 2 U.S.C. 1501-1571, requires each Federal agency, to the
extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment of the effects
of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may
result in the expenditure of $100 million or more adjusted annually for
inflation in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments in
the aggregate, or by the private sector.
Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by
elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, and tribal
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A
``significant intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any
provision in a Federal agency regulation that would impose an
enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments in the
aggregate of $100 million adjusted annually for inflation in any one
year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section
204(a), provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the
agency shall have developed a plan that among other things, provides
for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a
meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development
of regulatory proposals.
This proposed rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental
or private sector mandates. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this
rulemaking action qualifies for a categorical exclusion.
Energy Impact
The energy impact of the proposed rule has been assessed in
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and Pub.
L. 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). It has been determined that it
is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 139
Air carriers, Airports, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend part 139 of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 139--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: LAND AIRPORTS SERVING
CERTAIN AIR CARRIERS
1. The authority citation for part 139 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C 106(g), 40113, 44701-44706, 44709, and
44719.
2. Part 139 is amended by adding Special Federal Aviation
Regulation No. to read as follows:
SFAR --YEAR 2000 AIRPORT SAFETY INSPECTIONS
1. Test requirements.
(a) Each certificate holder shall test each piece of equipment
and system described in (b) and (c) of this paragraph to ensure that
compliance with part 139 requirements has not been affected by the
date change to January 1, 2000. Testing shall demonstrate that the
equipment or system is sufficiently operational to continue to
support the airport operator's compliance with the requirements of
part 139.
(b) Equipment and systems to be tested include--
(1) Runway and taxiway lighting required under Sec. 139.311;
(2) Emergency alarm/communication systems required under
Sec. 139.319(j)(6);
(3) ARFF vehicles and associated equipment required under
Secs. 139.213(b)(11), 139.317, and 139.319;
[[Page 37031]]
(4) Communication systems required under Sec. 139.329; and (5)
Any other system or unit of equipment that the Administrator
determines--
(i) Relies on or contains a computer or microprocessor;
(ii) Is used in support of the holder's compliance with part 139
requirements; and
(iii) Is critical to the safety and efficiency of aircraft
operations.
(c) Tests of ARFF vehicles shall include the discharge of fire
extinguishing agents.
(d) After consultation with each certificate holder, the
Administrator will make a final determination of equipment and
systems to be tested and provide written notification of this
determination by October 31, 1999.
2. Reporting Requirements. No later than one hour following the
completion of testing required under paragraph 1 of this SFAR, each
certificate holder shall report the results of each test to the
Regional Airports Division Manager.
3. Test Schedule.
(a) Each certificate holder shall complete the tests prescribed
in paragraph 1 of this SFAR, as follows:
(1) By 1:00 a.m. on January 1, 2000, if the first air carrier
operation is scheduled to occur before 2:00 a.m. on this date.
(2) At least one hour before the first air carrier operation is
scheduled to occur, if the operation is scheduled to occur after
2:00 a.m. on January 1, 2000.
(b) All required tests shall be completed before January 5,
2000, regardless of whether the airport has received air carrier
operations from January 1 through January 4, 1999.
4. Vehicle readiness. Notwithstanding Sec. 139.319(h)(3), until
January 5, 2000, any required vehicle that becomes inoperative to
the extent that it cannot perform as required by Sec. 139.319(h)(1)
shall be replaced immediately with equipment having at least equal
capabilities. If the required Index level is not restored
immediately after the testing required by this SFAR, the airport
operator shall notify the Regional Airports Division Manager and
limit air carrier operations on the airport to those compatible with
the Index corresponding to the remaining operative rescue and fire
fighting equipment.
5. Self-inspection requirements. The requirements of this SFAR
do not relieve the certificate holder from self-inspection
obligations required under Sec. 139.327. However, testing conducted
in compliance with this SFAR may be used to fulfill applicable part
139 requirements.
6. Effective times. All of the times described in this SFAR are
in local time at the airport.
7. Expiration. This Special Federal Aviation Regulation expires
on January 5, 2000.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 1, 1999.
David L. Bennett,
Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-17359 Filed 7-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
