Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System, TCAS I; Proposed Rule DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SUMMARY: This proposal would revise the Federal Aviation Regulations

(FAR) to extend the compliance date from February 9, 1995, to March 31,

1997, for installing an approved traffic alert and collision avoidance

system (TCAS I). This amendment is necessary due to technical problems

that have resulted in delays in the equipment approval and

manufacturing process. By extending the compliance date, the FAA would

have time to resolve the technical issues and finalize a technical

standards order (TSO) for the TCAS I equipment. This action would

lessen the economic impact of the current rule and delay the

implementation of TCAS I for certain air carriers.

DATES: Comments must be received by May 2, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this amendment may be mailed in triplicate or

delivered to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Chief Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-200), Docket No. 27663, 800 Independence

Avenue, Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary E. Davis, Project Development

Branch, AFS-240, Air Transportation Division, Office of Flight

Standards, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue

SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-8096.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the

proposed rule 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 notice 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 on or before the closing date for comments specified will be

considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed

rulemaking. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in

light of comments received. All comments received will be available,

both before and after the closing date for comment, in the Rules Docket

for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each

substantive public contact with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice must include a preaddressed,

stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments

to Docket No. 27663.'' The postcard will be date stamped and mailed to

the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any persons may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request

to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs,

Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-430, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. Communications must

identify the notice number of this NPRM.

Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future

NPRMs should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular

No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which

describes the application procedure.

Background

In a petition for exemption dated October 12, 1992, the Regional

Airline Association (RAA) petitioned on behalf of its affected member

airlines and other similarly situated airlines for a temporary

exemption from the February 9, 1995, deadline to install an approved

TCAS I system (Docket No. 27008). The exemption was requested for

operators of turbine-powered airplanes with 10 to 30 passenger seats.

The FAA denied the petition on May 27, 1993. The FAA stated in its

denial that the general relief requested by the RAA would more

appropriately be handled by rulemaking rather than exemption. This

action is the subsequent rulemaking response to the RAA petition for

exemption that the FAA denied. The RAA's petition also sought a

temporary exemption from the April 20, 1994, deadline to install an

approved Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS), which the FAA has also

denied and is not an issue in this rulemaking.

The RAA states that extension of the compliance date is needed

because of delays in the development and operational testing of

prototype TCAS I equipment. The RAA states that when Amendment No. 135-

30 established the TCAS I requirements on January 6, 1989, the FAA

acknowledged that no TCAS I design had been approved, and no

manufacturer had built a TCAS I unit. The FAA considered these points

in establishing a compliance date for installation and operation of

TCAS I six years from the effective date of the amendment.

RAA states that it was informed early in 1990 by ARINC Research

Corporation (ARINC), the FAA's TCAS I program contractor, that

equipment would be available for a Limited Installation Program (LIP)

testing by April 1991, and that it would be completed in approximately

one year. RAA states that ARINC has recently advised it that the

development program for prototype TCAS I equipment is still not

complete, and that the LIP for the operational evaluation is not

expected to begin for at least several months.

RAA states that because of this the TCAS I development and

operational evaluation program is more than 18 months behind its

original planned schedule, no TCAS I equipment has yet received a

technical standards order (TSO) approval, and to the RAA's knowledge

only one manufacturer is currently accepting orders for TCAS I

deliveries. Air carriers are naturally reluctant to place orders for

this equipment before a TSO is issued and before the LIP has confirmed

the validity of the equipment design.

RAA asserts that an extension of time is required to permit the

evaluation and procurement of TCAS I equipment, to develop and obtain

approval of supplemental type certificates (STC) for each affected

airplane model, and to schedule equipment installations with minimum

disruptions to scheduled service.

RAA points out that simultaneously with the adoption of Amendment

No. 135-30, Amendment No. 121-201 was also adopted which required

development and installation of TCAS II on airplanes operating under

part 121. This amendment required that all affected airplanes be

equipped with TCAS II by December 30, 1991. After receiving numerous

objections from operators and other sources, the FAA reconsidered this

requirement and revised the installation dates; Amendment No. 121-217

established a phased installation schedule and delayed the full

compliance TCAS II installation date to December 30, 1993.

RAA submits that the arguments that supported the extension of time

for TCAS II support a similar extension and phased installation

schedule for TCAS I installations. Based on current projections that

the TCAS I LIP will not be completed until at least late 1994 and the

lack of any approved equipment today, the RAA expects that operators

will not be able to complete equipment selections and installations on

all airplanes by February 9, 1995.

RAA's petition for exemption also states that FAA should rejustify

the need for a TCAS I rule. Its rationale is that the rule has a

significantly higher-than-estimated cost to the airline industry. RAA

and its member carriers continue to support realistic and achievable

improvements in safety where the benefits clearly justify the costs. It

believes that the cost of safety-related equipment must be compared to

the potential benefits and the capability of the industry to afford it;

the FAA should also consider alternative approaches.

Aircraft seating 10 to 30 passengers and operating under part 121,

129, or 135 must be equipped with TCAS I by February 9, 1994, in

accordance with the regulation issued January 5, 1989 (54 FR 940). RAA

believes that the FAA should consider implementing a phased compliance

schedule as was done for part 121 carriers that were required to

install TCAS II (14 CFR 121.356), rather than adhere to the deadlines

in affected regulations. The FAA in this rulemaking is soliciting

comment on whether a compliance schedule for the retrofit of TCAS I

should be adopted. The following is a proposed compliance schedule

similar to that requested by RAA in its petition for exemption:

1. 50 percent of all covered airplanes equipped by March 31, 1996, and

2. 100 percent of all covered airplanes equipped by March 31, 1997.

The FAA requests comments regarding the appropriateness of the

proposed compliance schedule. In response to those comments, this

schedule may be shortened or extended in the final rule.

The air carriers represented by RAA believe that extending the

compliance schedule for TCAS I would not adversely affect safety

because it would allow affected airlines to devote limited economic

resources to the orderly completion of TCAS I installations, along with

other airworthiness and safety-related requirements. They believe the

general public will benefit by allowing for a more efficient allocation

of an operator's resources, and by reducing the number of disruptions

of scheduled service due to excessive unscheduled removal of aircraft

from service for equipment installation, or cessation of scheduled

service altogether by some airlines due to the inability to pay for

TCAS I installations.

In addition, RAA believes that there will be significantly higher-

than-estimated costs of installed TCAS I systems once they become

available. RAA states that estimates received by its member airlines

and one equipment manufacturer for TCAS I are as high as $80,000 per

airplane, which is far above the FAA's estimate of $12,300 per airplane

when the rule was published. The RAA also asserts that the quoted costs

do not include the cost of spare parts or the lost revenue resulting

from aircraft down-time for equipment installation.

RAA believes that concurrent installation of GPWS and TCAS I could

result in significant reductions of manpower and downtime and would be

consistent with FAA's revision to the part 121 windshear equipment

installation program, which extended the compliance date to permit

combined installation of windshear and TCAS II systems required in

Amendment No. 121-216.

RAA estimates that combining the installations of GPWS and TCAS I

could save as much as 200 to 300 man-hours and one additional week of

airplane downtime. In the current economic conditions most airlines are

facing, the RAA believes that the survival of many regional carriers is

threatened by the tremendously high costs involved in separate

equipment installation.

A summary of the RAA petition for exemption was published in the

Federal Register on December 1, 1992 (57 FR 56946), and thirteen

comments were received. Eight regional airlines, two Members of

Congress, and one U.S. Senator were in support of changing the rule.

Opposing comments were received from Sundstrand Data Control Company

(Sundstrand) and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).

The comments in support of the petition are based on and agree with

RAA's position. They proffer the same arguments for extension that RAA

asserts: first, delays in the development and operational testing of

prototype TCAS I equipment; second, higher-than-estimated costs of

installed TCAS I and GPWS systems; and third, increased costs incurred

in removal of the affected aircraft from scheduled service twice for

separate installations, instead of combining the TCAS I and GPWS

installations into one aircraft modification program.

Sundstrand opposes the petition as it pertains to GPWS equipment;

it makes no reference to the TCAS part of the petition.

ALPA recommends that the TCAS I implementation be delayed, but not

to the extent sought by RAA. ALPA agrees that TCAS I implementation is

significantly behind schedule, due to vendor development problems.

Therefore, ALPA believes a reasonable delay in the TCAS I

implementation program is justified. It proposes a 12 month delay but,

if implementation cannot be accomplished, TCAS II should become

required, instead of TCAS I.

Discussion of the Proposal

The FAA has considered all the facts and circumstances presented by

the RAA and commenters and proposes to extend the compliance date for

the installation of TCAS I in parts 121, 129, and 135 until March 31,

1997.

The RAA has presented the problems involved in obtaining and

installing TCAS I for part 135 operators. The FAA agrees that

circumstances may not warrant requiring the affected operators to

install TCAS I before February 9, 1995. A TSO has just been issued. The

first aircraft received a supplemental type certificate (STC) for a

TCAS I installation in late July, and the TCAS I LIP is still in the

initial phase. Therefore, the FAA is proposing an extension of the

compliance date. The FAA finds that if the proposal is adopted, there

would be no degradation of safety and it would be in the public

interest, in that the use of scarce financial resources could be

planned more efficiently and effectively by the certificate holders

required to comply with the rule. Since parts 121 and 129 contain a

similar rule for operators of aircraft with 30 seats or less, the FAA

is proposing an extension for those operators as well.

The FAA has included in this notice a proposal to require that all

affected aircraft be equipped with TCAS I by March 31, 1997, using a

phased compliance schedule similar to the schedule that currently

exists for TCAS II. The FAA seeks comments on the most economical and

feasible compliance schedule to meet this overall goal. The FAA also

invites public comment on any issue discussed in this rulemaking, and

will fully consider each commenter's position before making any final

decision on extending the TCAS I compliance date.

After considering all comments, the FAA may adopt a phased

compliance schedule in the final rule establishing specific dates and

timeframes.

Regulatory Analyses

The FAA has determined that this rulemaking is not ``significant''

as defined by Executive Order 12866, and therefore no regulatory impact

analysis is required. Nevertheless, in accordance with Department of

Transportation policies and procedures, the FAA has evaluated the

anticipated costs and benefits which are summarized below.

The proposed rule would extend the compliance date to install an

approved traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS I) from

February 9, 1995, to March 31, 1997. This rule would apply to turbine-

powered aircraft with 10 to 30 seats operated under parts 121, 129, and

135. This extension of the compliance deadline is necessitated by

delays in the development and operational testing of prototype TCAS I

equipment.

The potential benefits of this rule would be the cost-savings

realized by operators of turbine-powered aircraft with a passenger

seating configuration of 10 to 30 seats who would have an additional

two years in which to install TCAS I systems in their aircraft. These

operators would therefore be afforded an opportunity to invest the

money required to install TCAS I in other aspects of their business

during this grace period.

For the purpose of determining the total cost-savings of this

proposed rule change, the FAA estimates that approximately 500 turbine-

powered aircraft operated under part 135 would be affected by this rule

and that the cost, as provided by an aviation equipment manufacturer,

of installing TCAS I would be $35,000 per airplane. The total

installation cost would therefore be $17,500,000. The FAA assumes for

the purpose of quantifying the resulting benefit that these operators

would be able to earn a marginal pretax rate of return on an average

investment of 7 percent (as determined by the Office of Management and

Budget). The expected return on this amount of capital would be $2.54

million (undiscounted) or $2.29 million (discounted) over a 2 year

period using the 7 percent rate established by OMB. The potential

benefits are therefore expected to amount to an estimated $2.29

million.

Since the development of TCAS I was delayed, there will probably

not be a sufficient number of TCAS I units available by February 9,

1995, to equip all the subject aircraft. The proposed rule change,

therefore, would not impose any potential costs on society in the form

of a reduction in safety because the original deadline for installation

is no longer attainable due to delays in developing the system. For all

the reasons above, the FAA concludes that this proposed rule change

would be cost-beneficial.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by

Congress to ensure that small entities are not necessarily burdened by

government regulations. The RFA requires agencies to review rules that

may have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of

small entities.'' The proposed rule change is of a cost relieving

nature and would therefore afford cost savings to individual operators.

Under FAA Order 2100.14A, the criterion for a ``substantial

number'' is a number that is not less than 11 and that is more than

one-third of the small entities subject to the rule. For operators of

aircraft for hire, a small operator is one that owns, but not

necessarily operates, nine or fewer aircraft. This proposal would

mainly affect part 135 scheduled operators, although some unscheduled

operators could be affected as well. The FAA's criterion for a

``significant impact'' is $116,300 or more per year for a scheduled

operator and $4,600 or more for an unscheduled operator. The extent of

cost savings would be $2,450 per aircraft (.07 x $35,000). The maximum

extent of these savings per operator for determining these impacts

would therefore be $22,050 (9 x $2,450), which is above the threshold

for unscheduled operators but below the threshold for scheduled

operators. Although the criterion for a ``significant impact'' would be

satisfied for unscheduled operators if they had two or more aircraft

with 10 to 30 passenger seats, the FAA believes that the criterion for

a ``substantial number'' (i.e., one-third of small entities) would not

be satisfied for these operators. It is unlikely that one-third or more

of these operators would have two or more aircraft with 10-30 seats in

their fleets. The FAA solicits comments from the air taxi industry

regarding the makeup of operator fleets with respect to size of

aircraft.

International Trade Impact Assessment

The Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the

effects of regulatory changes on international trade. The impact of the

proposed rule change on international trade should be limited by the

regionalized nature of the routes that are typically flown by aircraft

with 10 to 30 seats. In addition, the fact that this rule would have

the same economic impact on both the domestic (parts 121 and 135) and

foreign operators (part 129) of this size range of aircraft would limit

its impact on competitive relationships between these two classes of

operators. Based on this information, the FAA concludes that the

proposed rule change would have a negligible impact on international

trade.

Federalism Implications

The regulation proposed herein would 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

proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

There are no requirements for information collection associated

with this rule that would require approval from the Office of

Management and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(Pub. L. 96-511).

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the FAA certifies that

this proposed regulation is not significant under Executive Order

12866. In addition, this proposal, if adopted, would not have a

significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial

number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. This proposal is considered nonsignificant under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 121

Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Charter flights, Safety.

14 CFR Part 129

Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 135

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airplanes, Air taxis, Air transportation,

Aviation safety, Charter flights, Safety, Transportation.

The Proposed Rule

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend parts 121, 129, and 135 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 121, 14 CFR part 129, and 14 CFR part

135) as follows:

PART 121--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND

SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF LARGE

AIRCRAFT

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

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1355, 1356, 1357, 1401, 1421-

1430, 1472, 1485, and 1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g) (Revised Pub. L. 97-

449, January 12, 1993).

2. Section 121.356 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

Sec. 121.356 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System.

(a) * * *

(b) After March 31, 1997, no person may operate a combination

cargo/passenger airplane that has a passenger seat configuration,

excluding any pilot seat, of 10 to 30 seats unless it is equipped with

an approved traffic alert and collision avoidance system.

* * * * *

PART 129--OPERATIONS: FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN OPERATORS OF

U.S. REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON CARRIAGE

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

Authority: 49 U.S.C. App 1346, 1354(a), 1356, 1357, 1421, 1502,

and 1511, 49 U.S.C. 106(g); Sec. 101 et seq., Pub. L. 101-604, 104

Stat. 3066.

4. Section 129.18 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

Sec. 129.18 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System.

(a) * * *

(B) After March 31, 1997, no foreign air carrier may operate in the

United States a turbine powered airplane that has a passenger seating

configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of 10 to 30 seats unless it is

equipped with an approved traffic alert and collision avoidance system.

If a TCAS II system is installed, it must be capable of coordinating

with TCAS units that meet TSO C-119.

PART 135--AIR TAXI OPERATORS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS

5. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. app. 1301(7), 1303, 1344, 1348, 1352

through 1355, 1401, 1421 through 1431, 1471, 1472, 1502, 1510, 1522,

and 2121 through 2125; articles 12, 29, 31, and 32(a) of the

Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180); 42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq; E.O. 11514, 35 FR 4247, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp.,

p. 902; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).

6. Section 135.180 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as

follows:

Sec. 135.180 Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System.

(a) After March 31, 1997, no person may operate a turbine powered

airplane that has a passenger seating configuration, excluding any

pilot seat, of 10 to 30 seats unless it is equipped with an approved

traffic alert and collision avoidance system.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 23, 1994.

Thomas C. Accardi,

Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 94-7652 Filed 3-30-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M