Year 2000 Airport Safety Inspections

Federal RegisterJul 8, 1999

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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.