3520 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA–99–6717]

207-Minute Extended Range

Operations With Two-Engine Aircraft

(ETOPS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Disposition of comments;

policy statement for 207-minute ETOPS;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: This notice responds to

comments received in response to a

request for public comments that was

published on April 27, 1999 in the

Federal Register (64 FR 22667)

pertaining to a proposed policy for 207-

minute ETOPS operation approval

criteria for the Boeing 777 airplane,

informs the public of the FAA decision

to establish the conditions for a limited

authorization for up to 207-minute

ETOPS operation, and informs the

public of FAA intent to task the

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee (ARAC) in the near future to

recommend safety standards and

procedures for extended range operation

of airplanes, regardless of the number of

engines.

DATES: This policy is effective on March

21, 2000. Comments must be received

on or before March 6, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

document should be mailed or

delivered, in duplicate, to: U.S.

Department of Transportation Dockets,

Docket No. FAA–99–6717, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Room Plaza 401,

Washington, DC 20590. Comments may

be filed and examined in Room Plaza

401 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m.

weekdays, except Federal holidays.

Comments also may be sent

electronically and examined via the

Docket Management System (DMS) at

the following Internet address: http://

dms.dot.gov/ at anytime. Commenters

who wish to file comments

electronically, should follow the

instructions on the DMS web site.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric

A. van Opstal, Air Transportation

Division (AFS–200), Flight Standards

Service, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591,

telephone (202) 267–8166.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In a letter dated February 26, 1999,

the Air Transport Association (ATA)

requested the FAA to issue a policy

letter establishing 207-minute ETOPS

authority (See the ATA proposal that

was published in the April 27, 1999

Federal Register). That letter stated that

ATA member airlines determined that a

need exists for expanded ETOPS

authority beyond 180 minutes. The

ETOPS Subcommittee of ATA

established a process where associated

airlines, the Pilots associations, Boeing,

and other parties worked together to

determine the criteria to support the

establishment of a proposed 15 percent

operational extension of 180 minutes

ETOPS. That subcommittee prepared an

ETOPS Policy Letter draft proposal

dated February 4, 1999.

The FAA responded to the ATA letter

by publishing the Federal Register a

copy of the ATA letter and draft

proposal, and requested public

comment (64 FR 22667). This Notice

responds to the comments received,

provides notice of the FAA decision to

allow an extension of ETOPS to 207

minutes, describes the criteria for a

limited authorization for 207-minute

ETOPS for the Boeing 777, and provides

notice of the FAA’s intent to task the

ARAC to recommend safety standards

and procedures for extended range

operation of airplanes, regardless of the

number of engines.

Additional Comment Period for Policy

Decision

Very extensive comments were

received on all the issues embodied in

the ATA proposal. After careful review

of the ATA proposal and those

comments, the FAA is adopting, with

some modification, the ATA proposal.

Given the minor differences from the

original ATA proposal, the FAA

believes it is reasonable to proceed

forward with a final decision.

However, because two commenters

have expressed concerns about the FAA

making a final decision on the ATA

proposal without allowing additional

public comment on the FAA final action

and disposition of comments, the FAA

is allowing an additional 45 days for

interested persons to comment further

on the 207-minute dispatch

authorization described in this policy.

This authorization is automatically

effective on March 21, 2000 unless, after

review of any new comments received,

the FAA believes modification or

additional action is required. The FAA

will publish in the Federal Register a

full disposition of all new comments

received and, if required, any additional

steps to stay or modify the limited 207-

minute authorization.

Interested persons are invited to

comment on this policy statement by

submitting such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful.

Comments must identify the regulatory

docket or notice number and be

submitted in duplicate to the address

specified above.

Any person may obtain a copy of this

document 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 notice.

Discussion of Comments From Previous

Notice

The FAA received 44 comments in

response to the notice published on

April 27, 1999 (64 FR 22667), including

comments from individual members of

the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA)

ETOPS Work Group. All commenters

but 12 supported the ATA proposal for

207-minute ETOPS. The issues and

concerns raised by the 12 commenters

who opposed the proposed extension of

ETOPS are discussed below.

1. No Justification for Change

The Allied Pilots Association (APA)

and Airbus Industries (Airbus)

expressed concern that the proposal is

an attempt to generally extend ETOPS

when no justification for changing the

diversion limits has been shown. APA

stated that only the South America-New

Zealand market cannot be operated with

the current three hour standards. They

also pointed out that Boeing and

operators have stated that there are only

a few days a year when alternate

routings would have to be considered

for twin engine aircraft operating on the

North pacific routes due to unsuitable

weather at the preferred alternates.

Airbus commented that there is no

precedent for a 15 percent extension.

APA suggested that the intent of the

proposal appears to be to provide

support for marketing the B–777 as a

replacement for older, three and four

engine aircraft. APA argued that

economic desirability does not

constitute need.

FAA Response

Most commenters (32 of 44)

supported a 15 percent extension of the

diversion limits for ETOPS. United

Airlines stated that 207-minute ETOPS

is a logical extension from 180-minute

ETOPS that will serve the interests of

the traveling public, the environment

and the industry. The Air Line Pilots

Association, International stated that

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices 3521

current requirements have an excellent

safety record and the approval process

has lead to safety enhancements for

twin engine aircraft. The Rolls-Royce

Airworthiness Department suggested

that the proposed policy statement and

reissue of Advisory Circular AC120–

42A should be considered a first step

towards a general tidying up to the

ETOPS regulations. Continental Airlines

supports the proposal because it would

benefit the traveling public by reducing

enroute times across the North Pacific

with no degradation in safety. It would

also positively impact the economics of

the route, which will ultimately benefit

the traveling public. The equipment and

dispatch specifications detailed in the

proposal are more conservative that

those required by 180-minute diversion

authority. Boeing suggested that the

current proposal reflects the ‘‘safe,

conservative, evolutionary nature of

ETOPS, which is a fact-based industry

program dependent on the gathering

and analysis of operational data.’’

ETOPS conducted in the North Pacific

(NOPAC) meets all of the conditions in

AC 120–42A that define a ‘‘demanding

area of operation’’. Today, 180-minute

ETOPS in NOPAC is routinely

conducted by several North American

and Asian air carriers on a daily basis.

There are sufficient adequate alternate

airports available in the area of

operation that allow for year round

operations. The introduction of a 207-

minute authorization would provide an

air carrier with additional flexibility

with the dispatch of an ETOPS flight,

which may in fact position the flight

closer to more enroute alternate airports.

This would be both an operational and

safety benefit.

ETOPS operations in a ‘demanding

area of operation’ began with a limited

75-minute authority for North Atlantic

crossings. As service experience was

gained and the safety of the operations

validated, the FAA granted an increase

to 120-minute diversion limit. This

allowed ETOPS flights access to some of

the established North Atlantic

navigational tracks. The original ETOPS

Advisory Circular, AC 120–42 dated

1985, included a provision that the FAA

would allow an operator on a ‘case-bycase’ basis up to a 15 percent increase

to the 120-minute maximum diversion

time. The extension granted a 138-

minute diversion limit which ideally

suited North Atlantic ETOPS, as it now

allows use of all available NAT

navigational tracks. The extension

provision was removed when the

Advisory Circular was revised as AC

120–42A in 1988. AC 120–42A

introduced the means by which the

FAA would approve 180-minute

ETOPS, and the conventional wisdom at

that time considered the allowable

extension to 138-minutes as no longer

necessary. However as Airbus and other

commenters have noted, the FAA

reinstated the 138-minute diversion

limit by policy letter EPL 95–1 in 1994,

designating its use only for North

Atlantic ETOPS operations.

In response to the comment by APA

that ETOPS requirements would be

eased so that Boeing could more

effectively market the B–777 in place of

older 3- and 4-engine airplanes, the

FAA rejects the notion that the safety

decisions to be made for 207-minute

ETOPS operations are related to the

marketing of airplanes. The FAA

considers operations meeting the

ETOPS standards of reliability and the

operational requirements to have proven

themselves well over the years. The

increased safety standards for ETOPS

airplanes and associated maintenance

practices have found their way into

other airplanes routinely used in nonETOPS commercial air transport. Thus,

ETOPS principles have ‘‘raised the

safety bar’’ for all types of operations.

The ATA 207-minute proposal

specifies particular airplane systems

design as well as additional equipment

requirements. The ATA ad-hoc work

group that drafted the 207-minute

proposal considered the proposed area

of operation and operating environment

with the additional diversion time, and

considered the additional requirements

to be necessary to maintain existing

safety standards, which is based on a

conservative approach. It was a

collective recommendation that was

made with a diverse group comprised of

representatives from operators,

manufacturers, and pilot associations.

This was agreed upon with full

knowledge that the added requirements

would not be met by some other

airplanes that already hold ETOPS type

design approval, and have provided the

remarkable safe ETOPS operating

experience to date.

The FAA agrees with APA that a

review should be conducted on the

requirements for all long range

operations, including 3- and 4-engine

airplanes, and that there should be a

more uniform application of those

requirements. The FAA therefore

proposes the formation of an ARAC

group appropriately tasked to provide

the FAA with recommendations

concerning all long range operations.

See the statement of intent at the end of

this notice.

2. Some Diversion Airports May Become

Redundant and Risk Closure

APA and Airbus expressed concern

that the proposed extension of ETOPS

authority may cause some diversion

airports that are currently relied on to

become redundant. They may then risk

closure.

FAA Response

The FAA agrees that North Pacific

alternate airports play an important role

in the safety of all commercial aviation

in the region. Any airplane may have to

divert due to reasons such as passenger

illness, system failures, decompression,

or fuel leaks. In fact, 3- and 4-engine

airplanes have a higher rate of

diversion, for all causes, than ETOPS

airplanes. Boeing has provided data that

shows that less than 10 percent of

diversions with their two-engine ETOPS

airplanes were due to an inflight engine

shutdown (IFSD). The remaining

diversion of twin engine ETOPS

airplanes were due to other causes that

may affect any airplane. The issue of

sufficient alternate airports is much

broader than just related to the conduct

of ETOPS.

The FAA does not believe that a 207-

minute diversion authority in the North

Pacific would result in the closure of

airports designated as enroute alternates

for 180-minutes ETOPS operations.

Some of the same airports that are

available for 207-minute ETOPS are also

used with 180-minute ETOPS. The ATA

proposal also limited the use of the 207-

minute ETOPS extension so much of the

time the airlines would be using the

normal diversion airports for 180-

minute ETOPS operations. A United

Airlines Dispatch Office study showed

that 10 percent of the flights would

benefit from a 207-minute dispatch,

while the remaining 90 percent would

still be dispatched at 180-minutes.

The FAA also agrees with APA that

solutions are needed to ensure the

continued availability of airports for use

as enroute alternates for the benefit of

the entire industry. It is an international

problem that needs attention and long

term solutions. The issue is related to

far more issues that just the ETOPS

diversion time and requires broader

solutions involving other countries.

3. The Proposal Is Too Broad

APA and Airbus pointed out that the

proposal is too broad in that it does not

establish requirements such as limited

routes and specific conditions that

would justify 207-minutes ETOPS as the

safest available alternative.

3522 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices

FAA Response

The FAA agrees that the ATA

proposal might be too broad in that it

could be viewed as having a wider

application than intended. For the

proposal at hand, the 207-minute

ETOPS operations are intended to apply

only to the North Pacific area of

operation, and then, only when

conditions prevent a 180-minute

dispatch. A general 207-minute policy

would give the illusion that a higher

ETOPS threshold has been accepted that

could be applied to all geographical

areas of operation and all airplanes that

have ETOPS type design approval. The

FAA believes that much further

discussion would be needed to develop

general standards for ETOPS beyond

180-minutes, and that it is important to

have international participation so that

global standards are achieved. To this

end, the FAA intends to solicit

recommendations through the ARAC for

the development of general ETOPS

standards for operations beyond the

180-minute limit. This is discussed in

more detail at the last section of this

notice.

The FAA recognizes the benefit of a

route of flight that positions an airplane

closer to airports that meet the criteria

of ‘‘adequate’’ for the purpose of ETOPS

enroute alternates. This is understood to

be the basis for the ATA proposal. The

FAA recognizes that an ARAC approach

that deals with all airplanes and all

routes will be years away from

regulatory adoption, and thus should be

viewed as a long-term solution. In the

interim, the FAA believes that with the

conditions and limitations specified in

this document, 207-minute ETOPS

authorizations can be issued for use in

the North Pacific area of operation for

airlines that have previous 180-minute

ETOPS experience, and be limited to

airplanes like the B–777. Such

authorizations can be issued without

any decrease in safety. In addition, other

limitations will specify the conditions

and frequency that will apply to the use

of the 207-minute dispatch. The reason

for limiting the approval to airplanes

like the B–777 will be discussed further.

4. The Proposal Reduces Weather

Standards for Diversion Airports

APA stated that the real, though

indirect, result of the proposed 207-

minute ETOPS is to reduce weather

standards for diversion airports. Airbus

comments that the longer the flight the

more unlikely the weather at a

designated alternate corresponds to that

forecast at the beginning of the flight.

Airbus also suggests that climatological

data for the area should be analyzed to

determine the frequency with which

flexibility will be increased.

FAA Response

There is not relaxation of weather

criteria of any difference in required

weather standards to determine the

‘‘suitability’’ of a adequate enroute

alternates for a 207-minute dispatch

compared to any other ETOPS diversion

limit. Airlines are required to apply the

standard or otherwise approved

alternate airport weather minima

criteria that are contained in their

operations specifications.

The FAA has reviewed a study

prepared by United Airlines Dispatch

Center that collected and analyzed

meteorological forecast and actual

weather data at airports that meet

‘‘adequate’’ criteria as enroute alternates

in the North Pacific. The purpose of the

study was to determine if and when a

207-minute dispatch would be

beneficial when the forecast at

‘‘adequate’’ alternate airports within

180-minutes distance were below the

dispatch alternate minima

requirements. The study looked at more

than a years worth of data and shows

that a 207-minute ETOPS dispatch

would mostly benefit Eastbound

operations from Japan to the United

States because those departures

generally occur at night. The weather

forecasts during night hours tend to be

worse than during daylight. The study

also showed that those ‘‘adequate’’

alternate airports within the 180-minute

distance that did not meet the predeparture alternate weather criteria, did

in fact stay at or above the operational

approach minima for the expected times

of arrival of the flight (if the flight had

to divert to the alternate airport).

Operational approach minima is the

weather minima needed to execute an

approach and landing. After flight

departure and while enroute, those

‘‘adequate’’ airports that meet

operational approach minima are reclassified as ‘‘suitable’’ enroute

alternates. The study also showed that

the frequency of a 207-minute dispatch

in lieu of a 180-minute dispatch would

be in the area of 10 percent to 15

percent of the total departures. Finally,

the 207-minute dispatch allowed a

routing consistent with ATC preferred

routes. The conclusions drawn from the

study are: The use of a 207-minute

dispatch would be infrequent; the flight

could be dispatched on preferred ATC

routes; and, the resulting route would

place the airplane closer to more

enroute alternates that after flight

departure would meet ‘‘suitable’’

criteria. This offers the possibility that

the flight crew, when faced with the

need to initiate an in-flight diversion,

could be closer to a suitable alternate

airport than compared on an off-track

route that was based on a 180-minute

dispatch. This would clearly provide for

enhanced safety.

The FAA acknowledges the difficulty

in establishing accurate forecasts for

alternate airports that may be 12 or more

hours away. This difficulty is faced by

all crews regardless of the airplanes they

are flying on extended range flights. It

is also obvious that the further out the

forecast period is, the more likely that

lower TEMPO (temporary) and PROB

(probability) conditions will be

included in the forecast that the

dispatcher and flight crew must take

into account. This is where the ATA’s

proposed requirement for SATCOM and

SATCOM datalink capability gives

greater assurance that once airborne and

enroute, the flight crew will receive

continuing updates on the forecast

weather for all of the available enroute

alternates, and will allow closer

monitoring of weather trends. The

enhanced communication capability

that SATCOM provides aids in the

transmission of relevant data to the

flight crew.

5. ETOPS Should Be Formalized in

Regulations Rather Than Administered

Through Advisory Circulars and Policy

Letters

Airbus and APA said that ETOPS

should be formalized through the

rulemaking process rather than by

policy and Advisory Circulars.

Additional comments suggested that it

was time for the FAA to bring the FARs

up to date. These commenters are well

as AECMA, ALPA, Federal Express

Pilots, and DGAC France all stated that

major policies such as those that govern

ETOPS should be in regulatory form.

ALPA commented that ‘‘there is a need

to develop a new set of regulations

which would apply to all long-range

operations regardless of the number of

engines’’.

FAA Response

Extended range, twin-engine

operations are authorized by the FAA

under 14 CFR § 121.161(a), ‘‘based on

the character of the terrain, the kind of

operation, or the performance of the

airplane to be used * * *.’’ The FAA

issued Advisory Circular 120–42, and

has revised it several times, to

incorporate the standards for ETOPS up

to and including 180-minute dispatch

authorizations. The FAA publishes in

the Federal Register a notice of

availability of each proposed revision,

solicits comments, and then issues a

revision to AC 120–42 only after

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices 3523

consideration of all the public

comments. Thus, the public has always

participated fully in the development of

ETOPS standards. Furthermore, the

FAA has ensured that ETOPS operators

comply with those standards by

applying them through operations

specifications. The result has been that

ETOPS authorizations have been

established as they would have been

established through a more structured

codification.

Because of the limited scope of the

207-minute dispatch described in this

document, the FAA is not proposing a

corresponding revision to AC 120–42.

The FAA agrees that ultimately more

defined criteria for ETOPS should be

placed in Part 121 through the

rulemkaing process. ETOPS over the

years has been well served with the

standards and requirements of AC 120–

42A, but formal regulatory objectives

should be developed for the extended

range operation of any airplane. As

more fully outlined later, the FAA will

initiate tasking of an ARAC Working

Group to start with the codification of

the existing ETOPS requirements, and to

make recommendations for standards

for ETOPS beyond 180-minutes. The

ARAC Working Group will also be

tasked to look at the requirements for all

long-range operations in order to

recommend airplane safety

requirements for all airplanes.

6. ETOPS Regulations Should Be Driven

by Safety

For the type design approval criteria,

the UK CAA suggests that ‘‘The ETOPS

significant systems should be reassessed to ensure their suitability for

the extended diversion time (207

minutes). Systems Safety Analyses

(SSA) should be carried out based on

the extended diversion time and longest

flight time. The re-analysis required

(SSA) is to ensure that overall safety

objectives are still achieved with the

extended diversion time and flight

times.’’ They also suggest alternative

wording for the type design approval

criteria to state that ‘‘any one of the

engine or APU driven generator sources

shall be capable of powering all main

essential and standby (emergency) AC

and DC buses.’’ This, in effect, would

require a ‘‘non-time limited emergency

power source capable of continuously

supplying essential functions’’. They

suggested that the list of services that

need to be supplied should be reassessed for 207 minute diversion times,

and listed fifteen services that should be

re-assessed as a minimum.

FAA Response

The FAA agrees that all ETOPS

approvals should be granted only on the

basis of safety. Industry need and

operational desirability are important

issues to those wanting to make a

business case for certain operations, but

they are not the key drivers for the FAA.

The FAA must make its decisions based

upon safety.

The FAA does not agree that a 15

percent extension for this limited

special authorization warrants a reassessment in a Systems Safety

Assessment of all ETOPS significant

systems. The original assessment

conducted for original compliance with

the B–777 ETOPS special conditions

and for basic type certification is

adequate. However, it is appropriate to

update original numerical probability

analyses, as the ATA proposed in Item

7–1, to ensure that the safety objectives

are still met with the longer diversion

times. Also, this update will allow the

FAA to review these numerical

probability analyses with actual inservice component reliabilities

considered in the analyses, which were

not available at the time of the original

submittals.

For the CAA comment on Item 7–9 in

the ATA proposal, the FAA agrees that

the item could be better stated, and will

incorporate the recommended wording

change. The FAA also agrees that this

item effectively requires a non-time

limited emergency power source This is

the FAA’s intent for this requirement.

The FAA does not agree that the

recommended list of services should be

included. This list is the same list of

services that are included in the Joint

Aviation Authorities (JAA) Information

Leaflet IL–20 paragraph 8.b.(7), which is

a non-harmonized equipment with the

corresponding paragraph of the FAA

ETOPS Advisory Circular (AC) 120–

42A. This issue can be addressed, as

appropriate, by the ARAC working

group, along with other items that will

bring harmonization to the FAA and the

JAA regulations. The FAA does not

believe that the lack of harmonization

with the JAA regulations is a reason to

not proceed with this action.

Comment

Airbus states ‘‘type certificate limits

are regulatory’’, and asserts that the

ETOPS maximum diversion time is a

limit on the Type Certificate Data Sheet

for the B–777.

FAA Response

The ETOPS approval statement in the

Type Certificate Data Sheet is a finding

of suitability based on a review of the

type design and reliability of the

airframe/engine combination. The

statement is the reflection of what was

approved as a part of the type

certification process and does not

prohibit additional FAA approvals. The

certification of the B–777 for initial

ETOPS operation was on the basis of

special conditions that constitute part of

the certification basis of the airplane.

There was no intention that the special

conditions, being issued for 180-minute

operational considerations, would limit

the B–777 to that operation for the life

of the airplane. It is further important to

recognize that the type design approval

finding does not constitute approval to

conduct ETOPS operations. Limits on

ETOPS operational diversion time are

contained within an individual

operator’s operations specification. As

an example, an operator may be limited

to 120 minute ETOPS in its operations

specification even though the airplane it

is operating has been approved for 180

minute ETOPS and those operations are

being successfully conducted by other

operators. In addition, current ETOPS

operating requirements contained in AC

120–42A already recognize that

deviations from the approved diversion

time may occur based on unforeseen

conditions during a given diversion.

The Configuration, Maintenance, and

Procedures (CMP) standard is a FAA

approved document and is a required

type design incorporation that

establishes the suitability of an airplane

for extended range operations, and is

considered a limitation.

Comment

Airbus states in its comments titled

‘‘Increased risk of additional hardware

failure’’ that risk assumptions and

models used in ETOPS risk management

need public review.

FAA Response

Technical matters, like risk

assumptions and analyses, considered

by the FAA during the type certification

process are normally not public

information because they contain

information of a proprietary nature. The

FAA agrees, though, that there is some

merit to better defining the type of risk

analyses that should be conducted for

extended range operations in order to

ensure a uniform application worldwide. For that reason it will task the

ARAC to evaluate the current risk

assumptions and models and make

recommendations to the FAA. In the

mean time, the FAA is confident that

the risk assumptions and analyses

conducted in past ETOPS approvals are

sufficient to proceed with an extension

to 207 minutes for the B–777.

3524 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices

Another reason the FAA is confident

in proceeding with the 207-minute

approval is the basic manner in which

the B–777 was type certificated. It is the

only airplane that was designed from

the start for ETOPS operation on its first

day of service. This required Boeing to

address all possible failure modes of

past airplanes and engines and

demonstrate that the B–777 was

designed to preclude those failures. This

extensive safety analysis has produced

an airplane that exceeds the dispatch

reliability of any previous airplane,

which is as measure of the reliability of

the airplane design and air carrier

maintenance programs. The FAA

believes the operational history of the

airplane has proven the validity of this

approach and the uniqueness of the B–

777 for consideration of 207-minute

ETOPS operations. Should other

airplanes be presented for approval to

operate to 207 minutes, the FAA would

assess their design and operational

experience in the same way as it has for

the B–777.

Comment

AECMA states that the proposed IFSD

of .019/1000 is not sufficient to comply

with FAR 25.1309.

FAA Response

For this special limited authorization

to operate at 207 minute ETOPS, the

FAA does not agree that it is necessary

to specify a different in-flight shutdown

rate requirement than the .02/1000

engine hours, defined in AC 120–42A.

Since the ATA proposal for .019/1000 is

a conservative value relative to the .02/

1000 requirement, the FAA is accepting

this coordinated industry position as

one of the factors that establishes the

Agency finding of equivalent safety.

This reliability evaluation tool in the

ETOPS criteria was not intended to

compensate for ‘‘non-compliance’’ with

FAR 25.1309. The ETOPS IFSD rate

requirement is not related to FAR

25.1309 compliance as implied in the

AECMA comment, but is derived from

the baseline engine IFSD rate used in

the development of the 180-minute

ETOPS approval criteria as a measure of

an acceptable ETOPS engine reliability.

However, the FAA agrees that the

reliability of state of the art engines is

much better than the current .02/1000

standard, and supports a review of the

ETOPS inflight shutdown rate

requirement as part the overall ARAC

rulemaking activity. The B–777 has

clearly established an in-flight shut

down rate far better than the .02/1000

standard and is one of the reasons the

FAA is confident in proceeding with the

207-minute ETOPS approval.

Comment

Airbus encouraged the FAA to

reconsider the ‘‘still air’’ provisions.

Airbus proposes that oil, fire

suppression, and other time limited

systems should be capable for the entire

length of maximum anticipated

diversion time based on actual winds,

not ‘‘still air.’’

FAA Response

The FAA does not intend to change

basic premises used with ETOPS in

calculating distances using ‘‘still air’’.

The operational regulatory reference in

the FAR addresses the distance in ‘‘still

air’’ and the FAA sees no reason to

change this basic assumption merely

because of the 15 percent extension in

allowable diversion time. The global

application of ETOPS is also based on

‘‘still air’’ criteria. The FAA will

consider any recommendations by the

ARAC ETOPS Working Group if they

determine that time limited components

should be based on forecast and actual

winds as Airbus proposes. What must

be applied to every EROPS departure, is

the fuel load that meets or exceeds the

critical fuel scenario analysis, which is

based on forecast and actual winds.

7. ETOPS Rules Should Be Harmonized

With International Rules

Some commenters suggested that the

ETOPS rules should be harmonized

with international rules and should not

discriminate against non-U.S.

manufacturers and operators.

FAA Response

The FAA has been and remains

committed to harmonization of

regulatory requirements to the extent

possible with international rules. That

will always be a goal of the FAA but

that goal must be balanced with other

issues the FAA must respond to. In this

case, there has been a proposal to

extend the ETOPS approved operations

for the B–777 up to 207 minutes. It is

not appropriate for the FAA to delay

action on the proposal in order to

harmonize its position with other

regulations, when appropriate

regulatory action has been determined.

Again, the FAA places a high priority on

harmonization of standards world-wide,

but not at the cost of reasonable action

in response to any request by those it

directly regulates.

A lot of effort has gone into the

harmonization of ETOPS requirements

and standards, and although there are

specific areas of difference, its general

application is uniformly applied

worldwide. The 207-minute ETOPS is

being accepted because it adds a safety

benefit to the ETOPS conducted in the

North Pacific, and U.S. airlines

presently operating ETOPS in that area

can benefit from this. The FAA will

further pursue harmonization through

intended tasking of an ARCA ETOPS

Working Group that will provide

recommendations for codifying ETOPS

standards and requirements. The FAA

welcomes participation by foreign

regulatory authorities, manufacturers,

and operators in this development to

harmonize requirements, and to develop

international standards. Interested

persons should review the intended

ARAC tasking published elsewhere in

this edition of the Federal Register.

8. 207-Minute Proposal Specifies

Equipment Requirement

The ATA 207-minute proposal

contained specific system

configurations. It specifies that at least

one fuel crossfeed valve and one fuel

boost pump in each main tank must be

able to be powered by a backup

electrical power source. It specifies time

related cargo fire limitations, and all

other time limited systems to be not less

than 222 minutes. For the electrical

system, any one of the engine of APU

driven generator sources must be

capable of powering the main AC and

main DC electrical buses. To enhance

pilot communications, the airplane

must have SATCOM voice and/or

SATCOM datalink installed, and for

pilot work load consideration, the

airplane must have single-engine

autoland capability. The ATA proposal

also specified MEL restrictions that

would apply to the 207-minute

dispatch. It proposes the operability of

autoland capability, SATCOM voice

and/or SATCOM datalink, autothrottle

system, the fuel quantity indicating

system (FQIS), and the APU (that

includes the electrical and pneumatic

supply to its designed capability) at

time of dispatch.

Continental Airlines states that the

equipment and dispatch specifications

detailed in the proposal are more

conservative than those required by 180-

minute diversion authority, and that the

specifications detailed in the proposal

define a level of sophistication in the

aircraft design that goes far beyond the

aircraft that were originally approved

for 180-minute diversion authority. In

their opinion extending the diversion

authority beyond 180-minutes with the

added conservatism and narrow scope

presents benefits to the traveling public

with no degradation in safety. Another

commentator, although in favor of 207-

minute ETOPS, argues against the

additional equipment requirements in

the ATA proposal because it would

eliminate most of the world ETOPS fleet

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices 3525

from 207-minutes ETOPS consideration.

DGAC France and the United Kingdom

CAA both expressed the view that if

SATCOM was a requirement for

communication capability, then it must

be capable of being powered through a

back-up source.

FAA Response

The FAA has considered the

additional systems capability,

equipment, and serviceability

requirements in the ATA proposal. The

FAA does not consider these airplane

requirements as the final determination

of generally applicable ‘standards’ for

ETOPS beyond 180-minutes, but does

consider the added ATA criteria are in

line with the basic conservation

embodied in present ETOPS operations.

The added requirements were

developed through a coordinated effort

between airlines, manufacturers and

pilot associations and the result

represents an agreement among those

parties. The FAA therefore accepts all

the proposed added requirements as an

integral part of a ‘‘special 207-minute

authorization’’ except the monthly

reporting requirements. As such, the

FAA has information that the B–777

would qualify for 207-minute ETOPS.

The FAA wants to make it clear that by

its acceptance of the ATA proposal that

an equivalent level of safety is found.

The FAA has not made a determination

that the proposal by the ATA is the only

proposal that would allow all 207

minute ETOPS operations, or is the

minimum level of safety for all

operations. The FAA intends to task the

proposed ARAC ETOPS Working Group

to make recommendations on standards

and requirements for ETOPS beyond

180-minutes. This may lead to standards

of system configuration and

requirements that would enable other

existing airframe/engine combinations

to be used. The FAA will be looking for

ARAC to set forth recommendations that

define minimum standards and develop

the proper technical justification for

those being the minimum standards.

Once those minimum standards are

proposed by ARAC, the FAA will

review all ETOPS approvals to decide if

the ARAC proposed standards should be

applied to all ETOPS operations. In

making that decision it will rely to a

great extent on the service history of the

fleet operating under today’s standards,

which so far has been excellent.

The FAA considers the proposal for

SATCOM and/or SATCOM datalink to

be an additional communication

requirement beyond that which is

presently required. It is therefore not to

be considered as a replacement

communication system. The value of

SATCOM is recognized and its

importance as an aid to rapid and

efficient communication for the flight

crew is supported by the requirement

for the SATCOM to be operative for a

207-minute dispatch. The development

of standards and requirements for

ETOPS beyond 180-minutes that will be

addressed by the ARAC Work Group

may define other communication

requirements and standards of

operability for future approvals.

9. An Industry/Government ETOPS

Working Group Should Be Formed to

Review 207-Minute Operations

ALPA suggests that an Industry/

Government ETOPS group be formed for

the purpose of ensuring that airlines

comply with the intent of the ATA 207-

minute ETOPS proposal. They suggest

that the group should meet on a regular

basis to review operational information

regarding all ETOPS operations,

particularly those operations where 207-

minute authority was exercised. Airbus

expresses concern with the current state

of FAA monitoring of ETOPS

operations, citing that the FAA relies on

the industry to be alerted to trends that

threaten the safety of ETOPS operations.

Airbus suggests that the review of 207-

minute data contained in the ATA 207-

minute proposal should be more

specific in delineating precisely what

will be reviewed and the control limits

for each review item.

FAA Response

The FAA intends to monitor the

frequency of use of a 207-minute

dispatch and the terms of its application

by airlines that have been granted the

authority to exercise the 15 percent

extension. Airlines will be required to

record and document necessary

information that substantiates the use of

the 207-minute dispatch for each flight

that it is applied. The airline will retain

copies of these records for at least three

months, and make them available to the

FAA upon request (OMB control No.

2120–0008). The data will be reviewed

and collected by the airline’s FAA

Certificate Holding District Office

(CHDO). The CHDO will provide usage

reports for their assigned airlines on a

monthly basis to the FAA Flight

Standards Air Transportation Division,

AFS–200, so that a comparative review

and analysis can be conducted. Results

of the review can then be made

available to the public, with all

proprietary data removed or deidentified. Operators should note that

the regular monthly reports specified in

the ATA proposal are not being required

by the FAA at this time.

The FAA disagrees with the Airbus

comment that there is insufficient

ongoing surveillance by the Flight

Standards organization on monitoring

compliance with ETOPS operations and

maintenance requirements. The FAA

constantly monitors the application of

ETOPS requirements, and the airlines

performance to maintain acceptable

standards. Other FAA organizations are

tasked specifically to track and respond

to trends that may indicate areas of

concern of a specific ETOPS operator, or

global trends that may affect the entire

industry. The FAA does rely on the

collation and reporting of ETOPS

related data by industry sources. The

FAA maintains oversight of the data,

and conducts continuous analysis to

detect any adverse trends.

10. Extended Range Operations for ‘‘All

Cargo’’ Airplanes Are Not Safe and

Should Not Be Allowed

The Independent Pilots Association

(IPA) opposes the ATA 207-minute

proposal because cargo aircraft are not

equipped with fire suppression systems.

IPA states that ‘‘extended range

operations for all-cargo aircraft are not

safe and should not be allowed by

FAA’’.

FAA Response

Class E cargo compartments apply

only to airplanes used solely for the

carriage of cargo and are not restricted

or pertinent to the number of engines

installed on the airplane. Class E

requirements are contained in 14 CFR

Part 25, and those requirements do not

specify a fire suppression system. The

issue is therefore not related to ETOPS,

or to an extension to 207-minutes that

may apply to the B–777 airplane. Three

and 4 engine all-cargo airplanes with

Class E cargo compartments are not

limited to routes based on time or

distance limits from alternate airports.

Two-engine airplanes are restricted to a

maximum diversion time, including allcargo airplanes that are operating with

an ETOPS approval. AC 120–42A,

paragraph 8(c)(6) requires that the

design of the cargo compartment fire

protection system integrity and

reliability should be suitable for the

intended operation considering fire

detection sensors, liner material, etc. It

also addresses fire protection system

capability, if necessary by the

certification standards. As already

stated, the Class E requirements do not

require a fire suppression system. For

additional information regarding the

distinction between cargo compartments

in all-cargo airplanes and those in

passenger-carrying airplanes, see the

publication of the FAA’s final rule on

3526 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices

Revised Standards for Cargo or Baggage

Compartments in Transport Category

Airplanes (63 FR 8040–41; February 17,

1998).

An appropriate forum for further

discussion of Class E cargo

compartments would be with the

proposed ARAC Working Group that

will be tasked to review the

requirements for all extended range

operations, regardless of the type of

operation.

Announcement of FAA Decision

The FAA has determined that it

would be premature to extend the

ETOPS threshold to 207 minutes

without specifying limits on its

application and use. The FAA agrees

that measurable standards must be

developed and harmonized, in order to

adopt an extended diversion threshold

across the board. One of the tasks the

FAA intends to includes in the ARAC

ETOPS initiative is for the ARAC to

develop the standards for airplane

ETOPS type design approval as well as

operational requirements and

procedures for ETOPS beyond 180

minutes. The FAA also agrees that these

standards should be developed jointly

for global application, and adopted as

an ICAO standard and recommended

practice.

As mentioned previously, the FAA

has reviewed a study prepared by

United Airlines Dispatch Center that

looked at meteorological forecast and

actual weather data at airports that meet

‘‘adequate’’ criteria for enroute

alternates in the North Pacific. The

study shows that a 207-minute ETOPS

dispatch would mostly benefit

Eastbound operations from Japan to the

United States because those departures

generally occur at night. The

conclusions drawn from the study are:

The use of a 207-minute dispatch would

be infrequent; the flight could be

dispatched on preferred ATC routes;

and, the resulting route would place the

airplane closer to more enroute

alternates that after flight departure

would meet ‘‘suitable’’ criteria. The

FAA recognizes the merits and potential

safety benefit of such conditions.

The FAA also recognizes that ETOPS

operations in the North Pacific (NOPAC)

present certain operational difficulties

that are minimized with airplanes that

incorporate the latest technology and

systems design to specifically meet

ETOPS needs. An airplane such as the

B–777 fits this category.

The B–777 was designed from the

beginning as a 180-minute ETOPS

capable airplane. Instead of meeting the

minimum service experience

requirements defined by FAA Advisory

Circular 120–42A, the B–777 ETOPS

type design suitability was based on

Early ETOPS special condition

requirements for proof of reliability.

This was the main reason for Boeing to

develop an improved design. The B–777

design has systems redundancy to meet

reliability goals with consideration of

Minimum Equipment List (MEL)

restrictions for 180-minute ETOPS. For

example, the electrical system has a

main and back-up generator on each

engine, an APU generator, a Ram Air

Turbine (RAT) generator, a main battery,

and an APU battery. The fuel system

design provides for a fuel boost pump

in each main tank to be powered by a

back-up electrical source, making the

need for fuel suction feed an unlikely

event. Boeing conducted a B–777

systems reliability analysis and

Numerical Probability Analysis to assess

the suitability of the B–777 airplane to

a higher diversion limit The analysis

indicates the B–777 airplane design and

reliability capability is well in excess of

the proposed extension to 207-minutes.

Today there are over 200 B–777’s in

service around the world. The fleet has

accumulated more than two million

engine hours with a combined rolling

average in-flight shutdown rate of .007/

1000 engine hours. That is almost one

third of the maximum allowed

shutdown rate for 180 minutes ETOPS

operation.

The ATA 207-minute proposal

contained nine items to be applied to

the review of the proposed airframeengine combination to determine if

there were any factors that would affect

safe conduct of 207-minute operations.

The B–777 has been proposed as

satisfactorily meeting the condition of

all the listed items in the Approval

Basis section. The FAA considers these

additional type design and systems’

operational requirements to provide

conservatism in reliability performance

and diversion capability for 207 minute

ETOPS operation. In addition to MEL

restrictions for 180-minute operations,

the ATA proposal also included four

additional system and equipment

requirements that must be operational

prior to dispatch for 207-minute ETOPS.

The items are: Fuel Quantity Indicating

System (FQIS), Auxiliary Power Unit

(APU) that included the electrical and

pneumatic supply to its design

capability, the Autothrottle system, and

SATCOM voice and/or SATCOM

datalink.

The FAA has accepted the ATA

proposal as providing an equivalent

level of safety for ETOPS operations up

to 207 minutes in the North Pacific. The

FAA may approve a special ETOPS

operational authorization that will allow

limited application of a diversion limit

of 207-minutes flying time at the

approved one-engine inoperative cruise

speed (under standard conditions in

still air). This will be a narrow focused

authorization based on specific

eligibility and qualification criteria,

fixed geographical area of operation,

specific equipment, limited application,

and recording requirements and the

additional criteria contained in the ATA

proposal. Presently, the FAA has

enough information on the B–777 series

with all engine configurations as listed

on the Type Certification Data Sheet

T00001SE, to tentatively find that it is

the only model that currently meets the

additional criteria contained in the ATA

proposal and that the FAA has adopted.

A final finding may be issued after the

Boeing Company submits substantiation

data for each of the type design criteria

items listed in paragraph 7 of the

proposal’s ‘‘Approval Basis’’ section and

the updated Numerical Probability

Analysis (NPA) to the FAA Transport

Airplane Directorate for evaluation. If

the FAA’s evaluation is favorable the

‘‘finding of suitability’’ to the additional

criteria for 207-minute ETOPS can be

made. The FAA will task the Flight

Operations Evaluation Board (FOEB) to

begin the process to amend the B–777

MMEL to require operational status for

dispatch of the airplane for operations

beyond 180-minutes to the four items

mentioned above (FQIS, APU,

Autothrottle system, and SATCOM). Air

carriers approved to use the special 207-

minute authorization must amend their

MEL and receive FAA approval of the

amendment, prior to exercising the

special authorization.

Application for the special

authorization will only be considered

from air carriers that currently hold 180-

minute ETOPS operational approval.

The authorization will only apply and

be valid for use in the North Pacific area

of operation. The special authorization

can only be applied to a route where

adequate enroute alternate airports exist

and are available that, if defined as

‘suitable’ for dispatch as per paragraph

10(d)(5) of AC 120–42A, the route

would be flown at 180-minute ETOPS

authority. When applying the 207-

minute dispatch, consideration must

also be given to those ‘‘adequate’’

airports within 180-minutes of the

proposed airplane routing to have a

weather forecast that gives probability of

having operational approach minima

(minima necessary to execute an

instrument approach) during the

expected times of arrival. The window

of arrival to be considered for these

‘‘adequate’’ airports is that period from

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices 3527

the earliest planned arrival time to the

latest planned arrival time, for the

anticipated airplane routing. This

increases the possibility on a 207-

minute ETOPS dispatch that the flight

crew when faced with the need to

initiate an in-flight diversion, could be

closer to a suitable alternate airport in

Russia, the Aleutians, or elsewhere in

Alaska than compared to an off-track

route (more Southerly route) that was

based on a 180-minute ETOPS dispatch.

All other ETOPS planning requirements

specified in AC 120–42A continue to

apply to the 207-minute ETOPS

dispatch.

The air carrier will record the

dispatch considerations when applying

this special authorization for each use,

and retain such records for review by

the FAA for at least three months.

In the April 27, 1999 Federal Register

notice, the FAA stated that it did not

endorse the ATA proposal, per se. The

April 27 notice outlined, in great detail,

the issues involved in determining

whether an appropriate level of safety

could be established for 207-minute

dispatch ETOPS. Public comments were

also in great detail, and reflected that

the commenters appreciated all of the

issues. After careful review of the

proposal and comments received, the

FAA has decided to proceed with a

policy to allow the limited 207-minute

dispatch authorization described in this

notice.

Summary

The FAA supports a collaborative

effort to produce policy and rules that

incorporate the best information

available from operators, manufacturers,

and others who may be affected. The

FAA also supports the rulemaking

process that assures that the issues are

thoroughly examined in a public forum.

The FAA does not believe, though, that

approval of a limited 207-minute North

Pacific ETOPS operation must await

further ETOPS rulemaking.

The FAA recognizes the potential

safety benefit that is provided with an

extension to 180-minute ETOPS as it

applies to operations in the North

Pacific. The equipment and dispatch

requirements that are specified in this

limited 207-minute diversion authority

are more conservative than those

required for 180-minutes. The B–777

systems design and demonstrated

service reliability indicate that the

airplane can meet these requirements,

and the FAA will evaluate Boeing’s data

and the updated Numerical Probability

Analysis to make its finding of

suitability for 207-minute ETOPS. In

order for airlines to exercise the 207-

minute ETOPS authority, additional

Minimum Equipment List (MEL)

requirements will apply, as well as

dispatch planning to consider the

availability of other enroute airports

along the proposed route that do not

meet alternate weather criteria at time of

dispatch. This is intended to limit the

frequency of a 207-minute use, and to

provide an equivalent level of safety for

those flights that are dispatched with a

207-minute diversion limit. The FAA

will closely monitor the application of

these requirements by airlines that have

received approval to use the limited

207-minute ETOPS.

Intent To Task ARAC

The FAA intends to initiate ETOPS

rulemaking through the ARAC process

by separate notice in the near future.

The ARAC ETOPS Working Group

would be tasked to provide their

recommendation to the FAA for:

• Codification of existing ETOPS

standards and requirements in the

appropriate certification and operational

regulations

• Development of objective standards

and requirements for ETOPS beyond

180-minutes, for codification in

appropriate certification and operational

regulations, and

• Review the requirements for ETOPS

and all other extended range operations

for all airplanes regardless of the

number of engines, and provide

recommendations to standardize the

requirements for such operations.

The FAA will draw from the working

group recommendations to subsequently

issue ETOPS and for long range

operations regulations through the

rulemaking process. It is desirable to

have international regulatory,

manufacturer, and operator

participation in the ARAC ETOPS

Working Group to provide harmonized

positions that may be a basis for

international ETOPS standards.

Issued in Washington, DC on January 18,

2000.

Thomas E. McSweeny,

Associate Administrator for Regulations and

Certification.

[FR Doc. 00–1505 Filed 1–18–00 3:17 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent to Rule on Application

to impose and use a Passenger Facility

Charge (PFC) at Sacramento

International Airport, Sacramento, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Rule on

Application.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and

invites public comments on the

application to impose and use a PFC at

Sacramento International Airport under

the provisions of the Aviation Safety

and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990

(Title IX of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L.

101–508) and part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Federal Aviation

Administration, Airports Division,

15000 Aviation Blvd., Lawndale, CA

90261, or San Francisco Airports

District Office, 831 Mitten Road, Room

210, Burlingame, CA 94010–1303. In

addition, one copy of any comments

submitted to the FAA must be mailed or

delivered to Mr. G. Hardy Acree,

Director of Airports, county of

Sacramento, at the following address:

6900 Airport Boulevard, Sacramento,

CA 95837–1109. Air carriers and foreign

air carriers may submit copies of written

comments previously provided to the

county of Sacramento under § 158.23 of

part 158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marlys Vandervelde, Airports Program

Analyst, San Francisco Airports District

Office, 831 Mitten Road, Room 210,

Burlingame, CA 94010–1303,

Telephone: (650) 876–2806. The

application may be reviewed in person

at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invites public

comment on the application to impose

and use the revenue from a PFC at

Sacramento International Airport under

the provisions of the Aviation Safety

and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990

(Title IX of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L.

101–508) and Part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).

On December 28, 1999, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose and use a PFC submitted by the

county of Sacramento was substantially

complete within the requirements of

§ 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will

approve or disapprove the application,

in whole or in part, no later than March

31, 2000.

The following is a brief overview of

the impose and use application No. 00–

06–C–00–SMF:

Level of proposed PFC: $3.00.