101870 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(4) Replacement of an engine part is 

found necessary during the tests, or due 

to the teardown inspection findings. 

(c) Upon completion of all 

demonstrations and testing specified in 

these special conditions, the engine and 

its components must be— 

(1) Within serviceable limits; 

(2) Safe for continued operation; and 

(3) Capable of operating at declared 

ratings while remaining within limits. 

(33) Engine Electrical Systems 

(a) Applicability. Any system or 

device that provides, uses, conditions, 

or distributes electrical power, and is 

part of the engine type design, must 

provide for the continued airworthiness 

of the engine, and must maintain 

electric engine ratings. 

(b) Electrical systems. The electrical 

system must ensure the safe generation 

and transmission of power, and 

electrical load shedding if required, and 

that the engine does not experience any 

unacceptable operating characteristics 

or exceed its operating limits. 

(c) Electrical power distribution. 

(1) The engine electrical power 

distribution system must be designed to 

provide the safe transfer of electrical 

energy throughout the powerplant. The 

system must be designed to provide 

electrical power so that the loss, 

malfunction, or interruption of the 

electrical power source will not result in 

a hazardous engine effect, as defined in 

special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these 

special conditions. 

(2) The system must be designed and 

maintained to withstand normal and 

abnormal conditions during all ground 

and flight operations. 

(3) The system must provide 

mechanical or automatic means of 

isolating a faulted electrical energy 

generation or storage device from 

leading to hazardous engine effects, as 

defined in special condition no. 17(d)(2) 

of these special conditions, or 

detrimental effects in the intended 

aircraft application. 

(d) Protection systems. The engine 

electrical system must be designed such 

that the loss, malfunction, interruption 

of the electrical power source, or power 

conditions that exceed design limits, 

will not result in a hazardous engine 

effect, as defined in special condition 

no. 17(d)(2) of these special conditions. 

(e) Electrical power characteristics. 

The applicant must identify, declare, 

document, and provide to the installer 

as part of the requirements in § 33.5, the 

characteristics of any electrical power 

supplied from— 

(1) the aircraft to the engine electrical 

system, for starting and operating the 

engine, including transient and steadystate voltage limits, and 

(2) the engine to the aircraft via 

energy regeneration, and any other 

characteristics necessary for safe 

operation of the engine. 

(f) Environmental limits. 

Environmental limits that cannot 

adequately be substantiated by 

endurance demonstration, validated 

analysis, or a combination thereof must 

be demonstrated by the system and 

component tests in special condition no. 

27 of these special conditions. 

(g) Electrical system failures. The 

engine electrical system must— 

(1) Have a maximum rate of loss of 

power control (LOPC) that is suitable for 

the intended aircraft application; 

(2) When in the full-up configuration, 

be single-fault tolerant, as determined 

by the Administrator, for electrical, 

electrically detectable, and electronic 

failures involving LOPC events; 

(3) Not have any single failure that 

results in hazardous engine effects; and 

(4) Ensure failures or malfunctions 

that lead to local events in the intended 

aircraft application do not result in 

hazardous engine effects, as defined in 

special condition no. 17(d)(2) of these 

special conditions, due to electrical 

system failures or malfunctions. 

(h) System safety assessment. The 

applicant must perform a system safety 

assessment. This assessment must 

identify faults or failures that affect 

normal operation, together with the 

predicted frequency of occurrence of 

these faults or failures. The intended 

aircraft application must be taken into 

account to assure the assessment of the 

engine system safety is valid. The rates 

of hazardous and major faults must be 

declared, documented, and provided to 

the installer as part of the requirements 

in § 33.5. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

December 10, 2024. 

Patrick R. Mullen, 

Manager, Technical Policy Branch, Policy and 

Standards Division, Aircraft Certification 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29490 Filed 12–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 129 

[Docket No.: FAA–2024–0176; Amdt. No. 

129–55] 

RIN 2120–AL93 

Foreign Air Operator Certificates 

Issued by a Regional Safety Oversight 

Organization 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This amendment will allow 

the FAA to review and, if acceptable to 

the Administrator, recognize as valid air 

operator certificates issued by a 

Regional Safety Oversight Organization 

to foreign air carriers when the State of 

the Operator is a member of that 

Regional Safety Oversight Organization, 

for purposes of evaluating foreign 

applicants for operating specifications. 

DATES: Effective January 16, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘Additional Information’’ 

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Shaver, International Program Division/ 

International Operations Branch, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC, 20591; telephone (202) 267–1704; 

email tim.shaver@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in title 49 of the 

United States Code. Subtitle I, section 

106, describes the authority of the FAA 

Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 

Programs, describes in more detail the 

scope of the FAA’s authority. 

This rulemaking is issued under the 

authority described in subtitle VII, part 

A, subpart III, section 44701(a)(5). 

Under that section, the FAA is charged 

with promoting safe flight of civil 

aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 

regulations and minimum standards for 

practices, methods, and procedures the 

Administrator finds necessary to ensure 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority. 

Amending the regulations for 

applications for operations 

specifications under part 129 submitted 

by foreign air carriers or foreign persons, 

and the related standards for denial of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101871 

1Annex 6, Volume 1, 4.2.1.1. 

2 Information for ICAO Cooperative Development 

of Operational Safety and Continuing Airworthiness 

Program (COSCAP) is contained in the ICAO Safety 

Oversight Manual, Part B, The Establishment and 

Management of a Regional Safety Oversight 

Organization, Doc. 9734, 2011. 

3Safety Oversight Manual, Part B, The 

Establishment and Management of a Regional 

Safety Oversight Organization, Doc. 9734, 2011. 

4 Id. at 2.1.8. 

5See id. at 4.1.10, which indicates that issuance 

of certificates may be delegated but states that ‘‘the 

day-to-day surveillance of service providers 

remains the responsibility of the civil aviation 

authority (CAA) of member States.’’ In addition, see 

Sections IV.D, IV.F., and V.C. for discussion of the 

FAA’s intent to file a difference as the standard 

under the Chicago Convention directs issuance of 

an AOC by the State of the Operator. 

6One comment concerning Boeing employment 

practices was outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

such an application for operations 

specifications authorizations, improves 

the FAA’s ability to manage these 

authorizations. These operations 

specifications are issued to foreign air 

carriers operating within the United 

States and to foreign air carriers or 

foreign persons conducting operations 

of U.S.-registered aircraft solely outside 

the United States. 

II. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action 

Prior to this action, FAA regulations 

required that foreign applicants for 

operations specifications must hold a 

valid air operator certificate (AOC) 

issued by the State of the Operator. See 

14 CFR 129.7(c)(5). Requiring the 

operator to hold an AOC issued by the 

State of the Operator is consistent with 

the standard in Annex 6, Volume 1 to 

the Convention on International Civil 

Aviation, which directs that an operator 

shall not engage in commercial 

transport operations unless in 

possession of a valid AOC issued by the 

State of the Operator.1

Some International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Contracting States 

have joined together to form Regional 

Safety Oversight Organizations (RSOO). 

These organizations may provide a 

uniform regulatory structure for safety 

oversight and provide technical 

assistance and the execution of safety 

oversight functions for their member 

States. RSOOs have been established in 

many parts of the world. These 

organizations may be formed based on 

a variety of differing arrangements 

among member States. The institutional 

structures of these organizations range 

from highly formalized 

intergovernmental organizations 

established on the basis of formal legal 

agreements to less formalized 

organizations established under the 

ICAO Cooperative Development of 

Operational Safety and Continuing 

Airworthiness Program.2

As stated in ICAO guidance, ‘‘under 

the Chicago Convention, only the State 

has responsibility for safety oversight, 

and this responsibility may not be 

transferred.’’ 3 The guidance further 

states that, although the State may 

delegate specific safety oversight tasks 

and functions to an RSOO, such as 

inspections for the certification of an 

operator, the State must still retain the 

minimum capability required to carry 

out its responsibilities under the 

Chicago Convention. States must always 

be able to properly and effectively 

monitor the safety oversight functions 

delegated to the RSOO.4

States participating in RSOOs may 

delegate or transfer various functions or 

tasks to these organizations as stipulated 

in the RSOO’s formation 

documentation. As provided in ICAO 

guidance, one of the functions member 

States may delegate or transfer to a 

highly formalized and more fully 

resourced RSOO is the issuance of 

AOCs for the State of the Operator.5

In those instances where an AOC is 

issued by an RSOO rather than the 

member State, this regulation change 

now allows the FAA to review 

supporting documentation for 

applications for foreign air carrier 

operation specifications and, if 

acceptable to the Administrator, 

recognize as valid (i.e., ensure that it 

conforms to ICAO standards) AOCs 

issued by an RSOO to foreign air 

carriers if the State of the Operator is a 

member State of that RSOO. 

B. Changes Made in This Final Rule 

This rule amends the regulations for 

applications by foreign air carriers and 

foreign persons for operations 

specifications under 14 CFR part 129 

and amends regulations for the denial of 

applications for operations 

specifications. This rule amends three 

sections in subpart A of part 129: 

§ 129.1, Applicability and definitions; 

§ 129.7, Application, issuance, or denial 

of operations specifications; and § 129.9, 

Contents of operations specifications. 

Based on the comments received in 

response to the notice of proposed 

rulemaking, the FAA has revised the 

rule language to clarify the requirements 

and remove any ambiguity regarding the 

intent of the amendments. See section 

III.C. of this preamble. 

III. Background 

A. Summary of the NPRM 

On May 22, 2024, the FAA published 

the notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) titled ‘‘Foreign Air Operator 

Certificates issued by a Regional Safety 

Oversight Organization’’ (89 FR 44935). 

The FAA also posted draft guidance 

material for the proposal, ‘‘FAA Order 

8900.1, Volume 12, Chapter 2, Section 

2,’’ for comment in the NPRM docket. 

The NPRM proposed to amend the 

regulations for applications by foreign 

air carriers and foreign persons for 

operations specifications under 14 CFR 

part 129 and the regulations for the 

denial of applications for operations 

specifications. 

B. General Overview of Comments 

The FAA received four comments.6

The agency received comments from 

one individual and three associations 

representing industry and labor 

constituencies. One of the associations 

supported the rule. Two of the 

associations opposed the rule, as 

discussed more fully in section IV. The 

FAA received comments on the 

proposal that addressed: support for the 

rule change; International Aviation 

Safety Assessments (IASA) for RSOOs; 

the number of IASAs needed; legal basis 

concerns; validation of Safety 

Management Systems (SMS) in IASAs 

for RSOO member States; and safety 

concerns. 

In addition, on September 17, 2024, 

after the comment period closed, 

representatives of the Department of 

Transportation, Department of State, 

Department of Commerce, and Federal 

Aviation Administration met with 

representatives from Directorate-General 

Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE), 

European Aviation Safety Agency 

(EASA), and European Union (EU) 

Member States for a special meeting of 

the Joint Committee established by the 

U.S.—EU Air Transport Agreement. 

During the meeting, DG MOVE raised 

concerns with this rulemaking effort. A 

summary of the meeting has been 

posted to the docket for this rulemaking. 

C. Differences Between the NPRM and 

the Final Rule 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

establish new definitions in 14 CFR 

129.1 for ‘‘Regional Safety Oversight 

Organization’’ and ‘‘State of the 

Operator.’’ As discussed more fully later 

in the preamble, the final rule revises 

the RSOO definition to clarify the 

relationship between a member State 

and an RSOO and the transfer of 

responsibilities between the entities to 

fully address the Air Line Pilots 

Association’s (ALPA’s) comment, which 

expressed concerns about a ‘‘legal 

fiction.’’ The FAA is finalizing the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101872 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

7Public Law 118–63 (May 16, 2024). 8 87 FR 58725. 

definition of ‘‘State of the Operator’’ as 

proposed. 

As proposed in the NPRM, the FAA 

is amending § 129.7 to accommodate the 

recognition as valid by the FAA of 

AOCs issued by an RSOO on behalf of 

the State of the Operator. Based on the 

comments received, the FAA is revising 

§ 129.7(c)(5) in the final rule to 

eliminate the term ‘‘on behalf of’’ to 

clarify the relationship between, and 

responsibilities of, the State of the 

Operator and an RSOO. This final rule 

also clarifies the FAA will accept an 

AOC only ‘‘if acceptable to the 

Administrator,’’ whereas the NPRM 

limited this to the RSOO-issued AOCs 

and used the phrase ‘‘as acceptable to 

the Administrator’’ (emphasis added). 

The final rule adds ‘‘if acceptable to the 

Administrator’’ to § 129.7(c)(5) and adds 

paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii) to stipulate 

the FAA may accept an AOC issued by 

(i) the State of the Operator, or (ii) an 

RSOO if the State of the Operator is a 

member State of that RSOO. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed an 

additional amendment to § 129.7(d) to 

align the conditions for the FAA’s 

denial of an application for operations 

specifications with the conditions for 

eligibility for issuance of operations 

specifications. This amendment is 

adopted as proposed. 

The FAA also proposed to amend 

§ 129.9(a)(3) to reflect the possible 

acceptance and recognition as valid by 

the FAA of AOCs issued by an RSOO on 

behalf of the State of the Operator. The 

final rule simplifies the regulatory text 

in § 129.9(a)(3) and (b)(3) by removing 

the specification that an AOC may be 

issued by the State of the Operator or an 

RSOO. The FAA determined that the 

regulatory text in § 129.7(c)(5) 

establishes the basis for the FAA to 

accept a valid AOC, if acceptable to the 

Administrator, issued by (i) the State of 

the Operator; or (ii) an RSOO if the State 

of the Operator is a member State of that 

RSOO. Repeating this language in 

§ 129.9 is unnecessary and redundant. 

D. Related Actions 

Section 369 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 2024 amended 

chapter 447 of title 49 U.S.C. by adding 

section 44747, titled ‘‘Aviation safety 

oversight measures carried out by 

foreign countries.’’ 7 This amendment 

codified the FAA’s IASA program. The 

IASA program is the means by which 

the FAA determines whether another 

country’s oversight of its air carriers that 

(1) operate, or seek to operate, services 

to/from the United States using their 

own aircraft and crews, or (2) seek to 

display the code of a U.S. air carrier on 

any services, complies with safety 

standards established by ICAO. The 

published IASA results of a country’s 

placement in Category 1 or Category 2 

is the notification to the U.S. traveling 

public as to whether a foreign air 

carrier’s State civil aviation authority 

(CAA) meets ICAO safety standards. A 

Category 1 rating indicates that the CAA 

meets ICAO safety standards for these 

operations, and a Category 2 rating 

indicates that the CAA does not meet 

ICAO safety standards. 

On August 16, 2024, the FAA 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register (89 FR 66546) announcing the 

agency’s suspension of policy changes 

to the IASA program that had been 

announced in a September 28, 2022,8

Policy Statement, and a second notice in 

the Federal Register on the same day 

inviting public comments on proposed 

changes to the FAA IASA program 

policy (89 FR 66645). The comment 

period for the proposed policy closed on 

September 16, 2024, and the FAA is 

currently considering the comments 

received. 

IV. Discussion of Comments and the 

Final Rule 

A. Support for the Rule Change 

The National Business Aviation 

Association (NBAA) expressed support 

for the FAA’s proposed changes to part 

129 that would recognize AOCs issued 

by an RSOO. NBAA cited as an example 

the EASA, which has developed 

competency across a growing range of 

aviation capabilities, and with the 

further growth of mutual recognition of 

capabilities between FAA and EASA, 

the acceptance of certificates issued by 

EASA will greatly enhance process 

efficiency and approval consistency for 

European commercial operators seeking 

to access the United States. NBAA also 

stated that RSOOs meeting the 

requirements set forth in the proposed 

changes will benefit from this 

recognition along with commercial 

operators. 

NBAA stated that as regulators seek to 

improve safety oversight efficiency and 

reduce process redundancies for 

operators and government agencies, 

efforts like this rulemaking will allow 

governments and industry to more 

efficiently deploy safety resources to 

operate in a global environment. 

Allied Pilots Association (APA), 

while not supporting the rulemaking, 

acknowledged in its comment that it 

recognizes the vital importance of 

collaboration and cooperation when it 

comes to global aviation safety. As a 

result, APA indicated it understands the 

value that RSOOs can provide in 

promoting aviation safety oversight and 

stated APA’s position on the proposed 

rule change should not be viewed as a 

criticism of RSOOs in general or the 

desire for ICAO member States to 

collaborate in the name of aviation 

safety. 

The FAA acknowledges the support of 

the rulemaking expressed by NBAA and 

the overall support of RSOOs and their 

contribution to safety oversight 

expressed by APA. 

B. International Aviation Safety 

Assessments (IASA) for RSOOs 

ALPA commented the FAA must 

conduct a detailed inquiry of the level 

of participation of a State’s CAA in the 

activities of the RSOO and all associated 

safety activities but stated the NPRM is 

unclear on whether the FAA would 

conduct an IASA of the RSOO itself. 

ALPA stated it is unclear whether any 

RSOO is currently equipped with the 

correct process, procedure, personnel, 

and financial stability to serve in the 

role as a permanent regulatory oversight 

agency ‘‘on behalf of’’ the State of the 

Operator. ALPA believed the FAA 

should ensure that the regional 

oversight entity has sufficient ‘‘boots on 

the ground’’ (auditors and line 

inspectors with the right skillsets and 

training, funded by adequate resources, 

and backed by management with the 

requisite will to ensure compliance) to 

be fit for the purpose of satisfying each 

of those States’ treaty obligations. 

ALPA contended the FAA could 

determine all eleven of the ICAOrecognized RSOOs to be IASA Category 

1, by default, which would generate 

unacceptable safety risks. 

ALPA asserted the FAA must first 

complete an IASA for each RSOO before 

approving or renewing any new AOC 

from an RSOO. Then, once a specific 

AOC application is received by the FAA 

that invokes an RSOO/State AOC 

arrangement, ALPA believed the FAA 

should conduct a separate IASA review 

of the RSOO/State plan for AOC 

oversight of the air carriers applying to 

operate under part 129. 

Although APA did not specifically 

suggest the FAA conduct IASAs on 

RSOOs, APA stated that due to the 

varying levels of formality in structure 

among the currently existing RSOOs, 

each AOC issued by an RSOO would 

have to be reviewed and analyzed for 

validity and appropriateness before 

being recognized by the Administrator. 

APA asserted this would require the 

Administrator to review and understand 

the approval and issuance process of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101873 

9See ICAO Doc. 9734, Part B, 3.3.4, which states 

‘‘[w]hat is the most important consideration here is 

that the legal status of the RSOO, the scope of its 

functions and the extent of delegated legal authority 

are clearly determined and stipulated in the 

agreement document.’’ 

each RSOO to be able to determine if the 

applicant’s operator certificate should 

be recognized as valid. As a result, APA 

believed the proposal makes the 

application review process more 

cumbersome and complex. 

The FAA generally disagrees with the 

concern expressed by APA about this 

rule change, adding complexity and 

additional burden to the FAA’s IASA 

program. However, the FAA agrees with 

APA that each AOC issued by an RSOO 

must be reviewed for validity before 

being recognized by the Administrator. 

The responsibility for ensuring 

compliance with international standards 

established under the Chicago 

Convention falls to the member States as 

parties to the Convention. As such, the 

FAA IASA program assesses the CAA 

for the State of the Operator. 

Specifically, the IASA program assesses 

and determines the State of the 

Operator’s compliance with the 

standards in ICAO Annex 1 (Personnel 

Licensing), Annex 6—Part 1 and Part 3 

(Operation of Aircraft), and Annex 8 

(Airworthiness of Aircraft). The FAA 

reviews the CAA’s compliance by 

assessing ICAO’s eight critical elements 

of effective aviation safety oversight in 

the ICAO Document 9734, Safety 

Oversight Manual. Those eight critical 

elements include: 

1. Primary aviation legislation 

2. Specific operating regulations 

3. State civil aviation system and safety 

oversight functions 

4. Technical personnel qualification and 

training 

5. Technical guidance, tools, and the 

provision of safety-critical 

information 

6. Licensing, certification, authorization, 

and approval obligations 

7. Surveillance obligations 

8. Resolution of safety concerns 

When a CAA, as a member of an 

RSOO, transfers a task or function to the 

RSOO, the FAA expects the transfer to 

be documented in an agreement, treaty, 

or informal written record of the parties’ 

understanding that is available for 

review by the Administrator.9 This 

includes filings with ICAO outlining the 

arrangement between the RSOO and its 

member States. 

While the State of the Operator may 

transfer responsibility for certain tasks 

and functions to an RSOO, it cannot 

transfer its responsibility under the 

Chicago Convention. The FAA will 

continue to assess the State of the 

Operator as the responsible party for 

compliance with the ICAO standards. 

This assessment will ensure the State 

maintains the responsibility for the 

issuance and continued oversight of the 

AOC by the RSOO. When the State 

transfers the function of issuance of an 

AOC to an RSOO, the transfer 

documentation established by the State 

and the RSOO will be used by the FAA 

to determine which organization has 

responsibility for each task and function 

associated with issuance of an AOC. 

The FAA will use existing IASA 

procedures to assess the State to ensure 

the correct process, procedure, 

personnel, and financial stability 

necessary to accomplish transferred 

tasks or functions meet ICAO standards. 

The FAA does not believe the nuance of 

determining if the transferred task or 

functions is accomplished by the RSOO 

or retained by the State of the Operator 

adds a significant level of complexity to 

the process. 

As such, the FAA does not anticipate 

an IASA on an RSOO will be required 

to determine whether the CAA complies 

with the ICAO standards. For AOCs 

issued by the RSOO, however, the FAA 

will review the formation 

documentation for each RSOO and each 

RSOO-issued AOC for validity and 

consistency with ICAO standards. In the 

case of AOC issuance, the specific 

requirements that must be validated are 

only a small subset of ICAO standards. 

In most cases, the FAA expects that 

RSOO-issued AOCs will have been 

issued for States that have been assessed 

by the FAA, already resulting in an 

IASA Category 1 rating. Therefore, with 

the transfer of functions and duties to an 

RSOO, the FAA would conduct a more 

focused evaluation of the specific 

requirements associated with AOC 

issuance for the country in question. As 

a party to the Chicago Convention, the 

State remains the accountable 

organization to be assessed by the FAA 

under an IASA, and the RSOO is 

expected to participate in the IASA 

assessment as an observer for 

transferred functions. 

For all RSOO member States that have 

not had an IASA conducted by the FAA 

previously, an assessment of 

compliance with the ICAO standards for 

issuance of an AOC (including any 

functions or tasks transferred to an 

RSOO) will be done as part of the initial 

IASA for that State. An initial IASA of 

the State of the Operator must be 

completed before the FAA may accept 

an RSOO-issued AOC for that State. The 

RSOO may observe and support the 

State during the IASA to provide 

information about the RSOO’s roles and 

responsibilities for the tasks and 

functions as transferred by the State. 

C. Increased Number of IASAs 

ALPA stated that the FAA has 

incorrectly assumed that it will not need 

to increase the number of IASA 

assessments. ALPA contended the FAA 

will need to assess each RSOO at issue, 

which has never been assessed before. 

ALPA stated the FAA will need to 

conduct specific reviews of the national 

CAAs to which an RSOO may delegate 

certain functions. ALPA was concerned 

that if more assessments are needed, the 

FAA ‘‘will simply subtract one’’ from its 

average number of five IASAs typically 

completed per year. ALPA contended 

that doing fewer assessments, not more, 

does not represent an equivalent level of 

safety and that a foreign entity’s desire 

for an assessment must not overwhelm 

the FAA’s obligation to determine what 

is in the U.S. public interest. 

The FAA understands ALPA’s 

concern but does not expect the number 

of IASA assessments to increase in the 

near term, given the FAA is aware of 

only one RSOO issuing AOCs for 

member States, to date. The FAA also 

does not expect a decrease in the 

number of IASAs conducted on average, 

historically. 

As indicated previously, the FAA will 

continue to conduct IASAs for States 

that seek to initiate service to the United 

States, or for those States that have been 

identified as requiring a reassessment 

based on risk factors, whether the 

operator’s AOC is issued by the State of 

the Operator or an RSOO. During an 

initial IASA evaluation of the State, the 

transferred functions will be assessed by 

the FAA to determine compliance with 

ICAO standards. 

If a State previously assessed by the 

FAA as IASA Category 1 subsequently 

transfers the function of AOC issuance 

to an RSOO, the FAA’s regulatory 

process for AOC validation includes 

ensuring the ICAO standards and eight 

critical elements for those standards are 

still being met for that specific function 

without conducting a full IASA. If the 

FAA’s evaluation of the transferred 

function cannot establish ICAO 

compliance using the established 

validation process, the AOC will not be 

accepted by the FAA. The FAA does not 

anticipate conducting a complete IASA 

reassessment solely based on transfer of 

the function of issuance of an AOC to 

an RSOO. The lack of confirmation of 

compliance with ICAO AOC standards 

due to the transfer of the function to an 

RSOO would, however, be included as 

a risk consideration when the FAA is 

reviewing a State for IASA 

reassessment. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101874 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

10The FAA notes that, in addition to the 

heightened surveillance, the FAA proposed changes 

to the IASA program in the Federal Register (89 FR 

66645, August 16, 2024). In that NPRM, the FAA 

proposed to establish a Category 1* rating to be 

applied when the FAA has determined through the 

FAA risk assessment process that a Category 1 

country should be reassessed based on identified 

risks of possible noncompliance. The comment 

period closed on September 16, 2024, and the FAA 

is considering the public comments and developing 

a final policy notice. 

11See 14 CFR 129.11(b) and (g). 

12See ICAO Doc. 9734, Part B, 7.5.12, which 

states that ‘‘where a harmonized regulatory 

framework prevails in a region, the civil aviation 

authorities of member States will remain the sole 

authority for the issuance of licences and operator 

certificates, approval of aircraft maintenance 

organizations, approval of design and production 

organizations, and approval of training centres.’’ 

The FAA uses a risk analysis process 

to identify IASA Category 1 countries 

for reassessment. The risk analysis is 

performed at least annually and 

whenever new safety information is 

obtained on each country on the IASA 

Category Rating list to determine 

countries of highest risk to the U.S. 

National Airspace System (NAS) and 

the U.S. traveling public. The risk 

analysis was developed by FAA experts 

and is comprised of individual risk 

elements and grouped into the following 

five major IASA risk categories: 

(1) Department of Transportation 

Economic Authority—New or existing 

U.S. DOT economic authority; ownmetal U.S. service under part 129; new 

or current codeshare involving display 

of U.S. air carrier code on foreign 

operator flights; and any U.S. DOT 

administrative emphasis items and 

initiatives. 

(2) Governance and Safety Culture— 

Areas of interest include: contracting of 

safety oversight functions; carrier wet 

lease to airlines of other countries; 

safety items identified by the CAA 

remain unresolved or not addressed; 

complaints received by FAA from other 

CAAs, operators, manufacturers, and the 

traveling public. 

(3) IASA Information—Time passed 

since the last IASA, and other factors 

that indicate the Category 1 rating may 

no longer be valid. 

(4) ICAO Requirements—Risk 

concerns include: negative ICAO 

Universal Safety Oversight Audit 

Program (USOAP) findings indicating 

noncompliance with one or more of the 

eight critical elements of safety 

oversight; ICAO reports indicating 

noncompliance with Standards and 

Recommended Practices (SARPs); 

inaction with respect to ICAO action 

plans; ICAO USOAP information over 

two years old thus limiting its value. 

(5) FAA Information—FAA has safety 

concerns about the oversight provided 

by the CAA, which include the areas of: 

FAA and foreign ramp inspections; 

safety-related complaints about 

carrier(s) from other CAAs; active 

technical assistance activities; 

compliance issues are present in FAA 

certificated or approved entities in the 

country; Congressional inquiries; and 

existing bilateral agreement 

implementation procedures. 

The risk associated with the FAA’s 

inability to validate ICAO compliance 

due to a transfer of tasks or functions 

would be included in the ICAO 

requirements category of risks. 

The FAA mitigates identified State 

safety oversight risks by placing all 

carriers from that State, authorized to 

operate to the United States, under 

heightened surveillance until the IASA 

reassessment is completed.10 In extreme 

cases where safety or oversight risks 

cannot be mitigated, the FAA has 

regulatory authority to remove the 

authorization from any or all carriers 

authorized to operate from that State.11

D. Legal Basis Concerns 

ALPA and APA expressed concerns 

about the legal basis and compliance 

with ICAO standards associated with 

the proposed rulemaking. ALPA stated 

the proposal seems contradictory. ALPA 

commented that on one hand, the FAA’s 

proposal seeks to overcome the Chicago 

Convention’s clear instruction by stating 

that the regional oversight entity would 

be acting ‘‘on behalf of’’ a State and thus 

would purportedly comply with the 

treaty. ALPA contended that as a result, 

the proposal would hold the State to 

account, even though the State would 

designate the regional entity as the 

responsible authority. ALPA stated, on 

the other hand, the proposal recognizes 

the regional entity would be 

responsible, and U.S. recognition of 

operating licenses would be at odds 

with U.S. obligations under the treaty, 

such that a ‘‘difference’’ would have to 

be filed by the United States with ICAO. 

ALPA asserted the FAA’s regulatory 

language ‘‘on behalf of,’’ as in ‘‘on 

behalf of the State of the Operator,’’ 

introduces ambiguity because the entity 

doing the acting (on behalf of) is the one 

with actual responsibility. ALPA 

commented that this ‘‘legal fiction is to 

be a workaround from what ICAO 

admits being the role of the RSOO . . .’’ 

ALPA commented that the Chicago 

Convention recognizes the value in a 

clear line of responsibility from a 

national government authority to an air 

carrier and that only States are deemed 

the valid issuers of such a license, in 

accordance with ICAO Guidance on 

RSOOs.12 ALPA had significant 

concerns about how an RSOO’s 

relationship with the State of the 

Operator will work in practice, 

including a concern that an RSOO often 

delegates responsibilities for AOC 

oversight back to the State of the 

Operator. ALPA urged the FAA to deem 

the RSOO, not the State of the Operator, 

to be ‘‘ultimately responsible for the 

IASA’’ assessment. 

For an existing IASA Category 1 State, 

the FAA’s assessment has already 

established the State complies with 

ICAO standards for the issuance of an 

AOC. The FAA Order 8900.1, volume 

12, chapter 2, section 2 procedure for 

the evaluation of AOC issuance and 

subsequent transfer of the tasks and 

functions then focuses on ensuring all 

the required tasks and functions for 

AOC oversight are addressed, and the 

responsibility for each of those tasks or 

functions is clearly defined. The FAA 

procedure also ensures that there is 

evidence in the transfer documentation 

that covers the roles and responsibilities 

necessary for the continued compliance 

of the AOC holder with the ICAO AOC 

standards during the life cycle of the 

AOC. If the FAA cannot determine 

compliance, the AOC will not be 

accepted by the FAA until compliance 

with the required ICAO standards can 

be confirmed by the FAA. 

To the extent that ALPA suggests that, 

to act in compliance with the Chicago 

Convention, an AOC may only be issued 

by the State of the Operator, the FAA 

disagrees. The Chicago Convention does 

not speak directly to the issuance of 

AOCs. Rather, there is a standard in 

Annex 6, Volume 1 that prohibits an 

operator from engaging in commercial 

air transport operations unless the 

operator possesses a valid AOC issued 

by the State of the Operator. While a 

member State must comply with its 

obligations under the Chicago 

Convention, Article 38 allows a State to 

file a difference with ICAO to 

acknowledge differences between the 

State’s own practices and those 

standards established in the Annexes to 

the Convention. Consistent with the 

obligation to provide notice of a 

difference, the FAA will file a difference 

to 4.2.1.1 of Annex 6, Volume 1, 

acknowledging the FAA’s acceptance of 

RSOO-issued AOCs when the 

Administrator determines they are 

acceptable (i.e., issued in conformance 

with ICAO standards for AOCs). 

To the extent the commenters suggest 

the characterization that an RSOO 

issues AOCs ‘‘on behalf of’’ a member 

state is in conflict with the FAA’s 

determination that a difference must be 

filed, the FAA finds that the two 

concepts are not irreconcilable. 

However, the FAA has determined that 

certain clarifying changes, identified in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101875 

13 ICAO Doc. 9734, Part B, 2.2.6. 

14See ICAO Doc. 9734, Part B 2.1.8, which states 

‘‘Under the Chicago Convention, only the State has 

responsibility for safety oversight, and this 

responsibility may not be transferred to a regional 

body. Thus, although the State may delegate 

specific safety oversight tasks and functions to an 

RSOO, such as inspections for the certification of 

an operator, the State must still retain the minimum 

capability required to carry out its responsibilities 

under the Chicago Convention. States must always 

be able to properly and effectively monitor the 

safety oversight functions delegated to the RSOO.’’ 

the following discussion, should be 

made to the regulatory text in this final 

rule. 

ICAO acknowledges in its guidance 

that existing RSOOs have taken a variety 

of forms, ranging from a relatively loose 

association of CAAs that have agreed to 

cooperate in the development and 

implementation of requirements and 

procedures, to an intergovernmental 

organization with regulatory and, to 

some extent, enforcement authority. 

According to ICAO, the form that an 

RSOO takes will primarily be 

determined by the needs of its members, 

the level of available resources, the 

scope of activities, the level of authority 

delegated by member States, and, in 

certain cases, the legislative framework 

already established by the group or 

community of States creating the 

RSOO.13

Given the varying frameworks that 

RSOOs may take, the FAA agrees that it 

is critical for States to maintain and 

demonstrate clear lines of 

responsibility 14 in order for the FAA to 

properly assess the acceptability of an 

AOC issued by an RSOO in place of the 

State of the Operator. The final rule 

enables FAA review of the RSOO and 

State of the Operator formation 

documentation to ensure the transferred 

tasks and functions associated with the 

issuance and continued surveillance of 

the AOC holder are clearly defined and 

that the ICAO standards for assessing 

the AOC applicant have been met. See 

definition of RSOO in § 129.1 of the 

final rule. This final rule further ensures 

the FAA review of all ICAO Standards 

related to AOC issuance that are 

assessed during an IASA. 

The transferred function affected by 

this rulemaking, which the FAA has 

determined would necessitate filing a 

difference from ICAO standards, is 

limited to the transfer of responsibility 

for issuing the AOC from a member 

State to an RSOO. However, the FAA 

recognizes there could be significant 

variability between the responsibilities 

of RSOOs and which AOC issuance 

functions are transferred to them by 

member States. When a CAA transfers 

functions related to AOC issuance or the 

conduct of oversight-related tasks in 

conjunction with AOC issuance to an 

RSOO, the State of the Operator is still 

responsible for ensuring that the 

transferred functions continue to 

comply with ICAO standards. Therefore, 

the FAA disagrees with ALPA’s 

assertion the FAA should hold the 

RSOO ultimately responsible for the 

IASA. 

Nevertheless, the FAA agrees with 

ALPA that the language ‘‘on behalf of’’ 

included in the NPRM introduces 

unnecessary ambiguity and an apparent, 

though unintended, conflict with the 

FAA’s position that a difference must be 

filed with ICAO as a result of this 

rulemaking. 

Therefore, the FAA revised the text of 

the final rule in § 129.7 to remove this 

qualifier. This final rule also clarifies 

the FAA will only accept an AOC issued 

by the State of the Operator or an RSOO 

‘‘if acceptable to the Administrator’’ 

(emphasis added). In addition, the FAA 

is making corresponding changes to the 

definition of RSOO in § 129.1 to reflect 

that authority may either be formally 

delegated between the member States 

and the RSOO or tasks and functions 

may be less formally transferred or 

assigned. The changes to §§ 129.1 and 

129.7 are otherwise adopted as 

proposed. 

As for the concerns about transfer of 

tasks and functions related to the 

issuance of an AOC from the State of the 

Operator to the RSOO and subsequent 

transfer of oversight-related tasks or 

functions pertaining to AOC issuance 

back to the State of the Operator, the 

FAA agrees these roles and 

responsibilities must be clearly defined, 

documented, and understood. The final 

rule ensures the FAA must review the 

documented transfer of all tasks and 

functions related to the issuance of an 

AOC from the State of the Operator to 

the RSOO. 

Consistent with the FAA’s proposal 

for accepting an AOC from an RSOO, 

the RSOO must meet the FAA’s 

definition of RSOO in 14 CFR 129.1, 

which, as updated for this final rule, is 

an association or organization that 

comprises a group of member States, 

which—(i) Has provided notification to 

ICAO of the scope of tasks and functions 

delegated or transferred to the RSOO, 

including but not limited to: sharing 

common or harmonized aviation 

regulations, licensing, certification, 

authorization, approval, and 

surveillance of civil aviation activities, 

and any legal authority delegated or 

transferred by a member State to the 

RSOO; and (ii) Has stipulated the 

specific tasks, functions, delegations, 

and transfers by member States 

discussed in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of 

§ 129.1, and any other collective 

understandings of member States in 

RSOO formation documentation, such 

as an agreement, treaty, or informal 

record, that is available for review by 

the Administrator. 

The FAA will verify that each task or 

function required by ICAO Annex 6 

standards is included in the transfer and 

formation documentation and the 

organizational responsibility for each is 

clearly defined. Consistent with the 

definition of RSOO, the RSOO 

formation documentation should 

outline not only the roles and 

responsibilities for tasks and functions 

necessary for the issuance of the AOC 

but also for the tasks and functions for 

continued oversight of the AOC during 

its full life cycle, for the FAA to fully 

evaluate an RSOO-issued AOC. The 

FAA acknowledges that there may be a 

transfer of tasks and functions back to 

the State of the Operator. This is not an 

unusual practice and could be a result 

of the RSOO leveraging the member 

State’s availability of trained and 

qualified personnel needed for the 

evaluation of the carrier for initial 

certification. 

The FAA uses a similar practice for 

certification of United States part 121 

air carriers. The part 121 certification 

process is a cooperative effort between 

the Certification and Evaluation 

Program Office (CEPO) of the Safety 

Analysis and Promotion Division and 

the Office of Air Carrier Safety 

Assurance (ACSA). The CEPO is a 

dedicated group of aviation safety 

inspectors (ASIs) with experience in the 

details and nuances of initial Air Carrier 

certification. The CEPO assigns an 

assistant manager as the Certification 

Front Line Manager (CFLM) and a 

qualified CEPO team leader as the 

certification project manager (CPM). The 

CEPO initiates the certification and 

directs the project through all phases of 

the certification process. The ACSA 

assigns the certificate management 

office (CMO) and establishes a 

Certificate Management Team (CMT) to 

perform Continued Operational Safety 

(COS) oversight after certification. The 

Certification Project Team (CPT) will 

include ASIs from the CEPO and the 

ACSA. These dedicated inspectors then 

turn the continued surveillance of the 

operator to the CMO to perform the 

oversight functions for the carrier. This 

is done to ensure standardization of air 

carrier certification. 

Transfer of tasks or functions from the 

State of the Operator to an RSOO may 

provide a similar benefit of targeting 

resources with detailed experience in 

the initial certification of air carrier, 

working in concert with those 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101876 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

15 International Aviation Safety Assessment 

(IASA) Program Change, Policy Statement (78 FR 

14912, March 8, 2013). 

responsible for continued oversight of 

the air carrier. 

E. Validation of SMS in IASAs for RSOO 

Member States 

ALPA recommended the FAA take the 

opportunity to expand its own IASA 

program by ensuring the novel regional 

safety organization requires its licensees 

to fully comply with SMS, a critical 

element that ICAO has implemented to 

address a root cause of accidents and 

incidents. ALPA asserted the FAA has 

the discretionary power, as well as an 

obligation to flight crews, the traveling 

public, and the international 

community, to evaluate RSOO member 

State implementation of SMS. 

Moreover, ALPA noted one such RSOO, 

EASA, appears headed toward 

conducting such SMS audits, which 

ALPA stated is a welcome development. 

The FAA’s current IASA program 

includes evaluation of a State’s aviation 

oversight program for compliance with 

ICAO Annex 1, Annex 6, and Annex 8. 

Neither the current IASA Notice of 

Policy Statement 15 nor section 369 of 

the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 

codifying the IASA program in 49 

U.S.C. 44747 include Annex 19 Safety 

Management requirements for this 

program. The inclusion of these 

requirements was not contemplated in 

the NPRM and is therefore beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

F. Safety Concerns 

ALPA contended the proposed rule 

would create significant safety concerns 

that were not addressed in the NPRM. 

Specifically, ALPA contended an RSOO 

that has aircraft certification oversight, 

and oversees AOCs, could determine 

that when using certain aircraft certified 

by the RSOO, airline flights could be 

conducted with only a single pilot on 

the flight deck while the second pilot is 

resting or otherwise unavailable to serve 

as the second pilot. ALPA commented 

that the RSOO’s certification and AOC 

approval combined would potentially 

allow a significant safety threat to occur 

in airspace managed by the United 

States, unraveling many of the advances 

in airline safety that have been achieved 

in the United States. ALPA urged the 

FAA to be extremely vigilant and 

consider unintended safety 

consequences of allowing RSOOs to 

simultaneously operate as an aircraft 

certification organization and AOC 

oversight organization. 

APA stated that delegating the 

authority to determine whether a carrier 

or person has satisfied those standards 

to a regional organization, which may 

have competing political or industrial 

influences, allows for the possibility the 

standards will be unintentionally 

deteriorated or altered. To eliminate the 

possibility for such deterioration or 

alteration, the FAA should not amend 

the current regulations to allow the 

acceptance of an RSOO-issued operator 

certificate in lieu of one issued directly 

by the State of the Operator. 

Finally, APA contended even where a 

member State has elected to delegate the 

authority to issue operator certificates to 

an RSOO, the member State must still 

retain the ability to issue operator 

certificates on its own. Accordingly, 

maintaining the regulatory status quo 

would not adversely impact a foreign 

applicant’s ability to obtain operating 

specifications from the FAA because 

they remain able to obtain an operator 

certificate issued by the State of the 

Operator. 

The FAA understands this concern 

but disagrees with the premise that the 

role of an RSOO in the issuance of an 

AOC alone, as promulgated in this 

rulemaking, could introduce risks such 

as foreign air carrier single pilot 

operations in the United States. The 

cited concern would not be the result of 

this rulemaking allowing the FAA to 

accept an RSOO-issued AOC. This 

could similarly be an issue for AOCs 

issued by the State of the Operator 

should that State apply a risk-based 

approach allowing one pilot to fly while 

the other rests. In either case, foreign air 

carriers approved for operations into the 

United States must still comply with all 

applicable FAA rules and regulations, 

including the conditions and limitations 

set forth in their operations 

specifications. The FAA notes that, to 

date, no part 121 or 129 air carriers have 

been authorized by the FAA to operate 

with a single pilot at the controls. 

While not directly subject of this 

rulemaking, the FAA will consider the 

risk of single pilot operations identified 

by ALPA for all foreign AOC applicants 

and adjust our policy as required to 

ensure these risks are properly mitigated 

or prohibited during our evaluation of 

the proposed operation to ensure the 

operator is properly and adequately 

equipped to conduct the operations 

described in the operations 

specifications. 

The FAA notes ICAO Annex 6, Part 1, 

paragraph 9.1.1 addresses composition 

of flight crews. It states: 

The number and composition of the flight 

crew shall not be less than that specified in 

the operations manual. The flight crews shall 

include flight crew members in addition to 

the minimum numbers specified in the flight 

manual or other documents associated with 

the certificate of airworthiness, when 

necessitated by considerations related to the 

type of aeroplane used, the type of operation 

involved and the duration of flight between 

points where flight crews are changed. 

The number of crew required not only 

drives the type certification 

requirements listed in the operations 

manual but also the type of operation. 

This standard allows the FAA to ensure 

the risks of any operation have been 

identified, assessed, and properly 

mitigated. 

The FAA agrees the State of the 

Operator is responsible for establishing 

requirements for issuing AOCs that are 

compliant with the ICAO standards. The 

FAA’s IASA program validates the 

State’s compliance with these ICAO 

standards. When the tasks or functions 

related to AOC issuance or oversight 

activities pertaining to AOC issuance 

are transferred to an RSOO, the State of 

the Operator is still responsible for 

ensuring the transferred functions 

continue to comply with ICAO 

standards even if the State of the 

Operator did not issue the AOC. This 

remains true whether States transfer all 

or part of the AOC issuance tasks or 

functions for a specific carrier or retain 

the ability to issue other AOCs in their 

State. 

The FAA also agrees that vigilance is 

needed when issuing part 129 operation 

specifications. As such, there are 

additional regulatory requirements, and 

a valid AOC is only one part of the 

requirements for issuing a foreign 

operator a part 129 authorization. 

Section 129.7(c) lists all the 

requirements for issuance of operations 

specifications for authorization to 

conduct service to the United States. 

Introduction of risks when 

authorizing part 129 operations is 

addressed through the evaluation of the 

carrier to ensure they are properly and 

adequately equipped to conduct the 

operations described in the operations 

specifications and are in compliance 

with the requirements of part 129. Also, 

14 CFR 129.5(b) states ‘‘Each foreign air 

carrier conducting operations within the 

United States must conduct its 

operations in accordance with the 

Standards contained in Annex 1 

(Personnel Licensing), Annex 6 

(Operation of Aircraft), Part I 

(International Commercial Air 

Transport—Aeroplanes) or Part III 

(International Operations—Helicopters), 

as appropriate, and in Annex 8 

(Airworthiness of Aircraft) to the 

Convention on International Civil 

Aviation.’’ 

These steps ensure all foreign 

commercial operations are properly 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101877 

16 87 FR 58725 (September 28, 2022). 

assessed, and any associated risks are 

appropriately mitigated. This is true not 

only for carriers issued AOCs by RSOO 

but all carriers requesting authorization 

to operate to the United States. 

The FAA intends to file a difference 

with ICAO because the acceptance of 

RSOO-issued AOCs reflects a departure 

from the international standard in ICAO 

Annex 6, paragraph 4.2.1.1 to the extent 

the means of compliance in this final 

rule is different from the corresponding 

standard in Annex 6. However, the 

FAA’s assessment of the formation 

documentation between the member 

State and RSOO to validate the ICAO 

standards for issuing an AOC have been 

met will ensure an equivalent level of 

safety. 

G. Miscellaneous Amendments 

As previously noted, the FAA 

proposed to amend § 129.9(a)(3) to 

reflect the possible acceptance and 

recognition as valid by the FAA of 

AOCs issued by an RSOO on behalf of 

the State of the Operator. In this final 

rule, the FAA has revised the regulatory 

text proposed for 14 CFR 129.9(a)(3) and 

(b)(3) by removing the reference that an 

AOC may be issued by the State of the 

Operator or an RSOO. This language is 

unnecessary in this context since the 

application requirements in 14 CFR 

129.7(c)(5) specify the issuing entities 

from which the FAA may accept AOCs. 

Removal of this duplicative language is 

a technical amendment and not a 

substantive change. 

H. Effective Date 

The FAA determined to apply a 30- 

day effective date to this final rule. 

Therefore, this final rule will take effect 

30 days after publication in the Federal 

Register. The FAA generally applies a 

longer effective date to final rules to 

allow time for the impacted regulated 

community to prepare to come into 

compliance with the requirements of a 

final rule. However, this final rule is 

considered to be enabling to the extent 

the FAA is expanding the options for 

AOC acceptance by the FAA for 

purposes of applications for part 129 

operations specifications. The FAA 

expects the effective date of this final 

rule to benefit the impacted community 

of operators seeking to apply for part 

129 operations specifications based on 

an RSOO-issued AOC by allowing for 

the earlier submission of an application. 

The FAA notes that no such 

applications are currently considered 

pending before the FAA. Once this final 

rule takes effect, operators may submit 

an application to the FAA consistent 

with revised 14 CFR 129.7, and the FAA 

will be prepared to begin the review 

process. During this process, the FAA 

will ascertain if sufficient information 

has been provided to validate continued 

compliance with the required ICAO 

standards or if an IASA of the State will 

be required before the AOC can be 

considered acceptable to the 

Administrator. The FAA further notes 

that consistent with § 129.7(a)(2), the 

application must be submitted to the 

FAA at least 90 days before the intended 

date of operation. 

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Federal agencies consider the impacts 

of regulatory actions under a variety of 

executive orders and other 

requirements. First, Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094 direct that 

each Federal agency shall propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify the costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. Fourth, 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires agencies 

to prepare a written assessment of the 

costs, benefits, and other effects of 

proposed or final rules that include a 

Federal mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. The current threshold after 

adjustment for inflation is $183,000,000 

using the most current (2023) Implicit 

Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic 

Product. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this rule: will result 

in benefits that justify costs; is not 

significant under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended; 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities; will not create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States; and will not impose an 

unfunded mandate on State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or on the private 

sector. 

A. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

This rule will allow for the FAA’s 

acceptance of AOCs issued by RSOOs, 

and it will update the regulatory basis 

for denial of applications for operations 

specifications. There are no changes to 

the analysis of this final rule as it was 

presented in the proposed rule. 

Update the Process for Accepting AOCs 

Issued by RSOOs 

Prior to this action, a foreign air 

carrier applying for operations within 

the United States or applying to operate 

U.S.-registered aircraft solely outside of 

the United States must hold a valid 

AOC issued by the State of the Operator. 

The existing regulations do not provide 

for acceptance of an AOC issued by any 

other entity other than the State of the 

Operator. This final rule will allow the 

FAA to recognize AOCs issued by an 

RSOO if the State of the Operator is a 

member State of that RSOO. This allows 

foreign air carriers with a valid AOC 

issued by an RSOO, if acceptable to the 

Administrator, to be issued 

authorization to operate to and from the 

United States, providing travel services 

to citizens of the United States and the 

foreign countries, economic 

opportunities for U.S. airlines through 

code share agreements with these 

operators, and expanded route 

structures for these code share partners. 

This final rule is consistent with ICAO 

resolutions and guidance, which 

address the development and use of 

RSOOs. 

Under current practice for operations 

within the United States, before 

acceptance of the AOC, the FAA 

conducts an IASA of the State of the 

Operator.16 These assessments involve 

pre-work and document review in the 

United States lasting several weeks, 

followed by an on-site assessment in the 

State of the Operator lasting five 

business days. When the State of the 

Operator is a member of an RSOO, and 

that State has delegated functions or 

tasks to the RSOO, this prework would 

include a review of functions or tasks 

that are delegated by the State to an 

RSOO, the scope and level of those 

delegations, and the need for RSOO 

participation in assessing the State’s 

compliance with the ICAO standards. 

The assessments involve two to four 

inspectors and an attorney. An FAA 

IASA team incurs traveling costs, such 

as airfare, lodging, and per diem 

associated with the travel destination. 

However, these assessments, including 

the prework, are not expected to 

represent an additional cost of the rule 

because the FAA currently conducts 

them, and the FAA does not expect any 

increase in the number of assessments 

as a result of this rulemaking. Currently, 

when accomplishing an IASA on a State 

that has delegated functions or tasks to 

an RSOO, the FAA reviews that 

delegation to ensure that the State’s and 

the RSOO’s functions and tasks are in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101878 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

compliance with the ICAO 

requirements. Historically, the FAA has 

conducted, on average, five IASAs each 

year. As stated previously, there are 

many factors that determine the number 

of IASAs that will be accomplished in 

any given year. These include 

application for own metal service to the 

United States by a carrier from a State 

that has not been assessed where a risk 

assessment has identified concerns over 

the State’s safety oversight functions 

which warrant a reassessment. Any 

risks identified in the course of the 

FAA’s review of an RSOO-issued AOC 

for acceptance will be included as one 

factor in the risk assessment for the 

respective member State. 

If the FAA has previously assessed a 

State of the Operator and that State 

subsequently delegated functions or 

tasks, such as issuance of AOCs by the 

RSOO, the FAA will review the RSOO 

formation documentation to determine 

if further assessment to evaluate the 

continued compliance with ICAO 

standards is required. If the FAA 

determines it needs to do further 

assessment, the State of the Operator’s 

compliance with ICAO standards for 

issuance of AOCs will be reviewed as 

part of the annual risk assessment for all 

IASA-categorized States. Based on the 

result of the risk assessment, an IASA of 

that State may be accomplished as one 

of that year’s or future year’s IASAs. The 

FAA does not anticipate requiring an 

IASA reassessment based solely on the 

inability to determine compliance with 

ICAO standards for the transferred 

function of AOC issuance and the 

conduct of oversight-related tasks 

pertaining to AOC issuance between an 

RSOO and member States. The FAA has 

many means to reach out to the RSOO 

and the member State to obtain 

information concerning questions on 

compliance. This can involve sending 

letters for clarification and direct 

discussions to clarify issues. However, 

until the State’s ICAO compliance can 

be validated, the RSOO-issued AOC of 

the operator will not be considered 

acceptable, and no authorization will be 

granted. 

Update the Regulatory Basis for Denial 

of Applications for Operations 

Specifications 

The FAA is also amending the 

conditions under which the FAA can 

deny the application for operations 

specifications in subpart A of part 129. 

Prior to this action, § 129.7(c) specifies 

that an applicant must meet five 

conditions to be issued operations 

specifications. These conditions require 

that the applicant meets the applicable 

requirements of part 129; holds the 

economic or exemption authority 

required by the Department of 

Transportation, applicable to the 

operations to be conducted; complies 

with the applicable security 

requirements of 49 CFR chapter XII; is 

properly and adequately equipped to 

conduct the operations described in the 

operations specifications; and holds a 

valid AOC issued by the State of the 

Operator. However, § 129.7(d) states that 

the application may be denied if the 

applicant is not properly and adequately 

equipped to conduct the operations 

described in the operations 

specifications. The change will expand 

the basis for denial to any of the five 

conditions listed in § 129.7(c). The 

updates to the regulatory basis for 

denial of applications for operations 

specifications will not result in any 

costs. The change will align the basis for 

denial of an application to the 

conditions that must be met for issuance 

of operations specifications. This will 

allow the FAA to formally deny 

applications that do not meet the 

requirements of § 129.7(c) instead of the 

FAA’s current practice of holding the 

approval of ineligible applications in 

abeyance until the conditions are met or 

the applicant withdraws the 

application. There are no specific costs 

associated with holding an application 

in abeyance. The benefit of allowing 

denial of an application based on not 

meeting the regulatory criteria is 

reduction of applications in process and 

ensuring currency of information 

provided with an application. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

of 1980, Public Law 96–354, 94 Stat. 

1164 (5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. 

L. 104–121, 110 Stat. 857, Mar. 29, 

1996) and the Small Business Jobs Act 

of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–240, 124 Stat. 

2504, Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal 

agencies to consider the effects of the 

regulatory action on small business and 

other small entities and to minimize any 

significant economic impact. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

This final rule will update the 

regulations for applications by foreign 

air carriers and foreign persons for 

operations specifications under part 

129. The final rule will apply to foreign 

air carrier operations within the United 

States and to U.S.-registered aircraft in 

common carriage solely outside the 

United States. Since this final rule only 

impacts foreign applicants, this rule has 

no impact on U.S. small entities. If an 

agency determines that a rulemaking 

will not result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, the head of the agency may so 

certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. 

Therefore, as provided in section 605(b) 

and based on the foregoing, the head of 

FAA certifies that this rulemaking will 

not result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

The FAA has assessed the potential 

effect of this final rule and determined 

that it ensures the safety of the 

American public by allowing the 

acceptance of AOCs issued by an RSOO 

when reviewed and found acceptable to 

the Administrator. While this action 

will result in the United States’ filing a 

difference with ICAO regarding 

compliance with ICAO Annex 6, 

paragraph 4.2.1.1, this rule change 

results in an equivalent action to the 

standard and is in the public’s interest. 

As a result, the FAA does not consider 

this rule as creating an unnecessary 

obstacle to foreign commerce. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs 

the issuance of Federal regulations that 

require unfunded mandates. An 

unfunded mandate is a regulation that 

requires a State, local, or Tribal 

government or the private sector to 

incur direct costs without the Federal 

Government having first provided the 

funds to pay those costs. The FAA 

determined that the final rule will not 

result in the expenditure of 

$183,000,000 or more by State, local, or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 101879 

17 65 FR 67249 (November 6, 2000). 

18FAA Order No. 1210.20 (Jan. 28, 2004), 

available at www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/ 

1210.pdf. 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector, in any one year. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. 

The FAA has determined that there is 

no new information collection 

associated with the requirement for 

application for foreign air carrier 

authorization under 14 CFR part 129. In 

order to apply for operation 

specifications, the applicant is required 

to provide a copy of their AOC to the 

FAA. Under the final rule, the FAA 

intends to rely on cooperation of RSOOs 

to obtain the necessary formation 

documentation referred to in the § 129.1 

definition of RSOO. No new information 

is required from the applicant operator 

if the AOC is issued by an RSOO. The 

burden of validation of the AOC 

remains with the FAA in conjunction 

with the State of the Operator. Approval 

to collect such information previously 

was approved by OMB under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and was 

assigned OMB Control Number 2120– 

0749. 

F. International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to ICAO Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

The FAA has reviewed the 

corresponding ICAO Standards and 

Recommended Practices and has 

identified the following differences with 

this final rule. ICAO Annex 6, Part 1, 

Paragraph 4.2.1.1 requires: 

The operator shall not engage in 

commercial air transport operations unless in 

possession of a valid AOC issued by the State 

of the Operator. 

This regulatory change to allow the 

FAA acceptance of RSOO-issued AOCs 

for a member State does not comply 

with this standard. 

The FAA has determined this 

regulatory change results in a different 

means of compliance to that of the 

standard in ICAO Annex 6, Part 1, 

paragraph 4.2.1.1. The FAA intends to 

notify ICAO of this difference. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 5–6.6f for regulations and 

involves no extraordinary 

circumstances. 

VI. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

FAA has determined that this action 

will not have a substantial direct effect 

on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, will not have federalism 

implications. 

B. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Consistent with Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments,17 and 

FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian 

and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation 

Policy and Procedures,18 the FAA 

ensures that Federally Recognized 

Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity 

to provide meaningful and timely input 

regarding proposed Federal actions that 

have the potential to have substantial 

direct effects on one or more Indian 

Tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian Tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes; or to 

affect uniquely or significantly their 

respective Tribes. At this point, the FAA 

has not identified any unique or 

significant effects, environmental or 

otherwise, on Tribes resulting from this 

final rule. 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

FAA has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

Executive order and is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

D. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policy and agency 

responsibilities of Executive Order 

13609. The FAA has determined that 

this action will eliminate differences 

between U.S. aviation standards and 

those of other civil aviation authorities 

in States where delegation or transfer of 

the responsibility for issuance of AOCs 

to an RSOO is permitted. 

VII. Additional Information 

A. Electronic Access and Filing 

A copy of the NPRM, all comments 

received, this final rule, and all 

background material may be viewed 

online at www.regulations.gov using the 

docket number listed above. Electronic 

retrieval help and guidelines are 

available on the website. It is available 

24 hours each day, 365 days each year. 

An electronic copy of this document 

may also be downloaded from the Office 

of the Federal Register’s website at 

www.federalregister.gov and the 

Government Publishing Office’s website 

at www.govinfo.gov. A copy may also be 

found on the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies website at www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9677. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this final rule, including 

economic analyses and technical 

reports, may be accessed in the 

electronic docket for this rulemaking. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
101880 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

B. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires the FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document may contact its local 

FAA official or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the internet, visit 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 129 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air carriers, Aircraft, 

Aviation safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Security 

measures, Smoking. 

The Amendments 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Aviation 

Administration amends 14 CFR part 129 

as follows: 

PART 129—OPERATIONS: FOREIGN 

AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN 

OPERATORS OF U.S.-REGISTERED 

AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON 

CARRIAGE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 129 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1372, 40113, 40119, 

44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–44711, 

44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901–44904, 

44906, 44912, 46105, Pub. L. 107–71 sec. 

104. 

■ 2. Amend § 129.1 by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as 

paragraph (c)(4); and 

■ b. Adding a new paragraph (c)(2) and 

paragraph (c)(3). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 129.1 Applicability and definitions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Regional Safety Oversight 

Organization means an association or 

organization that comprises a group of 

member States, which— 

(i) Has provided notification to the 

International Civil Aviation 

Organization of the scope of tasks and 

functions delegated or transferred to the 

Regional Safety Oversight Organization, 

including but not limited to: sharing 

common or harmonized aviation 

regulations, licensing, certification, 

authorization, approval, and 

surveillance of civil aviation activities, 

and any legal authority delegated or 

transferred by a member State to the 

Regional Safety Oversight Organization; 

and 

(ii) Has stipulated the specific tasks, 

functions, delegations, and transfers by 

member States discussed in paragraph 

(c)(2)(i) of this section, and any other 

collective understandings of member 

States in Regional Safety Oversight 

Organization formation documentation, 

such as an agreement, treaty, or informal 

record, that is available for review by 

the Administrator. 

(3) State of the Operator means the 

State in which the operator’s principal 

place of business is located or, if there 

is no such place of business, the 

operator’s permanent residence. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 129.7 by revising 

paragraphs (c)(5) and (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 129.7 Application, issuance, or denial of 

operations specifications. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) Holds a valid air operator 

certificate, if acceptable to the 

Administrator, issued by: 

(i) The State of the Operator; or 

(ii) A Regional Safety Oversight 

Organization (RSOO) if the State of the 

Operator is a member State of that 

RSOO. 

(d) An application may be denied if 

the Administrator finds that the 

applicant does not meet one or more of 

the criteria listed in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

■ 4. Amend § 129.9 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 129.9 Contents of operations 

specifications. 

(a) * * * 

(3) The certificate number and 

validity of the foreign air carrier’s air 

operator certificate; 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) In the case of a foreign air carrier, 

the certificate number and validity of 

the foreign air carrier’s air operator 

certificate; 

* * * * * 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a) in Washington, 

DC. 

Michael Gordon Whitaker, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29688 Filed 12–12–24; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

24 CFR Part 5 

[Docket No. FR–6464–C–03] 

RIN 2501–AE11 

Adoption of 2020 Core Based 

Statistical Area Standards; Correction 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) is 

correcting a final rule entitled, 

‘‘Adoption of 2020 Core Based 

Statistical Area Standards’’ that 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 6, 2024. 

DATES: Effective January 6, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

With respect to this technical 

correction, contact Allison Lack, 

Assistant General Counsel for 

Regulations, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, 

Room 10238, Washington, DC 20410; 

telephone number 202–708–1793 (this 

is not a toll-free number). HUD 

welcomes and is prepared to receive 

calls from individuals who are deaf or 

hard of hearing, as well as individuals 

with speech or communication 

disabilities. To learn more about how to 

make an accessible telephone call, 

please visit https://www.fcc.gov/ 

consumers/guides/telecommunicationsrelay-service-trs. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 6, 2024 (89 FR 96898), HUD 

published a final rule that adopts the 

2020 Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) 

standards as determined by the Office of 

Management and Budget’s July 16, 2021, 

Federal Register notice for all HUD uses 

of CBSAs. The rule amended 24 CFR 

part 5 by adding a new subpart M. In 

reviewing the December 6, 2024, final 

rule, HUD identified an inadvertent 

error in § 5.3001. Specifically, HUD 

incorrectly designated two paragraphs 

as paragraph (e) and two paragraphs as 

paragraph (f). This document corrects 

these errors. 

Correction 

In FR Doc. 2024–28450, published 

December 6, 2024, at 89 FR 96898, the 

following corrections are made: 

§ 5.3001 [Corrected] 

■ 1. On page 96901, in the first column, 

the second paragraph (e) is redesignated 

as paragraph (g), the second paragraph 

(f) is redesignated as paragraph (h), and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1