Friday,
June 21, 2002
Part V
Department of
Transportation
Federal Aviation Adminstration
14 CFR Part 129
Security Considerations for the Flightdeck
on Foreign Operated Transport Category
Airplanes; Final Rule
VerDate May2002 22:10 Jun 20, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\21JNR4.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 21JNR4
42450 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 120 / Friday, June 21, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For this final rule. Details will be
part 25 issues contact Jeff Gardlin, FAA announced in the Federal Register.
Federal Aviation Administration Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch,
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
ANM–115, Transport Airplane
14 CFR Part 129 Directorate, Aircraft Certification You can get an electronic copy using
Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., the Internet by taking the following
[Docket No. FAA–2002–12504; Amendment Renton, Washington 98055–4056; steps:
No. 129–33] telephone (425) 227–2136, facsimile (1) Go to the search function of the
(425) 227–1149; e-mail: Department of Transportation’s
RIN 2120–AH70 electronic Docket Management System
jeff.gardlin@faa.gov. For parts 121 and
129 issues contact Thomas Penland, (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/
Security Considerations for the
FAA Program Management Branch, search).
Flightdeck on Foreign Operated (2) On the search page type in the last
Transport Category Airplanes AFS–260, Flight Standards Service, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., four digits of the Docket number shown
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) at the beginning of this notice. Click on
Administration (FAA), DOT. 267–3764, facsimile (202) 267–5229, e- ‘‘search.’’
ACTION: Final rule; request for mail: thomas.pendland@faa.gov. (3) On the next page, which contains
comments. the Docket summary information for the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Docket you selected, click on the
SUMMARY: This final rule requires Comments Invited document number of the item you wish
improved flightdeck security and to view.
This final rule is being adopted You can also get an electronic copy
operational and procedures changes to without prior notice and prior public
prevent unauthorized access to the using the Internet through FAA’s web
comment. The Regulatory Policies and page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/
flightdeck on passenger-carrying aircraft Procedures of the Department of
and some cargo aircraft operated by nprm.cfm or the Federal Register’s web
Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 1134; page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/
foreign carriers under the provisions of February 26, 1979), however, provide
part 129. It is being adopted to further su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
that, to the maximum extent possible, You can also get a copy by submitting
enhance air carrier security in response operating administrations of the DOT
to the heightened threat to civil aviation a request to the Federal Aviation
should provide an opportunity for Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
in the United States. This final rule public comment on regulations issued
applies the same flightdeck security ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue
without prior notice. Accordingly, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
enhancements to foreign air carriers as interested persons are invited to
apply to U.S. air carriers. calling (202) 267–9680. Make sure to
participate in this rulemaking by identify the docket number and
DATES: This final rule is effective June submitting such written data, views, or amendment number of this rulemaking.
21, 2002. Comments must be received arguments as they may desire.
on or before August 20, 2002. Comments relating to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
ADDRESSES: Address your comments to environmental, energy, federalism, or Fairness Act
the Docket Management System, U.S. international trade impacts that might The Small Business Regulatory
Department of Transportation, Room result from this amendment are also Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., invited. Comments must include the 1996 requires the FAA to comply with
Washington, DC 20590–0001. You must regulatory docket or amendment small entity requirements for
identify the docket number FAA–2002– number and must be submitted in information or advice about compliance
12504 at the beginning of your duplicate to the DOT Docket with statutes and regulations within its
comments, and you should submit two Management System address specified jurisdiction. Therefore, any small entity
copies of your comments. If you wish to above. that has a question regarding this
receive confirmation that FAA received All comments received, as well as a document may contact its local FAA
your comments, include a self- report summarizing each substantive official, or the person listed under FOR
addressed, stamped postcard. public contact with FAA personnel FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. You can
You may also submit comments concerning this final rule, will be filed find out more about SBFEFA on the
through the Internet to http:// in the docket. The docket is available for Internet at our site, http://www.gov/avr/
dms.dot.gov. You may review the public public inspection before and after the arm/sbrefa.htm. For more information
docket containing comments to this comment closing date. on SBREFA, e-mail us at 9-AWA-
final rule in person in the Dockets The FAA will consider all comments SFREFA@faa.gov.
Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., received on or before the closing date
Monday through Friday, except Federal for comments. Late filed comments will Background
holidays. The Dockets Office is on the be considered to the extent practicable. On September 11, 2001, the United
plaza level of the Nassif Building at the This final rule may be amended in light States experienced terrorist attacks
Department of Transportation at the of the comments received. when aircraft were commandeered and
above address. Also, you may review Commenters wishing the FAA to used as weapons. These actions
public dockets on the Internet at http:/ acknowledge receipt of their comments demonstrated that there is a need to
/dms.dot.gov. must include a pre-addressed, stamped improve the design, operational, and
Comments that you may consider to postcard with those comments on which procedural security of the flightdeck. On
be of a sensitive security nature should the following statement is made: November 19, 2001, Congress enacted
not be sent to the docket management ‘‘Comments to Docket No. FAA–2002– Public Law 107–71, the Aviation and
system. Send those comments to the 12504.’’ The postcard will be date Transportation Security Act (the Act),
FAA, Office of Rulemaking, ARM–1, stamped and mailed to the commenter. which specifies that improved
800 Independence Avenue, SW., The FAA will be holding a public flightdeck security must be applied to
Washington, DC 20591. meeting during the comment period for aircraft operating in air transportation.
VerDate May2002 22:10 Jun 20, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21JNR4.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 21JNR4
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 120 / Friday, June 21, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 42451
Section 104 of the Act directed the FAA The FAA has discussed in numerous ICAO recently adopted standards
to issue a final rule, without seeking international settings its intent to have relating to the incorporation of security
public comment prior to adoption, consistent flightdeck door security into the design of aircraft. The ICAO
addressing the security requirement for requirements for parts 121 and 129. flightdeck security standards will
aircraft that are currently required to Below is a listing of international require that passenger-carrying aircraft
have flightdeck doors. meetings with European and other of 60 passengers or more, or with a
In response to section 104(a)(1) of the authorities and industry where this maximum certificated takeoff weight of
Act, the FAA issued Amendment 121– issue was discussed: 100,000 pounds, be protected from
288 to 14 CFR Part 121, which requires October 17, 2001 FAA/Joint Aviation intrusion and ballistic threats.
that certain U.S. air carriers install Authorities (JAA) Executive Board The FAA wholly supports this
reinforced flightdeck doors that provide Meeting, Rome, Italy change. This requirement, however, is
intrusion resistance and ballistic November 28–30, 2001 FAA/JAA not mandatory until November 2003, 7
penetration resistance (67 FR 2881, Certification Management Team months after the FAA’s requirements
January 15, 2002). Amendment 121–288 Meeting, Washington, DC must be met. It does not apply to cargo
applies to transport category airplanes January 8, 2002 Special FAA meeting aircraft, as does Amendment 121–288.
operating in commercial service that are with regional Asian-Pacific Civil In addition, there is an ICAO
required by § 121.313(f) to have a door Aviation Authorities and industry, requirement for the installation of
installed between the flightdeck and the Kuala, Lumpur, Malaysia flightdeck door internal locking devices
passenger cabin and to all cargo aircraft January 22, 2002 FAA/European Civil by November 28, 2002. Absent
that have such a door installed on or Aviation Conference Security additional action by the FAA, foreign
after January 15, 2002. The reinforced Meeting, Washington, DC operators can operate to and from the
doors must be installed by April 9, January 23, 2002 Aircraft Certification U.S. without any mandatory flightdeck
2003. Additionally, the amendment and Flight Standards directors visit door security measures in the interim.
requires that the operators adopt The foreign operations subject to this
Brussels, Belgium, and meet with La
operational changes restricting access to ´ ´ rule use the same aircraft and conduct
Direction General de l’Aviation Civile
the flightdeck in flight. the same types of operations as U.S.
and Luftfahrt-Bundesamt
The FAA also issued a series of operators. They use many of the same
representatives, officials from
Special Federal Aviation Regulations airports into and out of the U.S. They
European Parliament, the European
(SFAR–92) (66 FR 51546, October 9, also present targets for a repeat of the
Commission’s Director of Aviation
2001; 66 FR 52835, October 17, 2001; 66 September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Safety, and the International Air Under SFAR 92, U.S. operators
FR 58650, November 21, 2001; and 67
Transport Association (IATA) already have installed internal locking
FR 12820, March 19, 2002) that first
February 19–20, 2002 International devices to deter entry to the flightdeck.
allowed, then required, the installation
of internal locking devices on the Civil Aviation Organization Aviation Not all foreign operators have. After
flightdeck doors. The internal locking Security Ministerial Meeting, April 2003, U.S. operators will have
devices are intended to provide Montreal, Canada reinforced flightdeck doors. Foreign
enhanced flightdeck security pending March 2002 Latin American Civil operators may not.
Aviation Commission, Asuncion, ´ The FAA finds that it is unacceptable
installation of the reinforced doors
required by Amendment 121–288. Paraguay to create two levels of flightdeck
As discussed in the preamble to March 5, 2002 FAA/JAA Certification protection for the same operations to
Amendment 121–288, the FAA Management Team Meeting, and from U.S. airports. It would be
expected that foreign operators Hoofddorp, Netherlands irresponsible to expose passengers, and
conducting service to and from the March 18–20, 2002 Central America those on the ground, to greater risks
United States under part 129 would and Panama Directors General based solely upon the country of
have flightdeck security measures Meeting, Mexico City, Mexico registration of the aircraft. In this case
commensurate with those of U.S. April 3, 2002 FAA/JAA Executive security considerations clearly demand
carriers. Board Meeting, Washington, DC that this rule be issued as a necessary
Part 129 governs foreign operators April 3, 2002 12th International Air & complement to Amendment 121–288
who operate either within the United Space Fair, FIDAE 2002, Santiago, and SFAR 92. And to meet this goal of
States, or who operate solely outside the Chile corresponding protection, it is essential
United States, but with aircraft April 9, 2002 IATA Operations that the standards be imposed at the
registered in the United States. In the Council Meeting, Brussels, Belgium same time. If the requirements do not
case of operations within the United April 13–14, 2002 FAA/Asia-Pacific have a synchronized compliance time,
States, part 129 is effectively equivalent Bilateral Partners Meeting, Tokyo, the security risk will be shifted to the
to part 121 in terms of the types of Japan unprotected aircraft. Unsynchronized
operations conducted and the aircraft May 7, 2002 Transport Canada Civil implementation of the security
used. With part 121 flightdeck security Aviation Annual Safety Meeting, measures should not create a more
improved, the FAA was concerned that Niagara on the Lake, Canada attractive target for terrorists.
part 129 operations would be more Since the adoption of Amendment Because of the need to synchronize
attractive targets for terrorist actions if 121–288, the International Civil the effective dates, this rule must be
security was not similarly improved. Aviation Organization (ICAO) has adopted immediately. The time required
Amendment 121–288 solicited moved to adopt standards for flightdeck for public notice and comment would
comments on this issue and clearly security similar to those adopted by the make compliance by the required date
stated that the FAA intended to have FAA. The ICAO is an international body impossible, and the resulting lack of
consistent flightdeck door security consisting of 187 member countries. The synchronization would increase
requirements for parts 121 and 129. The ICAO adopts standards under vulnerability to terrorist attack.
FAA received no comments objecting to Amendment 97 to Annex 8 to the Therefore, the FAA finds that it is
the stated intention to adopt consistent Convention on International Civil necessary to adopt a new rule for part
standards. Aviation (Chicago Convention). The 129 operators, without prior notice and
VerDate May2002 22:10 Jun 20, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21JNR4.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 21JNR4
42452 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 120 / Friday, June 21, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
public comment, to prevent an flightdeck door is essential, as is submit their proposal to the Manager,
unacceptable disparity in flight deck currently mandated in § 121.313. For Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
security between domestic and foreign the purposes of this requirement, the Certification Service, Federal Aviation
operators in the United States. In FAA has assumed that all affected Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
accordance with § 553(b)(3)(B) of the aircraft are already equipped with Renton, WA 98055–4056.
Administrative Procedures Act, the flightdeck doors. To ensure a consistent As also discussed in Amendment
requirements of notice and opportunity level of flightdeck security, however, 121–288, § 129.28(c) requires design
for comment do not apply when the § 129.28(a) mandates that there be a precautions to be taken to minimize the
agency, for good cause, finds that those flightdeck door on passenger carrying penetration of shrapnel from a
procedures are ‘‘impracticable, operations. This requirement is fragmentation device and small arms
unnecessary, or contrary to the public intended to prevent the removal of projectiles (i.e., ballistics) which might
interest.’’ flightdeck doors, and is not expected to be fired through the flightdeck doors
result in installation of flightdeck doors from occupied compartments. These
Authority To Amend Part 129 requirements have been adopted by
where none existed. In the unlikely
Under the Chicago Convention, event that an operator is compelled to ICAO and will be effective November
signatory states agree that the country of install a flightdeck door as a result of 2003. The standards are key elements to
registry regulates the airworthiness of this requirement, the FAA will address protect the flightdeck from intrusion
aircraft. The Convention also provides, such instances on a case by case basis. because any compromise in the integrity
however, that the state whose airspace of the flightdeck door from a ballistic
is being entered may require that its Internal Flight Deck Door Locking threat could enable an intruder to gain
operational rules be followed. This case Devices access to the flightdeck.
presents security issues, which have The SFAR 92 series rules initially The flightdeck door is already subject
always been considered operational. permitted, and subsequently required, to several requirements that affect its
The FAA has in the past required quick installation of simple structural integrity. These include
foreign air carriers to implement enhancements to the flightdeck door for protection during decompression where
additional security measures for improved security. Section 129.28(a) the door may incorporate venting
operations to and from the U.S. The adopts a requirement for a similar features to prevent a large pressure
FAA has determined that safe operation improvement in flightdeck security. differential; egress considerations to
in the U.S. and on overflights demands This requirement is consistent with permit the flightcrew to enter the cabin
a minimum level of flightdeck security, SFAR 92 and requires that internal in the event the door becomes jammed
in the same way as does collision locking devices be installed within 60 during an accident; and the capacity to
avoidance equipment, or basic radio days of the effective date of this allow rescue personnel to enter the
systems. Collision avoidance equipment amendment. flightdeck in the event the flightcrew are
and radio systems are operational As noted in the preamble to SFAR 92, unable to egress on their own. The door
requirements. Because flightdeck modifications required by this provision may also be integral in meeting
security is an operational issue, the U.S. have the potential to compromise other ventilation requirements. After
and the FAA have authority to regulate airworthiness standards. As a result, reviewing several design proposals, the
it irrespective of the country of registry. § 129.28(b) of this rule provides relief FAA has determined that all the
Compliance with these requirements from the otherwise applicable requirements can be accommodated by
may, in fact, result in modifications to provisions of § 129.13. Because the FAA proper design of the door installation.
aircraft that affect airworthiness. The does not directly regulate airworthiness As a result, aircraft meeting the
issue in this rulemaking, however, is not of foreign registered aircraft, however, requirements of this rule should
the airworthiness of the aircraft, but the modifications to install the internal continue to meet all the requirements
ability to operate the aircraft safely in locking devices may also require relief necessary to maintain a valid certificate
the face of evident threats to security. from the country of registry. Based on of airworthiness from the country of
The ICAO itself has reinforced this correspondence with other registry.
position by adopting the requirements airworthiness authorities, the FAA has The rule requires installation of doors
for intrusion resistant flightdeck doors concluded that most are prepared to meeting this standard by April 9, 2003.
into its requirements. Although the grant this relief, and this amendment The FAA evaluated several factors in
ICAO compliance dates differ from should not create a conflict with the establishing this compliance time. The
those adopted here, the intent is the standards of the local authority. In the most important is synchronization of
same. event that a country is not willing to the compliance date with the
grant such relief, the FAA will work to requirements of Amendment 121–288.
Discussion of the Final Rule
reach a mutually acceptable solution. The FAA considers this synchronization
This amendment requires changes to to be essential. This is an aggressive
aircraft operated by foreign operators in Reinforced Flight Deck Doors
schedule; given the events of September
accordance with part 129, similar to This amendment adopts increased 11, 2001, however, the issue demands
changes made on aircraft operated long-term standards for flightdeck aggressive action. Also, the prior
under part 121. The requirements intrusion resistance in keeping with imposition of the door design standard
consist of enhancements to protect standards adopted for part 121 operators on part 121 operators means that
against forcible intrusion by persons, in Amendment 121–288. This manufacturers have made substantial
ballistic penetration of the flightdeck, amendment also provides for progress in developing reinforced doors
and access to the flightdeck while the compliance with an alternative to meet the standard. These new doors
aircraft is operated. As discussed, the standard, acceptable to the can be installed on part 129 as well as
intent of these requirements is to Administrator, in the event that the part 121 aircraft.
provide a consistent level of flightdeck country of registry adopts a different
security among those aircraft that intrusion resistance standard. Operators Flightdeck Access Provisions
operate in parts 121 and 129. wishing to comply with this amendment A new § 129.28(d) is adopted to
Accordingly, the presence of a using an alternative standard should require procedures to restrict access to
VerDate May2002 22:10 Jun 20, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21JNR4.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 21JNR4
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 120 / Friday, June 21, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 42453
the flightdeck, except as authorized in requires agencies to consider collateral damage far exceeding that to
that section. This action is consistent international standards, and use them the aircraft and passengers. The losses
with the requirements of Amendment where appropriate as the basis for U.S. from the September 11 terrorist attack
121–288 and adopts many of the same standards. Fourth, the Unfunded are estimated to be several billions of
provisions, but provides additional Mandates Act of 1995 requires agencies dollars, and the costs of another
flexibility with respect to the to prepare a written assessment of the incident could possibly be even higher
allowances made by the airworthiness costs and benefits, and other effects of due to the economic impact of
authority of the country of registry. proposed and final rules. An assessment passengers choosing not to fly and
Finally, the FAA is amending must be prepared only for rules that thereby losing the benefits of air
§ 129.11(a) by adding a new paragraph impose a Federal mandate on State, transportation.
(5). This paragraph requires that the local, or tribal governments, or on the The FAA is not able to accurately
operator identify those aircraft that are private sector, likely to result in a total estimate the actual net social cost and
subject to these requirements in the expenditure of $100 million or more the corollary benefit gained by
operator’s operations specification. This (adjusted for inflation) in any one year. preventing future aviation-related
requirement is necessary to identify the In conducting these analyses, the FAA terrorist acts. The insurance industry’s
specific aircraft that will be operated determined that this rule has benefits cancellation of war risk coverage for
within the United States and on that justify the costs; will not have a aircraft indicates both the difficulty of
overflights, because part 129 operators significant impact on a substantial estimating the benefits of preventing
typically have some aircraft in their number of small entities; has no effect future incidents, and the broad impact
fleets that do not operate within the on trade-sensitive activity; and does not of those terrorist acts. There is, however,
United States. impose an unfunded mandate on State, ample basis for judging the likelihood of
local, or tribal governments, or on the attaining benefits by averting future
Paperwork Reduction Act private sector. attacks to justify this rule.
In accordance with the Paperwork The rule applies to aircraft belonging
Benefits and Costs to foreign carriers, engaged in air
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the FAA has determined that This rule is part of a series of FAA transportation serving the U.S. As
there are no requirements for rules to improve aviation safety and discussed previously, any of these
information collection associated with security, as directed by the Aviation and aircraft operated by foreign carriers
this rule. Transportation Security Act. This rule could provide a likely target for
establishes the requirements for terrorists interested in their massive
International Compatibility flightdeck door enhancements on destructive power. The FAA estimates
In keeping with U.S. obligations aircraft operated to and from the U.S. by that 4,689 aircraft are operated by air
under the Convention on International foreign operators. Accordingly, the carriers certificated under part 129, and
Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to benefits of this rule are to ensure the could be potentially affected by this
comply with ICAO Standards and safety and security of the flying public. rule. Not all of these aircraft, however,
Recommended Practices to the Because this rule is one of several being will be utilized for operations to the
maximum extent practicable. The need promulgated to avoid a reoccurrence of U.S.
for improved flightdeck security is an an event like that of September 11, A review of the air carriers’ fleets and
operational and security issue and is 2001, the benefits will be shared by the the Official Airline Guide allowed the
demonstrably necessary to provide safe entire set of rules designed to prevent FAA to significantly reduce the number
operation within the United States. such a recurrence. of aircraft potentially affected by this
Even though this amendment may result The September 11, 2001, attacks rule. The selection process eliminated
in modifications to aircraft, the basis of demonstrated that foreign terrorists may those aircraft that, although in a foreign
the rule is to provide for safe operation choose civil aviation as a tool as well as carrier’s fleet, could not be feasibly
a target. They have demonstrated their utilized for service to the U.S. An
and is appropriately an operational
ability to circumvent security practices example would include turboprops,
requirement of part 129.
and gain possession of improvised regional jets, and some smaller
Regulatory Evaluation Summary weapons in flight. Flightdeck doors narrowbody aircraft based in Europe
provide a last line of defense and can and Asia. With the remaining aircraft,
Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory
either prevent entry or delay entry while the FAA recognizes that some carriers
Flexibility Determination, Trade Impact
other intervention occurs. have dedicated aircraft to fly to the U.S.,
Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates
The most recent compelling evidence but conservatively estimated that any
Act Assessment
of the benefit provided by fortifying aircraft in the carrier’s fleet could be put
Changes to Federal regulations must flightdeck doors was seen on February in service on a route to the U.S., and
undergo several economic analyses. 7, 2002, when a man on a United will therefore need to be retrofitted. An
First, Executive Order 12866 directs Airlines flight from Miami to Buenos example is the large contingent of
each Federal agency proposing or Aires was able to insert his torso Boeing 747s in Japan Airlines’ and
adopting a regulation to first make a through the lower blowout panel of the British Airways’ fleets. Although only a
reasoned determination that the benefits flightdeck door. The door had been portion of those aircraft might be
of the intended regulation justify its retrofitted with a steel bar and was dedicated to U.S. routes, the FAA
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility locked, preventing the man from assumes that they will all be retrofitted.
Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze completely entering the flightdeck, and The aforementioned analysis resulted in
the economic impact of regulatory enabling the flightcrew to subdue the an estimate of 1,921 aircraft that will be
changes on small entities. Third, the intruder before another disaster affected by this rule. This figure does
Trade Agreements Act prohibits occurred. not include aircraft in charter service.
agencies from setting standards that As was witnessed on September 11, For this analysis, the FAA assumed
create unnecessary obstacles to the 2001, terrorist acts can result in the that the estimated costs of future
foreign commerce of the United States. complete destruction of an aircraft with compliant flightdeck doors will be
In developing U.S. standards, this act the loss of all on board, with the approximately $17,000, installed. The
VerDate May2002 22:10 Jun 20, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21JNR4.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 21JNR4
42454 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 120 / Friday, June 21, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
flightdeck door applications to meet the $11.2 million ($8.3 million, discounted) significant impact on a substantial
new standards have not yet been over the next decade. number of small entities, therefore a full
approved; therefore, the FAA used an When all costs are accounted for, the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not
upper bound cost of what the agency total cost of this rule over the next necessary. The rule affects only foreign
believes is a door that meets the intent decade is expected to be $43.8 million air carriers, not U.S. businesses.
of the rule. ($40.9 million discounted). Using an
Not knowing exactly how many average cost of $36,000 per door, instead International Trade Impact Assessment
aircraft have doors that are already of the base case cost of $17,000, the total The Trade Agreement Act of 1979
compliant with the rule, the FAA cost of this rule would increase to $83.1 prohibits Federal agencies from
proceeded with the assumption that all million ($80.2 million discounted). engaging in any standards or related
1,921 aircraft will be required to be This rule will ensure that any activities that create unnecessary
retrofitted with new doors, at a base attempts to enter through the flightdeck obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
case cost of approximately $17,000 door of foreign operated aircraft flying United States. Legitimate domestic
each. This will result in a base case cost to the U.S. will be very difficult. The objectives, such as safety and security,
of $32.7 million. Because no foreign new standards will deter terrorists from are not considered unnecessary
repair stations have applied for door attempting to take over the flightdeck. If obstacles. The statute also requires
certification, it is possible that several an attempt is made, implementation of consideration of international standards
foreign carriers will opt to have their the standards will significantly delay and, where appropriate, that they be the
doors installed by the aircraft’s original efforts to gain entry, thus allowing basis for U.S. standards.
equipment manufacturer. This will additional security efforts to be A single level of safety among aircraft,
mean an increased cost to about $27,500 implemented. In addition to meeting a regardless of registry, is paramount to
per door for narrowbody aircraft, and requirement of the Aviation and the protection of the American public,
$39,900 for widebody aircraft. Based on Transportation Security Act, the as well as for the passengers on-board
the affected fleet, the average cost per potential benefits of this rule greatly the aircraft. In January 2002, the FAA
door will be just under $36,000, plus exceed the costs. Accordingly, the FAA adopted a rule requiring, by April 2003,
installation. These figures, released by believes that the rule is cost-beneficial the hardening of cockpit doors on all
Boeing and partner C&D Interiors, are and is necessary to ensure the level of U.S. aircraft in scheduled commercial
consistent with a door that far exceeds aviation security expected by the service requiring a door between the
the intent of the rule, but it is still likely American public, and passengers flying passenger and crew compartments and
to be the choice of carriers due to to/from the U.S. on foreign carriers. transport category cargo aircraft with
convenience. The upper bound cost to flightdeck doors. U.S. carriers have not
Regulatory Flexibility Determination been the first to fortify flightdeck doors.
foreign air carriers to purchase and
install the compliant door could, The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 In fact, recognizing the terrorist threat,
therefore, be as high as $72.0 million. (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of El Al Israel Airlines’ aircraft have had
Many flightdeck door manufacturers regulatory issuance that agencies shall secure cockpits for many years, and so
claimed that their version of a secure endeavor, consistent with the objective have several other aircraft in various
flightdeck door could be installed by of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fleets around the world.
airline technicians overnight, or during fit regulatory and informational To promote uniformity in the security
an extended overnight. Some claim that requirements to the scale of the of aircraft, in March 2002, ICAO
their kit can be installed in four hours business, organizations, and established a universally acceptable
or less. The plan is for the governmental jurisdictions subject to international standard, requiring that all
manufacturers’ mechanics to train the regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, of the world’s airlines meet the standard
airlines’ technicians, supervise the first the RFA requires agencies to solicit and by November 2003. Some carriers, such
several installations, and then allow the consider flexible regulatory proposals as British Airways and All Nippon
airlines to complete the installations on and to explain the rationale for their Airways, voluntarily opted to strengthen
their own. Based on this information, actions. The RFA covers a wide range of their flightdeck doors soon after
the FAA believes that there will be no small entities, including small September 11. Despite the fact that some
need to take aircraft out of service for businesses, not-for-profit organizations, aircraft are already compliant, the 7-
any significant amount of time. and small governmental jurisdictions. month gap between the FAA regulation
Commercial air carrier operators will, Agencies must perform a review to and ICAO mandate, and the lack of an
however, incur costs attributable to the determine whether a proposed or final ICAO cargo aircraft requirement, could
increased fuel consumption resulting rule will have a significant economic pose a threat to the American public
from heavier doors. The industry impact on a substantial number of small and the passengers of those carriers who
estimates that a typical door currently entities. If the determination is that it are not voluntarily protecting their
weighs approximately 25 pounds, and will, the agency must prepare a flightdecks.
that a new compliant door will weigh regulatory flexibility analysis as The FAA therefore feels that
approximately 75 pounds. The weight described in the RFA. extending the same requirements
increase of approximately 50 pounds If an agency determines, however, imposed on U.S. carriers to foreign
will translate into increased fuel that a proposed or final rule is not carriers serving U.S. airports is
consumption for aircraft affected by the expected to have a significant economic warranted. The fortification will be
rule. The increase in fuel consumption impact on a substantial number of small required by ICAO just several months
was calculated based on the projected entities, section 605(b) of the RFA later, and is likely to be required by
aircraft utilization of 8.6 block hours per provides that the head of the agency insurance companies extending war risk
day and rate of fuel burn increase. At a may so certify and a regulatory insurance.
current cost of $0.62 per gallon, and flexibility analysis is not required. The The FAA has assessed the potential
forecasted price based on the FAA certification must include a statement effect of this rule and has determined
Aerospace Forecast, the additional providing the factual basis for this that the objective of this rule is the
weight is expected to impose an determination, and the reasoning should safety and security of the United States;
additional cost to foreign air carriers of be clear. This rule will not have a the rule is therefore not considered an
VerDate May2002 22:10 Jun 20, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21JNR4.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 21JNR4
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 120 / Friday, June 21, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 42455
unnecessary obstacle to international rulemaking action qualifies for a States or on overflights unless the
trade. categorical exclusion. aircraft is equipped with a door between
the passenger and pilot compartment
Unfunded Mandates Assessment Energy Impact
that incorporates features to restrict the
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates The energy impact of the rule has unwanted entry of persons into the
Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 2 U.S.C. been assessed in accordance with the flightdeck that are operable from the
1531–1571, requires each Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act flightdeck only; or
agency, to the extent permitted by law, (EPCA) Pub. L. 94–163, as amended (42 (2) A transport category all-cargo
to prepare a written assessment of the U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. It airplane, within the United States or on
effects of any Federal mandate in a has been determined that the rule is not overflights, that has a door installed
proposed or final agency rule that may a major regulatory action under the between the pilot compartment and any
result in the expenditure by State, local, provisions of the EPCA. other occupied compartment on or after
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 129 January 15, 2002, unless the door
or by the private sector, of $100 million incorporates features to restrict the
or more (adjusted annually for inflation) Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting unwanted entry of persons into the
in any one year. and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, flightdeck that are operable from the
This rule does not contain any Transportation. flightdeck only.
Federal intergovernmental or private The Amendment (b) To the extent necessary to meet the
sector mandate. Therefore, the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
requirements of Title II of the Unfunded In consideration of the foregoing, the section, the requirements of § 129.13(a)
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to maintain airworthiness certification
apply. amends part 129 of Title 14 Code of are waived until April 9, 2003. After
Federal Regulations, as follows: that date, the requirements of
Good Cause for Immediate Adoption § 129.13(a) apply in full.
As discussed previously, the FAA PART 129—OPERATIONS: FOREIGN (c) After April 9, 2003, no foreign air
finds that notice and public comment AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN carrier covered by § 129.1(a) may
on this final rule are impracticable, OPERATORS OF U.S.-REGISTERED operate a passenger carrying transport
unnecessary, and contrary to the public AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON category airplane, or a transport
interest. The rule requires CARRIAGE category all-cargo airplane that has a
implementation of security 1. The authority citation for part 129 door installed between the pilot
requirements related to protection of the is revised to read as follows: compartment and any other occupied
flightdeck. It provides means to protect compartment on or after June 21, 2002,
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1372, 40113, 40119,
the flightdeck from small arms fire or within the United States or on
44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–44711,
fragmentation devices, as well as means 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901–44904, overflights unless the aircraft’s
to protect against intrusion by 44906, 44912, 46105, Pub. L. 107–71 sec. flightdeck door installation meets the
unauthorized persons. Providing one 104. requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and
standard for U.S. operators while (2) of this section or an alternative
allowing a lower standard for foreign 2. Section 129.11 is amended by standard found acceptable to the
operators only invites a shift of terrorist adding a new paragraph (a)(5) to read as Administrator.
focus. It is essential that the rules follows: (1) Resist forcible intrusion by
impose the same standards at the same unauthorized persons and be capable of
§ 129.11 Operations specifications.
time. The only way to make this withstanding impacts of 300 joules
(a) * * * (221.3 foot-pounds) at the critical
requirement effective concurrently with (5) Registration and markings of each
the previously adopted requirement for locations on the door, as well as a 1,113-
aircraft that meets equipment
U.S. operators is to immediately adopt newton (250 pounds) constant tensile
requirements of § 129.28(a).
this requirement. 3. In § 129.13, paragraph (a) is revised load on the knob or handle, and
(2) Resist penetration by small arms
Executive Order 13132, Federalism to read as follows:
fire and fragmentation devices to a level
The FAA has analyzed this rule under § 129.13 Airworthiness and registration equivalent to level IIIa of the National
the principles and criteria of Executive certificates. Institute of Justice Standard (NIJ)
Order 13132, Federalism. We (a) Except as provided in § 129.28(b) 0101.04.
determined that this action would not of this part, no foreign air carrier may (d) After August 20, 2002, no foreign
have a substantial direct effect on the operate any aircraft within the United air carrier covered by § 129.1 may
States, on the relationship between the States unless that aircraft carries current operate a passenger carrying transport
national Government and the States, or registration and airworthiness category airplane, or a transport
on the distribution of power and certificates issued or validated by the category all-cargo airplane that has a
responsibilities among the various country of registry and displays the door installed between the pilot
levels of government. Therefore, we nationality and registration markings of compartment and any other occupied
determined that this rule would not that country. compartment on or after June 21, 2002,
have federalism implications. * * * * * within the United States or on
4. Part 129 is amended by adding a overflights unless the carrier has
Environmental Analysis procedures in place that are acceptable
new § 129.28 to read as follows:
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA to the civil aviation authority
actions that may be categorically § 129.28 Flightdeck security. responsible for oversight of the part 129
excluded from preparation of a National (a) After August 20, 2002, no foreign operator to prevent access to the
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) air carrier covered by § 129.1(a), may flightdeck except as authorized as
environmental impact statement. In operate: follows:
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, (1) A passenger carrying transport (1) No person other than a person who
appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this category aircraft within the United is assigned to perform duty on the flight
VerDate May2002 22:10 Jun 20, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21JNR4.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 21JNR4
42456 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 120 / Friday, June 21, 2002 / Rules and Regulations
deck may have a key to the flight deck separating the flight crew compartment (iii) Any other person authorized by
door that will provide access to the from the passenger compartment is the civil aviation authority responsible
flightdeck. closed and locked at all times when the for oversight of the part 129 operator.
(2) Except when it is necessary to aircraft is being operated.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 14,
permit access and egress by persons (3) No person may admit any person
2002.
authorized in accordance with to the flight deck of an aircraft unless
paragraph (d)(3) of this section, a pilot the person being admitted is— Jane F. Garvey,
in command of an aircraft that has a (i) A crewmember, Administrator.
lockable flight deck door in accordance (ii) An inspector of the civil aviation [FR Doc. 02–15524 Filed 6–18–02; 12:01 pm]
with § 129.28(a) and that is carrying authority responsible for oversight of BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
passengers shall ensure that the door the part 129 operator, or
VerDate May2002 22:10 Jun 20, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\21JNR4.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 21JNR4