

[Federal Register: December 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 245)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 72637-72641]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21de07-18]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29305; Notice No. 07-15]
RIN 2120-AI92

 
Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) Out 
Performance Requirements To Support Air Traffic Control (ATC) Service

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of a revised Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis associated with the notice of proposed 
rulemaking entitled, ``Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-
B) Out performance requirements to support Air Traffic Control (ATC) 
service.''

DATES: The comment period for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
published on October 5, 2007 (72 FR 56947), as extended on November 19, 
2007 (72 FR 64966), closes March 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-
29305 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
 and follow the instructions for sending your 

comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to Docket Operations in Room 
W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you 

provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can 
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including 
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment 
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov
.

    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to 
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Docket Operations in Room 

W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas C. Smith, Regulatory Analysis 
Division, Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, APO-310, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 
20591; telephone number: (202) 267-3289; thomas.c.smith@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov
);

    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
; or

    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
.

    You can also get a copy 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) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.

Discussion

    On October 1, 2007, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled, ``Automatic 
Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) Out performance requirements 
to support Air Traffic Control (ATC) service'' (72 FR 56947; October 5, 
2007). The comment period for the NPRM, as extended on November 19, 
2007 (72 FR 64966), closes on March 3, 2007.
    The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy has 
asked us to revise the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 
associated with the NPRM and to publish the

[[Page 72638]]

revised IRFA in the Federal Register.\1\ Specifically, the SBA was 
concerned that two tables that we included in the IRFA might be 
misleading. The tables listed specific data on a sample of 34 U.S. part 
91, 121, and 135 operators. We used data from the sample along with 
Census Bureau data to extrapolate the number of small entities in the 
U.S. that might be significantly affected by the proposed rule. We then 
concluded that the proposal would have a significant effect on a 
substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The original IRFA can be found in the FAA's Draft Regulatory 
Impact Analysis, Document ID FAA-2007-29305-0004.1 at the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SBA was concerned that inclusion of these tables would cause 
companies to mistakenly conclude that the proposed rule would only have 
a significant impact on those companies listed. We do not want to 
create such an impression as those companies listed were used as a 
sample. Therefore, we changed the IRFA by removing the tables and 
provided a fuller discussion.
    The analysis examines whether the proposed rulemaking would have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination ADS-B

Introduction and Purpose of This Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. 
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is not 
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 RFA provides that the 
head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis 
is not required. The certification must include a statement providing 
the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    The FAA believes that this proposal would result in a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose 
of this analysis is to provide the reasoning underlying the FAA 
determination.
    Under Section 603(b) of the RFA, the analysis must address:
     Description of reasons the agency is considering the 
action,
     Statement of the legal basis and objectives for the 
proposed rule,
     Description of the recordkeeping and other compliance 
requirements of the proposed rule,
     All federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict 
with the proposed rule,
     Description and an estimated number of small entities to 
which the proposed rule will apply,
     Analysis of small firms' ability to afford the proposed 
rule,
     Estimation of the potential for business closures,
     Conduct a competitive analysis,
     Conduct a disproportionality analysis, and
     Describe the alternatives considered.

Reasons Why the Rule Is Being Proposed

    Public Law 108-176, referred to as ``The Century of Aviation 
Reauthorization Act,'' was enacted December 12, 2003 (Pub. L. 108-176). 
This law set forth requirements and objectives for transforming the air 
transportation system to progress further into the 21st Century. 
Section 709 of this statute requires the Secretary of Transportation to 
establish in the FAA a joint planning and development office (JPDO) to 
manage work related to the Next Generation Air Transportation System 
(NextGen). Among its statutorily defined responsibilities, the JPDO 
coordinates the development and utilization of new technologies to 
ensure that when available, they may be used to the fullest potential 
in aircraft and in the air traffic control system.
    The FAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
and the Departments of Commerce, Defense, and Homeland Security have 
launched an effort to align their resources to develop and further the 
NextGen. The goals of NextGen, as stated in section 709, are addressed 
by this proposal and include:
    (1) improve the level of safety, security, efficiency, quality, and 
affordability of the NAS and aviation services;
    (2) take advantage of data from emerging ground-based and space-
based communications, navigation, and surveillance technologies;
    (3) be scalable to accommodate and encourage substantial growth in 
domestic and international transportation and anticipating and 
accommodating continuing technology upgrades and advances; and
    (4) accommodate a wide range of aircraft operations, including 
airlines, air taxis, helicopters, general aviation, and unmanned aerial 
vehicles.
    The JPDO was also charged to create and carry out an integrated 
plan for NextGen. The NextGen Integrated Plan,\2\ transmitted to 
Congress on December 12, 2004, ensures that the NextGen system meets 
the air transportation safety, security, mobility, efficiency and 
capacity needs beyond those currently included in the FAA's Operational 
Evolution Plan (OEP). As described in the NextGen Integrated Plan, the 
current approach to air transportation, i.e., ground based radars 
tracking congested flyways and passing information among the control 
centers for the duration of the flights, is becoming operationally 
obsolete. The current system is increasingly inefficient and large 
increases in air traffic will only result in mounting delays or 
limitations in service for many areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A copy of the Plan has been placed in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This growth will result in more air traffic than the present system 
can handle. The current method of handling traffic flow will not be 
able to adapt to the highest volume and density of it in the future. It 
is not only the number of flights but also the nature of the new growth 
that is problematic, as the future of aviation will be much more 
diverse than it is today. For example, a shift of two percent of 
today's commercial passengers to micro-jets that seat 4-6 passengers 
would result in triple the number of flights in order to carry the same 
number of passengers. Furthermore, the challenges grow as other non-
conventional aircraft, such as unmanned aircraft, are developed for 
special operations, e.g. forest fire fighting.
    The FAA believes that ADS-B technology is a key component in 
achieving many of the goals set forth in the plan. This proposed rule 
embraces a new approach to surveillance that can lead to greater and 
more efficient utilization of airspace. The NextGen Integrated Plan 
articulates several large transformation strategies in its roadmap

[[Page 72639]]

to successfully creating the Next Generation System. This proposal is a 
major step toward strategically ``establishing an agile air traffic 
system that accommodates future requirements and readily responds to 
shifts in demand from all users.'' ADS-B technology would assist in the 
transition to a system with less dependence on ground infrastructure 
and facilities, and provide for more efficient use of airspace.

Statement of the Legal Basis and Objectives

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding 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 agency's 
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of 
airspace, and Subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under 
section 40103, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations on the 
flight of aircraft, including regulations on safe altitudes, 
navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft, and the safe and 
efficient use of the navigable airspace. Under section 44701, the FAA 
is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce 
by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the 
Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce.
    This proposal is within the scope of sections 40103 and 44701 since 
it proposes aircraft performance requirements that would meet advanced 
surveillance needs to accommodate the projected increase in operations 
within the National Airspace System (NAS). As more aircraft operate 
within the U.S. airspace, improved surveillance performance is 
necessary to continue to balance the growth in air transportation with 
the agency's mandate for a safe and efficient air transportation 
system.

Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Requirements

    We expect no more than minimal new reporting and recordkeeping 
compliance requirements to result from this proposed rule. Costs for 
the initial installation of new equipment and associated labor 
constitute a burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Paperwork 
Reduction Act analysis was included in the full Regulatory Analysis 
that is included in the docket for this rulemaking.

Overlapping, Duplicative, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    We are unaware that the proposed rule will overlap, duplicate or 
conflict with existing Federal Rules.

Estimated Number of Small Firms Potentially Impacted

    Under the RFA, the FAA must determine whether a proposed rule 
significantly affects a substantial number of small entities. This 
determination is typically based on small entity size and cost 
thresholds that vary depending on the affected industry.
    Using the size standards from the Small Business Administration for 
Air Transportation and Aircraft Manufacturing, we defined companies as 
small entities if they have fewer than 1,500 employees.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 13 CFR Part 121.201, Size Standards Used to Define Small 
Business Concerns, Sector 48-49 Transportation, Subsector 481 Air 
Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed rule would become final in 2009 and fully effective 
in 2020. Although the FAA forecasts traffic and air carrier fleets to 
2030, our forecasts do not have the granularity to determine if an 
operator will likely still be in business or will still remain a small 
business entity. Therefore we will use current U.S. operator's fleet 
and employment in order to determine the number of operators this 
proposal would affect.
    We obtained a list of part 91, 121 and 135 U.S. operators from the 
FAA Flight Standards Service.\4\ Using information provided by the U.S. 
Department of Transportation Form 41 filings, World Aviation Directory 
and ReferenceUSA, operators that are subsidiary businesses of larger 
businesses and businesses with more than 1,500 employees were 
eliminated from the list of small entities. In many cases the 
employment and annual revenue data was not public and we did not 
include these companies in our analysis. For the remaining businesses, 
we obtained company revenue and employment from the above three 
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ AFS-260.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The methodology discussed above resulted in a sample of 34 U.S. 
part 91, 121 and 135 operators, with less than 1,500 employees, who 
operate 341 airplanes. Due to the sparse amount of publicly available 
data on internal company financial statistics for small entities, it is 
not feasible to estimate the total population of small entities 
affected by this proposed rule. These 34 U.S. small entity operators 
are a representative sample to assess the cost impact of the total 
population of small businesses, who operate aircraft affected by this 
proposed rulemaking. This representative sample was then applied to the 
U.S. Census Bureau data on the Small Business Administration's website 
to develop an estimate of the total number of affected small business 
entities. The U.S. Census Bureau data lists small entities in the Air 
Transportation Industry that employ less than 500 employees. Other 
small businesses may own aircraft and not be included in the U.S. 
Census Bureau Air Transportation Industry category. Therefore our 
estimate of the number of affected small entities affected by this 
proposed rulemaking will likely be understated. The estimate of the 
total number of affected small entities is developed below.

Cost and Affordability for Small Entities

    To assess the cost impact to small business part 91, 121 and 135 
operators, we contacted manufacturers, industry associations, and ADS-B 
equipage providers to estimate ADS-B equipage costs. We requested 
estimates of airborne installation costs, by aircraft model, for the 
output parameters listed in the Equipment Specifications section of the 
Regulatory Evaluation.
    To satisfy the manufacturer's request to keep individual aircraft 
pricing confidential, we calculated a low, baseline, and high range of 
costs by equipment class. The baseline estimate equals the average of 
the low and high industry estimates. The dollar value ranges consist of 
a wide variety of avionics within each aircraft group. The aircraft 
architecture within each equipment group can vary, causing different 
carriage, labor and wiring requirements for the installation of ADS-B. 
Volume discounting versus single line purchasing also affects the 
dollar value ranges. On the low end, the dollar value may represent a 
software upgrade or OEM option change. On the high end, the dollar 
value may represent a new installation of upgraded transponder systems 
necessary to assure accuracy, reliability and safety. We used the 
estimated baseline dollar value cost by equipment class in determining 
the impact to small business entities.
    We estimated each operator's total compliance cost by multiplying 
the baseline dollar value cost, by equipment class, by the number of 
aircraft each small business operator currently has in its fleet. We 
summed these costs by equipment class and group. We then measured the 
economic impact on small entities by dividing the estimated baseline 
dollar value compliance cost for their fleet by the small entity's 
annual revenue. Each equipment group

[[Page 72640]]

operated by a small entity may have to comply with different 
requirements in the proposed rule depending on the state of the 
aircraft's avionics. In the ADS-B Out Equipage Cost Estimate section of 
the Regulatory Evaluation we detail our methodology to estimate 
operators' total compliance cost by equipment group.
    The ADS-B cost is estimated to be greater than two percent of 
annual revenues for about 35 percent and greater than one percent of 
annual revenues for about 54 percent of the small entity operators in 
our sample population of 34 small aviation entities. Applying these 
percentages to the 2,719 firms with employment under 500 from the Air 
Transportation Industry category of the U.S. Census Bureau data \5\ 
results in the estimated ADS-B cost being greater than two percent of 
annual revenues for at least 960 small entities and greater than one 
percent of annual revenues for at least 1,476 small entity operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/us04_n6.pdf.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus the FAA has determined that a substantial number of small 
entities would be significantly affected by the proposed rule. Every 
small entity who operates an aircraft in the airspace defined by this 
proposal would be required to install ADS-B out equipage and therefore 
would be affected by this rulemaking.

Business Closure Analysis

    For commercial operators, the ratio of present-value costs to 
annual revenue shows that seven of 34 small business air operator firms 
analyzed would have ratios in excess of five percent. Since many of the 
other commercial small business air operator firms do not make their 
annual revenue publicly available, it is difficult to assess the 
financial impact of this proposed rule on their business. To fully 
assess whether this proposed rule could force a small entity into 
bankruptcy requires more financial information than is publicly 
available.
    The FAA seeks comment, with supportive justification, to determine 
the degree of hardship, and feasible alternative methods of compliance, 
the proposed rule will have on these small entities.

Competitive Analysis

    The aviation industry is an extremely competitive industry with 
slim profit margins. The number of operators who entered the industry 
and have stopped operations because of mergers, acquisitions, or 
bankruptcy litters the history of the aviation industry.
    The FAA analyzed five years of operating profits for the affected 
small-entity operators listed above. We were able to determine the 
operating profit for 18 of the 34 small business entities. The FAA 
discovered that 33 percent of these 18 affected operators' average 
operating profit is negative. Only four of the 18 affected operators 
had average annual operating profit that exceeded $10,000,000.
    In this competitive industry, cost increases imposed by this 
proposed regulation would be hard to recover by raising prices, 
especially by those operators showing an average five-year negative 
operating profit. Further, large operators may be able to negotiate 
better pricing from outside firms for inspections and repairs, so small 
operators may need to raise their prices more than large operators. 
These factors make it difficult for the small operators to recover 
their compliance costs by raising prices. If small operators cannot 
recover all the additional costs imposed by this regulation, market 
shares could shift to the large operators.
    However, small operators successfully compete in the aviation 
industry by providing unique services and controlling costs. To the 
extent the affected small entities operate in niche markets, their 
ability to pass on costs will be enhanced. Currently small operators 
are much more profitable than the established major scheduled carriers. 
This proposed rule would offset some of the advantages that these small 
operators have of using older aircraft that have lower capital cost.
    Overall, in terms of competition, this rulemaking reduces small 
operators' ability to compete. We request comments from industry on the 
results of the competitive analysis.

Disproportionality Analysis

    The disproportionately higher impact of the proposed rule on the 
fleets of small operators result in higher relative costs to small 
operators. Due to the potential of fleet discounts, large operators may 
be able to negotiate better pricing from outside sources for 
inspections, installation, and ADS-B hardware purchases.
    Based on the percent of potentially affected current airplanes over 
the analysis period, small U.S. business operators may bear a 
disproportionate impact from the proposed rule.
    Comments received and final rule changes on regulatory flexibility 
issues will be addressed in the statement of considerations for the 
final rule.

Analysis of Alternatives

Alternative One

    The status quo alternative has compliance costs to continue the 
operation and commissioning of radar sites. The FAA rejected this 
status quo alternative because the ground based radars tracking 
congested flyways and passing information among the control centers for 
the duration of the flights is becoming operationally obsolete. The 
current system is not efficient enough to accommodate the estimated 
increases in air traffic, which would result in mounting delays or 
limitations in service for many areas.

Alternative Two

    This alternative would employ a technology called multilateration. 
Multilateration is a separate type of secondary surveillance system 
that is not radar and has limited deployment in the U.S. At a minimum, 
multilateration requires upwards of four ground stations to deliver the 
same volume of coverage and integrity of information as ADS-B, due to 
the need to ``triangulate'' the aircraft's position. Multilateration is 
a process wherein an aircraft position is determined using the 
difference in time of arrival of a signal from an aircraft at a series 
of receivers on the ground. Multilateration meets the need for accurate 
surveillance and is less costly than ADS-B (but more costly than 
radar), but cannot achieve the same level of benefits that ADS-B can. 
Multilateration would provide the same benefits as radar, but we 
estimate that cost to provide multilateration (including the cost to 
sustain radar until multilateration is operational), would exceed the 
cost to continue full radar surveillance.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ However, the cost to operate and maintain the 
multilateration facilities and equipment is less than the cost to 
continue full radar surveillance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Three

    This alternative would provide relief by having the FAA provide an 
exemption to small air carriers from all requirements of this rule. 
This alternative would mean that the small air carriers would rely on 
the status quo ground based radars tracking their flights and passing 
information among the control centers for the duration of the flights. 
This alternative would require compliance costs to continue for the 
commissioning of radar sites. Air traffic controller workload and 
training costs would increase having to employ two systems in tracking 
aircraft. Small entities may request ATC deviations prior to operating 
in the airspace

[[Page 72641]]

affected by this proposal. It would also be contrary to our policy for 
one level of safety in part 121 operations to exclude certain operators 
simply because they are small entities. Thus, this alternative is not 
considered to be acceptable.

Alternative Four

    This alternative is the proposed ADS-B rule. ADS-B does not employ 
different classes of receiving equipment or provide different 
information based on its location. Therefore, controllers will not have 
to account for transitions between surveillance solutions as an 
aircraft moves closer or farther away from an airport. In order to meet 
future demand for air travel without significant delays or denial of 
service, ADS-B was found to be the most cost effective solution to 
maintain a viable air transportation system. ADS-B provides a wider 
range of services to aircraft users and could enable applications 
unavailable to multilateration or radar.

Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related 
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are 
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires 
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that 
they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    ICAO is developing a set of standards that are influenced by, and 
similar to, the U.S. RTCA developed standards. Initial discussions with 
the international community lead us to conclude that U.S. aircraft 
operating in foreign airspace would not have to add any equipment or 
incur any costs in addition to what they would incur to operate in 
domestic airspace under this proposed rulemaking. Foreign operators may 
incur additional costs to operate in U.S. airspace, if their national 
rules, standards and, current level of equipage are different than 
those required by this proposed rule. The FAA is actively engaged with 
the international community to ensure that the international and U.S. 
ADS-B standards are as compatible as possible. For a fuller discussion 
of what other countries are planning with regards to ADS-B, see Section 
VII of the preamble. By 2020 ICAO standards may change to harmonize 
with this proposed rule and foreign operators will not have to incur 
additional costs.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one 
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by 
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant 
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value 
of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule is not 
expected to impose significant costs on small governmental 
jurisdictions such as state, local, or tribal governments but the FAA 
calls for comment on whether this expectation is correct. However, this 
proposed rule would result in an unfunded mandate because it would 
result in expenditures in excess of an inflation-adjusted value of 
$128.1 million. We have considered three alternatives to this 
rulemaking, which are discussed in section 4.0 and in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis in section 7.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 14, 2007.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E7-24713 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
