Browse by Year
/ 2003
/ October
/ Monday, October 27, 2003
[Federal Register: October 27, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 207)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61303-61321]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27oc03-17]
[[Page 61303]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 11 and 91
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum in Domestic United States Airspace;
Final Rule
[[Page 61304]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 11 and 91
[Docket No. FAA-2002-12261; Amendment Nos. 11-49 and 91-276]
RIN 2120-AH68
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum in Domestic United States
Airspace
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule permits the initiation of Reduced Vertical
Separation Minimum (RVSM) flights in the airspace over the contiguous
48 States of the United States, the District of Columbia, Alaska, that
portion of the Gulf of Mexico where the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) provides air traffic services, the San Juan Flight Information
Region (FIR), and the airspace between Florida and the San Juan FIR.
The RVSM program allows the use of 1,000-foot vertical separation at
certain altitudes between aircraft that meet stringent altimeter and
autopilot performance requirements. This rule also requires any
aircraft that is equipped with Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance
System version II (TCAS II) and flown in RVSM airspace to incorporate a
version of TCAS II software that is compatible with RVSM operations.
The FAA is taking this action to assist aircraft operators to save fuel
and time, to enhance air traffic control flexibility, and to enhance
airspace capacity.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective November 26, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Swain, Flight Technologies and
Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, AFS-400, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC
20591, telephone (202) 385-4576.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy of this document and of a chart
showing the affected airspace through the Internet by taking the
following steps:
(1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search
).
(2) On the search page type in the last five digits of the Docket
number shown at the beginning of this document. Click on ``search.''
(3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number of the item
you wish to view.
You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the
Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm or the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.
The Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) Program
The term ``flight level'' (FL) describes a surface of constant
atmospheric pressure related to a reference datum of 29.92 inches of
mercury. Flight levels are stated in three digits that represent
thousands of feet. Flight levels are separated by specific pressure
intervals. Rather than adjusting altimeters for changes in atmospheric
pressure, pilots base altitude readings above the transition altitude
(18,000 feet in the United States) on this standard reference. Thus FL
290 represents the pressure surface equivalent to 29,000 feet based on
the 29.92 inches of mercury datum; FL 310 represents 31,000 feet, and
so on.
The RVSM program allows the vertical separation standard that is
applied below FL 290 to be applied between FL 290 and FL 410. Below FL
290, air traffic controllers can assign Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
aircraft to flight levels that are separated by 1,000 feet. Above FL
290, however, unless RVSM standards are implemented, the vertical
separation minimum is 2,000 feet and IFR aircraft must be assigned to
flight levels separated by 2,000 feet.
The 2,000-foot minimum vertical separation restricts the number of
flight levels available above FL 290. During peak periods, these flight
levels can become congested. When all RVSM flight levels (FL 290-410)
are utilized, six additional flight levels are available: FL 300, 320,
340, 360, 380, and 400. Increasing the number of flight levels
available in the U.S. domestic airspace is projected to provide
enhancements to aircraft operations similar to those gained in the
North Atlantic (NAT) and Pacific (PAC) (i.e., mitigation of fuel
penalties attributed to the inability to fly optimum altitudes and
tracks, and enhanced controller flexibility for air traffic control).
Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Published on May
10, 2002, and the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM)
Published on February 28, 2003
The NPRM published on May 10, 2002 (67 FR 31920) proposed to
implement RVSM from FL 290 through FL 410 over the contiguous U.S. and
Alaska, and the portion of the Gulf of Mexico where the FAA provides
air traffic services. This reduced vertical separation minimum would
only be applied between those aircraft that meet stringent altimeter
and autopilot performance requirements. The FAA (``we'') proposed the
action to assist aircraft operators to save fuel and time, to enhance
air traffic control flexibility, and to provide the potential for
enhanced airspace capacity. The NPRM outlined the FAA plan during the
pre- and post implementation phases to monitor the program to ensure
that RVSM safety standards are maintained and that aircraft altitude-
keeping performance meets RVSM standards.
We subsequently revised the proposal in an SNPRM published on
February 28, 2003 (68 FR 9818). We added a proposal to implement RVSM
from FL 290 through FL 410 in Atlantic High Offshore airspace, Gulf of
Mexico High Offshore airspace, and in the San Juan Flight Information
Region (FIR). This supplement to the NPRM proposed to better define
RVSM airspace off the eastern and southern coasts of the United States
and harmonize RVSM airspace off the east coast of the U.S. between
adjoining airspaces in the domestic U.S., Atlantic High Offshore, and
the New York Oceanic FIR. We also proposed to remove the proposal in
the NPRM that would have permitted part 91 turbo-propeller aircraft to
operate in domestic RVSM airspace with a single RVSM compliant
altimeter.
With air traffic levels increasing annually, FAA airspace planners
and their international counterparts have established programs to
implement RVSM as a primary measure to enhance air traffic management
and aircraft operating efficiency. The RVSM program has been
implemented in oceanic airspace in the North and South Atlantic, the
Pacific, the South China Sea, and in the portion of the West Atlantic
Route System (WATRS) that is in the New York Oceanic Flight Information
Region. The RVSM program has also been implemented in the continental
airspace of Australia and Europe.
[[Page 61305]]
Aircraft Operating in U.S. Airspace Already Approved for RVSM
Approximately 38 percent of flights in U.S. airspace are already
conducted by aircraft that have been approved for RVSM operations.
Approximately 5,400 aircraft of U.S. registry have been FAA-approved
for RVSM operations under the existing RVSM regulation. Many U.S.
operators have obtained RVSM approval for these aircraft so they can be
flown in airspace outside the U.S. where RVSM has been implemented.
Existing and New Regulations: Criteria for Aircraft and Operator
Approval
Part 91, Section 91.706 (Operations within airspace designed as
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace) and part 91, Appendix G
(Operations in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) Airspace)
contain the FAA requirements for aircraft and operator approval for
RVSM operations outside the U.S. They have been applied to operations
outside the U.S. since they were published in April of 1997. The
objective of this rulemaking is to add Section 91.180 (Operations
Within Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace in the United
States) and amend Part 91 Appendix G Section 8 (Airspace Designation)
so that part 91 Appendix G standards can be applied within the domestic
U.S and the other airspaces being added to Appendix G, Section 8.
Domestic RVSM Implementation Plan
We have selected January 20, 2005, as the target date to implement
RVSM between FL 290 and FL 410 in the airspace described in this
rulemaking. When RVSM is implemented, to fly in RVSM airspace civil
operators and aircraft must comply with the RVSM standards of part 91
with only limited exceptions.
In accordance with part 91, Appendix G, Section 5 (Deviation
Authority Approval), the FAA may accommodate the following noncompliant
operators in RVSM airspace:
[sbull] The FAA may accommodate unapproved aircraft conducting air
ambulance flights using a Lifeguard call sign as described in the
Aeronautical Information Manual.
[sbull] In accordance with the FAA/Department of Defense (DoD)
Memorandum of Understanding, the FAA may accommodate unapproved DoD
aircraft.
[sbull] Unapproved aircraft may be allowed to climb through RVSM
flight levels without intermediate level off to operate above RVSM
airspace at FL 430 and above, traffic permitting and
[sbull] After coordination and consultation provided for in
Appendix G, Section 5, the FAA may accommodate flights conducted for
aircraft certification and development and customer acceptance
purposes.
When such aircraft operate in RVSM airspace, their lack of RVSM
approval status will be displayed to FAA controllers and the
controllers will apply a 2,000-foot vertical or the appropriate lateral
or longitudinal separation standard.
Safety
Since its initial implementation in the North Atlantic in March
1997, RVSM has proven to be safe in both oceanic and continental
operations. To date approximately 10 million flights representing 19
million flight hours have been conducted safely in RVSM airspace
worldwide.
FAA personnel will apply the experience they have gained in safely
implementing RVSM in other areas to the domestic U.S. implementation
program. To date, they have served as implementation program managers
in three major oceanic areas and have played significant leadership
roles in developing and implementing standards and programs under which
RVSM could be implemented safely.
In preparation for RVSM implementation in the domestic U.S., FAA
Flight Standards and Air Traffic specialists and safety analysts have
reviewed the elements contributing to RVSM safety. They concluded that
U.S. RVSM operations will meet the level of safety endorsed by the
International Civil Aviation Organization and adopted in other regions
in the world. In addition, in the period leading up to implementation
and during the post-implementation period, they will continue to
evaluate the elements of RVSM safety against the accepted level of
safety.
Exploration of Tactical RVSM
We explored allowing controllers to apply ``tactical RVSM'' prior
to the target RVSM implementation date. We have decided not to pursue
this initiative. It has been found to present unacceptable difficulties
related to scheduling and completing document updates and controller
and pilot training. Application of tactical RVSM would have allowed
controllers to use 1,000-foot vertical separation between FL 290 and FL
410 prior to the target implementation date, at the controller's
discretion, if both passing aircraft were RVSM approved.
Specific Airspace Issues
Coordination with Mexico and Canada. We are coordinating RVSM
implementation plans with the civil aviation authorities of Canada and
Mexico. RVSM was implemented in Northern Canadian Domestic airspace in
April 2002, and Canada is planning to implement RVSM in Canadian
Southern Domestic airspace at the time that it is implemented in the
U.S.
Gulf of Mexico, San Juan FIR and Florida-San Juan FIR Airspace. The
airspace in the Gulf of Mexico, the San Juan FIR, and the airspace
between the San Juan FIR and Florida have been included in this final
rule. Inclusion of this airspace in the final rule allows the FAA to
harmonize operations between RVSM airspace in the domestic U.S., RVSM
airspace already established in the New York Oceanic FIR and the San
Juan FIR.
Hawaiian Airspace. The airspace of the Hawaiian Islands is
surrounded by Pacific Oceanic RVSM airspace. RVSM approved aircraft
operate to and from Hawaiian airspace, however, there is currently no
plan to require RVSM approval for all aircraft to operate within that
airspace. Instead, 1,000-foot vertical separation is applied between FL
290 and FL 410 when two passing aircraft are both RVSM approved and
2,000-foot vertical or horizontal separation is applied if either of
the passing aircraft is not RVSM approved.
TCAS II Version 7.0 Requirement. A significant majority of the
aircraft that operate in the domestic U.S. at and above FL 290 are
already required to be equipped with TCAS II, Version 6.04a.
Requirements for aircraft TCAS equipage are published in 14 CFR parts
121, 125, 129, and 135. These requirements were revised in a final rule
published in April 2003 and are discussed in detail in the TCAS section
of the Discussion of Comments. Approximately 85% of domestic operations
above FL 290 are conducted by large jet aircraft operating under parts
121, 129, or 135. An FAA Airworthiness Directive published in 1994
mandates TCAS II, Version 6.04a, for all TCAS II installations.
Part 91, Appendix G, section 2, paragraph (g) states that ``after
March 31, 2002, unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, if
you operate an aircraft that is equipped with TCAS II in RVSM airspace,
it must be a TCAS II that meets TSO C-119b (Version 7.0), or a later
version.'' This provision was adopted on December 10, 2001 (66 FR
63888). Version 7.0 incorporates Traffic Alert and Resolution Advisory
thresholds that mitigate unnecessary
[[Page 61306]]
alerts when 1,000-foot vertical separation is applied above FL 290.
Version 7.0 generally requires a software modification that is not a
major system modification. The cost for this modification has been
accounted for in the cost/benefit analysis.
Eligibility of Turbo-propeller Aircraft Operated Under Part 91 and
Equipped with a Single RVSM Compliant Altimeter. In the NPRM, we
proposed operational and airworthiness criteria for turbo-propeller
aircraft operated under part 91 to conduct RVSM operations when
equipped with a single RVSM compliant altimeter. In the SNPRM, we
proposed withdrawing this option. After considering the SNPRM comments,
we have not adopted the provision in this final rule. For the past six
years, standards applied worldwide have called for aircraft to be
equipped with two RVSM compliant altimeters. We have concluded that
different criteria for turbo-propeller aircraft operated under part 91
to conduct RVSM operations should not be adopted. We have determined
that adopting this provision would add unnecessary complications to air
traffic control in the airspace that borders Canada and Mexico. Those
countries have informed us that they will not adopt the provision. We
also believe that it is in the best interests of U.S. operators and
manufacturers to harmonize with global RVSM standards unless there is
adequate justification for a difference. Since the proposal would
affect only 0.3 percent of domestic operations, we have concluded that
the minor benefit provided is not warranted when considering the major
benefits provided by sharing common standards for RVSM operations and
air traffic control with neighboring countries and of continued
harmonization with global RVSM standards.
Amendment to VFR and IFR Cruising Altitudes At and Above FL 290.
This rule revises part 91, Section 91.159 (VFR cruising altitude or
flight level) and Section 91.179 (IFR cruising altitude or flight
level). The revision to Section 91.159 eliminates reference to VFR
flight levels above FL 180. Airspace above FL 180 is established as
Positive Control Airspace where aircraft must maintain the altitude or
flight level assigned by ATC.
The revision to Section 91.179 revises the altitudes or flight
levels that are considered to be appropriate for IFR flight in
uncontrolled airspace above FL 290 in airspace where RVSM is
implemented. In accordance with RVSM regulations, this revision will
provide flight levels that are separated by 1,000 feet vertically based
on the direction of flight.
Revision to Deviation Authority Requirements. The rule revises part
91 Appendix G, Section 5 (Deviation Authority Approval). The revision
deletes the requirement to submit requests 48 hours in advance in order
to operate non-compliant aircraft under a deviation. The revision calls
for the request to be submitted in a time and manner acceptable to the
FAA. This revision allows us to publish in the Aeronautical Information
Manual and appropriate FAA orders procedures and processes that are
acceptable in different scenarios and circumstances. We intend to grant
deviation authority only in limited circumstances because the presence
of unapproved aircraft could affect traffic flow and increase
controller workload.
Discussion of Comments
We received 79 comments during the NPRM comment period (67 FR
31920, May 10, 2002) and eight comments during the SNPRM comment period
(68 FR 9818, February 28, 2003). The FAA response to comments received
on both the NPRM and the SNPRM are provided in the discussion of
comments below. During the SNPRM comment period, comments were received
from Boeing and Viking Transport. Neither of these comments addressed
the two specific issues raised in the SNPRM. Both addressed issues only
in the underlying NPRM. The issues in these two comments were
considered with similar comments received during the original NPRM
period.
Some comments supported the proposed domestic RVSM program and
implementation date. Included in the organizations that provided
comments supporting the proposal or supporting with minor comments were
the Air Transport Association (ATA), United Airlines, American
Airlines, Federal Express, American Trans Air, The Boeing Company,
Cessna Aircraft Company, the Department of Defense, the Air Traffic
Control Association (ATCA), and the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey.
Some comments requested major changes in the domestic RVSM
implementation program or expressed reservations. Many of these
proposed to delay implementing RVSM for a year or more or to implement
RVSM in vertical or geographical phases. Organizations making these
proposals included the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA),
the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), the Aircraft
Electronics Association (AEA), and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA).
Some commenters expressed opposition to implementing RVSM in the
United States. These included a number of small operators.
Some commenters provided comments that expressed concerns about
safety or what we would require operators to do before they could
operate in RVSM airspace. These included organizations such as the
Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), the Allied Pilots Association (APA),
and the Coalition of Airline Pilots Association (CAPA).
No SNPRM commenters opposed adding Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic High
Offshore and San Juan FIR airspace to the list of RVSM airspaces
published in part 91, Appendix G, Section 8.
Most SNPRM comments supported the SNPRM proposal to withdraw the
proposal made in the NPRM to allow turbo-propeller aircraft operated
under part 91 to equip for RVSM operations with a single RVSM compliant
altimeter. Two SNPRM comments opposed withdrawal of the NPRM proposal
for part 91 turbo-propeller aircraft.
We also received comments from the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) and the Regional Airlines Association (RAA), among others.
Air Traffic Services Issues
1. A number of commenters recommended that the FAA should implement
RVSM in the National Airspace System (NAS) in vertical phases. For
example, one recommendation was to use one of the following two
implementation plans:
a. Implement between FL 350-390 in December 2004; then implement in
all RVSM flight levels (FL 290-410) in December 2005 or
b. Implement between FL 310-410 in December 2004; then implement
between FL 290-410 in 2010
FAA Response: We discussed in the NPRM the option to implement RVSM
in phases. The NPRM noted testing and simulation that caused us to
decide against implementing RVSM in vertical phases. Extensive
simulation testing of various phased implementation possibilities
resulted in significantly increased controller workload and an
increased level of operational complexity directly related to phase-in
scenarios such as those recommended in the comments. These scenarios
were shown to increase the potential for error for controllers. The
``Final Report for Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (DRVSM)
Initial Simulation''
[[Page 61307]]
is posted on the federal docket. It can found by searching docket
number 12261 at http://dms.dot.gov.
2. A commenter recommended that the FAA should implement RVSM
between FL 290-370 in December 2004 to allow access to higher flight
levels for non-compliant aircraft.
FAA Response: We did not accept this recommendation for two
reasons. First, during the simulation testing, an increase of non-
compliant aircraft transitioning through RVSM flight levels to fly
above RVSM airspace increased complexity of ATC operations and
increased the potential for controller error. The proposal to implement
between FL 290-410 provides for a limited number of operations at or
above FL 430. Second, topping RVSM flight levels at FL 370 would make
two flight levels (380 and 400) unavailable at implementation. This
loss would diminish benefits in terms of fuel savings and improvements
to air traffic controller flexibility to manage aircraft.
3. Some commenters recommended that we should implement RVSM only
on designated routes or in certain areas.
FAA Response: We concluded that this proposal is not feasible for
the same reasons that a vertical phase-in of RVSM flight levels is not
feasible. A plan that would provide multiple areas within domestic U.S.
airspace where the vertical separation standards would change between
2,000 feet to 1,000 feet would add an unacceptable amount of complexity
to air traffic control and increase controller workload and the
potential for controller error.
4. Some commenters, including ALPA and APA, opposed tactical
implementation, citing concerns about complexity and safety. They also
raised a question about applying the monitoring program before full
implementation.
FAA Response: We explored allowing controllers to apply ``tactical
RVSM'' prior to the target RVSM implementation date. We have decided
not to pursue this initiative. It has been found to present
unacceptable difficulties related to scheduling and completing document
updates and controller and pilot training. Application of tactical RVSM
would have allowed controllers to use 1,000-foot vertical separation
between FL 290 and FL 410 prior to the target implementation date, at
the controller's discretion, if both passing aircraft were RVSM
approved.
5. A Congressman asked us to re-evaluate our plan to implement RVSM
in all Alaskan airspace. One operator, Security Aviation, made a
similar request. More specifically, the Congressman and Security
Aviation requested us to consider implementing in Alaska on only
designated routes or areas. The rationale was that RVSM invoked large
costs to small Alaskan operators and that operation below FL 290
invoked operational penalties.
FAA response: We believe RVSM implementation in Alaska should
proceed on the same date and with the same implementation plan that we
are adopting for the lower 48 states and Canadian Southern Domestic
airspace. We do not believe RVSM can or should be implemented in
Alaskan airspace differently than the surrounding RVSM airspace. RVSM
is currently mandated in oceanic airspace to the west and south of
Alaska and in Canadian Northern Domestic airspace to the east. In
addition, Canadian authorities plan to implement RVSM in Canadian
Southern Domestic airspace in January 2005 in conjunction with
implementation in the U.S.
In summary, we believe we should implement RVSM in Alaskan airspace
in conjunction with the domestic U.S. and Canada for the following
reasons:
a. Alaskan RVSM operations cannot be considered in isolation.
Alaska is surrounded on three sides by existing RVSM airspace.
Operators flying between those airspaces and Alaskan airspace are
required to meet RVSM standards. If we do not implement RVSM in Alaska
in conjunction with the U.S. lower 48 states and Canada, it will deny
benefits to these operators.
b. Implementing a single vertical separation standard in Alaska
mitigates problems related to air traffic control complexity and to the
potential for controller error both within Alaskan airspace and for
operations between Alaska and adjoining RVSM airspace.
c. This rule does not affect operations below FL 290. Operators
that now operate below FL 290 can continue to operate as they do
currently. Operators that now operate above FL 290 that do not elect to
obtain RVSM authority can continue to operate below FL 290. Operation
below FL 290 appears feasible since typical leg lengths for flights
originating and terminating within Alaska are relatively short duration
(1 to 2 hour flights).
6. ATA asked us to implement RVSM in the San Juan FIR and Miami
Offshore airspace where the FAA provides air traffic control. The
objective would be to align this airspace with RVSM airspace already
planned or implemented in adjoining airspace.
FAA Response: We concluded that this proposal had merit and made a
proposal in a Supplemental NPRM (SNPRM). The SNPRM proposed to include
Atlantic High Offshore, Gulf of Mexico High Offshore Airspace, and the
San Juan FIR airspace as RVSM airspace in part 91, Appendix G, Section
8 (Airspace Designation). A number of SNPRM commenters supported and no
SNPRM commenters opposed the proposal. We have adopted the SNPRM
proposal in the final rule.
7. APA recommended that we should require RVSM in Hawaiian airspace
at and above FL 290.
FAA Response: We do not believe that it is necessary to mandate
RVSM in Hawaiian airspace at this time. Hawaiian airspace has operated
successfully in its present configuration as transition airspace
between adjoining flight information regions where RVSM is mandated
since February 2000.
8. One commenter recommended that we should consider Domestic RVSM
in the Airspace Re-design program.
FAA Response: We are considering RVSM in the High Altitude Redesign
program.
9. GAMA, Bombardier, Raytheon and Cessna recommended that
provisions be made in the rule for accommodation of non-compliant
aircraft flown for flight testing for certification, new aircraft
production and customer acceptance purposes.
They requested rule language as follows:
[sbull] Accommodate air ambulance flights using Lifeguard call sign
as detailed in AIM.
[sbull] Provide for flight in RVSM airspace under special flight
permit or standard certificate of airworthiness of non-compliant
experimental, new production flight test, new production aircraft flown
for customer acceptance purposes
[sbull] Provide for experimental and new production aircraft to
climb to FL 430 without ``traffic permitting'' caveat
They also proposed that the FAA designate useable airspace within
proximity to aircraft manufacturers.
FAA Response: We believe that the language in part 91, Appendix G,
Section 5 (Deviation Authority Approval), will provide for FAA
authorization of operation of non-compliant aircraft in RVSM airspace.
We recognize that the organizations that made this proposal are seeking
assurance that they will be able to fly non-compliant aircraft in RVSM
airspace for the purposes of flight-testing for certification and
customer acceptance purposes. We recognize that this is an important
provision for aircraft manufacturers to conduct their business. We
believe that Section 5 enables aircraft manufacturers to work with
local ATC Centers to develop
[[Page 61308]]
procedures to accommodate their activity.
10. The ALPA and APA request detail on ATC procedures for wake
turbulence, mountain wave, and guidance on pilot actions for aircraft
contingencies such as aircraft system malfunction.
FAA Response: We have established an RVSM Procedures Work Group to
review existing procedures and to develop or revise procedures for ATC
in the RVSM environment. We have also established a Mountain Wave
Activity (MWA) effort that includes representatives from the Air Route
Traffic Control Centers where MWA occurs. We will develop procedures
and circulate them for comment. We plan to complete this process in the
February 2004 timeframe.
11. A number of commenters raised concerns about the increase of
enroute traffic below FL 290 after RVSM is implemented. These concerns
relate to the concern that a number of aircraft and operators will not
complete RVSM compliance work by the proposed implementation date and
will be required to operate below FL 290. The concern is that ATC will
not be able to effectively manage this increase of traffic at lower
levels.
FAA Response: We have played a significant role in implementing
RVSM in four major areas of the world. In each of these implementation
programs, we projected the number and percentage of flights that would
and would not be conducted by RVSM compliant aircraft on the date and
time of initial RVSM implementation. The purpose of this effort was to
gain confidence that there would not be a major disruption to air
traffic control after RVSM was implemented. In this effort, ATC
organizations identified a percentage of flights that they believed
could be effectively managed below FL 290.
In the Domestic RVSM planning process, we have made the same
effort. We have projected the percentage of flights that will be
conducted by RVSM compliant aircraft in January 2005. We project that
RVSM compliant aircraft will conduct approximately 90 percent of
flights in January 2005. We believe that the approximately 10 percent
of flights that may be conducted by non-compliant aircraft can be
effectively managed for operations below FL 290.
We have conducted traffic simulations to assess the effect of 5 to
15 percent of flights now operating above FL 290 being required to
operate below FL 290 and have found the situation to be manageable. We
have the option of changing the vertical limits of air traffic sectors
if experience indicates that it is necessary to enhance air traffic
control.
12. Some commenters raised concerns that RVSM would induce a
significant traffic increase that would affect controller staffing and
workload.
FAA Response: Domestic RVSM implementation should not induce an
immediate significant increase in air traffic. Experience in previous
RVSM implementation programs has shown this to be the case. In
addition, the implementation of RVSM has been shown to decrease
controller workload. RVSM adds an additional six flight levels to
control air traffic. Simulations have shown that by providing an
additional six flight levels where aircraft can be operated, RVSM
decreases the need for controller intervention to vector aircraft and
to climb or descend aircraft to provide separation.
13. One commenter questioned the capability of the Air Traffic
Control (ATC) system to accommodate RVSM-induced traffic increases.
FAA Response: First, domestic RVSM should not induce an immediate,
significant increase in traffic. ATC systems are adequate to
accommodate the projected gradual increase in traffic. Prior to
implementation, we will modify ATC systems for operation in an RVSM
environment. We are modifying the conflict alert for the application of
1,000-foot vertical separation between FL 290-410. We are modifying
controller displays to show the controller when a non-compliant
aircraft is in the airspace. We are modifying the flight plan system so
that the appropriate information in the equipment block of the
operator's flight plan can be displayed to the controller.
14. The NTSB recommended that we should conduct comprehensive
controller training that includes simulator training.
FAA Response: We plan to conduct controller training that will
include classroom, Computer Based Instruction, and Dynamic Simulation
(DYSIM) training.
15. A commenter questioned whether RVSM would enable ATC to more
effectively control traffic in weather situations.
FAA Response: It is common in air traffic operations for aircraft
to be routed around areas where thunderstorms or severe turbulence is
present. The additional six flight levels that RVSM will provide will
significantly enhance air traffic control's capability to accomplish
this task. The six additional flight levels provide more airspace where
aircraft can operate and be separated from other aircraft.
16. One commenter expressed concern that the phrase ``Traffic
Permitting'' attached to the provisions for non-RVSM compliant
Lifeguard flights in RVSM airspace and non-compliant aircraft access to
FL 430 would limit such flights.
FAA Response: We intend to accommodate Lifeguard flights to the
degree possible. ``Traffic permitting'' simply provides a caveat that
the controller may not accommodate such a flight in the event that it
cannot be conducted within acceptable safety parameters.
Airworthiness: RVSM Compliance Including Aircraft RVSM Compliance
Package Availability
1. A number of commenters raised a concern that aircraft RVSM
compliance packages would not be available for all aircraft.
FAA Response: RVSM operations started in the North Atlantic in
March 1997. Since that time the FAA and other civil aviation
authorities have approved RVSM compliance packages for the large
airline and air cargo type aircraft and business aviation type aircraft
that conduct the significant majority of operations in domestic
airspace. In general, the aircraft manufacturers develop and obtain
certification authority approval of compliance packages for aircraft
types that they manufacture. Some independent aircraft engineering
organization have also developed compliance packages.
We maintain a list of approved RVSM engineering packages on our
RVSM documentation Web site. These packages generally take the form of
Service Bulletins or Supplemental Type Certificates. The list shows
available packages for both large transport aircraft and small
commercial and general aviation type aircraft. Using this list of
approved packages, we estimate that currently 97.4 percent of all
flights are conducted by aircraft with approved RVSM engineering
packages. We have observed a significant increase in the availability
of RVSM packages in 2002 and anticipates further increase in 2003.
Operators retain the option of having their aircraft approved as a
Non-group aircraft. The operator can obtain a Supplemental Type
Certificate that applies to a single aircraft or to a small group of
aircraft.
Compliance packages are being developed for aircraft that have not
previously been available. As an example, non-manufacturer engineering
organizations are now developing compliance packages for the Learjet 20
Series. Until recently, there had not been a compliance package
projected for
[[Page 61309]]
those aircraft. We anticipate that the options for modifying aircraft
to RVSM standards will continue to increase as the RVSM implementation
date approaches.
2. A commenter was concerned that a large volume of non-group
approvals will be required for types of aircraft that are used in
general or business aviation. A related concern was that FAA Aircraft
Certification Office resources would not be adequate to handle the
demand.
FAA Response: We are identifying RVSM focal points for each of the
Aircraft Certification Offices (ACO) to facilitate the process for RVSM
compliance package approval. We recognize the potential increase in the
volume of work required for aircraft used in general aviation or
business aviation work and are preparing for it.
Our plan for proceeding with domestic RVSM implementation is based
on proceeding with RVSM implementation when a significant majority of
the flights are RVSM compliant. Based on experience in previous RVSM
implementation programs, we recognize that a percentage of aircraft and
operators may not be ready at the time of implementation.
3. A commenter expressed concern that FAA Flight Standards field
office resources will be inadequate.
FAA Response: We recognize that Flight Standards (AFS) field
offices will be required to assess a large volume of operators seeking
RVSM authority. In preparation for RVSM, we are taking the following
steps: First, AFS is enhancing and expediting communication between
RVSM program leads at FAA Headquarters, in Regional Offices, in Flight
Standards District Offices, and in Certificate Management Offices.
Headquarters leads are meeting with already designated Regional program
leads and RVSM focal points are being designated in each AFS field
office. Second, AFS is enhancing existing guidance to make it clearer,
more complete, and more user friendly. As an example, AFS is updating
the RVSM documentation Web site to more specifically address issues
related to operations under part 91. Third, AFS is working with
regional offices to identify AFS field offices that may require
additional support.
4. A commenter was concerned that there could be a limited
availability of parts that would hinder an operators' capability to
meet RVSM compliance standards.
FAA Response: In the course of planning the Domestic RVSM program,
we raised the question of parts availability with aircraft and avionics
manufacturers. Parts availability was not cited as a problem in these
discussions.
5. NATA stated that there is inadequate repair station capacity for
the volume of aircraft to be worked on for RVSM compliance and that no
formal survey of capacity had been conducted.
FAA Response: We have considered the availability of engineering
facilities for small and large aircraft, and small and large operators.
Many large operators use company owned and operated engineering
facilities. Other operators use independent engineering facilities such
as repair stations or aircraft manufacturer service centers. While we
did not conduct a formal survey of engineering capacity, we did consult
with operators and aircraft manufacturers to project the capability of
operators to bring their aircraft into RVSM compliance by January 2005.
We found the following:
[sbull] Some aircraft manufacturers and repair stations have
expanded their engineering facilities to meet the demands of the RVSM
program.
[sbull] In 2002 and 2003, aircraft manufacturer service center and
repair station facilities were underutilized for RVSM work.
[sbull] Many operators are completing RVSM engineering during
scheduled maintenance to avoid costs associated with removing them from
service to complete RVSM work.
Based on consultation with the operator community, we have
concluded that:
[sbull] A large percentage of aircraft operated by large airplane
operators will be RVSM compliant by the January 2005 timeframe.
[sbull] If a large number of small aircraft operators plan to
complete aircraft engineering work within the 12 month period prior to
RVSM implementation, they will risk not having aircraft work completed
by January 2005 and may have to operate below FL 290 until they obtain
RVSM authority.
We project that RVSM compliant aircraft will conduct approximately
90 percent of flights by January 2005. We believe that it is in the
best interest of the majority of operators to implement RVSM as soon as
feasible.
6. NPRM proposal to allow turbo-propeller aircraft operated under
part 91 to equip with a single RVSM compliant altimeter. Some NPRM
commenters, including Cessna, supported the proposal while others,
including ALPA and APA, opposed it. The FAA re-considered the NPRM
proposal and published an SNPRM in February 2003 with a request for
comment by April 14, 2003. The SNPRM proposed to withdraw the provision
to allow turbo-propeller aircraft operated under part 91 to conduct
RVSM operations using aircraft equipped with a single RVSM compliant
altimeter. Most SNPRM comments supported withdrawing the proposal.
However, two organizations opposed it. The SNPRM comments are
summarized below with our response.
a. Most commenting organizations concurred with the proposal to
withdraw the single RVSM-compliant altimeter provision.
FAA Response: In this final rule, we have not adopted the provision
to allow turbo-propeller aircraft operated under part 91 to conduct
RVSM operations using aircraft equipped with a single RVSM-compliant
altimeter. For the past six years, standards applied worldwide have
required aircraft to be equipped with two RVSM compliant altimeters. We
have concluded that different criteria for turbo-propeller aircraft
operated under part 91 to conduct RVSM operations should not be
adopted.
b. Two commenters opposed withdrawal of the single RVSM compliant
altimeter provision for part 91 turbo-prop aircraft. One commenter
stated that operators should retain the ability to determine how their
aircraft are equipped. That commenter also stated that standards for
RVSM operations in the United States should not be affected by those
adopted in other countries including those countries with airspace
adjoining the U.S.
FAA Response: First, since March 1997, RVSM operations have been
shown to be safe and beneficial in both oceanic and continental
airspace. We believe it is critical to RVSM safety that aircraft used
in RVSM operations comply with common standards for equipage, system
error and performance. We have published those standards in part 91
Appendix G. Aircraft that have not complied with Appendix G have shown
altitude-keeping errors that are incompatible with RVSM safety. Second,
when new standards are adopted for operations such as RVSM, we believe
that we must, to the extent possible, attempt to adopt standards that
are common to neighboring countries and other countries worldwide. We
have determined that adopting the single RVSM compliant altimeter
provision would add unnecessary complications to air traffic control in
the airspace that borders Canada and Mexico. Those countries have
informed us that they will not adopt the provision. We also believe
that it is in the best interests of U.S. operators and
[[Page 61310]]
manufacturers to harmonize with global RVSM standards unless there is
adequate justification for a difference in our regulations. Common
country, region and global standards enable operators to fly across
boundaries without incurring operational limitations or penalties.
Common standards also enable aircraft manufacturers to sell products to
operators in other countries and regions without requiring special
aircraft system modifications. We have concluded that, since the
proposal would affect only 0.3 percent of domestic operations, the
minor benefit provided does not justify a difference from international
standards when considering the major benefits provided by sharing
common standards for RVSM operations and air traffic control with
neighboring countries and of continued harmonization with global RVSM
standards.
c. One commenter believed that if we did not retain the single RVSM
compliant altimeter provision then we should raise the floor of RVSM
airspace to flight level 300 so that turbo-propeller aircraft could
operate at flight level 290.
FAA Response: To allow non-RVSM aircraft to operate at FL 290 would
require us to raise the floor of RVSM airspace to FL 310, not FL 300.
Above FL 290, 2,000-foot vertical separation is required between
aircraft unless the aircraft are RVSM compliant. If we were to allow
non-RVSM aircraft to operate at FL 290, FL 300 could not be used since
it does not provide 2,000-foot vertical separation when non-RVSM
aircraft are involved. The loss of one of the six new flight levels
provided by RVSM would limit RVSM benefits for the significant
percentage of the operator community that is preparing for RVSM
implementation.
7. ATA asked for a single source of material for RVSM programs.
FAA Response: We established an RVSM Documentation Web page to
provide ready access to RVSM regulations and to RVSM guidance. Official
documents related to RVSM are available from that Web page at http://www.faa.gov/ats/ato/rvsm_documentation.htm.
In addition, these
documents can be obtained from FAA Flight Standards District Offices
and Certificate Management Offices.
Benefits
1. A number of commenters expressed concern that RVSM will not
alleviate delay or holding problems in the terminal area and will, in
fact, exacerbate the situation by increasing arriving and departing
traffic.
FAA Response: First, the implementation of RVSM will not
automatically lead to a significant traffic increase in the short to
mid term in either the enroute or the terminal area. The near doubling
of flight levels will not lead to a near doubling of the number of
airframes that operate in the national airspace system (NAS). Air
traffic at FAA air route traffic control centers is projected to
increase at an average annual rate of 2.0 percent. RVSM will enhance
air traffic's capability to manage this increase efficiently. Second,
the enhancements to enroute operations stand on their own merit. They
are estimated to account for approximately $800,000 annual savings as a
result of reduced ground delays. Also, we do not believe that we should
make no effort to enhance enroute operating efficiency until additional
enhancements to terminal area operations are made. Third, domestic RVSM
is a project in the NAS Operational Evolution Plan (OEP). It is in the
En Route Congestion section of the OEP. The NAS OEP also contains
projects that address Arrival/Departure Rate problems including runway
capacity and terminal area problems. The domestic RVSM project should
not be considered in isolation, but as an element of OEP projects that
are addressing: Arrival/Departure Rate, En Route Congestion, Airport
Weather Conditions, and En Route Severe Weather.
2. One commenter stated that fuel savings is not an adequate
justification for Domestic RVSM implementation.
FAA Response: The Regulatory Impact Analysis cites both
quantitative and qualitative benefits to domestic RVSM implementation.
Fuel savings due to enhanced access to more fuel-efficient flight
levels is quantified. We forecast 5.3 billion dollars in fuel savings
from January 2005 through January 2016. The analysis also cites
qualitative benefits to air traffic control. These benefits include
increased controller flexibility, enhanced sector throughput allowing
more aircraft to operate on time and fuel efficient routes, reduced
controller workload allowing them to control traffic more efficiently,
enhanced flexibility to allow aircraft to cross intersecting routes,
mitigation of traffic congestion at conflict points, and potential for
enhanced overall enroute airspace capacity in the long term.
3. One commenter stated that domestic RVSM benefits will not be
significant to small operators.
FAA Response: We recognize that the aircraft utilization rate for
small operators is significantly lower than that for larger operators
and therefore small operators accrue RVSM benefits at a lower rate. We
believe that RVSM provides significant enhancements to daily operations
in the National Airspace System (NAS) and provides benefits to the
operators that conduct the significant majority or approximately 90
percent of operations in the NAS. We are considering the overall
benefit to the majority of operators as well as the overall enhancement
to NAS operations.
Costs Including Downtime Issues
1. A number of commenters stated that they believed the average
cost to modify aircraft to comply with RVSM standards will be in the
$200,000-$300,000 range.
FAA Response: In the Regulatory Impact Analysis we have estimated
the costs to modify individual aircraft types for RVSM compliance. The
range of modification costs for individual airframes varies from less
than $100 for some aircraft types up to $175,000 to $235,000 for a
small number of older aircraft types.
2. Comments were made that the costs of operation below FL 290
should be considered in the Benefit/Cost analysis. Also, comments were
made that raised issues related to range limitation and fuel burn costs
below FL 290.
We have examined operations below FL 290. We anticipate that
approximately 10 percent of daily flights in the NAS that are currently
operated above FL 290 may operate below FL 290 in the initial period of
domestic RVSM implementation. We have examined the time of flight in
NAS operations and the affect of operating below FL 290 on aircraft
range and fuel burn and have posted the study entitled ``An Examination
of Range and Fuel-Burn Penalties Associated With Operating Business Jet
Type Aircraft Beneath Proposed Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation
Minimum (DRVSM) Airspace'' in the public docket. You can find the
public docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Search for docket
number 12261. For this analysis, we first examined five older small
commercial/ general aviation aircraft types with high modification
costs under the assumption that some operators may elect to operate
these aircraft types below FL 290 rather than incur RVSM modification
costs. We next examined all business jet aircraft types operated under
14 CFR part 135. We reached the following conclusions in the study:
[sbull] We estimate the average annual cost of operation below FL
290 per airframe to be $1,147.
[[Page 61311]]
[sbull] The average fuel penalty for business jet aircraft operated
under part 135 is 7.15 percent.
[sbull] Eight percent of operations flown prior to DRVSM above FL
290 could no longer be flown without a fuel stop due to range penalties
associated with operating below FL 290.
Other factors that the FAA considered were:
[sbull] Average flight time at enroute cruise was 1.9 hours for
aircraft used in commercial operations and 1.4 hours for aircraft used
in general aviation operations.
[sbull] Time at enroute cruise was 2 hours or less for 82 percent
of general aviation flights.
3. Some commenters stated that after comparing RVSM aircraft
modification costs to the residual value of the aircraft, they could
not justify modifying certain aircraft types.
FAA Response: Operators have two basic options. They can upgrade
their aircraft to comply with RVSM standards or they can operate their
aircraft below FL 290 or, if capable, above FL 410. We recognize that
in some cases operators may decide for economic reasons not to pursue
RVSM compliance.
4. Some commenters stated that DRVSM will significantly impact the
part 135 on-demand charter industry.
FAA Response: We support DRVSM implementation because it provides
significant benefits to NAS operations and to the operators that
conduct the significant majority of flights in NAS airspace. We
recognize that some operators will have to make economic decisions on
whether to retain an aircraft and operate it below FL 290 or to modify
it to RVSM standards so that it can operate above FL 290. Based on our
analysis of operations below FL 290, it appears that operation below FL
290 is a viable option for some operators if they choose not to modify
their aircraft.
5. One commenter stated that if it did not modify its aircraft for
RVSM there would be a significant negative impact on the residual value
of the aircraft.
FAA Response: RVSM is a worldwide program. RVSM has already been
implemented in the North and West Atlantic, Pacific and Western
Pacific, Europe, Australia, and Northern Canada. In addition, there are
implementation groups established for the Middle East, the Caribbean,
and South America. We believe that the aviation community must
recognize the global nature of RVSM and plan accordingly. The residual
value of aircraft is not a primary consideration in this rulemaking.
6. One commenter proposed that the costs to small operators should
be subsidized either by the Airport and Airways Trust fund or by the
airlines.
FAA Response: A proposal to subsidize small operators by either the
airlines or by the Airport and Airways Trust Fund was not proposed in
the NPRM and is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
7. Some commenters stated that the Regulatory Impact Analysis needs
to be updated and the modification costs for small aircraft should be
re-estimated and should include the out of service cost during the
period the aircraft are undergoing modification.
FAA Response: The Regulatory Impact Analysis that is summarized in
this document and published in full in the DOT Docket includes updated
costs and benefit estimates. We have estimated the number of aircraft
that may be out of service for RVSM modification. We have also
estimated costs related to the loss of revenue when certain aircraft
are out of service undergoing RVSM modification. Many operators have
scheduled RVSM compliance work to be completed during scheduled
aircraft inspections to avoid the cost of additional out of service
time for RVSM modification.
8. RAA stated that it did not believe that RAA operators were
considered in the NPRM Regulatory Impact Analysis.
FAA Response: RAA operator costs were considered in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis that was included with the NPRM in the DOT Docket and
are considered in the Regulatory Impact Analysis included with this
final rule.
9. One commenter stated that operators were unable to accurately
assess the costs related to monitoring of aircraft altitude keeping.
FAA Response: We assessed operator costs associated with monitoring
in the Regulatory Impact Analysis published in conjunction with the
NPRM and the final rule. In that assessment, the FAA estimated that
operator costs associated with monitoring of the DRVSM fleet would be
approximately $4.3 million. For this assessment, we projected that the
GPS-based Monitoring System (GMS) would monitor a portion of the RVSM
fleet and the ground based Aircraft Geometric Height Monitoring Element
would monitor those not monitored by the GMS. The $4.3 million in
monitoring costs are not significant when compared to estimated fleet
upgrade costs of $735 million. Operators have two options for obtaining
information on monitoring systems and procedures. They can obtain
information by accessing the FAA RVSM Web site at http://www.faa.gov/ats/ato/rvsm1.htm.
They can obtain the same information by contacting
one of the Flight Standards District Offices in their area.
Implementation Program: Necessity To Implement, Implementation
Scenarios, Planned Implementation Date
1. A number of aviation organizations and some individuals provided
comments supporting the implementation plan and schedule published in
the NPRM. These commenters opposed proposals to vertically phase-in
RVSM flight levels. Commenters cited significant public benefit and
benefit to the national interest. They cited proven benefits in areas
outside the United States, including reduced operating costs (time,
fuel efficiency) and enhanced air traffic control.
FAA Response: We acknowledge these comments and have considered
them in our evaluation of the DRVSM implementation plan.
2. The ATA proposed that the FAA should change the target
implementation date to a more suitable Aeronautical Information
Regulation and Control (AIRAC) date of January 20, 2005. The ATA's
rationale for this proposal is that the AIRAC date in December 2004 is
December 23. Since this date is just before a major holiday, ATA
proposed that the FAA should target January 20, 2005 as the date to
implement DRVSM.
FAA Response: We understand the benefits of this proposal and will
use January 20, 2005 for planning purposes. The AIRAC dates are agreed
dates when changes to aeronautical information are made for flight
planning and also for aircraft navigation databases. We agree that
January 20, 2005 is a more practical date to implement DRVSM.
3. Federal Express proposed that the implementation date for DRVSM
be harmonized with the Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS)
on March 31, 2005 so that aircraft modification schedules for the two
programs could be coordinated.
FAA Response: We have projected that RVSM compliant aircraft will
conduct ninety percent of flights by January of 2005. We believe this
is an appropriate time to implement DRVSM.
4. RAA asserts that 85% of regional jets will be required to be
RVSM compliant on the DRVSM implementation date.
FAA Response: We are tracking RVSM compliance of operators and
aircraft types. Since regional jets are a significant fleet in domestic
operations, we are closely tracking the status of the regional jet
fleet. As stated previously, we believe that we should implement DRVSM
when approximately 90 percent
[[Page 61312]]
of flights are RVSM compliant and we must consider benefits to overall
NAS operations.
5. A number of commenters proposed that the FAA should delay
implementing DRVSM. Dates proposed included: Late 2005, 2006, and 2010.
The rationale for the proposed delays included request for more time
for operators to complete aircraft compliance work, suggestion that
RVSM should be delayed until airport capacity projects were completed,
limitations to repair station capacity, and concern for operator log
jam in the final year.
FAA Response: We have chosen a target implementation date on which
we project approximately 90 percent of flights in the NAS to be
conducted by RVSM compliant aircraft. For each year of delay, we
estimate that approximately $394 million dollars in fuel savings will
be lost. In addition, air traffic control enhancements such as enhanced
controller flexibility and decreased workload, mitigation of traffic
congestion at conflict points, and increased sector throughput will
also be delayed. We believe that those operators that do not obtain
RVSM authority by the implementation date can operate viably below FL
290 until they obtain RVSM authority.
Also, based on past experience, we believe that a delay in the
target implementation date will only result in many operators delaying
their own plans to obtain RVSM authority.
For these reasons, we believe that January 20, 2005, should remain
the target date for Domestic RVSM implementation.
6. A number of commenters stated that many operators would not
start work to obtain RVSM authority until the final rule is published.
Since we intend to publish the final rule in June 2003, those operators
will only have 18 months to complete the work.
FAA Response: We cannot compel compliance with any rulemaking
action until the final rule takes effect; however, there is no
prohibition in an operator taking action based on an NPRM. Many
operators, including operators that conduct a major percentage of NAS
operations, already have significant parts of their fleets RVSM
compliant or have begun work to obtain RVSM compliance. In operator
surveys conducted during development of the NPRM many operators
indicated the intention of having their fleets RVSM ready by late 2004.
Many major operators have expressed support for the implementation date
stated in the NPRM. Delaying DRVSM implementation would deny benefits
to operators that have aggressively pursued RVSM programs.
7. Some operators opposed DRVSM implementation due to costs and a
perception of limited benefits.
FAA Response: We have shown quantified benefits for fuel savings
and qualitative benefits for ATC enhancements. The benefit/cost ratio
for the period 2002 to 2016 is approximately 6 to 1. RVSM has provided
significant benefits in other major world airspaces. We believe that
DRVSM is justified.
8. Comments were made questioning the need for aircraft to complete
the RVSM compliance process. The commenters proposed that non-compliant
aircraft should be allowed to operate at RVSM flight levels.
FAA Response: The FAA and other civil aviation authorities
conducted studies of aircraft altitude-keeping performance in
preparation for developing regulations and standards for RVSM
operation. These studies showed that altitude-keeping at RVSM flight
levels was not standardized. The tolerance for errors greater than 300
feet in RVSM airspace is very small. The studies showed that the
aircraft population exhibited large errors at an unacceptable rate.
The aircraft RVSM compliance standards published in part 91
Appendix G were established to ensure safety in RVSM operations.
Maintenance
1. Some commenters believe there should be separate rulemaking for
RVSM Maintenance program requirements. AEA recommended that we should
remove RVSM maintenance requirements from part 91, Appendix G and
related FAA RVSM guidance material and publish them in regulations with
more general applicability. The rationale was that RVSM operations
would become standard operation rather than a special operation.
FAA response: Since initial RVSM implementation in the North
Atlantic five years ago, basic standards for maintenance programs have
been provided in part 91, Appendix G. In addition, specific provisions
for aircraft RVSM systems have been published in the RVSM compliance
packages approved by certification authorities for individual aircraft
types or groups.
First, RVSM requirements apply to operations between FL 290-410,
inclusive. They do not apply to aircraft operating below FL 290.
Second, we acknowledge that RVSM may become the standard worldwide in
the future for operations between FL 290-410 and in the future it may
be appropriate to consider placing RVSM maintenance requirements in
other regulations. At this time, however, RVSM maintenance program
requirements are published in Appendix G.
2. AEA states that there is a lack of direction and standardization
from FAA Headquarters for maintenance programs.
FAA Response: We have chosen not to arbitrarily limit the ways an
operator or the industry may meet RVSM requirements. Since different
equipment solutions, based on different error budgets and component
tolerances are being used by applicants, maintenance programs will
vary.
A single maintenance requirement has been placed on aircraft
obtaining RVSM authorization. The requirement is to maintain the
aircraft within the specifications of Appendix G. The elements of the
maintenance programs are developed during certification of an
aircraft's altitude keeping performance. We have chosen not to limit an
operator or the industry to a single method of compliance, therefore,
elements of the maintenance program will vary.
3. NATA questioned the assertion that RVSM maintenance costs are
not significant.
FAA Response: There are two major elements in maintenance programs
related to RVSM required aircraft systems. The first is requirements
established by aircraft and avionics manufacturers for the basic
certification of the aircraft. The second is maintenance requirements
approved by certification authorities in the RVSM compliance package
for individual aircraft types.
Since March 1997, we have granted RVSM authority to hundreds of
operators and approximately 5,400 aircraft including approximately
3,700 general aviation aircraft. Operators have not cited maintenance
costs as a major factor in the initial five years of RVSM operations.
We anticipate that maintenance costs will lower as service center
availability and experience expands.
Military Operations
1. The Department of Defense (DoD) said that it is necessary for
the FAA to accommodate the operation of DoD aircraft that could not
meet RVSM standards in order to assist the DoD accomplish its
operational mission.
FAA Response: The DoD has elected, to the extent possible, to
modify its aircraft to meet RVSM standards so that they can operate
safely without special accommodation in RVSM airspace. Most large DoD
transport and tanker aircraft are already RVSM compliant. The
[[Page 61313]]
percentage of flights in the NAS by DoD fighter and bomber aircraft
that are unable to meet RVSM standards is projected to be less than 1
percent.
The FAA recognizes the critical nature of the DoD mission to
national defense, recognizes that some DoD aircraft types are unable to
meet RVSM standards, and plans to accommodate non-compliant DoD
aircraft by applying 2,000 foot vertical separation or the appropriate
horizontal separation standard to those aircraft. The FAA and DoD
already have agreed procedures to coordinate the operation of DoD
aircraft on special operations such as formation flights and have
developed similar agreements in a joint FAA/DoD Memorandum of
Understanding for RVSM operations.
2. ALPA stated that the rule language should be amended to state
that non-compliant military aircraft would be provided increased
separation.
FAA Response: Part 91, Appendix G, Section 5 provides the basic
standards for operation of non-compliant aircraft in RVSM airspace.
Section 5 permits deviations for a specific flight if air traffic
control determines that the aircraft may be provided `` * * *
appropriate separation * * *''. Controller handbooks define appropriate
separation in these circumstances as 2,000 feet vertical separations or
the applicable horizontal separation standard.
3. ALPA proposed that the word ``civil'' be removed from the
proposed Section 91.180 to ensure the compliance of military aircraft
with RVSM standards.
FAA Response: The FAA and DoD have entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding that details DoD obligations in RVSM operations in the
NAS. The military has used the standards of part 91, Appendix G to
approve its aircraft for RVSM operations since the 1997 implementation
of RVSM. The FAA/DoD MOU provides adequate assurance that this will
continue to be the case.
Miscellaneous
1. One commenter proposed that vertical separation could be
provided by GPS.
FAA Response: The geometric height above the earth provided by GPS
is not compatible with the pressure flight level displays provided by
pressure altimeters. The geometric height of pressure levels is not
constant, but varies during the flight. Since aircraft altitude-keeping
and performance are based on pressure levels world-wide, an evolution
to altitude-keeping and vertical separation based on GPS is not
possible at this time.
Monitoring
1. ALPA raised concerns related to the adequacy of monitoring
resources and requested more information on the location and schedule
for ground-based Aircraft Geometric Height Measurement Element (AGHME)
units.
FAA Response: We are planning for AGHME units to be deployed in
September of 2003. The FAA Technical Center is conducting studies to
establish the most effective location for the units and the number of
units necessary to provide adequate coverage. We will inform the
aviation community as these studies progress.
We now have 40 portable GPS-based Monitoring Units (GMU) available
to conduct monitoring and will acquire 40 enhanced GMUs starting in
2003.
2. ALPA raised concerns that certain operator's may not participate
in the monitoring program.
FAA Response: Each operator is required to participate in the
monitoring program as a condition for obtaining RVSM authority. Since
1997, operators have recognized the importance of monitoring programs
and have participated in the programs.
3. One commenter questioned the need for independent monitoring
considering RVSM airworthiness standards.
FAA Response: The monitoring programs are designed to give
authorities an independent assessment of aircraft altitude-keeping
performance in a given airspace. The monitoring program has identified
aircraft types and individual aircraft that were not performing to RVSM
standards. Based on monitoring information, in a small number of cases,
the FAA and other authorities have found it necessary to remove RVSM
authority for an aircraft type, to revise the aircraft RVSM compliance
package, or to require aircraft inspection and maintenance. We believe
that monitoring is a valuable tool to confirm that RVSM operations are
conducted to standards.
Operational Issues
1. A commenter suggested that there is a need for a separate Letter
of Authorization (LOA) for domestic-only operators.
FAA Response: We believe that the current LOA format can be used to
grant multiple authorities for operation in special areas of operation,
including the domestic United States. We do not believe it is necessary
to develop a separate LOA for domestic RVSM only. In addition, we have
published expanded guidance to explain the use of the LOA.
2. A commenter questioned the practice of engaging the autopilot
during RVSM operations.
FAA Response: Since 1997, it has been standard practice to engage
the autopilot during RVSM operations unless the pilot deems it
necessary to do otherwise. Performance standards are established for
autopilot systems used in RVSM operations. The purpose of these
standards is to ensure acceptable altitude-keeping in RVSM airspace.
3. Several commenters expressed the concern that the FAA should
take steps to enhance field inspector training and better standardize
processes
FAA Response: We believe that an effort is necessary to enhance
training, guidance, and standardization for Flight Standards District
Offices (FSDOs). We are dedicating resources to accomplish this task.
4. NBAA proposed that operators be granted provisional authority to
conduct RVSM operations for 90 days while FSDOs complete the evaluation
of the operator's application.
FAA Response: We do not agree with this proposal. We believe that
each operator's application must be thoroughly evaluated to ensure
aircraft compliance and program compliance before the operator conducts
RVSM operations.
5. One commenter suggested that the process for an operator
acquiring a previously RVSM approved aircraft to obtain LOA should be
simplified.
FAA Response: We will examine this situation and clarify and
simplify the authorization process in this situation.
6. A commenter questioned the necessity to re-issue an LOA to part
91 operators every two years. The rationale was that RVSM would become
the standard for daily operations after DRVSM implementation.
FAA Response: We believe that this requirement should be reviewed
as part of a post implementation review. We will coordinate with
industry to address this issue in the year following DRVSM
implementation.
Safety Issues--General
1. Several commenters expressed the concern that the FAA must
perform an adequate safety analysis before DRVSM implementation.
FAA Response: The ICAO Review of the General Concept of Separation
Panel (RGCSP), which included FAA representatives, conducted a safety
analysis on U.S. domestic operations in the course of developing the
worldwide requirements for aircraft altitude-keeping performance. The
RGCSP
[[Page 61314]]
determined that the busiest enroute airspace in the U.S. and the world
was that between Albuquerque and Los Angeles. Operations in this high
traffic density airspace were analyzed using Collision Risk Modeling.
This analysis provided the basis for aircraft altimeter accuracy and
autopilot performance requirements that are published in part 91,
Appendix G, and in the ICAO RVSM Manual.
The Separation Standards Group (ACB-310) at the FAA William J.
Hughes Technical Center provides safety analysis capabilities for FAA
programs reducing the separation between aircraft. ACB-310 personnel
have participated in or lead the Safety and Monitoring (SAM) Groups in
all of the RVSM implementation programs in oceanic airspace except the
South Atlantic. The SAM groups have been responsible for completing
safety analysis in each individual area of operation. ACB-310, in
coordination with FAA Flight Standards and Air Traffic will be
responsible, prior to DRVSM implementation, for updating the safety
analysis for DRVSM airspace.
2. A commenter expressed the concern that the Target Level of
Safety (TLS) should be stringent enough to protect NAS safety.
FAA Response: We have adopted the TLS endorsed by ICAO and used to
assess RVSM implementation safety worldwide.
3. APA expressed the concern that increased or better navigation
accuracy in the vertical and horizontal planes increases risk when
pilot or controller errors occur.
FAA Response: The Collision Risk Model (CRM) accounts for aircraft
navigation accuracy. Navigation accuracy is one of the major elements
considered in the CRM to assess airspace system safety.
4. A number of commenters expressed a concern that RVSM may have
been a factor in the July 2002 mid-air collision in Europe.
FAA Response: The German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accidents
Investigation is conducting the investigation into the July 2002 mid-
air collision in Europe. The investigation is still underway, however,
neither the RVSM program nor the 1,000-foot vertical separation
standard appear to have been a factor. The aircraft were correctly
established at their assigned altitude of FL 360 and were separated
horizontally. When their paths converged, the controller attempted to
issue a clearance for one of the aircraft to descend so that the
aircraft would be separated vertically. When that aircraft descended,
it did so in conflict with its TCAS Resolution Advisory (RA) to climb
and descended into another aircraft. The second aircraft was following
its TCAS RA to descend. It appears that this scenario could have
occurred as it did under the conventional vertical separation rules
that were applied prior to European RVSM implementation in January
2002. RVSM does not appear to have been a factor and RVSM operations
have continued in European airspace.
5. AOPA proposed that non-compliant aircraft should be allowed to
climb to and above FL 290 if required to avoid weather.
FAA Response: We are making provision for non-compliant aircraft to
climb through RVSM airspace without intermediate level off to operate
above RVSM airspace. The AOPA proposal would allow non-compliant
aircraft to climb into RVSM airspace on a regular basis and operate
there for a sustained period of time. We oppose this proposal because
we have found in simulations that increasing the number of non-
compliant aircraft in RVSM airspace significantly increases controller
workload, complicates air traffic control, and increases the potential
for controller and pilot error.
When warranted by the circumstances, the pilot retains the option
under existing regulations to take the action necessary to protect the
safety of the aircraft.
6. An individual proposed that aircraft should fly random vertical
paths rather than standard flight levels.
FAA Response: Air Traffic Control, air traffic conflict alert
systems, vertical separation standards, pilot and controller
procedures, and aircraft operations are based worldwide on aircraft
accurately maintaining cleared flight level and track. The DRVSM
project is intended to introduce a new vertical separation standard
into the existing operational environment. It is not within the scope
of the DRVSM project to implement random vertical paths into NAS
operations.
7. One commenter raised a concern about non-compliant aircraft
operating without authorization at RVSM flight levels.
FAA Response: RVSM programs provide protection against aircraft
operating at RVSM flight levels without authorization in several ways.
First, FAA regulations require aircraft and operators to have FAA
authorization before flying in RVSM airspace. Second, part 91, Appendix
G, Section 4 requires operators to correctly annotate the flight plan
filed with ATC with the RVSM status of their aircraft. Third, the
operator's RVSM status is displayed to the controller so that the
correct vertical separation will be applied. Fourth, the Separation
Standards Group (ACB-310) at the FAA Technical Center tracks both
individual airframes and operators on an RVSM Approvals Database and
periodically compares the database to airframes observed operating in
RVSM airspace to identify unauthorized aircraft. Fifth, the FAA
investigates any operators found operating in RVSM airspace without
authority.
8. The NTSB recommended that the FAA should track wake turbulence
events in the post implementation period.
FAA Response: Wake turbulence may occur when one aircraft is
trailing another by 10-12 miles on the same track and is 1,000 feet
below another. It may also occur if two aircraft pass each other in
opposite directions on the same track separated by 1,000 feet. The
occurrence of wake turbulence is dependant on wind direction and
atmospheric conditions at the time that the aircraft pass.
Since the initial RVSM implementation in 1997, wake turbulence has
generally been found to be moderate or less in magnitude and has
affected crew and passenger comfort rather than safety. Pilots are able
to avoid wake turbulence in airspace such as the U.S. where direct
pilot-controller communications are available by requesting a flight
level change, a minor track offset, or a track change.
Wake turbulence has not been a factor in the past year of RVSM
operations in Europe.
Before we implement RVSM in domestic airspace we will apply
experience that we have gained since 1997 to develop and publish pilot
guidance on wake turbulence. In addition, we will conduct a post
implementation problem detection/resolution effort that includes wake
turbulence.
9. The NTSB recommended that the FAA should conduct adequate
training so that operators, pilots, and controllers clearly understand
aircraft requirements and status including enroute aircraft system
failures.
FAA Response: The FAA Flight Standards Service is coordinating with
the FAA Air Traffic organization to develop appropriate guidance for
the Aeronautical Information Manual and other FAA documents posted on
the FAA RVSM Web site and available in Flight Standards field offices.
We will emphasize these areas of concern.
10. One commenter questioned the pilot actions in the event of
autopilot failure enroute.
[[Page 61315]]
FAA Response: The FAA and other Air Traffic Service Providers
provide guidance on recommended pilot actions in events such as
aircraft system malfunctions, medical emergencies, and weather
encounters. These recommendations are referred to as contingency
procedures. In an environment such as the domestic U.S. where direct
pilot-communications and radar surveillance is available, ATC
assistance is readily available in contingency events such as autopilot
failures.
Small Entity Analysis
1. Part 91 and 135 small businesses were not identified in the NPRM
Small Entity Analysis. NATA questioned the finding of insignificant
impact on small entities and questioned its treatment of part 91 and
part 135 businesses.
FAA Response: We have updated the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
published with this final rule. The Small Entity analysis was updated
for the RIA.
TCAS
1. A number of commenters asserted that TCAS installation should be
a requirement for operation in RVSM airspace.
FAA Response: The FAA does not concur with this assertion for the
reasons discussed below.
1,000-foot separation. First, we believe it is important to note
that 1,000 ft vertical separation has been applied up to flight level
290 on a global basis, including the U.S., for about 40 years. The
1,000-foot vertical separation below FL 290 is based on basic
certification standards for aircraft altimeters, autopilots, and pilot
and controller procedures. The current requirements for TCAS equipage
are not based on this separation standard.
TCAS and Transponder Equipage Requirements. TCAS equipage is
required by parts 121, 125, 129, and 135. Equipage requirements are not
related to a specific separation standard or operational procedure.
Part 91 Sec. 91.215 requires transponder equipage for operation in
Class A airspace. Class A airspace is between FL 180-600 in the U.S.
We estimate that in domestic U.S. operations approximately 90% of
flights are currently equipped with TCAS. In addition, all aircraft
must be equipped with transponders to operate in U.S. Class A airspace.
Aircraft that are transponder equipped, though not TCAS equipped, are
still displayed to TCAS equipped aircraft and produce TA's and RA's
when within the parameters.
Revision to FAA TCAS Equipage Rules. The FAA published a Final Rule
in April 2003 that will, in the January 2005 timeframe, increase the
number, percentage and categories of aircraft operating in U.S.
domestic airspace that are equipped with TCAS. This is so because in
the revised regulations TCAS equipage requirements for turbine-powered
airplanes are no longer based on passenger seat configuration. A major
provision of the revised part 121 Sec. 121.256, part 125 Sec.
125.224, and part 129 Sec. 129.18 is that, effective January 1, 2005,
turbine-powered airplanes of more than 33,000 pounds maximum certified
takeoff weight must be operated with one of the following:
[sbull] TCAS II that meets TSO C-119b (version 7.0) or a later version
[sbull] TCAS II that meets TSO C-119a (version 6.04A Enhanced)
[sbull] A collision avoidance system equivalent to TSO C-119b (version
7.0) or later version capable of coordinating with units that meet TSO
C-119a (version 6.04A Enhanced)
In addition, these sections contain requirements for new TCAS II
installations made after April 30, 2003; requirements for replacement
of TCAS II (version 6.04A Enhanced) installations that cannot be
adequately repaired with TCAS II (version 7.0) installations;
provisions, effective January 1, 2005, for the operation of airplanes
with a passenger seat configuration of 10-30 seats and provisions for
piston-powered airplanes of more than 33,000 pounds maximum
certificated takeoff weight.
Part 91 Aircraft TCAS Equipage. Many business aviation operators
equip their aircraft with TCAS voluntarily, as a safety measure.
Other factors. Other factors related to the discussion of TCAS as
it relates to RVSM are:
a. Safety Analysis. The safety analysis conducted prior to RVSM
implementation does not consider the effect of TCAS on risk bearing
events such as altitude busts, controller errors, etc. Instead, risk is
estimated based on aircraft altitude-keeping errors (technical errors)
and operational or human errors. This estimated risk is compared to the
agreed Target Level of Safety. The intent is to identify errors and
mitigate their occurrence. Nowhere in the safety analysis or in
operational evaluation is it assumed that an error event is not
significant because risk is mitigated by TCAS when the event occurs.
b. RVSM Experience. Since March 1997, in RVSM operations worldwide,
approximately 14 million RVSM flight hours have been accumulated and 6
million RVSM flights have been conducted safely. The criteria for
altimeter accuracy, autopilot performance, and altitude alerts, plus
the RVSM policies and procedures have been effective since their
publication in guidance form in 1994 and in part 91, appendix G in
April 1997.
c. ICAO Aircraft Equipage Standards. The ICAO RVSM aircraft
equipage standards applied worldwide, including Europe, do not include
a requirement for TCAS.
d. TCAS Events. The events in enroute airspace where TCAS has
provided a safety net have not been related to the separation standard
applied. Instead, events in enroute airspace where aircraft have come
into proximity, generally have related to human error. Such events have
occurred in airspace where 2,000-foot vertical separation is applied
and in some cases where 60 nm lateral separation was applied.
e. TCAS II Version 7.0. In December 2001, we published a revision
to Part 91, Appendix G to require that Version 7.0 be incorporated into
TCAS II if TCAS is installed on the aircraft and the aircraft is used
in RVSM operations. RVSM operations will require Version 7.0 in
domestic U.S. operations.
2. One commenter stated the belief that TCAS was a requirement for
RVSM in other areas of the world.
FAA Response: Neither FAA regulations nor ICAO standards and
policies require TCAS installation in order to conduct RVSM operations.
ICAO Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft), Part 1 (International Commercial
Air Transport Aeroplanes) contains the ICAO standard for TCAS II,
Version 7.0 installation on an aircraft. ICAO standards call for TCAS
II, Version 7.0 installation on aircraft with a take-off gross weight
exceeding 33,000 pounds or with a passenger carrying capacity of more
than 30.
ICAO Annex 6, Part II (International General Aviation Aeroplanes)
calls for aircraft to be equipped with a pressure altitude reporting
transponder, but does not call for TCAS installation. TCAS installation
policies for individual ICAO regions are published in ICAO Regional
Supplementary Procedures (Doc 7030). ICAO Doc 7030 TCAS and transponder
installation policies reflect ICAO Annex 6, Parts I and II.
3. Some comments proposed that an operating TCAS should be a
requirement for entry into RVSM airspace and also for continued
operation in the event of TCAS failure enroute.
[[Page 61316]]
FAA Response: TCAS installation and operation is not a requirement
for the application of enroute separation standards including 1,0000-
foot vertical separation below FL 290. Master Minimum Equipment List
policy allows for TCAS to be inoperative for up to 3 days. The aircraft
equipage requirements for RVSM have provided safe RVSM operations since
1997.
4. ALPA asked us to analyze the incremental safety benefit of
requiring TCAS on all aircraft.
FAA Response: The safety analysis performed prior to RVSM
implementation considers the frequency of aircraft altitude-keeping
errors and of human errors. The risk of error events is not considered
to be mitigated by TCAS.
We have estimated that there will be a high probability of TCAS
equipage in encounters between aircraft. We have estimated that in 81
percent of encounters between pairs of aircraft both aircraft will be
TCAS equipped and in 99 percent of such encounters at least one
aircraft will be TCAS equipped.
5. CAPA suggested that encounters between aircraft where one is
TCAS equipped and the other is not are similar to the European mid-air
collision event that occurred in July of 2002.
FAA Response: First, we do not believe that the potential event
described is specific to a single separation standard, including 1,000-
foot separation above FL 290. Second, 1,000-foot vertical separation is
applied without requirements for TCAS below FL 290. Third, the mid-air
event in Europe occurred despite the fact that both aircraft were TCAS
equipped. In NAS airspace, approximately 90 percent of aircraft are
estimated to be TCAS equipped.
6. AEA asked for confirmation of TCAS I acceptability for
operations in RVSM airspace.
FAA Response: The only RVSM requirement related to TCAS
installation is that if the aircraft is equipped with TCAS II and used
in RVSM operations then TCAS II, Version 7.0 must be incorporated.
There is no prohibition in RVSM requirements against TCAS I.
7. AEA asked if Mode S waivers would remain in effect.
FAA Response: All TCAS installations require a TCAS-compatible Mode
S transponder. This is to allow for coordination during events where
more than one aircraft is TCAS equipped. This is true for Version 7 and
all previous versions. TCAS Version 7 and all earlier versions are
capable of tracking other aircraft that are equipped with either a Mode
A/C or Mode S transponder. TCAS will provide TA and RA protection
against aircraft equipped with either type of transponder.
We have not issued any waivers to the requirement for a Mode S
transponder on a TCAS-equipped aircraft. This would have resulted in
TCAS being inoperative at all times.
The requirement for Version 7 instead of earlier versions of the
TCAS logic should have no affect on waivers issued to Mode S
requirements for aircraft that are not TCAS equipped.
Regulatory Impact Analysis Summary
Executive Order 12866 directs federal agencies to promulgate new
regulations or modify existing regulations after consideration of the
expected benefits to society and the expected costs. Each federal
agency shall assess both the costs and the benefits of proposed
regulations while recognizing that some costs and benefits are
difficult to quantify. A proposed rule is promulgated only upon a
reasoned determination that the benefits of the proposed rule justify
its costs.
The order also requires federal agencies to assess whether a
proposed rule is considered a ``significant regulatory action''. The
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. The Office of
Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effect of
regulatory changes on international trade. Finally, Public Law 104-4
requires federal agencies to assess the impact of any federal mandates
on state, local, tribal governments, and the private sector.
In conducting these analyses, we have determined that this rule:
(1) Generates benefits that justify its costs for the significant
majority of U.S. operators and is ``a significant regulatory action''
as defined in the Executive Order; (2) is significant as defined in
Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (3)
has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, but
provides benefits that justify a final rule; and (4) does not
constitute a barrier to international trade. These analyses, available
in the docket, are summarized below.
This rule expands Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM)
operations to aircraft operating between FL 290-410 (inclusive) in the
airspace of the 48 contiguous States of the U.S., the District of
Columbia, Alaska, that portion of the Gulf of Mexico where we provide
air traffic services, the San Juan FIR and the airspace between Florida
and the San Juan FIR. Some of the benefits of this rulemaking are: (1)
An increase in the number of available flight levels; (2) enhanced
airspace capacity; (3) permits operators to operate more fuel/time
efficient routes and altitudes; and (4) enhanced air traffic controller
flexibility by increasing the number of available flight levels, while
maintaining an equivalent level of safety.
We estimate that this rule will cost U.S. operators $869.2 million
for the fifteen-year period 2002-2016 or $764.9 million, discounted.
For the purposes of this cost analysis, we assumed that operators would
choose to upgrade almost all of their aircraft to meet RVSM standards.
Operators of non-RVSM approved aircraft would, however, retain the
option of flying above or below RVSM airspace. Benefits would begin
accruing on January 20, 2005. Estimated quantifiable benefits, based on
fuel savings for the U.S. aircraft fleet over the years 2005 to 2016,
would be $5.3 billion or discounted at $3.0 billion.
In addition to fuel savings, many non-quantifiable or value-added
benefits will result from the implementation of RVSM in domestic U.S.
airspace. Input from air traffic managers, controllers, and operators
has identified numerous additional benefits.
Through implementation of RVSM in the NAT and PAC regions,
operators and controllers have realized some additional benefits. The
major additional benefits as identified by air traffic managers and
controllers are:
[sbull] Enhanced capacity
[sbull] Reduced airspace complexity
[sbull] Decreased operational errors in these regions
[sbull] Reduction of user-requested off course climbs for altitude
changes
[sbull] Improved flexibility for peak traffic demands
[sbull] Reduction of the effect of traffic converging at critical
points
[sbull] Increased number of options in deviating aircraft during
periods of adverse weather
The benefits outlined above for RVSM in the NAT and PAC regions are
anticipated in domestic U.S. airspace. There should be expected
efficiencies through reduced airspace complexity, increased flight
levels, and fewer altitude changes with crossing traffic.
Operators can also expect enhanced operating efficiency and the
potential for decreased departure delays due to improved airspace
efficiency. Specific benefits cited by aircraft operators are:
[sbull] Decreased flight delays
[sbull] Improved access to desired flight levels
[[Page 61317]]
[sbull] Reduced average flight times
[sbull] Increased likelihood of receiving a clearance for weather
deviations
[sbull] Seamless, transparent, and harmonious operations between
adjoining RVSM airspaces
[sbull] Consistent procedural environment throughout the entire flight
[sbull] Reduced impact of adverse weather by permitting aircraft
deviations to other airways without any efficiency loss.
Implementation of RVSM in U.S. domestic airspace should increase
user satisfaction. The benefits described in this section are
compelling in number and operational impact. These benefits are also
important in that they are enjoyed both by air traffic and aircraft
operators.
Analysis of Alternatives
This rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined by
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) because
this rule will impose costs exceeding $100 million annually. The E.O.
requires that agencies promulgating economically significant rules
provide an assessment of feasible alternatives to their respective
rulemaking actions. In addition, the E.O. requires that an explanation
of why the final rule, which is significant, is preferable to the
identified potential alternatives. We identified and considered three
alternatives to the final rule.
Alternative One--The Status Quo
This alternative would maintain the 2,000-foot separation above FL
290 and would avoid the equipment and testing requirements of this
rule, which impose a cost of $869.2 million ($764.9 million,
discounted) from 2002 to 2016 on the aviation industry and the FAA. But
maintaining the status quo also means that aviation industry would not
receive any of the cost-savings afforded by DRVSM. As mentioned
earlier, the cost-savings afforded by this rule are estimated to be
$5.3 billion ($3.0 billion, discounted) in fuel savings over the same
period. Since the foregone cost-savings of the alternative greatly
exceed the avoided costs, we reject this alternative in favor of the
final rule.
Alternative Two--Implement Domestic RVSM Without the Equipment and
Testing Requirements
This alternative would allow RVSM between FL 290 and FL 410 without
requiring aircraft system engineering to 14 CFR part 91, appendix G.
This alternative would allow the aviation industry to receive the
estimated $5.3 billion ($3.0 billion, discounted) in fuel savings while
the aviation industry and the FAA avoid RVSM costs of $869.2 million
($764.9 million, discounted). Unfortunately, this is not a viable
alternative due to safety considerations.
Studies by the FAA and European civil aviation authorities have
shown that many aircraft that have not been calibrated to RVSM
standards exhibit altitude-keeping errors that exceed the standards
established for RVSM safety. In these studies, non-RVSM calibrated
aircraft were observed with errors of up to 700 feet. Under RVSM
aircraft are allowed to operate with only 1,000 feet vertical
separation. If non-RVSM calibrated aircraft were allowed to operate
with only 1,000 feet vertical separation, there could be a 400-foot
altitude overlap in altitude-keeping errors for two non-RVSM calibrated
aircraft operating in close proximity to each other. Thus, there is an
increased risk of midair collisions if non-RVSM calibrated aircraft are
allowed to operate under RVSM. Since there are some aviation safety
concerns with this alternative, this alternative is also rejected in
favor of the final rule.
Alternative Three--Delay Implementation of the RVSM by Seven or Eight
Years
This alternative would delay implementation of the rule by seven or
eight years. This would allow the costs to be spread over a longer
period of time so that costs in any one-year would be below $100
million. This would make the rule no longer economically significant
under E.O. 12866. The cost of this alternative would still be the same
as the cost of the final rule, although the discounted costs would be
lower than the discounted costs of the final rule. However, if
implementation of the rule were delayed by seven or eight years, the
estimated cost-savings would be reduced by $2.0 billion or $2.4
billion, respectively ($1.5 billion, discounted or $1.8 billion,
discounted, respectively). This is a considerable amount of cost-
savings to forego in order for the FAA to avoid issuing an economically
significant rule. For this reason, this alternative is rejected in
favor of the final rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 establishes as a principle
of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with
the objective of the rule and applicable statutes, to fit regulatory
and informational requirements to the scale of the business,
organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To
achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for
their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small entities including
small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as
described in the Act.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 Act provides that
the head of the agency may so certify and an RFA is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
Findings of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Operators of large transport aircraft meeting the Small Business
Administration (SBA) small entity criteria were identified in the 6-day
traffic sample of ETMS data and appear in Table 2 of the Regulatory
Impact Analysis. Revenue information for the small entity operators was
obtained from the Air Carrier Financial Statistics Quarterly, Dun and
Bradstreet Million Dollar Directory, J&P Airline Fleets International,
and the Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation
Statistics Office of Airline Information Web Site.
Operators of small commercial or general aviation aircraft are
typically operated under either 14 CFR part 91 or 14 CFR part 135. This
study focuses on part 135 operators. Since they utilize their aircraft
as their primary means of revenue generation through offering non-
scheduled charter flights, they are more prone to being impacted by
this rule. The FAA estimates that 380 operators with less than 1,500
employees operate 2,780 turbojet aircraft on part 135 generating $7.0
billion in charter revenue per annum. As of December 2002, 422 of these
aircraft are RVSM approved leaving 2,358 non-approved aircraft. The FAA
estimates the cost to upgrade the non-approved airframes is $211.4
million. In addition, the FAA estimates that these operators will incur
approximately $74.1 million, or $195,000 per operator, in lost revenue
associated with the downtime necessary to upgrade these airframes for
RVSM operations. Based on these estimates, the FAA has
[[Page 61318]]
determined that this group of approximately 380 operators is
significantly impacted by this rule.
The following reviews some of the factors associated with the costs
of upgrading part 135 aircraft that the FAA considered in the
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA):
[sbull] Table 1 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) provides
projected costs associated with upgrading individual aircraft types.
The FAA recognizes that the costs may change. In some cases, the FAA
has seen costs decrease as more upgrade options become available. The
FAA also recognizes, however, that in the period before the RVSM
implementation date competition for upgrade facilities may lead to an
increase in costs. Therefore, the FAA concludes that this cost may vary
and can only be estimated.
[sbull] For the purposes of estimating costs associated with
upgrading part 135 aircraft to RVSM standards, the FAA used the
conservative assumption in RIA Tables 2 and 3 that all operators will
incur upgrade costs during the 15-year cost analysis period, 2002-2016.
The FAA recognizes that some operators of high upgrade cost aircraft
may elect to fly below flight level 290 for an indefinite period of
time. The FAA conducted a study entitled ``An Examination of Range and
Fuel-Burn Penalties Associated with Operating Business Jet Type
Aircraft Beneath Proposed U.S. Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation
Minimum (DRVSM) Airspace''. The study is available in the rulemaking
docket. The study provides costs for flight operation below 290 for
such aircraft. The FAA concluded that the costs associated with flight
below flight level 290 are less than that for upgrade. The FAA,
therefore, believed that assuming all aircraft would incur upgrade
costs was a conservative approach.
[sbull] RIA Table 5 provides an estimate of revenue lost to part
135 operators when their aircraft are in service centers undergoing
RVSM upgrade. For the purpose of developing this table, the FAA assumed
an average aircraft downtime of two weeks. The FAA recognizes that
actual downtime can vary in individual situations, however, we believe
two weeks to be a reasonable assumption for average downtime. These
costs can be mitigated if upgrades occur during other scheduled
maintenance.
[sbull] In the RFA Affordability Analysis, the FAA recognizes that
the 380 part 135 operators will fund upgrade costs from company
sources, lenders or through the issuance of equity capital.
[sbull] Although in January 2005 approximately 90 per cent of
flights in domestic U.S. RVSM airspace are projected to be conducted by
RVSM-compliant aircraft, approximately 10 percent of flights that now
operate above FL 290 are projected to operate below that level. The FAA
recognizes that some operators may not complete RVSM engineering work
and FAA Flight Standards office processing by the RVSM implementation
date. Such operators retain the option to fly below FL 290 until they
receive RVSM authority. FAA flight simulations have shown that the
approximate 10 percent increase in traffic below FL 290 can be
accommodated without degrading safety.
[sbull] The FAA examined the fuel consumption penalties and range
limitations associated with flight below FL 290. The study entitled
``An Examination of Range and Fuel-Burn Penalties Associated with
Operating Business Jet Type Aircraft Beneath Proposed U.S. Domestic
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (DRVSM) Initial Simulation'' is
available for review in the docket. Using data from the FAA Enhanced
Traffic Management System, the study examined the actual leg lengths
and city-pairs that part 135 aircraft fly. The study concluded that
part 135 aircraft would incur a fuel consumption penalty of
approximately 7.15 percent. The penalty imposes an average annual cost
of $1,147 per airframe or $3.1 million for the part 135 aircraft
population that has not already been upgraded. In addition the study
concluded that approximately 92 percent of flights would not require a
fuel stop when flown beneath FL 290. The study can be found in the
public docket at http://dms.dot.gov and searching docket number 12261.
[sbull] In the past 7 years of RVSM operations, maintenance costs
have not been a significant factor in comparison to initial aircraft
approval costs. RVSM required systems are already standard for most
aircraft and maintenance is already a requirement for them. The FAA
recognizes that RVSM requires additional maintenance measures for some
aircraft. However, they have not been factored here because they have
not been factors in previous RVSM implementations.
[sbull] In the ``Costs'' section of the ``Discussion of Comments'',
the FAA states that the residual value of aircraft was not a primary
consideration in this rulemaking. The FAA believes that compliance with
RVSM standards will actually increase the residual value of some
aircraft. The FAA recognizes that aircraft that are not upgraded will
decrease in residual value, however, RVSM is a global program that has
been implemented in a large portion of global airspace and operators
must plan accordingly.
The analysis of the operators of large transport aircraft shows
that of the 22 potential small entity operators identified in the
traffic sample, none were determined to have upgrade costs resulting in
their being significantly impacted by this rule. However, 380 Part 135
operators are significantly impacted by this rule. Therefore, the FAA
has determined that this rule will impact a substantial number of small
entities.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Under section 603(b) of the RFA (as amended), each regulatory
flexibility analysis is required to address the following points: (1)
Reasons why the FAA is considering the rule, (2) the objectives and
legal basis for the rule, (3) the kind and number of small entities to
which the rule would apply, (4) the projected reporting, record-
keeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, and (5) all
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule.
Reasons Why the FAA Is Implementing This Rule
This rulemaking action will increase the number of available flight
levels, enhance airspace capacity, and permit operators to fly more
fuel and time efficient tracks and altitudes. The rule will also
enhance air traffic controller flexibility by increasing the number of
available flight levels, while maintaining an equivalent level of
safety.
The Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule
The objective of this rule is to enhance operational efficiency and
air traffic flexibility. Specifically, this rule aims to create
flexibility and resultant benefits for operators and air traffic
providers. The legal basis for this rule is found in 49 U.S.C. 106(g),
1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44709, 44711, 44712,
44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507,
47122, 47508, 47528-47531, and articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation (61 stat. 1180).
The Kind and Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply
This rule applies to 70 scheduled airlines operating large
transport aircraft under Part 121 of which 22 are small
[[Page 61319]]
operators with 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, this rule also
applies to 380 operators operating under Part 135 with all considered
to be small entities. The FAA estimates that 1,900 corporations also
operate non-approved turbojet aircraft under Part 91 that will be
upgraded for this rule. These aircraft are primarily used for private
non-revenue transportation and were considered in the Benefit/Cost
analysis.
The Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements of the Rule
Information collection requirements in the final rule have been
previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)) and have been assigned OMB Control Number: 2120-0679.
The following paperwork costs would be imposed on aircraft
operators:
Section 14 CFR part 91, Section 91.180 would require aircraft
operators seeking operational approval to conduct RVSM operations
within the 48 contiguous States of the United States (U.S.), Alaska,
the portion of the Gulf of Mexico where the FAA provides air traffic
services, the Miami-San Juan corridor and the San Juan flight
information region (FIR), to submit their application to their CHDO.
This submission by the estimated 2,275 respondents would require each
organization to spend 30 hours on the paperwork at a cost of
approximately $950 for each operator.
All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Rule
We are unaware of any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the rule.
Other Considerations:
Affordability Analysis \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Small entity operators have the following options. They may
elect to:
[sbull] Modify their aircraft to RVSM standards,
[sbull] Operate at and below FL 280 for a period of time until
they either modify their aircraft or purchase RVSM compliant
aircraft,
[sbull] Operate at and below FL 280 indefinitely.
In past RVSM implementation programs, some operators have
modified their aircraft despite the costs involved. They have taken
this decision because they do not wish to operate with a
restriction. Instead, they wish to have access to all flight levels
up to FL 410 in order to retain all available options to avoid
weather, to be accommodated in prevailing traffic flows and to
operate at the most fuel efficient FL's and on preferred routes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the purpose of this analysis, the degree to which small
entities can afford the cost of compliance is based on the availability
of financial resources. Initial upgrade costs can be funded from
company funds, lenders, or through the issuance of equity capital.
These compliance costs can be accommodated by accepting reduced
profits, increasing ticket prices or charter rates, or through other
cost-savings measures to offset costs.
The cost of compliance for the 380 impacted small entity operators
is $211.4 million, or $556,000.00 per small entity for upgrade costs
and $74.1 million in downtime costs. Small entity operators are
expected to enjoy smaller benefits than large transport operators due
to their disproportionate cost-benefit ratio of upgrade costs to
forecasted benefits. FAA analysis has determined that the average
operator will realize a 1.86% fuel saving. However, part 135 operators
electing not to upgrade or delay their aircraft upgrade plans would
incur on average a 7.15 percent fuel penalty from conducting operations
beneath FL290. Although we recognize these upgrade costs have a
significant impact on these operators, the operational penalties
associated with not upgrading or delaying aircraft upgrade plans do not
prevent the operators from continuing to operate.
Disproportionality Analysis \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The FAA examined alternatives for operators that do not
elect to modify their aircraft to RVSM standards and reached the
conclusions discussed below:
Allowing Un-approved Aircraft to Operate Unconditionally in RVSM
Airspace. The FAA concluded that it would not be feasible or safe to
allow large numbers of un-approved aircraft to operate in RVSM
airspace with RVSM approved aircraft. A mix of approved and un-
approved aircraft increases ATC complexity, controller work load and
the potential for error.
Delaying DRVSM Implementation. It is in the best interest of the
majority of the operators and to the overall enhancement of NAS
operations to proceed with DRVSM implementation in January 2005.
Each year that implementation is delayed will result in the loss of
$394 million dollars in operator benefits and delay enhancements to
NAS operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On average, the 380 small entities will be disadvantaged relative
to operators of large transport aircraft due to disproportionate cost
impacts. Operators of large transport aircraft enjoy greater revenues
than the small entities and typically operate larger fleets. Due to
their fleet sizes, large transport aircraft operators enjoy more
flexibility to rotate their fleet through the RVSM approval process
without a disruption in service while many of the small entities
operate only one aircraft. Further, operators of large transport
aircraft enjoy having their own maintenance facilities.
Competitiveness Analysis
The 380 small-entity operators do not compete with large transport
operators but could experience significant costs through upgrading
their aircraft for RVSM operations. However, FAA analysis has shown
that aircraft operated under part 135 experience on average a 7.15%
reduction in fuel efficiency if they were operated beneath the RVSM
stratum. Further, FAA RVSM readiness projections for the January 2005
DRVSM implementation timeframe indicate that the aircraft generating
approximately 90% of the operations in the NAS will be approved for
RVSM operations. The estimated annual increase in fuel-burn for the
projected 10% of non-approved NAS traffic would result in $103.7
million in total fuel penalties for these operators based on $18.2
billion in annual fuel consumption for all operations.
Description of Alternatives
We have considered a number of alternatives to the rule. We find
that this rule achieves the desired airspace enhancements and delivers
the maximum benefits to operators and air traffic providers while
maintaining system safety.
The following alternatives to the rule have been considered:
[sbull] Status Quo
[sbull] Not enforce the rule for small entities
[sbull] Delay the rule
[sbull] Phased RVSM implementation
Alternative One--Status Quo
This alternative would maintain the current 2,000-foot vertical
separation minimum above FL290 thereby avoiding the $869.2 million
($764.9 million, discounted) in costs between 2002 and 2004 for the
aviation industry and the FAA. However, maintaining the status quo does
not provide the desired airspace enhancements for operators and air
traffic providers. As noted earlier, the cost savings and NAS
operational enhancements are estimated to be $5.3 billion ($3.0
billion, discounted) over the 15-year period. Under this alternative,
the foregone cost-savings would be more than seven times the cost of
this rule. Therefore, we reject this alternative in favor of the rule.
Alternative Two--Not Enforce the Rule for Small Entities
This alternative would permit small operators to operate in RVSM
airspace without upgrading their aircraft for such operations. Under
this scenario, small operators would avoid $285.5 million ($211.4
million in upgrade costs and
[[Page 61320]]
$74.1 in downtime costs) or $751,316.00 per operator. However, this
would compromise safety as it would result in some 2,400 non-approved
aircraft operating in the RVSM stratum. Therefore, the FAA rejects this
alternative in favor of the rule.
Alternative Three--Phased Implementation of RVSM
This alternative would involve the implementation of RVSM for a
smaller altitude band such as FL330-370 with eventual expansion to the
full RVSM envelope of FL290-410. Although this alternative would create
some flexibility for small operators to continue operating near their
desired flight levels and delaying their implementation plans, airspace
complexity would be increased. The simulations conducted at the FAA
Technical Center showed that when RVSM was applied in any altitude band
other than FL 290-410, system safety and airspace management were
negatively impacted. Controller workload, potential for controller
error and operational complexity all increased. Therefore, we reject
this alternative in favor of the rule. The ``Final Report for Domestic
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (DRVSM) Initial Simulation'' is in
the docket and can be accessed at http://dms.dot.gov and searching for
docket number 12261.
Alternative Four--The Final Rule
This alternative represents the Final Rule. Under this alternative,
airspace users and air traffic providers will receive $5.3 billion
($3.0 billion, discounted) in cost-savings for the years 2005 to 2016.
These benefits will be realized through the investment of $869.2
million ($764.9 million discounted) in costs associated with this rule.
We estimate that the costs for 380 small entities would be $211.4
million, or $556,000.00 on average. This alternative is preferred, as
we believe it provides the best balance of costs and benefits for
airspace users and air traffic providers without a reduction in
aviation safety.
International Trade Impact Statement
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or 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. We have assessed the potential effect of this rulemaking and
have determined that it will impose the same costs on domestic and
international entities and thus it has a neutral trade impact.
Federalism
We have analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria
of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We have determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Therefore, we determined that this final rule does not have
federalism implications.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Information collection requirements in the final rule have been
previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)) and have been assigned OMB control number 2120-0679. This
final rule adds the OMB control number to the table of OMB control
numbers in 14 CFR 11.201(b).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as
Public Law 104-4 on March 22,1995, is intended, among other things, to
curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State,
local, and tribal governments.
Title II of the Act 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 a $100 million or more
expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State,
local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private
sector; such as a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory
action.''
This rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do
not apply.
International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation
Regulations
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on ICAO, it
is FAA policy to comply with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
(SARP) to maximum extent practicable. The operator and aircraft
approval process was developed jointly by the FAA and the JAA under the
auspices of NATSPG. We have determined that this amendment does not
present any difference.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. In
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j),
regulations, standards, and exemptions (excluding those, which if
implemented may cause a significant impact on the human environment)
qualify for a categorical exclusion. We believe that this rule
qualifies for a categorical exclusion because no significant impacts to
the environment are expected to result from its finalization or
implementation.
Energy Impact
We have assessed the energy impact of this rule in accordance with
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and Pub. L. 94-163, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). We have determined that this rule is not a
major regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA.
Executive Order 13211--Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to submit a Statement of
Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, for matters
identified as significant energy actions. A significant energy action
is an action that (1) is significant under Executive Order 12866 and is
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy or (2) is designated by the
administrator of the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy
action. We are not required to submit a Statement of Energy Effects for
this proposed rule because we do not expect this rule to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy and the Administrator of OIRA has not identified it as a
significant energy action.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 11
Administrative practic |
