61128 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 95

[Docket No.: FAA–2004—19352] 

RIN 2120–AI44

Redesignation of Mountainous Areas 

in Alaska

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This proposal would update 

the designated mountainous areas in the 

State of Alaska. Regulations currently 

designating mountainous areas in 

Alaska were established in 1956. Since 

that time, we have concluded that areas 

previously considered non-mountainous 

should be expanded, and two areas 

previously designated mountainous 

should now be considered nonmountainous. The intended effect of 

this proposal is to enhance safety by 

allowing aircraft operating in certain 

non-mountainous areas to fly at lower 

altitudes when necessary.

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 15, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

[identified by Docket Number FAA–

2004–19352] using any of the following 

methods: 

• DOT Docket Web site: Go to

http://dms.dot.gov and follow the 

instructions for sending your comments 

electronically. 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

For more information on the rulemaking 

process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http://

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information you provide. For more 

information, see the Privacy Act 

discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to 

Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the 

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Richard W. Girard, Flight Standards 

Division, Technical Standards Branch, 

AAL–233, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, 

Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513–7587; 

telephone number (907) 271–3578.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this proposal by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. We also invite comments relating 

to the economic, environmental, energy, 

or federalism impacts that might result 

from adopting the proposal in this 

document. The most helpful comments 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposal, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. We ask that you send 

us two copies of written comments. 

We will file in the docket all 

comments we receive, as well as a 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerning this proposal. The docket is 

available for public inspection before 

and after the comment closing date. If 

you wish to review the docket in 

person, go to the address in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

You may also review the docket using 

the Internet at the web address in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

Privacy Act: Using the search function 

of our docket Web site, anyone can find 

and read the comments received into 

any of our dockets, including the name 

of the individual sending the comment 

(or signing the comment on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit

http://dms.dot.gov. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive on or before the closing date for 

comments. We will consider comments 

filed late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change this proposal in light of the 

comments we receive. 

If you want the FAA to acknowledge 

receipt of your comments on this rule, 

include with your comments a preaddressed, stamped postcard on which 

the docket number appears. We will 

stamp the date on the postcard and mail 

it to you. 

Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by:

(1) Searching the Department of 

Transportation’s electronic Docket 

Management System (DMS) Web page 

(http://dms.dot.gov/search); 

(2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking’s 

Web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/

arm/index.cfm; or 

(3) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at 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. 

Background 

Today, FAA regulations designate a 

large majority of the State of Alaska as 

a mountainous area. This designation 

sets specific minimum altitudes for all 

aircraft traveling in the area. Five areas 

of the state are specifically excepted 

from the mountainous area designation, 

and aircraft operated in these areas do 

not need to meet the same minimum 

altitude requirements. This proposal 

would expand those five areas that are 

excepted in the regulations, and add 

two areas in the vicinity of Fort Yukon 

and the islands of St. Paul and St. 

George (also known as the Pribilof 

Islands) under the exception. 

The FAA has designated certain areas 

within the United States as 

mountainous areas. These areas are 

regulated to make sure that pilots 

maintain certain altitude minimums for 

a safe flying environment. These 

designated mountainous areas are 

specified in 14 CFR part 95, Subpart B. 

They include areas in the Eastern and 

Western continental United States, 

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Alaska. 

Designating an area as a mountainous 

area involves the consideration of: 

1. Weather phenomena in the area 

that are conducive to marked pressure 

differentials; 

2. Bernoulli effect; 

3. Precipitous terrain turbulence; and 

4. Other factors likely to increase the 

possibility of altimeter error. 

Specifically, § 91.177(a)(2)(i) sets 

minimum altitude requirements for 

anyone operating an aircraft under 

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) over an 

area designated as a mountainous area 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 61129

in part 95 (where no minimum altitudes 

are prescribed for that area in parts 95 

and 97). A pilot must maintain an 

altitude of at least 2,000 feet above the 

highest obstacle within a horizontal 

distance of 4 nautical miles from the 

course to be flown. Sections 91.515(a)(2) 

and 135.203(a)(2) provide similar 

requirements for Visual Flight Rule 

(VFR) night operations conducted under 

Subpart F of part 91 and part 135. 

Section 121.657(c) also provides the 

same requirement for night VFR, IFR, 

and over-the-top operations conducted 

under part 121. In each of the above 

sections the requirements are similar for 

non-mountainous areas except that the 

minimum altitude is set at 1,000 feet, 

rather than 2,000 feet. 

In 1956, when the regulations 

designating mountainous areas were 

written, the FAA designated those areas 

that could be considered either 

mountainous or non-mountainous as 

mountainous areas because there were 

relatively few IFR operations. Since 

then, the number of IFR operations in 

the State has significantly increased. 

Technology and experience have 

provided the FAA with more accurate 

information on which areas within the 

state should receive exception status 

from the mountainous area designation. 

These areas meet the current defined 

requirements for non-mountainous 

areas, but were not previously 

identified. Today, IFR operations are 

prevalent in nearly every portion of the 

State. Correspondence with pilots 

operating in Alaska has supported the 

conclusion that IFR operations are 

common and that the new designation 

of mountainous areas is necessary to 

provide appropriate flexibility for pilots 

and controllers. Pilots have asserted that 

the minimum altitude required in 

designated mountainous areas can force 

aircraft to fly high enough in certain 

weather conditions to risk ice buildup 

on wings and control surfaces. Thus, the 

risk assessment that led to a 

mountainous/non-mountainous 

classification in the 1950’s may no 

longer be appropriate. The FAA believes 

the existing regulations may expose 

pilots operating in some parts of Alaska 

currently classified as mountainous 

areas to a greater risk than necessary. 

Additionally, this proposal will enhance 

safety by improving traffic flow and 

reducing controller workload. 

There are currently five areas outlined 

in the exceptions section of the 

regulation as non-mountainous areas. 

This proposed rule would expand these 

areas slightly while adding two more 

areas that would be designated nonmountainous. 

Each of the proposed exception areas 

listed in this proposed rule is an area 

with homogenous weather 

characteristics. Weather reporting 

stations are now more abundant and 

reliable than when these regulations 

were written in 1956. These areas are 

free of precipitous terrain and weather 

phenomena associated with other 

designated mountainous areas. Because 

of these factors, we believe additional 

operational altitudes are necessary for 

these areas and these changes will not 

adversely affect safety. 

For purposes of this proposed rule, a 

map is presented to illustrate the extent 

of these areas. The map entitled 

‘‘Designated Mountainous Areas’’ of the 

State of Alaska that is currently 

included in part 95 will be replaced by 

the new map that includes the revisions 

and additions to § 95.17(b). See Docket 

No. FAA–2004–19352 to view the map.

Economic Assessment, Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination, International 

Trade Impact Assessment, and 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Proposed changes to Federal 

regulations must undergo several 

economic analyses. First, Executive 

Order 12866 directs each Federal agency 

to propose or adopt a regulation only 

upon a reasoned determination that the 

benefits of the intended regulation 

justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies 

to analyze the economic impact of 

regulatory changes on small entities. 

Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 

U.S.C. §§ 2531–2533) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act also requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, use them as the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public 

Law 104–4) requires agencies to prepare 

a written assessment of the costs, 

benefits, and other effects of proposed 

or final rules that include a Federal 

mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation). 

However, for regulations with an 

expected minimal impact the abovespecified analyses are not required. The 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If it is 

determined that the expected impact is 

so minimal that the proposal does not 

warrant a full evaluation, a statement to 

that effect and the basis for that 

determination is included in the 

proposed regulation. Since this 

proposed rule more accurately identifies 

mountainous areas in Alaska, and 

thereby provides greater flexibility in 

aircraft operations, it is expected to have 

a minimal cost impact with positive net 

benefits. The FAA requests comments 

with supporting justification regarding 

the FAA determination of minimal 

impact. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) establishes ‘‘as a principle of 

regulatory issuance that agencies shall 

endeavor, consistent with the objective 

of the rule and of 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 RFA requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of 

small entities, including small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations, 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed rule will 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a proposed rule is not expected to have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

This proposed rule will affect only the 

areas in which a plane may fly at a 

certain altitude. The changes we are 

proposing should not change how small 

entities or individuals in Alaska 

conduct business operations. 

Consequently, the FAA certifies that the 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Trade Impact Analysis 

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 

prohibits Federal agencies from 

establishing any standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Legitimate domestic objectives, such as 

61130 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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. The FAA has 

assessed the potential effect of this 

proposed rule and determined that it 

will not create unnecessary obstacles to 

foreign commerce and that international 

standards were considered. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (the Act) 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 an expenditure 

of $100 million or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any one year 

by State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or by the private sector; 

such a mandate is deemed to be a 

‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ The 

FAA currently uses an inflationadjusted value of $120.7 million in lieu 

of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate. The requirements of 

Title II do not apply. 

Regulations Affecting Intrastate 

Aviation in Alaska 

Section 1205 of the FAA 

Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 

3213) requires the Administrator, when 

modifying regulations in title 14 of the 

CFR in manner affecting intrastate 

aviation in Alaska, to consider the 

extent to which Alaska is not served by 

transportation modes other than 

aviation, and to establish such 

regulatory distinctions as he or she 

considers appropriate. Because this 

proposed rule would apply to airspace 

designations specifically in Alaska, it 

could, if adopted, affect intrastate 

aviation in Alaska. The FAA therefore 

specifically requests comments on 

whether there is justification for the 

proposed rule. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this proposed 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312(d) and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

The FAA has analyzed this NPRM 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

have determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, and it is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

Section-by-Section Discussion of 

Proposal 

14 CFR Part 95, Subpart B 

Section 95.17 

In subsection (a) Area, we propose 

changing ‘‘The Territory of Alaska’’ to 

read ‘‘The State of Alaska.’’ When the 

regulation was originally written in 

1956, Alaska was not yet a State. In 

subsection (b) Exceptions, we propose 

revising the five current exceptions and 

adding two more for areas not 

previously covered. 

The current exception areas that 

would be revised are:

(1) In the vicinity of Fairbanks, AK, 

and Nenana, AK. The proposed revision 

would include areas in the vicinity of 

Delta Junction, AK, and Minchumina, 

AK. 

(2) In the vicinity of Talkeetna, AK, 

Anchorage, AK, Kenai, AK, and Homer, 

AK. The proposed revision would 

include additional shoreline and coastal 

areas west of the Cook Inlet. 

(3) In the vicinity of King Salmon, 

AK, and Port Heiden, AK. The proposed 

revision would include areas in the 

vicinity of Dillingham, AK, and Iliamna, 

AK. 

(4) In the vicinity of Bethel, AK, and 

Aniak, AK. The proposed revision 

would include areas in the vicinity of 

Anvik, AK, Saint Mary’s, AK, 

Quinhagak, AK, Kipnuk, AK, Hooper 

Bay, AK, and Nunivak Island, AK. 

(5) In the vicinity of Point Barrow, 

AK, Prudhoe Bay, AK, and Barter 

Island, AK. The proposed revision 

would include an area in the vicinity of 

Umiat, AK, and the coastal area east of 

Barter Island, AK. 

The two additional exceptions that 

are being proposed include areas: 

(1) In the vicinity of Fort Yukon, AK. 

(2) The islands of Saint Paul and Saint 

George, which are also collectively 

known as the Pribilof Islands.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 95 

Air traffic control, Airspace, Alaska, 

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me by the 

Administrator, the Federal Aviation 

Administration proposes to amend Part 

95 of the Federal Aviation Regulations 

(14 CFR Part 95) as follows:

PART 95—IFR ALTITUDES 

1. The authority citation for part 95 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 

40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44719, 

44721.

2. Section 95.17 is revised to read as 

follows:

§ 95.17 Alaska Mountainous Area. 

All of the following area excluding 

those portions specified in the 

exceptions: 

(a) Area. The State of Alaska. 

(b) Exceptions;

(1) Fairbanks—Nenana Area. 

Beginning at latitude 64°54′ N, 

longitude 147°00′ W; thence to latitude 

64°50′ N, longitude 151°22′ W, thence to 

latitude 63°50′ N, longitude 152°50′ W; 

thence to latitude 63°30′ N, longitude 

152°30′ W; thence to latitude 63°30′ N, 

longitude 151°30′ W; thence to latitude 

64°05′ N, longitude 150°30′ W; thence to 

latitude 64°20′ N, longitude 149°00′ W; 

thence to latitude 64°07′ N, longitude 

146°30′ W; thence to latitude 63°53′ N, 

longitude 146°00′ W; thence to latitude 

63°53′ N, longitude 145°00′ W; thence to 

latitude 64°09′ N, longitude 145°16′ W; 

thence to latitude 64°12′ N, longitude 

146°00′ W; thence to latitude 64°25′ N, 

longitude 146°37′ W; thence to latitude 

64°54′ N, longitude 147°00′ W, point of 

beginning. 

(2) Anchorage—Homer Area. 

Beginning at latitude 61°50′ N, 

longitude 151°12′ W; thence to latitude 

61°24′ N, longitude 150°28′ W; thence to 

latitude 61°08′ N, longitude 151°47′ W; 

thence to latitude 59°49′ N, longitude 

152°40′ W; thence to latitude 59°25′ N, 

longitude 153°10′ W; thence to latitude 

59°00′ N, longitude 153°10′ W; thence to 

latitude 59°33′ N, longitude 151°28′ W; 

thence to latitude 60°31′ N, longitude 

150°43′ W; thence to latitude 61°13′ N, 

longitude 149°39′ W; thence to latitude 

61°37′ N, longitude 149°15′ W; thence to 

latitude 61°44′ N, longitude 149°48′ W; 

thence to latitude 62°23′ N, longitude 

149°54′ W; thence to latitude 62°23′ N, 

longitude 150°14′ W; thence to latitude 

61°50′ N, longitude 151°12′ W, point of 

beginning. 

(3) King Salmon—Port Heiden Area. 

Beginning at latitude 58°49′ N, 

longitude 159°30′ W; thence to latitude 

59°40′ N, longitude 157°00′ W; thence to 

latitude 59°40′ N, longitude 155°30′ W; 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2004 / Proposed Rules 61131

thence to latitude 59°50′ N, longitude 

154°50′ W; thence to latitude 59°35′ N, 

longitude 154°40′ W; thence to latitude 

58°57′ N, longitude 156°05′ W; thence to 

latitude 58°00′ N, longitude 156°20′ W; 

thence to latitude 57°00′ N, longitude 

158°20′ W; thence to latitude 56°43′ N, 

longitude 158°39′ W; thence to latitude 

56°27′ N, longitude 160°00′ W; thence 

along the shoreline to latitude 58°49′ N, 

longitude 159°30′ W, point of beginning. 

(4) Bethel—Aniak Area. Beginning at 

latitude 63°28′ N, longitude 161°30′ W; 

thence to latitude 62°40′ N, longitude 

163°03′ W; thence to latitude 62°05′ N, 

longitude 162°38′ W; thence to latitude 

61°51′ N, longitude 160°43′ W; thence to 

latitude 62°55′ N, longitude 160°30′ W; 

thence to latitude 63°00′ N, longitude 

158°00′ W; thence to latitude 61°45′ N, 

longitude 159°30′ W; thence to latitude 

61°34′ N, longitude 159°15′ W; thence to 

latitude 61°07′ N, longitude 160°20′ W; 

thence to latitude 60°25′ N, longitude 

160°40′ W; thence to latitude 59°36′ N, 

longitude 161°49′ W; thence along the 

shoreline to latitude 63°28′ N, longitude 

161°30′ W; point of beginning; and 

Nunivak Island. 

(5) North Slope Area. Beginning at a 

point where latitude 69°30′ N intersects 

the northwest coast of Alaska and 

eastward along the 69°30′ parallel to 

latitude 69°30′ N, longitude 156°00′ W; 

thence to latitude 69°10′ N, longitude 

153°00′ W; thence eastward along the 

69°10′ N parallel to latitude 69°10′ N, 

longitude 149°00′ W; thence to latitude 

69°50′ N, longitude 146°00′ W; thence 

eastward along the 69°50′ N parallel to 

latitude 69°50′ N, longitude 145°00′ W; 

thence to latitude 69°35′ N, longitude 

141°00′ W; thence northward along the 

141°00′ W Meridian to a point where the 

141°00′ W Meridian intersects the 

northeast coastline of Alaska; thence 

westward along the northern coastline 

of Alaska to the intersection of latitude 

69°30′ N; point of beginning. 

(6) Fort Yukon Area. Beginning at 

latitude 67°20′ N, longitude 144°00′ W; 

thence to latitude 66°00′ N, longitude 

143°00′ W; thence to latitude 66°05′ N, 

longitude 149°00′ W; thence to latitude 

66°45′ N, longitude 148°00′ W; thence to 

latitude 67°00′ N, longitude 147°00′ W; 

thence to latitude 67°20′ N, longitude 

144°00′ W; point of beginning. 

(7) The islands of Saint Paul and Saint 

George, together known as the Pribilof 

Islands, in the Bering Sea.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 8, 

2004. 

James J. Ballough, 

Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 04–23067 Filed 10–13–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P