Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 47009 

By order of the Board of Governors of the 

Federal Reserve System, July 13, 2016. 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Secretary of the Board. 

Billing Code: 6210–01–P 

[FR Doc. 2016–16969 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 91 

[Docket No.: FAA–2015–1746; Amdt. No. 

91–342] 

RIN 2120–AK54 

Changes to the Application 

Requirements for Authorization To 

Operate in Reduced Vertical 

Separation Minimum Airspace 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action revises the FAA’s 

requirements for an application to 

operate in Reduced Vertical Separation 

Minimum (RVSM) airspace and 

eliminates the burden and expense of 

developing, processing, and approving 

RVSM maintenance programs. As a 

result of this revision, an applicant to 

operate in RVSM airspace will no longer 

be required to develop and submit an 

RVSM maintenance program solely for 

the purpose of obtaining an RVSM 

authorization. Because of other, 

independent FAA airworthiness 

regulations, all aircraft operators remain 

required to maintain RVSM equipment 

in an airworthy condition. 

DATES: Effective August 19, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Charles Fellows, 

Aviation Safety Inspector, Avionics 

Branch, Aircraft Maintenance Division, 

Flight Standards Services, AFS–360, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza North SW., Washington, 

DC 20024; telephone (202) 267–1706; 

email Charles.Fellows@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Sections 106(f), 40113, and 44701 

authorize the Administrator to prescribe 

regulations necessary for aviation safety. 

Section 40103 authorizes the 

Administrator to prescribe regulations 

to enhance the efficiency of the national 

airspace. This rulemaking is within the 

scope of these authorities because it 

removes an existing safety and airspacerelated regulation that the FAA no 

longer finds necessary for aviation 

safety. 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

This action amends Appendix G of 

part 91 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) by removing the 

requirement that any applicant for a 

Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum 

(RVSM) authorization must submit an 

RVSM maintenance program to the FAA 

for approval. 

II. Background 

The FAA’s vertical separation 

standards establish the vertical distance 

that must separate aircraft routes in the 

national airspace system. In the early 

1970’s, rising air-traffic volume and fuel 

costs sparked an interest in reducing 

vertical separation standards for aircraft 

operating above flight level (FL) 290 

(above 18,000 ft., flight levels are 

assigned in 500-ft. increments; FL290 

represents an pressure altitude of 29,000 

ft. referenced to a barometric pressure of 

29.92 inches at sea level). At the time, 

the FAA required aircraft operating 

above FL290 to maintain a minimum of 

2,000 ft. of vertical separation. Use of 

high-altitude routes was desirable, 

however, because the diminished 

atmospheric drag at these altitudes 

results in enhanced aircraft efficiency 

and a corresponding decrease in fuel 

consumption. Operators, therefore, 

sought and continue to seek not only the 

most direct routes, but also the most 

efficient altitudes for operation of their 

aircraft. Higher demand for these highaltitude routes has resulted in greater 

congestion. 

In 1981, the FAA initiated the Vertical 

Studies Program. This program, in 

conjunction with the RTCA (formerly 

Radio Technical Commission for 

Aeronautics) Special Committee (SC)– 

150 and the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Review of General 

Concept of Separation Panel (RGCSP), 

determined: 

• RVSM is ‘‘technically feasible 

without imposing unreasonably 

demanding technical requirements on 

the equipment;’’ 

• RVSM could provide ‘‘significant 

benefits in terms of economy and enroute airspace capacity;’’ and 

• Implementation of RVSM would 

require ‘‘sound operational judgment 

supported by an assessment of system 

performance based on: Aircraft altitudekeeping capability, operational 

considerations, system performance 

monitoring, and risk assessment.’’ 

In response to the findings made by 

the Vertical Separation Program, the 

FAA began a two-phase implementation 

of RVSM operations for aircraft 

registered in the United States (U.S.). In 

1997, and as the first phase, the FAA 

published two amendments to part 91 of 

Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). The first 

amendment established § 91.706 

(Operations within airspace designed as 

Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum 

Airspace), which, among other things, 

allows operators of U.S.-registered 

aircraft to fly in RVSM airspace outside 

of the U.S. Appendix G (Operations in 

Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum 

(RVSM) Airspace), was added which 

contained a set of operational, aircraft 

design, and other standards applicable 

to those seeking to operate in RVSM 

airspace. See Reduced Vertical 

Separation Minimum Operations, (62 

FR 17480; Apr. 9, 1997). Appendix G 

includes the requirement that all 

applicants for RVSM authorization must 

submit an approved RVSM maintenance 

program to the FAA. 

The second phase of RVSM 

implementation occurred in October 

2003, with the publication of a second 

RVSM-related FAA rulemaking. 

Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum 

in Domestic Airspace, (68 FR 61304; 

Oct. 27, 2003 and 68 FR 70132; Dec. 17, 

2003). The 2003 rule introduced RVSM 

airspace over the U.S. and, like the 1997 

rulemaking, required all U.S.-registered 

RVSM operators to comply with the 

application, operations, and aircraft 

design requirements of part 91, 

appendix G. The FAA’s RVSM program 

allows for 1,000 ft. of vertical separation 

for aircraft between FL290 and FL410 in 

U.S. airspace. Before the 2003 rule, air 

traffic controllers could only assign 

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft 

flying at FL290 and above to FL290, 

310, 330, 350, 370, 390, and 410 since 

the existing vertical separation standard 

was 2,000 ft. After the rule changes, IFR 

aircraft could also fly at FL300, 320, 

340, 360, 380, and 400—nearly doubling 

capacity within this particular segment 

of airspace, mitigating the fuel penalties 

attributed to flying at sub-optimum 

altitudes, and increasing the flexibility 

of air traffic control. 

In 2008, the FAA reviewed its RVSM 

authorizations, which applied to more 

than 15,000 U.S.-registered aircraft. The 

FAA’s evaluation found that the existing 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47010 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

processes ensured compliance with 

RVSM operating requirements. At the 

same time, FAA representatives began 

meeting with the National Business 

Aviation Association (NBAA) to 

develop ways to streamline the RVSM 

application process to lower the burden 

for operators obtaining authorizations 

and reduce the FAA’s workload 

associated with processing and granting 

these authorizations. The parties formed 

the RVSM Process Enhancement Team 

(PET) to focus on changes that could be 

accomplished without rulemaking. The 

PET completed its tasks in 2013. Among 

other things, it revised existing policies 

and guidance to facilitate more efficient 

processing of operator requests to 

change existing authorizations, and 

created a job aid to assist inspectors and 

standardize their review of operator 

applications. In a separate initiative, the 

FAA with input from industry 

determined that eliminating the 

redundant maintenance program 

component of the RVSM application 

would improve efficiency and reduce 

costs for both the agency and operators 

while maintaining the same high level 

of safety. 

The requirement for an applicant to 

submit a maintenance program with the 

application for an RVSM authorization 

was promulgated in 1997 when most 

aircraft required significant design 

changes or inspections to qualify for 

RVSM operation. RVSM operations have 

become much more common since then. 

RVSM systems are now incorporated 

into aircraft type designs or have been 

incorporated through modifications 

performed using supplemental type 

designs or amended type designs. 

Operators must properly maintain those 

systems as part of their airworthiness 

obligations, making a separate RVSM 

maintenance program redundant and 

unnecessary. 

A. Summary of the NPRM 

In May 2015, the FAA issued an 

NPRM, (15 FR 30394; May 28, 2015) 

that proposed to amend the 

requirements for an application to 

operate in RVSM airspace. The FAA 

proposed to remove and reserve 

paragraph (b)(1), of section 3 of 

Appendix G of part 91, to eliminate the 

requirement that any operator seeking 

RVSM authorization under § 91.180 and 

§ 91.706 had to develop and submit an 

RVSM maintenance program for FAA 

approval. 

B. General Overview of Comments 

The comment period for the NPRM 

closed on July 27, 2015. The FAA 

received 38 comments. The commenters 

included the National Air 

Transportation Association (NATA) and 

the National Business Aviation 

Association (NBAA). Twenty 

commenters supported the rule change 

in its entirety, twelve commenters 

provisionally supported the change 

while supplying additional comments, 

and eight commenters opposed the rule 

change. The FAA divided the issues 

raised in the comments into three 

categories addressing: (1) Safety 

concerns; (2) further enhancements to 

the RVSM authorization process; and (3) 

miscellaneous comments or 

recommendations. 

III. Discussion of Public Comments and 

Final Rule 

Safety Concerns 

Although there were slight variations, 

many of the comments submitted in 

opposition to the proposal claimed that 

reducing the regulatory requirements for 

an RVSM authorization would reduce 

aviation safety. 

The FAA reiterates that this final rule 

eliminates an application requirement, 

and leaves intact FAA requirements to 

maintain RVSM equipment and operate 

RVSM authorized aircraft in an 

airworthy condition. As described in the 

NPRM, the requirement to submit a 

maintenance program as part of an 

RVSM application was promulgated in 

an environment where RVSM 

technology was not firmly established 

and RVSM maintenance procedures 

were unproven. As RVSM equipment 

was installed on more aircraft, and 

confidence in established maintenance 

procedures increased, the requirement 

for each applicant to develop its own 

RVSM-specific maintenance procedures 

ceased to produce any appreciable 

safety benefit. 

Sections 91.180 and 91.706 will 

continue to require operators to meet 

the equipment and performance 

standards specified in Appendix G to 

part 91. These performance standards 

were developed by the RTCA SC–150 

and the ICAO RGCSP as the minimum 

performance standard for aircraft to 

conduct RVSM operation, and adopted 

by the FAA. In addition, §§ 91.405 and 

91.407 continue to require operators to 

have their aircraft inspected and 

approved for return to service by 

authorized persons and otherwise 

maintained in accordance with part 43. 

Moreover, each person performing 

maintenance and preventive 

maintenance is required to do so using 

the methods, techniques, and practices 

prescribed in the manufacturer’s 

maintenance manual, Instructions for 

Continued Airworthiness (ICA), or other 

means acceptable to the Administrator. 

The primary effect of this final rule is 

to remove the requirement for an 

applicant to submit an RVSM-specific 

maintenance program to the FAA as part 

of its application for an RVSM 

authorization. 

One commenter stated that the 

requirement to maintain an aircraft in a 

condition for safe flight, as codified in 

§ 91.7, applies only to a pilot, as 

opposed to an operator. The commenter 

stated that an operator is only required 

to maintain RVSM equipment because 

of its maintenance program obligations. 

The FAA disagrees. As previously 

described, although this final rule 

eliminates an operator’s obligation to 

submit a maintenance program as part 

of an RVSM application, operators will 

nevertheless continue to be required to 

maintain their RVSM equipment in 

accordance with applicable 

airworthiness standards. In particular, 

§§ 43.13, 91.405, and 91.407 continue to 

require aircraft to be inspected and 

approved for return to service in 

accordance with manufacturers’ 

maintenance information or other 

material acceptable to the 

Administrator. Operators with 

maintenance programs, such as air 

carriers conducting operations under 

part 121, will continue to be required to 

maintain RVSM equipment in 

accordance with those programs. 

Two commenters raised the issue of 

identifying required maintenance 

information. One commenter stated that 

most RVSM applicants do not have the 

latest RVSM maintenance information 

until they acquire that information in 

the course of preparing to apply for an 

RVSM authorization. Another 

commenter stated that ICA may not be 

available for all RVSM designs. As an 

example, the commenter referred to 

aircraft modified to meet RVSM 

performance standards under a 

supplemental type certificate (STC), 

rather than with equipment installed 

under a type certificate (TC), and also to 

aircraft modifications classified as 

minor changes to type design. 

To the extent that these commenters 

assert that the requirement to submit a 

maintenance program as part of an 

RVSM application is necessary for 

operators to access or determine the 

appropriate maintenance instructions, 

the FAA disagrees. For many newer 

aircraft, RVSM capability is 

incorporated into the original type 

design. For other aircraft, incorporating 

alterations to meet RVSM performance 

requirements is classified as a major 

change to type design, and as such must 

be incorporated through an STC or an 

amended type certificate. In either case, 

§ 21.50(b) requires, among other things, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 47011 

a TC or STC holder to make ICA 

available to any person required to 

comply with those ICA, including 

owners and operators. Each owner or 

operator should, therefore, have access 

to all required maintenance and 

preventive maintenance information. 

One commenter stated that he 

services aircraft that have been 

upgraded to RVSM capability by way of 

STCs, and removing the RVSM 

maintenance program requirement 

would remove the information from the 

aircraft records that identifies which 

STC is installed. The FAA disagrees. 

When STCs are incorporated into 

aircraft they constitute major changes to 

the aircraft type design. Identification of 

the design change and associated ICA 

are recorded in the appropriate aircraft 

records. Section 21.50 requires design 

approval holders to make ICA available 

to any owner, operator, or other person 

required to comply with their terms. 

Another commenter stated that 

submission of an RVSM maintenance 

program is necessary to identify 

necessary repairs to RVSM and other 

aviation data equipment and that the 

FAA has a statutory obligation, under 49 

U.S.C. 44701, to promote the safe flight 

of civil aircraft. The FAA disagrees that 

submission of an RVSM maintenance 

program with an RVSM application for 

authorization is necessary to identify 

repairs for the reasons previously stated. 

Removal of the requirement will not 

negatively impact the safe flight of civil 

aircraft or conflict with the FAA’s 

obligations under 49 U.S.C. 44701. 

Among the commenters who raised 

safety concerns, several recommended 

alternatives. One commenter 

recommended that the FAA require 

operators to ‘‘identify practices’’ for the 

maintenance of RVSM equipment 

(alternative 2 considered in the 

proposal), but without requiring that 

these practices be submitted as part of 

an application. The same commenter 

also recommended that the FAA modify 

the alternative to specifically require 

each operator to identify the TC or STC 

holder’s ICA and ensure each is listed 

in the operator’s maintenance tracking 

system. 

The FAA believes that adopting the 

proposed alternative would provide no 

greater safety benefit and would do less 

to reduce the unnecessary burden on 

industry than eliminating the 

requirement to submit an RVSM 

maintenance program for approval. The 

commenter’s recommendation would 

continue to require operators to provide 

redundant paperwork as part of each 

RVSM application. The FAA also 

believes that requiring an applicant to 

identify maintenance practices, in 

addition to the existing requirements to 

follow those practices, would not 

meaningfully contribute to aviation 

safety. As stated previously, § 21.50 

requires design approval holders to 

make ICA available to any owner, 

operator, or other person required to 

comply with the terms of those ICA. 

With respect to the recommendation 

to require operators to track RVSMspecific information in a maintenance 

tracking system, the FAA agrees that 

any operator using a maintenance 

tracking system should use that system 

to track the maintenance of RVSM 

equipment as identified in the 

appropriate ICA. However, some 

operators—such as part 91 operators— 

are not required to develop maintenance 

tracking systems. To the extent that the 

commenter is recommending that the 

FAA require part 91 operators to 

implement maintenance tracking 

systems, the recommendation is outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

One commenter observed that the 

FAA often rejects, for various reasons, 

maintenance programs that accompany 

operators’ applications for RVSM 

authorizations. The commenter stated 

that the existence of these rejections is 

evidence that continued FAA oversight 

is necessary to maintain safety. The 

FAA disagrees. The FAA often rejects a 

program submission or requests that 

additional revisions be made to an 

application for reasons related to an 

operator’s lack of familiarity with the 

process for developing a program and 

submitting an application. These issues 

may be unrelated to the adequacy of a 

particular maintenance program. 

Moreover, many part 91 operators 

applying for RVSM authorizations do 

not perform maintenance themselves— 

RVSM or otherwise—and are 

reproducing plans developed by an 

original equipment manufacturer. 

Regardless of who performs the 

maintenance, §§ 91.405 and 91.407 

require each aircraft owner or operator 

to have the aircraft inspected and 

approved for return to service by an 

individual or entity authorized by 

§ 43.7. 

One commenter stated that the 

expense and effort required to create an 

RVSM maintenance program helps to 

ensure each operator’s commitment to 

safety. Another commenter stated that 

the requirement to develop and submit 

a maintenance program encourages 

operators to adhere to the appropriate 

maintenance information. The FAA 

believes that imposing a requirement on 

operators to submit a maintenance 

program for approval imposes a 

significant cost on operators that is not 

an effective or appropriate means of 

obtaining an operators’ commitment to 

safety. As previously described, 

operators will continue to be required to 

maintain their aircraft in an airworthy 

condition in accordance with existing 

regulations. 

Further Enhancements to the RVSM 

Authorization Process 

Three comments were received that 

the proposal ‘‘did not go far enough,’’ 

and recommended that the FAA 

eliminate RVSM approvals entirely. For 

example, one commenter stated that the 

industry’s experience in safely 

installing, maintaining, and operating 

RVSM equipment demonstrates that 

there is no longer a need for RVSM 

approvals. The FAA proposed only to 

remove the requirement to submit a 

maintenance program from the 

application for RVSM approval. The 

FAA did not propose to eliminate 

RVSM approvals entirely. The 

commenter’s recommendation is outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

One individual commenter 

recommended that, in cases where an 

operator was applying to operate an 

aircraft which was previously listed on 

an authorization, the FAA should issue 

a temporary, interim RVSM approval. 

The commenter stated that the NPRM 

underestimated the costs of compliance 

with the FAA’s RVSM approval 

program, because an operator awaiting 

RVSM authorization consumes 

significant additional funds flying 

below optimal altitudes. Operators are 

required to apply for a new 

authorization whenever an aircraft 

changes ownership or registration, 

regardless of whether the underlying 

aircraft is modified. The FAA did not 

propose to introduce interim RVSM 

authorizations. The commenters’ 

recommendation is, therefore, outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

Miscellaneous Comments or 

Recommendations 

One commenter stated that a 

reduction to the FAA’s workload is not 

a legitimate rationale for FAA 

rulemaking and that the FAA’s goal and 

statutory obligation is to promote safe 

flight of civil aircraft. The FAA notes 

that this final rule eliminates a 

requirement that is no longer necessary 

to provide the level of safety required 

for these operations. The FAA is 

required by numerous statutes and 

executive orders to consider both the 

costs and benefits of its regulations and 

to adopt proposals that are cost justified. 

Costs incurred by the FAA are a 

legitimate factor to be considered in 

accomplishing this analysis. See, e.g., 5 

U.S.C. 601–612 (Regulatory Flexibility 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47012 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Act); Executive Order 13563; Executive 

Order 12866. 

One individual commenter stated that 

the industry assumes this rule change 

would allow an operator to obtain 

RVSM approval by submitting no more 

than a letter to the FAA. The FAA 

disagrees. The requirement to submit an 

RVSM maintenance program, a 

requirement eliminated by this rule, was 

only one of three components of an 

RVSM application. Under §§ 91.180, 

91.706, and Appendix G to part 91, the 

FAA continues to require an applicant 

to submit documentation establishing 

that its aircraft is RVSM compliant, and 

that the applicant’s crew has adequate 

knowledge of RVSM requirements, 

policies, and procedures as set forth in 

§ 3(c)(2) of Appendix G. For part 121 

and part 135 operators, this requires 

initial and recurring pilot training as 

specified in § 3(b)(2) of Appendix G. 

One individual commenter 

recommended that the FAA eliminate 

the requirement for maintenance 

program approval only with respect to 

aircraft that are RVSM capable ‘‘under a 

TC.’’ The commenter recommended that 

the FAA continue to require 

maintenance program approval for any 

aircraft that is RVSM capable as a result 

of an alteration performed in accordance 

with an STC because an STC indicates 

a major deviation from the aircraft’s 

original type design and maintenance 

procedures would not be listed in the 

manufacturer’s recommended 

procedures. 

The FAA disagrees that aircraft with 

RVSM equipment installed pursuant to 

an STC should be treated differently 

from aircraft with RVSM equipment 

installed as part of an original or 

amended type design. Both TC and STC 

holders must develop ICA, and § 43.13 

continues to require maintenance and 

preventive maintenance to be performed 

in accordance with the current 

manufacturer’s maintenance manual, 

ICA, or other methods, techniques, and 

practices acceptable to the 

Administrator. Because ICA are 

available regardless of whether RVSM 

equipment is installed under a TC or an 

STC, and because all operators are 

equally obligated to maintain their 

equipment in accordance with this 

maintenance information, the FAA finds 

no reason to differentiate between these 

two kinds of operators. 

One individual commenter stated that 

avionics technology has undergone a 

major transformation in the last 15 

years, moving away from discrete 

components and towards more fully 

integrated systems. The commenter 

recommended that authorizations 

should similarly be analyzed and 

approved in a more unified manner, to 

reduce the number of individual 

performance-based approvals. The 

commenter’s recommendation that the 

FAA review all performance-based 

approvals in a single application is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

Several individual commenters, both 

supporting and opposing the proposal, 

stated that the burden on operators to 

obtain approval of an RVSM 

maintenance program could be reduced 

substantially by standardizing what is 

required by FAA inspectors in an RVSM 

application. The FAA has published 

and continues to provide guidance to its 

inspectors on the requirements for the 

issuance of an RVSM authorization. In 

addition to the guidance, the FAA has 

developed job aids to assist in the 

development of an RVSM program 

manual. The agency believes these 

ongoing efforts will continue to increase 

standardization in the application 

process. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall 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 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

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

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

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 with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. Because this 

rulemaking is a retrospective regulatory 

review, the expected outcome would be 

a cost savings with positive net benefits. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined that 

this final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and procedures. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows: 

This rulemaking responds to requests 

from industry and FAA program offices. 

The rule removes the requirement that 

operators seeking RVSM authorization 

must submit an RVSM maintenance 

program for FAA approval. It eliminates 

the considerable burden and expense to 

operators and FAA safety inspectors of 

developing, processing, and approving 

RVSM maintenance programs. 

When the former requirement was 

established, RVSM systems were yet to 

be incorporated into initial aircraft type 

designs. This is no longer the case. 

RVSM systems are now incorporated 

into initial aircraft type designs, and 

operators must properly maintain these 

systems as part of their airworthiness 

obligation. In light of these 

developments, the requirement for 

RVSM applicants to submit specialized 

maintenance programs is redundant. 

Removing this redundancy has no effect 

on aviation safety. 

One commenter stated the NPRM 

underestimated the cost of compliance, 

because an operator awaiting RVSM 

authorization incurs cost flying below 

optimal altitudes. As the operators are 

already required to incur this cost, this 

rule does not change this cost. The FAA 

did not propose to introduce interim 

RVSM authorization, therefore no new 

cost are required. The FAA notes that no 

other comments were received on our 

NPRM cost-savings determination or 

methodology. While the same 

methodology is used here, the FAA has 

updated the number of maintenance 

programs expected to be submitted and 

the wage for the safety inspector to 2015 

dollars. 

The relief to part 91 operators and 

FAA safety inspectors from the 

streamlining of regulations equals the 

number of RVSM maintenance programs 

approved (including growth) multiplied 

by the costs per operator of submitting 

an RVSM maintenance program for FAA 

approval. To that result, the FAA added 

the number of RVSM maintenance 

programs approved multiplied by the 

cost of an FAA safety inspector to 

review and approve an RVSM 

maintenance program multiplied by the 

average number of hours FAA safety 

inspectors expend reviewing and 

approving each RVSM maintenance 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 47013 

1FAA National Program Tracking and Reporting 

Subsystem (NPTRS). 2National Business Aviation Association—Part 

91 Operator Cost for Submitting an RVSM 

Approval. 3FAA Safety Inspectors involved in RVSM 

authorization processing at FAA Flight Standards 

District Offices (FSDO). 

4This amount consists of $3,123 in operator costs 

for submitting an application form and supporting 

documentation to a RVSM manual preparation 

service, and then reading, understanding, signing, 

and submitting the completed RVSM maintenance 

program manual to the FAA for approval. The 

remaining $1,977 is an approximation of the 

amount paid by an operator for RVSM manual 

preparation services. The estimate of $1,977 is an 

average of quotes provided on the Internet by seven 

companies providing this service. These seven 

quotes ranged from $795 to $3,850. 

5Source: 2015 General Schedule Salary Table as 

published by the U. S. Office of Personnel 

Management. The salary used for calculating costs 

savings is the fully-burdened hourly wage for a GS 

12 Step 5, which is the mid-range salary for this 

position. 

6Office of the Secretary of Transportation 

Memorandum, ‘‘Revised Departmental Guidance on 

Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis’’, 

July 2014. 

program. The value for these variables is 

shown below. 

CY 2015—Number of maintenance programs submitted to FAA for approval 1

Average annual 

growth 

(2010–2015) in the 

number of 

maintenance 

programs 

submitted to FAA 

for approval 

(used as forecast 

of 2016–2020 

growth) 

Operator cost for 

submitting a 

maintenance 

program to the 

FAA for approval 2

Hours expended by 

FAA safety 

inspectors 

reviewing 

maintenance 

programs for 

approval 3

2,437 .................................................................................................................... 4.46% 4 $5,000 12 

Applying these estimates, the FAA 

anticipates that operators would 

experience cost savings of approximate 

$12.7 million in year one of 

implementation. The FAA calculated 

this figure by multiplying the estimated 

number of maintenance programs 

expected to be submitted to the FAA for 

approval during CY 2016 (2,546 

approvals) by each operator’s cost for 

submitting a RVSM maintenance 

program to the FAA for approval 

($5,000). 

In addition to the cost savings 

realized by operators, eliminating the 

requirement would free 30,552 hours for 

FAA safety inspectors to perform 

alternative tasks during year one of 

implementation. The hours are 

calculated by multiplying the average 

number of hours FAA safety inspectors 

expend reviewing and approving each 

RVSM maintenance program submitted 

(12 hours) by the number of RVSM 

maintenance program approvals 

estimated for CY 2016 (2,546 approvals). 

The annual cost savings of $1.4 million 

to the FAA equals the 30,552 hours 

multiplied by the FAA fully-burdened 

wage of $45.96.5 As per Department of 

Transportation (DOT) guidance, the 

FAA assumes that there will be a 1.2 

percent projected annual increase in 

real wages.6

Based on these calculations, the cost 

savings to operators and the FAA during 

the first five years of the rule’s 

implementation will be approximately 

$77.5 million ($67.6 million present 

value). The results are presented below: 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES

ER20JY16.002</GPH>rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Entries may not exactly add to totals due to rounding. 
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 47015 

7Thresholds are based on the North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS). The NAICS 

is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies 

in classifying business establishments for the 

purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing 

statistical data related to the U.S. business 

economy. 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a 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. 

Under the RFA, the FAA must 

determine whether a rule significantly 

affects a substantial number of small 

entities. This determination is typically 

based on small entity size and revenue 

thresholds that vary depending on the 

affected industry.7 In most cases, the 

FAA cannot determine the size of part 

91 operators because financial and 

employment data for privately held 

entities is sparse. Nevertheless, the FAA 

believes the number of small business 

entities is substantial. The FAA 

estimates that this rulemaking will save 

each affected small entity $5,000 per 

RVSM authorization. 

Based on the criteria used in the 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis and 

used again here, this rule will impact a 

substantial number of part 91 operators. 

Accordingly, the FAA prepared a final 

regulatory flexibility analysis for part 91 

operators, as described in the next 

section. The FAA received no comments 

to the initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis for this rule. 

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 the agency 

considered the rule, (2) the objectives 

and legal basis for the rule, (3) the kind 

and number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply, (4) the reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements of the rule, and (5) all 

Federal rules that may duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with the rule. 

Reasons the FAA Considered the Rule 

All part 91 operator RVSM-related 

obligations are required by FAA 

airworthiness regulations to maintain 

RVSM equipment in an airworthy 

condition. Thus, the requirement that 

operators seeking RVSM authorization 

to develop and submit an RVSM 

maintenance program for FAA approval, 

is redundant. 

The Objectives and Legal Basis for the 

Rule 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

§§ 106, 40113, and 44701 of 49 U.S.C., 

which authorize the FAA Administrator 

to prescribe regulations necessary for 

aviation safety. Section 40103 

authorizes the Administrator to 

prescribe regulations to enhance the 

efficiency of the national airspace. This 

rulemaking is within the scope of these 

authorities because it removes existing 

safety and airspace-related regulations 

that the FAA no longer finds necessary 

to protect aviation safety. 

The Kind and Number of Small Entities 

to Which the Rule Will Apply 

This final rule will affect a substantial 

number of part 91 operators. The FAA 

estimates that this proposed rulemaking 

would save each affected small entity 

$5,000 per RVSM authorization. 

The Reporting, Recordkeeping, and 

Other Compliance Requirements of the 

Rule 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there is no 

new requirement for information 

collection associated with this final 

rule. 

All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Rule 

This final rule eliminates an 

application requirement for submission 

of an RVSM maintenance program and 

leaves intact current requirements to 

maintain RVSM equipment and operate 

RVSM authorized aircraft in an 

airworthy condition. Sections 43.13, 

91.405, and 91.407 continue to require 

aircraft to be inspected and approved for 

return to service in accordance with 

manufacturers’ maintenance 

information or other material acceptable 

to the Administrator. Operators with 

approved maintenance programs will 

continue to be required to maintain 

RVSM equipment in accordance with 

their approved programs. 

Other Considerations 

Alternatives 

Alternative 1: Retain the current 

requirement for submission of an RVSM 

maintenance program for approval. 

Analysis: Without changes to 

Appendix G of part 91, any operator 

seeking RVSM authorization would 

continue to be required to submit an 

RVSM maintenance program. A noncommercial operator with no 

requirement to hold a maintenance 

program for any other performancebased authorization would nevertheless 

be required to submit an RVSM 

maintenance program for approval— 

despite the fact that the operator is 

already required by FAA regulations to 

maintain RVSM equipment in 

accordance with its type design and in 

a condition for safe operation. 

Furthermore, the review and approval of 

this information would continue to 

consume FAA resources. 

Alternative 2: Replace the current 

Appendix G requirement that operators 

include an ‘‘approved RVSM 

maintenance program’’ with a 

requirement that operators ‘‘identify 

practices’’ for the maintenance of RVSM 

equipment. 

Analysis: Relaxing Appendix G 

application requirements to allow 

operators to ‘‘identify practices’’ for the 

maintenance of RVSM equipment 

would allow a non-commercial operator 

to cite the applicable manufacturer’s 

maintenance manual or ICA. This 

alternative would likely reduce the time 

and resources spent by operators and 

the FAA in compiling and reviewing 

RVSM applications. This alternative is 

undesirable, however, because it fails to 

address the absence of any safety 

benefits associated with continuing to 

require an RVSM maintenance program 

as a component of an RVSM 

application. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
47016 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

The FAA expects this rule will save 

each affected small entity $5,000 per 

RVSM authorization. Over a 5-year 

period, the number exceeds $10,000 per 

RVSM authorization. While the rule 

may not have a significant economic 

impact, it would have a positive impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule and 

determined that it will have only a 

domestic impact and, therefore, no 

effect on international trade. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 

million in lieu of $100 million. This 

final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

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

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. The 

FAA has determined that there is no 

new requirement for information 

collection associated with this final 

rule. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has determined that there are no ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

that correspond to these proposed 

regulations. 

G. 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 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312d (regulatory documents 

covering administrative or procedural 

requirements) and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency determined that this action will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, or the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

agency has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

VI. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov and 

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number for this 

action. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the FAA’s dockets 

by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 require the FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document, may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91 

Air traffic control, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 

40103, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 

44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 

44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 

46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 47528–47531, 

47534, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention 

on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 

1180), (126 Stat. 11). 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 47017 

■ 2. Amend Appendix G, Section 3 by 

removing and reserving paragraph 

(b)(1). 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), 40103, 40113, and 44701(a) in 

Washington, DC, on July 12, 2016. 

Michael Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–17155 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 417, 420, 431, and 435 

[Docket No.: FAA–2014–0418; Amdt. Nos. 

417–4, 420–7, 431–4 and 435–3] 

RIN 2120–AK06 

Changing the Collective Risk Limits for 

Launches and Reentries and Clarifying 

the Risk Limit Used To Establish 

Hazard Areas for Ships and Aircraft 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending its 

regulations concerning the collective 

risk limits for commercial launches and 

reentries. These changes include: 

Separating the risk limits for 

commercial launches and reentries; 

aggregating the risk posed by impacting 

inert and explosive debris, toxic release, 

and far field blast overpressure; limiting 

the aggregate risk for these three hazards 

to 1 × 10¥4; reducing the number of 

significant digits used in launch and 

reentry risk analysis; and various nonsubstantive clarifying revisions. These 

changes update FAA regulations to 

reflect the United States Government’s 

greater experience with commercial 

launch and reentry and to align more 

closely the FAA’s risk standards with 

those of other United States Federal 

agencies, while continuing to protect 

public safety. 

DATES: Effective September 19, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Rene Rey, AST–300, 

Office of Commercial Space 

Transportation, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–7538; email 

Rene.Rey@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The Commercial Space Launch Act of 

1984, as amended and codified at 51 

United States Code (U.S.C.) Subtitle V— 

Commercial Space Transportation, Ch. 

509, Commercial Space Launch 

Activities, 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923 (the 

Act), authorizes the Secretary of 

Transportation and thus the FAA, 

through delegations, to oversee, license, 

and regulate commercial launch and 

reentry, and the operation of launch and 

reentry sites as carried out by U.S. 

citizens or within the United States. 51 

U.S.C. 50904, 50905. The Act directs the 

FAA to exercise this responsibility 

consistent with public health and safety, 

safety of property, and the national 

security and foreign policy interests of 

the United States. 51 U.S.C. 50905. 

Section 50901(a)(7), in relevant part, 

directs the FAA to regulate private 

sector launches, reentries, and 

associated services only to the extent 

necessary to protect the public health 

and safety and safety of property. The 

FAA is also responsible for encouraging, 

facilitating, and promoting commercial 

space launches and reentries by the 

private sector. 51 U.S.C. 50903. 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

The FAA is adopting this final rule to 

revise certain regulations related to the 

collective risk limits for commercial 

launches and reentries in part 417 

(Launch Safety), part 420 (License to 

Operate a Launch Site), part 431 

(Launch and Reentry of a Reusable 

Launch Vehicle (RLV)), and part 435 

(Reentry of a Reentry Vehicle Other 

Than a Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV)) 

of Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). 

This final rule divides the risk 

analysis for launch and reentry, 

providing a separate risk budget for 

each. For all launches, regardless of 

vehicle type, this final rule requires a 

single expected number of casualties 

(Ec) be calculated by aggregating the risk 

posed to the collective members of the 

public from three hazards: Impacting 

and inert explosive debris, toxic release, 

and far field blast overpressure. This 

final rule also revises the acceptable risk 

threshold for launch from an Ec of 30 × 

10¥6 for each hazard to an Ec of 1 × 

10¥4 for all three hazards combined. 

Furthermore, this final rule expresses 

the revised Ec limit using the correct 

number of significant digits to properly 

represent the uncertainty in Ec

calculations. This final rule changes the 

FAA’s collective risk limits for launch 

and reentry to more closely match the 

Ec standard currently used by the 

United States (U.S.) Air Force and the 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) for government 

missions, and to account for the level of 

uncertainty that exists in the Ec

calculations. 

This final rule also makes two 

revisions to § 417.107 to clarify the 

launch and reentry regulations. The first 

revision removes the phrase ‘‘including 

each planned impact’’ from 

§ 417.107(b)(1) to clarify that public risk 

is assessed from lift-off through orbital 

insertion for orbital launches and from 

lift-off to final impact for suborbital 

launches. The second revision modifies 

§ 417.107(b)(3) and (b)(4) to make 

transparent the criteria for establishing 

hazard areas by replacing the references 

to equivalent levels of safety for water 

borne and aircraft hazard areas required 

for launch from a federal launch range 

with the actual levels of safety provided 

by hazard areas for launches from a 

federal range in 2006, the year the FAA 

promulgated § 417.107. Under 

§ 417.107(b)(3), a hazard area for water 

borne vessels satisfies part 417 if the 

probability of impact with debris 

capable of causing a casualty on any 

potential water borne vessel within the 

hazard area does not exceed 0.00001 (1 

× 10¥5). Under § 417.107(b)(4), a hazard 

area for aircraft will satisfy part 417 if 

the probability of impact with debris 

capable of causing a casualty on any 

potential aircraft within that hazard area 

does not exceed 0.000001 (1 × 10¥6). 

These clarifying edits do not change the 

risk requirement for launch licensees or 

launch license applicants. 

Summary of the Costs and Benefits of 

the Final Rule 

The final rule will result in net 

benefits for both the commercial space 

transportation industry (industry) and 

government by reducing the number of 

waivers that must be prepared by the 

industry and processed by the 

government for launches with an 

aggregate Ec between 90 × 10¥6 and 149 

× 10¥6, and by averting unnecessary 

mission delays and scrubs. The 

resulting savings for both the industry 

and the FAA from reducing the number 

of waivers range from a low estimate of 

approximately $8.3 million to a high 

estimate of $16.7 million ($5.8 million 

and $11.7 million present value at a 7% 

discount rate, respectively). 

II. Background 

An operator conducts a launch using 

an expendable launch vehicle (ELV) or 

a reusable launch vehicle (RLV). An 

ELV is a launch vehicle whose 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES