Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37035

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 99–AAL–24]

Establishment of Class E Airspace;

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class

E airspace over the Yukon-Kuskokwim

(Y–K) Delta area in southwest Alaska in

support of the Capstone Research and

Development (R&D) project.

Specifically, this action establishes

controlled airspace extending from

1,200 feet above ground level (AGL)

upwards to the base of the existing Class

E airspace of 14,500 feet above mean sea

level (MSL) within an area bounded by

lat. 58°25′36′′ N long. 158°00′W, to lat.

57°50′ N long. 158°00′ W, to lat. 57°50′

N long. 156°00′ W, to lat. 64°00′ N long.

156°00′ W, to lat. 64°00′ N long. 161°41′

24′′ W, then via the 12 nautical mile

limit to the point of beginning. This rule

will (1) provide adequate controlled

airspace for commercial air carriers

conducting Instrument Flight Rules

(IFR) operations over southwest Alaska

and (2) validate new operational

procedures and equipment in the IFR

environment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 10,

2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob

Durand, Operations Branch, AAL–531,

Federal Aviation Administration, 222

West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage,

AK 99513–7587; telephone number

(907) 271–5898; fax: (907) 271–2850;

email: Bob.Durand@faa.gov. Internet

address: http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On February 24, 2000, a proposal to

amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish

Class E airspace over the YukonKuskokwim Delta area in southwest

Alaska was published in the Federal

Register (65 FR 9227). The purpose of

this rule is to create adequate controlled

airspace and infrastructure for IFR

operations in the Yukon-Kushkokwim

Delta area where uncontrolled airspace

currently exists. This controlled

airspace is needed to validate new

operational procedures and equipment

in the IFR environment in support of the

Capstone R&D project. Additionally,

this rule will enhance flight safety,

reduce the potential for midair

collisions, improve operational

efficiencies, and better manage air traffic

operations.

The establishment of Class E airspace

in this rule will impact on pilots’ flight

visibility and cloud avoidance

requirements while flying under Visual

Flight Rules (VFR), during the day

above 1,200 feet AGL and below 10,000

feet MSL. The pilot’s flight visibility

requirement increases to three (3)

statute miles. VFR weather minimums

are shown in the following table

extracted from 14 CFR 91.155 Basic VFR

weather minimums:

BASIC VFR WEATHER MINIMUMS

Flight visibility

(statute mile(s)) Distance from clouds

Class G (uncontrolled):

1,200 feet or less AGL, Day ........................................................................................... 1 Clear of clouds.

1,200 feet or less AGL, Night ......................................................................................... 3 500 feet below.

1,000 feet above.

2,000 feet horizontal.

1,200 feet or more and less than 10,000 feet MSL, Day .............................................. 1 500 feet below.

1,000 feet above.

2,000 feet horizontal.

1,200 feet or more and less than 10,000 feet MSL, Night ............................................ 3 500 feet below.

1,000 feet above.

2,000 feet horizontal.

More than 1,200 feet AGL and at or above 10,000 feet MSL ....................................... 5 1,000 feet below.

1,000 feet above.

1 statute mile horizontal.

Class E (controlled):

Less than 10,000 MSL ................................................................................................... 3 500 feet below.

1,000 feet above.

2,000 feet horizontal.

At or above 10,000 MSL ................................................................................................ 5 1,000 feet below.

1,000 feet above.

1 statute mile horizontal.

Environmental Review

On February 25, 1999, the FAA

initiated an environmental review, 99–

AAL–024–NR, seeking public comment

on the proposal to establish Class E

airspace to encompass the Capstone

Demonstration Area. In the

environmental review solicitation, the

FAA stated the desire to design and

establish Class E airspace that will

facilitate the development of the

Capstone Demonstration and the

transition to the future National

Airspace System (NAS) Architecture

with minimal impact on the

environment. Significant environmental

issues were not identified during the

scoping process. Thus, this activity falls

within a category of actions normally

categorically excluded from

documentation in an Environmental

Assessment (EA) or Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS).

On April 7, 1999, the FAA conducted

a Preliminary Environmental Review.

This review was conducted in

accordance with policies and

procedures in Department of

Transportation Order 5610.1C,

Procedures for Considering

Environmental Impacts, Order 1050.1,

and is in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and

in accordance with the regulations

promulgated by the Council on

Environmental Quality, 40 CFR 1500 et

seq. Thus, on April 13, 1999, the FAA

signed the Categorical Exclusion

Declaration. This review enabled the

37036 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

FAA to exclude this proposed action

from further environmental

documentation according to Order

1050.1, Policies and Procedures for

Considering Environmental Impacts.

Comments Received on the Proposal

Interested parties were invited to

participate in this rulemaking by

submitting written comments on the

proposal to the FAA. The State of

Alaska, Department of Fish and Game,

Habitat and Restoration Division along

with Larry’s Flying Service wrote letters

in support of the proposal. Larry’s

Flying Service requested clarification on

some issues which the FAA deemed

beneficial to address in the final rule.

(1) What is the intended meaning and

understanding of ‘‘validate new

operational procedures and equipment

in the IFR environment?’’ Initially the

Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control

Center (ARTCC) controllers will provide

‘‘radar like’’ services to Capstone

equipped aircraft. The controllers will

use five (5) mile radar separation criteria

with Automatic Dependent

Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS–B)

position reports. Initial evaluation of

ADS data integrity indicates that smaller

distance criteria may be attainable,

however it is desirable to gain more

experience with this technology before

developing new procedures in this

application. The ADS reports will be

used to augment radar reports where

radar coverage exists, and to

supplement radar beyond and below

existing radar coverage.

Validating new operational

procedures and equipment includes the

active participation by air carriers using

the new equipment in their aircraft.

Each air carrier, participating in the

Capstone project, will work with the

FAA to develop and incorporate new

procedures into their general operations

manuals and training programs. Each

procedure developed will help validate

whether the new equipment performs in

a manner consistent with the

manufacturers operating and

performance specifications and safety.

Adherence to newly developed

procedures and providing feedback are

vital elements of the validation process.

Examples include evaluation of ADS–B

generated traffic information as a

collision avoidance tool in the

instrument flight environment. Another

example is the validation of ADS–B for

‘‘radar like’’ traffic management. Pilots

and controllers alike will gain

knowledge of ADS–B and learn how

each group plans to use the information

generated in order to integrate this

technology as an effective element of the

NAS.

(2) What is the view of the FAA at this

time with respect to ‘‘new GPS nonprecision instrument approaches’’ as

pertaining to VFR Capstone equipped

aircraft? Most Capstone equipped

aircraft are not capable of operating IFR

under part 121 or part 135 due to

manufacturing or regulatory limitations,

or equipment installed not meeting IFR

requirements. The GPS installed with

the Capstone avionics package is

manufactured under TSO–129, and

therefore fully capable of being operated

in the IFR environment. It was the

intention of the Capstone project to have

the greatest positive impact on safety as

possible by providing equipment to

owner’s that could be easily

incorporated into VFR or IFR aircraft

alike. Those carriers who wished to self

equip their aircraft to meet IFR

requirements could use Capstone GPS

as a part of the required IFR equipment.

The new GPS approaches and colocated AWOS sites, parts of the

Capstone project, support safety and

expand the IFR infrastructure in Alaska.

(3) How can an operator elect to

support new operational procedures and

new equipment for IFR operation if the

procedures and equipment are not made

known to the operator? IFR operations

using the Capstone avionics will be

supported by achieving Level C

certification (needed for IFR operations).

The ARTCC Air Traffic Control (ATC)

automation system is being upgraded to

provide aircraft position information to

controllers to enable them to provide

navigation assistance and separation

from other radar and ADS identified

aircraft after level C certification is

achieved. The FAA will coordinate all

new operational procedures before

being implemented. All new equipment

was coordinated with industry

representatives in Alaska before final

selection was made. Information on new

equipment and procedures will be

posted on the Capstone website (http:/

/www.faa.gov/capstone) to aid in

distribution.

(4) What is the rationale for the FAA’s

determination that this rule is a not a

significant regulatory action and not a

significant rule? The Department of

Transportation (DOT) Order 2100.5,

Policies and Procedures for

Simplification, Analysis, and Review of

Regulations (May 22, 1980), requires a

regulatory analysis for each proposed

regulation that will (1) result in an effect

on the economy of $100 million or

more; (2) result in a major effect on the

general economy in terms of costs,

consumer prices, or production; (3)

result in a major increase in costs or

prices for individual industries, levels

of government, or geographic regions;

(4) have a substantial impact on the U.S.

balance of trade; or (5) be the result of

the secretary or head of the initiating

office determining a need for such

analysis. In addition to the requirement

in DOT Order 2100.5, Executive Order

12866 requires a regulatory analysis for

significant proposed regulations that

have an annual effect on the economy

of $100 million or more or adversely

effect, in a material way, the economy,

a sector of the economy, productivity,

competition, jobs, the environment,

public health or safety, or State, local,

or tribal governments or communities.

Any regulation or other action that does

not meet the above criteria and any

regulation that is routine, frequent, or

procedural may be issued by the FAA

Administrator without review or

approval by the DOT Secretary. The

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–

612, requires the FAA to consider the

special needs and concerns of small

entities. The FAA is required to prepare

and publish an initial regulatory

flexibility analysis describing the effect

of a proposed rule on small entities for

those proposed regulations that would

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Where appropriate, the FAA must

consider alternatives the would achieve

its goals while minimizing the burdon

on small entities. If the FAA determines

that the proposed regulation would not

have a significant economic impact, a

factual basis for the determination must

be provided.

(5) What operational changes does an

operator in this environment need to

apply for as pertaining to the Operators

Operations Specifications as approved

and issued the Operator by the FAA?

Operators intending to use ADS–B

operationally will need to seek guidance

from the FAA Certificate holding

district office that’s assigned. Active

procedural use of cockpit displays of

traffic information (requiring pilots to

use targets generated on cockpit

displays) for visual acquisition, in trail

maneuvers; station keeping; enhanced

see and avoid; reduced separation

standards; long range conflict

management; or conflict detection and

avoidance may require operations

specification issuance.

(6) Does the FAA propose additional

training and if so what type of training

and testing? Controllers have received

training in the new ATC ADS target

display capability. FAA technicians will

receive training in ground equipment

theory and function to enable them to

ensure proper equipment operation and

performance. Training programs have

been developed and given to carriers

participating in the Capstone project.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 37037

Carriers should adapt the training

material provided to meet their

individual needs and requirements, and

coordinate with their assigned FAA

inspector.

(7) Will this ‘‘new operational

procedures under IFR’’ apply to all IFR

operators and pilots under FAA

supervision? When will these new

operational procedures be

implemented? New operational

procedures will apply to those aircraft

equipped to utilized these procedures.

Government acceptance testing of the

new ATC functional enhancements has

been completed. Anchorage ARTCC will

be able to begin Initial Operations

Capability evaluation on June 15, 2000.

At this point controllers will begin to

provide VFR advisories and traffic alerts

to participating aircraft on a limited

basis to validate their ability to conduct

these operations. In August 2000, the

ARTCC will go to Operational Readiness

Demonstration, during which time the

controllers will have the new ADS

functional capabilities available on a

full time basis. This is a higher level of

validation leading to commissioning. It

is expected that full IFR services, the

final commissioning step, will be

accomplished when the avionics

achieves level C certification in

November 2000. Eleven new stand alone

GPS approaches are presently found in

government and industry publications.

Eight more GPS approaches are

scheduled to be published by the end of

August 2000. Each airport upgrading

from VFR to IFR status is being

provided with an Automated Weather

Observing System (AWOS) in support of

the Part 121 and Part 135 operating

rules regarding weather reporting.

Comments were received urging the

proposal be withdrawn for the following

rationale: (1) Increased visibility and

distance from clouds requirement above

1,200 feet AGL will hinder aircraft

movement. Pilots would drop below

1,200 feet AGL, congesting this airspace

and risk controlled flight into terrain or

a mid-air collision, rather than request

an IFR clearance and mess with positive

control. (2) Radio communications via

Remote Communications Air/Ground

(RCAG) is limited in this area even

incorporating Remote Communications

Outlets (RCO). Pilots may not be able to

contact an Air Traffic Control facility.

(3) The workload on controllers at

Automated Flight Service Station

(AFSS) facilities will increase via

relaying IFR and Special VFR clearances

and other services. AFSS are not staffed

to handle the increased radio

communications. (4) Since only

commercial aircraft will be equipped

with the Capstone avionics and general

aviation (GA) will be unable or

unwilling to obtain clearances, there

will be a combination of IFR and VFR

aircraft operating within the same

airspace during IFR conditions.

Capstone participants cannot be assured

separation from VFR and IFR traffic. (5)

Poor pilot judgment in weather

conditions below minimums does not

warrant establishing a procedure that is

extremely restrictive and alienates the

small engine, GA pilot over such a large

area of Alaska. (6) Capstone is doomed

to failure because the FAA does not

have the budget to allow compliance by

all, nor maintain the data link

infrastructure necessary for consistent

reliability and future upgrades.

FAA Response to Comments

The FAA disagrees with the

comments for withdrawal of the

proposal for the following reasons:

(1) The visibility requirement above

1200 feet AGL will increase from one (1)

statue mile in Class G airspace to three

(3) statue miles in Class E airspace,

however, cloud clearance requirements

above 1200 feet AGL remain unaffected.

These visibility increases provide a

safety buffer needed when IFR and VFR

flights operate in the same airspace.

Capstone is a joint FAA/industry project

initiated to reduce the current Alaskan

air taxi accident rate which is six (6)

times the national average. The airports

receiving new instrument procedures

were selected by a group of industry

representatives comprising a broad

spectrum of both GA and commercial

interests. The required airspace actions,

with the resulting increase in visibility

requirements, are a result of joint

planning and coordinating with these

industry groups.

(2) RCAG/RCO coverage—ADS–B

‘‘radar-like’’ services are being

implemented in a manner to utilize

known air to ground radio coverage

capabilities. Where it becomes known,

in the implementation of this service,

that additional voice communications

coverage is needed, projects will be

initiated to accommodate that need.

(3) The installation of Capstone

equipment into an aircraft does not

change the Federal Aviation Regulations

(FARs) under which the aircraft must be

operated. Those aircraft properly

equipped to conduct flight in

instrument conditions with a rated crew

may be expected to file for IFR services

at any time the weather deteriorates

below VFR minima. There will not be

any waivers granted to Capstone

equipped aircraft to operate VFR in IFR

conditions as this would be a violation

of the governing FARs. Capstone is a

safety initiative. By introducing moving

map terrain, NOTAM, and weather

information to aircraft in flight, it is

anticipated that accident rates may be

reduced. Because aircraft will have

increased access to information

normally provided by flight service

specialists through voice transmission,

specialist workload may actually

decrease in some areas.

(4) One of the Capstone program

objectives in support of the RTCA Free

Flight Steering Committee is to provide

participating aircraft the capability of

‘‘enhanced see and avoid’’ commonly

referred to as Traffic Information

Services (TIS). Initially, Capstone

equipped aircraft will be able to display

other similarly equipped aircraft, and in

the foreseeable future radar tracked

aircraft information will be uplinked to

Capstone equipped aircraft as well. This

information will be available to

Capstone aircraft at all times, IFR or

VFR, as long as they are within the

service volume of a Capstone Ground

Broadcast Transceiver. This should

assist the pilot in performing their

primary responsibility of ‘‘seeing and

avoiding’’ other aircraft.

(5) The Capstone project cannot

overcome all NAS infrastructure

deficiencies and that is not the project’s

intent. Capstone project is a safety

initiative implemented to demonstrate

the advantages inherent in emerging

technology and afford those benefits to

Alaskans on a geographically expanding

basis.

(6) The Capstone program is fully

funded under the FAA’s ‘‘Facilities and

Equipment’’ budget process. The

program is presently funded for three

years with planning under way for at

least two additional years. Current

program projections are to expand the

program to serve the entire State of

Alaska. Capstone infrastructure

enhancements include weather

reporting stations and new GPS based

approach development as well as

increasing service to the public by

providing ‘‘radar like services’’ using

ADS–B. Capstone is a fully funded

project designed to allow a real world

validation of a mixture of equipment to

improve safety. Newly installed AWOS

sites fill the weather needs at previously

unserved airports and close gaps in the

present weather reporting areas

allowing for better weather forecasting

and real time weather dissemination to

working flight crews. Ground based

equipment installed in the field will be

certified and maintained to appropriate

NAS standards.

The area will be depicted on

aeronautical charts for pilot reference.

The coordinates for this airspace docket

are based on North American Datum 83.

37038 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 13, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

The Class E airspace areas designated as

700/1200 foot transition areas are

published in paragraph 6005 of FAA

Order 7400.9G, Airspace Designations

and Reporting Points, dated September

1, 1999, and effective September 16,

1999, which is incorporated by

reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E

airspace designations listed in this

document will be revised and published

subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 71

(part 71) establishes Class E airspace

within the Yukon-Kushkokwim Delta

area in southwest Alaska. The intended

effect of this rule is to create adequate

controlled airspace and infrastructure

for IFR operations within the in the

Yukon-Kushkokwim Delta area where

uncontrolled airspace currently exists.

This controlled airspace is needed to

validate new operational procedures

and equipment in the IFR environment

in support of the Capstone R&D project.

Additionally, this rule will enhance

flight safety, reduce the potential for

midair collisions, improve operational

efficiencies, and better manage air traffic

operations.

The FAA has determined that these

proposed regulations only involve an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current. It,

therefore (1) is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant

preparation of a regulatory evaluation as

the anticipated impact is so minimal.

Since this is a routine matter that will

only affect air traffic procedures and air

navigation, it is certified that this rule,

when promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING

POINTS

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR

Part 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9G,

Airspace Designations and Reporting

Points, dated September 1, 1999, and

effective September 16, 1999, is

amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace extending

upward from 700 feet or more above the

surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, AK

[New]

That airspace extending upward from

1,200 feet above the surface within the area

bounded by lat. 58° 25′ 36′′ N long. 158° 00′

W, to lat. 57° 50′ N long. 158° 00′ W, to lat.

57° 50′ N long. 156° 00′ W, to lat. 64° 00′ N

long. 156° 00′ W, to lat. 64° 00′ N long. 161°

41′ 24′′ W, then via the 12 nautical mile limit

to the point of beginning.

* * * * *

Issued in Anchorage, AK, on June 6, 2000.

Willis C. Nelson,

Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan

Region.

[FR Doc. 00–14861 Filed 6–12–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Airspace Docket No. 00–ASO–8]

RIN 2120–AA66

Amendment to Time of Designation for

Restricted Area R–7104 (R–7104),

Vieques Island, PR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action amends the time

of designation for Restricted Area R–

7104 (R–7104), Vieques Island, PR.,

from ‘‘Intermittent, 0600–2300 local

time, daily; other times by NOTAM 24

hours in advance’’ to ‘‘As activated by

NOTAM 24 hours in advance.’’ The

FAA is taking this action in response to

a request from the United States Navy

(USN) and the FAA Southern Regional

Air Traffic Division.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, August 10,

2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry Brown, Airspace and Rules

Division, ATA–400, Office of Air Traffic

Airspace Management, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;

telephone: (202) 267–8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

As a result of a review of restricted

area operations, the USN and the FAA

Southern Regional Air Traffic Division

requested to change the requirements

for the activation of R–7104, Vieques

Island, PR. This action will simplify the

Times of Designation portion of FAA

Order 7400.8.

The Rule

This amendment to 14 CFR part 73

changes the time of designation for R–

7104, Vieques Island, PR, by removing

the words ‘‘Intermittent, 0600–2300

local time, daily; other times by

NOTAM 24 hours in advance,’’ and

inserting the words ‘‘As activated by

NOTAM 24 hours in advance.’’

Since this is an administrative change

and does not affect the boundaries,

designated altitudes, or activities

conducted therein; I find that notice and

public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)

are unnecessary.

Section 73.71 of part 73 was

republished in FAA Order 7400.8G,

dated September 1, 1999.

The FAA has determined that this

action only involves an established

body of technical regulations for which

frequent and routine amendments are

necessary to keep them operationally

current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)

does not warrant preparation of a

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated

impact is so minimal. Since this is a

routine matter that will only affect air

traffic procedures and air navigation, it

is certified that this rule, when

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

In accordance with FAA Order

1050.1D, ‘‘Polices and Procedures for

Considering Environmental Impacts,’’

and the National Environmental Policy