30394 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 102 / Thursday, May 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

and do all applicable related investigative 

and corrective actions and other specified 

actions; in accordance with the 

Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed 

Martin Electra Service Bulletin 88/SB–722, 

dated April 30, 2014, except as specified in 

paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable 

related investigative and corrective actions 

and other specified actions before further 

flight. If any repairs exceed the repair limits 

specified in Lockheed Martin Electra Service 

Bulletin 88/SB–722, dated April 30, 2014, 

before further flight, repair using a method 

approved in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. 

(h) Corrective Action 

(1) If, during any inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, any corrosion or 

previous repair is found, before further flight, 

repair using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (j) of this AD. 

(2) If, during any inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, any loose or 

distressed fastener is found, before further 

flight, repair using a method approved in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (j) of this AD. 

(i) Exception 

Although Lockheed Martin Electra Service 

Bulletin 88/SB–722, dated April 30, 2014, 

specifies to submit certain information to the 

manufacturer, this AD does not include that 

requirement. 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has 

the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, 

if requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe 

Branch, ACE–117A, FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 

Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; 

phone: 404–474–5554; fax: 404–474–5605; 

email: carl.w.gray@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Lockheed Martin 

Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics 

Company, Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, 

Zone 0252, Column P–58, 86 S. Cobb Drive, 

Marietta, GA 30063; phone: 770–494–5444; 

fax: 770–494–5445; email: ams.portal@

lmco.com; Internet http://

www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/

TechPubs.html. You may view this service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

WA. For information on the availability of 

this material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 19, 

2015. 

Dionne Palermo, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12859 Filed 5–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 91 

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

15–05] 

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action would revise the 

FAA’s requirements for an application 

to operate in Reduced Vertical 

Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace. 

This proposal would eliminate the 

burden and expense of developing, 

processing, and approving RVSM 

maintenance programs. As a result of 

this proposed revision, an applicant to 

operate in RVSM airspace would no 

longer be required to develop and 

submit an RVSM maintenance program 

solely for the purpose of an RVSM 

authorization. Because of other, 

independent FAA airworthiness 

regulations, all aircraft operators would 

nevertheless continue to be required to 

maintain RVSM equipment in an 

airworthy condition. 

DATES: Send comments on or before July 

27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2015–1746 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 

public to better inform its rulemaking 

process. DOT posts these comments, 

without edit, including any personal 

information the commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

www.dot.gov/privacy. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Benjamin Jacobs, 

Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief 

Counsel, AGC–200, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence Ave. 

SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone 

(202) 267–7240; email 

Benjamin.Jacobs@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 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 would remove 

existing safety and airspace-related 

regulations that the FAA no longer finds 

necessary to protect aviation safety. 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Summary of Proposed Rule 

This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) proposes to remove the 

requirement in Appendix G of part 91 

of Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) that any operator 

seeking Reduced Vertical Separation 

Minimum (RVSM) authorization must 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 102 / Thursday, May 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30395 

1Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum 

Operations, 62 FR 17480, 17481 (Apr. 9, 1997). 

2Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum in 

Domestic Airspace, 68 FR 61304 (Oct. 27, 2003). 

develop and submit an RVSM 

maintenance program for FAA approval. 

Currently, any applicant for RVSM 

authorization must include such a 

program as part of the application. This 

requirement was first promulgated in 

1997, when most aircraft required 

significant design changes or 

inspections to qualify for RVSM 

operation. The FAA, therefore, required 

operators to submit for FAA approval a 

detailed plan for the maintenance of 

RVSM systems and equipment. Since 

then, RVSM operations have become 

much more common. RVSM systems are 

now incorporated into aircraft type 

designs or supplemental type designs, 

and operators must properly maintain 

those systems as part of their 

airworthiness obligations. 

In light of these developments, the 

requirement that RVSM applicants 

submit specialized maintenance plans 

to the FAA is no longer necessary. 

Eliminating this requirement would 

reduce both operators’ costs and FAA 

workload, while maintaining the 

existing high level of safety. 

B. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

This proposed rulemaking is a 

retrospective regulatory review. Because 

the RVSM maintenance plan 

requirement is no longer necessary, this 

proposed rulemaking would eliminate 

the considerable burden and expense of 

developing, processing, and approving 

RVSM maintenance programs. The 

proposed rulemaking, therefore, 

promotes cost savings for both part 91 

operators and the FAA. The total cost 

savings are estimated to be $76.1 

million over a five-year period ($66.8 

million present value). 

II. Background 

A. Scope of the Problem 

As RVSM technology has become 

integral to the design of aircraft capable 

of flying in RVSM airspace, the current 

requirement that any aircraft operator 

seeking RVSM authorization must 

submit an RVSM maintenance plan to 

the FAA is no longer necessary. More 

specifically, now that RVSM technology 

is incorporated into aircraft type 

designs, the FAA’s airworthiness and 

maintenance regulations require any 

operator of an aircraft incorporating that 

technology to maintain the RVSM 

equipment in a condition for safe 

operation. The FAA, with input from 

industry, has determined that 

eliminating the redundant maintenance 

plan component of RVSM authorization 

will improve efficiency and reduce costs 

for both the agency and operators. 

B. History of Vertical Separation 

Standards 

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 feet, flight levels are a 

measure of altitude assigned in 500-feet 

increments; FL290 represents an 

altitude of 29,000 feet. At the time, the 

FAA required aircraft operating above 

FL290 to maintain a minimum of 2000 

ft. of vertical separation between routes. 

These high-altitude routes were 

desirable, because the diminished 

atmospheric drag at high altitudes 

results in 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 their aircraft. 

Higher demand for these high-altitude 

routes resulted in greater congestion. 

In 1973, the Air Transport Association 

of American petitioned the FAA to 

reduce the vertical separation of high 

altitude routes to 1000 feet. The FAA 

denied the petition in 1977, in part, 

because of insufficient standards and 

technology, including aircraft altitudekeeping standards, maintenance and 

operational standards, and altitude 

correction technology. In mid-1981, 

however, the FAA initiated the Vertical 

Studies Program. This program, in 

conjunction with the RTCA (formerly 

the 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 was ‘‘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.’’ 1

Following these determinations, the 

FAA began a two-phase implementation 

of RVSM operations for aircraft 

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

1997, in the first phase, the FAA 

published two amendments to part 91 of 

14 CFR. The first amendment added 

appendix G (Operations in Reduced 

Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) 

Airspace), containing a set of 

operational, aircraft design, and other 

standards applicable to operators and 

those seeking to operate in RVSM 

airspace. Among other things, appendix 

G requires all applicants for RVSM 

authorization to submit to the FAA an 

approved RVSM maintenance plan. In 

addition, the FAA promulgated § 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., in accordance with the 

requirements of appendix G. 

The second phase of RVSM 

implementation occurred in October 

2003, with a second RVSM-related FAA 

rulemaking. The 2003 rule introduced 

RVSM airspace over the U.S. and, like 

the 1997 rulemaking, requires all U.S.- 

registered RVSM operators to comply 

with the application, operations, and 

aircraft design requirements of part 91, 

appendix G.2 The FAA’s RVSM program 

allows for 1000 feet of vertical 

separation for aircraft between FL290 

and FL410. 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 because 

the existing vertical separation standard 

was 2000 feet. 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. The changes both mitigated 

the fuel penalties attributed to flying at 

sub-optimum altitudes, and increased 

the flexibility of air traffic control. 

In 2008, the FAA reviewed its RVSM 

program and operator authorization 

policies. At the time, the FAA database 

contained more than 7,000 active RVSM 

authorizations, covering in excess of 

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

FAA’s evaluation found the existing 

processes ensured compliance with the 

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 

operators’ burden to obtain 

authorization and reduce the FAA’s 

workload associated with processing 

and granting authorizations. The parties 

formed the RVSM Process Enhancement 

Team (PET), tasking it to focus on 

changes that could be accomplished 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30396 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 102 / Thursday, May 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

without rulemaking. The PET 

completed its tasks in 2013. Among 

other things, it revised existing policies 

and guidance to facilitate more efficient 

processing of operators’ requests to 

change existing authorizations, and 

created a job aid to assist inspectors and 

standardize their review of operator 

applications. 

III. Discussion of the Proposal 

This proposed rulemaking would 

address another element identified by 

the PET: reducing the burden on part 91 

operators to create and obtain approval 

of an RVSM-specific maintenance 

program. The PET could not address 

this issue because the workgroup’s 

charter limited the PET to changes that 

could be made through guidance and 

without rulemaking action. However, 

both the FAA and the NBAA agreed that 

RVSM-related airworthiness standards, 

applicable to all part 91 operators, 

should be treated more like other, 

substantially similar aircraft 

maintenance requirements, while 

maintaining an equivalent level of 

safety. 

Under current requirements, section 3 

(Operator Authorization) of appendix G 

contains application requirements for an 

operator seeking RVSM authorization. 

As described above, this section 

requires any RVSM applicant to develop 

and submit for FAA approval an RVSM 

maintenance program. The program 

must outline service and maintenance 

procedures and include acceptable 

maintenance practices, a quality 

assurance program for test equipment, 

and procedures for return to service. 

During the early implementation of 

RVSM, most aircraft required upgrades, 

modifications, or the application of 

service bulletins to meet the FAA’s 

RVSM system safety standards. In 1997, 

requiring operators to create RVSM 

maintenance programs was essential to 

ensure that operators satisfied these 

standards and, by extension, the 

continued airworthiness of their aircraft. 

Today, however, nearly 17 years since 

first implementation, RVSM systems are 

the standard among aircraft capable of 

operating between FL290 and FL410. 

Additionally, most RVSM-capable 

aircraft are either newly built or have 

been modified, under a supplemental 

type certificate, to meet RVSM 

performance requirements by original 

design. All of these aircraft designs have 

Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness (ICA)—maintenance 

instructions to which aircraft operators 

must adhere—providing operators with 

detailed instructions for maintaining 

any RVSM equipment. And, most 

importantly, the continued 

airworthiness of RVSM-capable aircraft 

is also ensured by the FAA’s 

airworthiness regulations, which require 

operators to maintain each aircraft in 

accordance with its type design and in 

a condition for safe operation. 

The specific terms of the FAA’s 

maintenance requirements vary 

according to the type of operator 

involved. Commercial operators are 

required to use a structured, 

organizational approach to maintenance 

that may include named oversight 

personnel, manuals, and an FAAapproved maintenance program. Both 

currently and under this proposal, these 

maintenance programs must account for 

the maintenance of RVSM equipment. 

On the other hand, non-commercial 

operators—such as those operating 

privately—are not required to create an 

organizational maintenance structure, 

but are instead required (both currently 

and if this proposal goes into effect) to 

have their aircraft inspected in 

accordance with part 91, and to have 

repairs executed in accordance with 

part 43. Ultimately, all operators’ 

RVSM-related obligations under these 

airworthiness regulations are 

substantially identical to the 

independent maintenance requirements 

of section 3 of appendix G. The FAA has 

determined, therefore, that an 

independent requirement to develop 

and submit RVSM-specific maintenance 

programs for FAA approval is no longer 

necessary or justified. 

In light of the foregoing, the FAA 

proposes to revise section 3 of appendix 

G by removing the requirement that an 

applicant submit an approved RVSM 

maintenance program, currently 

codified as § 3(b)(1)–(3). The FAA 

proposal would reserve § 3(b)(1) and 

leave in place the other applicationrelated requirements and paragraphs. 

The FAA does not intend for this 

proposal to affect the other elements of 

an application for RVSM authorization. 

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 proposed rule. 

DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes policies 

and procedures for simplification, 

analysis, and review of regulations. 

Because this proposed 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 

proposed 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. The 

FAA requests comments with 

supporting justification about the FAA 

determination of the proposed rule 

providing a cost savings. The reasoning 

for this determination follows: 

This proposed rulemaking would 

remove the requirement in Appendix G 

of part 91 that operators seeking RVSM 

authorization must develop and submit 

an RVSM maintenance plan for FAA 

approval. It would eliminate the 

considerable burden and expense to 

operators and FAA safety inspectors of 

developing, processing, and approving 

RVSM maintenance plans. 

When the current requirement was 

established, RVSM systems were yet to 

be incorporated into aircraft type 

design. This is no longer the case. 

RVSM systems are now incorporated 

into aircraft type designs and 

supplemental type designs, and 

operators must properly maintain these 

systems as part of their airworthiness 

obligation. In light of these 

developments, the requirement in 

Appendix G of part 91 for RVSM 

applicants to submit specialized 

maintenance plans is redundant. 

To quantify the relief to part 91 

operators and FAA safety inspectors 

from the streamlining of regulations, the 

FAA has estimated three variables, 

which are: (1) The number of RVSM 

maintenance programs approved for 

calendar year (CY) 2014, (2) the costs 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 102 / Thursday, May 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30397 

3FAA National Program Tracking and Reporting 

Subsystem (NPTRS). Actual data was available 

through October. Estimates were made for 

November and December. 4National Business Aviation Association—Part 

91 Operator Cost for Submitting an RVSM 

Approval. 

5FAA Safety Inspectors involved in RVSM 

authorization processing at FAA Flight Standards 

District Offices (FSDO). 

6This 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. 

7 2014 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. 

per operator of submitting an RVSM 

maintenance program for FAA approval, 

and (3) the average number of hours 

expended by an FAA safety inspector to 

review and approve an RVSM 

maintenance program. The value for 

each of these variables is shown below. 

CY 2014—Number of maintenance programs submitted to FAA for approval 3

Operator cost 

for submitting 

a maintenance 

program to the 

FAA for approval 4

Hours expended by 

FAA safety inspectors reviewing maintenance programs for approval 5

2,821 ........................................................................................................................................................................ $5,000 6 12 

Applying these estimates, the FAA 

anticipates that operators would 

experience cost savings of approximate 

$14.1 million in year one of 

implementation. We calculated this 

figure by multiplying the estimated 

number of maintenance approvals 

submitted to the FAA during CY 2014 

(2,821 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 33,852 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 2014 (2,821 approvals). 

The annual cost savings of $1.1 million 

to the FAA equals the 33,852 hours 

multiplied by the FAA fully-burdened 

wage of $33.06.7

Based on these calculations, the cost 

savings to operators during the first five 

years of the rule’s implementation 

would be approximately $70.5 million 

($61.9 million present value), and the 

FAA cost savings would total $5.6 

million ($4.9 million present value). 

The results are presented below. 

COST SAVINGS DUE TO PROPOSED RULE—MILLIONS OF $ 

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total 

Operator Cost Savings ............................................................................ $14.1 $14.1 $14.1 $14.1 $14.1 $70.5 

Present Value 7%—(Millions of $) ........................................................... 14.1 13.2 12.3 11.5 10.8 61.9 

FAA Cost Savings .................................................................................... 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 5.6 

Present Value 7%—(Millions of $) ........................................................... 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 4.9 

Note: Details may not add due to rounding. 

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-for-profit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. Agencies 

must perform a review to determine 

whether a rule will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. If an agency 

anticipates such an impact, the agency 

must prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis as described in the RFA. 

Section 603 of the RFA requires 

agencies to prepare and make available 

for public comment an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the 

impact of proposed rule on small 

entities. This rule is relieving. The FAA 

is issuing this rule to eliminate 

duplicative requirements. The FAA 

estimates that this rule would reduce 

firm’s costs by $5,000 to develop and 

submit an RVSM maintenance plan. 

Under Section 603(b), this initial 

analysis must account for the following 

issues, which are addressed below: 

• Description of Reasons the Agency Is 

Considering the Action 

All part 91 operator RVSM-related 

obligations are required by FAA 

airworthiness regulations to maintain 

RVSM equipment in an airworthy 

condition. Thus, the requirement in 

section 3 of Appendix G, that operators 

seeking RVSM authorization to develop 

and submit an RVSM maintenance plan 

for FAA approval342 is redundant. The 

FAA estimates that the removal of this 

redundant requirement will save each 

affected small entity $5,000 per RVSM 

authorization. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30398 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 102 / Thursday, May 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

8Thresholds 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. 

• Statement of the Legal Basis and 

Objectives for the Proposed Rule 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 49 

U.S.C. Sections 106, 40113, and 44701 

therein 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. 

• Description of the Recordkeeping and 

Other Compliance Requirements of the 

Proposed 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 would 

be no new requirement for information 

collection associated with this proposed 

rule. 

• All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

The FAA is not aware of any Federal 

rules that would duplicate, overlap or 

conflict with this proposed change. This 

rule would reduce duplicative 

requirements saving firms about $5,000. 

• Description and an Estimated Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rule Would Apply 

Under the RFA, the FAA must 

determine whether a proposed rule 

significantly affects a substantial 

number of small entities. This 

determination is typically based on 

small entity size and revenue thresholds 

that vary depending on the affected 

industry.8 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, we 

believe the number of small business 

entities is substantial. 

• Alternatives Considered 

Alternative 1: Do Nothing. 

Analysis: Without changes to 

Appendix G of part 91, any operator 

seeking RVSM authorization would 

continue to be required to develop and 

submit an RVSM maintenance program. 

A non-commercial operator with no 

requirement to hold a maintenance 

program for any other performancebased authorization would nevertheless 

be required to develop and obtain FAA 

approval of an RVSM maintenance 

program—despite the fact that the 

operator is already required by FAA 

regulations to maintain RVSM 

equipment in accordance with its type 

designation 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 instructions for 

continued airworthiness. 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 RVSM maintenance programs as 

a component of an RVSM application. 

If an agency determines that a 

rulemaking will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

head of the agency may so certify under 

section 605(b) of the RFA. This rule 

would eliminate an existing duplicative 

requirement. In doing so, this rule 

would, reduce a firm’s costs by $5,000; 

hence the rule reduces costs. Therefore, 

as provided in section 605(b), the head 

of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking 

will not result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because this rule is cost 

relieving. 

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 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 proposed rule 

and determined that it would have the 

same impact on domestic and 

international entities and thus has a 

neutral trade impact. 

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 

$151.0 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed 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 (PRA) 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires the 

FAA to consider the impact of 

paperwork and other information 

collection burdens imposed on the 

public. The FAA has determined no 

PRA requirement for information 

collection associated with this proposed 

rule. Specifically, the cost of preparing 

and obtaining approval of a 

maintenance program was never 

evaluated as a paperwork burden in the 

original PRA Supporting Statement of 

RVSM (OMB Control no. 2120–0679). 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

(1) 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 reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these proposed regulations. 

(2) Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

promotes international regulatory 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 102 / Thursday, May 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 30399 

cooperation to meet shared challenges 

involving health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues, and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

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 proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would 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, would not have Federalism 

implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed 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 would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this NPRM. The most 

helpful comments reference a specific 

portion of the proposal, explain the 

reason for any recommended change, 

and include supporting data. To ensure 

the docket does not contain duplicate 

comments, commenters should send 

only one copy of written comments, or 

if comments are filed electronically, 

commenters should submit only one 

time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The FAA 

will consider comments filed after the 

comment period has closed if it is 

possible to do so without incurring 

expense or delay. The agency may 

change this proposal in light of the 

comments it receives. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Commenters should not 

file proprietary or confidential business 

information in the docket. Such 

information must be sent or delivered 

directly to the person identified in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document, and marked as 

proprietary or confidential. If submitting 

information on a disk or CD–ROM, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD–ROM, and 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, the agency does not 

place it in the docket. It is held in a 

separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA processes such a request 

under DOT procedures found in 49 CFR 

part 7. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

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

2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

3. Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced in item 

(1) above. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91 

Air traffic control, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 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). 

■ 2. Amend Appendix G, Section 3 by 

removing and reserving paragraph 

(b)(1). 

Issued under authority provided by 49 

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

Washington, DC, on May 20, 2015. 

John S. Duncan, 

Director, Flight Standards Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–12816 Filed 5–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

[Docket ID ED–2015–OSERS–0048] 

Proposed Priority—Technical 

Assistance Center for Vocational 

Rehabilitation Agency Program 

Evaluation and Quality Assurance 

[CFDA Number: 84.263B.] 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priority. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services proposes a priority under the 

Experimental and Innovative Training 

program. The Assistant Secretary may 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS