Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 71735 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

14, 2012. 

Gary A. Norek, 

Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC 

Procedures Group. 

[FR Doc. 2012–28991 Filed 12–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 121, 125, 135 

[Docket No.: FAA–2012–1059; Notice No. 

12–08] 

RIN 2120–AK11 

Minimum Altitudes for Use of 

Autopilots 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend 

and harmonize minimum altitudes for 

use of autopilots for transport category 

airplanes. The proposed rule would 

enable the operational use of advanced 

autopilot and navigation systems by 

incorporating the capabilities of new 

and future autopilots, flight guidance 

systems, and Global Navigation Satellite 

System (GNSS) guidance systems while 

protecting the continued use of legacy 

systems at current autopilot minimum 

use altitudes. The proposed rule would 

accomplish this through a performancebased approach, using the certified 

capabilities of autopilot systems as 

established by the Airplane Flight 

Manual (AFM) or as approved by the 

Administrator. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

February 4, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number Docket No.: FAA– 

2012–1059 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: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket Web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

docket, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

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 the 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 Kel O. Christianson, 

FAA, Aviation Safety Inspector, 

Performance Based Flight Systems 

Branch (AFS–470), Flight Standards 

Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone 202–385–4702; email 

Kel.christianson@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Robert H. Frenzel, 

Manager, Operations Law Branch, Office 

of the Chief Counsel, Regulations 

Division (AGC–220), Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone 202–267–3073; email 

Robert.Frenzel@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), 

which requires the Administrator to 

promulgate regulations and minimum 

standards for other practices, methods, 

and procedures necessary for safety in 

air commerce and national security. 

This amendment to the regulation is 

within the scope of that authority 

because it prescribes an accepted 

method for ensuring the safe operation 

of aircraft while using autopilot 

systems. 

I. Overview of Proposed Rule 

The FAA proposes to amend and 

harmonize minimum altitudes for use of 

autopilots for transport category 

airplanes in order to streamline and 

simplify these operational rules. The 

proposed rule would enable the 

operational use of advanced autopilot 

and navigation systems by incorporating 

the capabilities of new and future 

autopilots, flight guidance systems, and 

Global Navigation Satellite System 

(GNSS) guidance systems while 

protecting the continued use of legacy 

systems. This would allow the FAA to 

enable the benefits of Next Generation 

Air Transportation System (NextGen) 

technologies and procedures (Optimized 

Profile Descents, Performance Based 

Navigation (PBN)) to enhance aviation 

safety in the National Airspace System 

(NAS). The rule would accomplish this 

through a performance-based approach, 

using the certified capabilities of 

autopilot systems as established by the 

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). The 

proposal would also give the FAA 

Administrator the authorization to 

require an altitude higher than the AFM 

if the Administrator believes it to be in 

the interest of public safety. 

Currently, operators have a choice 

whether or not to update their aircraft 

with new autopilots as they are 

developed and certified by equipment 

manufacturers. This rule would not 

affect that decision-making process and 

would protect operators who choose to 

continue to operate as they do today. As 

a result, the proposed rule would not 

impose any additional costs on 

certificate holders that operate under 

parts 121, 125, or 135. Also, by setting 

new minimum altitudes for each phase 

of flight that certified equipment may 

operate to, the proposed rule would give 

manufacturers more certainty that new 

products could be used as they are 

developed. 

In response to Executive Order 13563 

issued by President Obama on January 

18, 2011, the proposed rule was first 

identified for inclusion in the 

Department of Transportation 

Retrospective Regulatory Review (May 

2011), noting that the current minimum 

altitudes for use of autopilots were 

unduly restrictive and would limit the 

ability to use new technologies. On May 

10, 2012, President Obama signed 

Executive Order 13610, establishing the 

Retrospective Regulatory Review as an 

on-going obligation. The proposed rule 

would also be consistent with the 

requirement in Executive Order 13610 

to modify or streamline regulations ‘‘in 

light of changed circumstances, 

including the rise of new technologies.’’ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
71736 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

The FAA and Civil Aviation 

Authority (CAA) technical standards for 

autopilot systems date back to 1947. 

These standards have been revised eight 

times since 1959, but the operating rules 

for autopilot minimum use altitudes in 

14 CFR 121.579, 125.329, and 135.93 

have not been amended in any 

significant way since the recodification 

of the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR) 

and Civil Aviation Manuals (CAM) on 

December 31, 1964. 

By contrast, autopilot certification 

standards contained in § 25.1329 were 

updated as recently as April 11, 2006. 

Consequently, operational regulations in 

parts 121, 125, and 135 do not 

adequately reflect the capabilities of 

modern technologies in use today and 

thus make it difficult to keep pace with 

the FAA’s implementation of NextGen. 

B. History 

1994 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) 

The FAA published an NPRM in the 

Federal Register on December 9, 1994 

(59 FR 63868) based on a 

recommendation from the Autopilot 

Engagement Working Group of the 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee (ARAC) to change the 

existing rules concerning engagement of 

autopilots during takeoff. The ARAC 

determined that the increased use of an 

autopilot during takeoff would enhance 

aviation safety by giving pilots greater 

situational awareness of what was going 

on inside and outside of the aircraft. 

This benefit would be realized by 

reducing the task loading required to 

manually fly the aircraft during the 

critical takeoff phase of flight. The FAA 

received seven comments in response to 

the NPRM, and all commenters 

supported an amendment to the rule. 

1997 Rulemaking 

In 1997, the FAA amended 14 CFR 

121.579, 125.329, and 135.93 to permit 

certificate holders the use of an 

approved autopilot system for takeoff, 

based on the 1994 NPRM and an 

expectation that autopilot technology 

would continue to advance (62 FR 

27922; May 21, 1997). This 

authorization was given to certificate 

holders through an Operations 

Specification (OpSpec), which was 

implemented as a stopgap measure. The 

rule itself was not changed to provide 

manufacturers and operators the 

guidance for producing and operating 

new aircraft capable of attaining lower 

autopilot minimum use altitudes. The 

amendment also failed to address 

autopilot minimum use altitudes on 

instrument approaches or harmonize 14 

CFR parts 121, 125 and 135. 

ARAC Efforts To Amend Autopilot 

Rules 

Since 1997, multiple groups have 

been formed to review current 

regulations and autopilot technologies. 

The FAA Transport Airplane Directorate 

initiated an effort under the ARAC 

Flight Guidance Harmonization 

Working Group to evaluate the status of 

current autopilot technologies, rules and 

guidance along with the harmonization 

of U.S. policy and guidance with the 

Joint Aviation Authorities. Later, the 

Performance-based operations Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee, which 

established the Autopilot Minimum Use 

Height (MUH) action team, evaluated 

autopilot minimum use altitudes and 

made recommendations to the Associate 

Administrator for Aviation Safety. The 

team was specifically tasked with 

developing recommendations to address 

progress in the area of PBN and the 

subsets of area navigation (RNAV) and 

required navigation performance (RNP) 

operations. The team’s conclusions 

aligned with the previous groups’ 

acknowledgement that 14 CFR 121.579, 

125.329 and 135.93 were outdated and 

recommended new rulemaking to take 

advantage of advancements in modern 

aircraft technologies and the certified 

capabilities of autopilot systems to 

create a performance-based structure to 

aid in the implementation of NextGen 

flight operations. 

III. Discussion of the Proposal 

A. Revise Minimum Altitudes for Use of 

Autopilot (§ 121.579, 125.329 and 

135.93) 

The FAA proposes a complete rewrite 

of 14 CFR 121.579, 125.329 and 135.93. 

The language in each section of the 

proposed regulations would be identical 

except for an additional paragraph in 

§ 135.93 exempting rotorcraft. The 

proposed rule would harmonize these 

three parts of 14 CFR because the rule 

would be based on the performance 

capabilities of the equipment being 

utilized, not the operating certificate 

held. Nothing in the proposed rule 

would prevent or adversely affect the 

continued safe operation of aircraft 

using legacy navigation systems. 

The proposed rule would align the 

autopilot operational rules with the new 

autopilot certification standards 

contained in § 25.1329, updated and 

effective April 11, 2006. The proposed 

rule would also be proactive by 

allowing for future technological 

advances within the scope of the rule, 

thus facilitating the implementation of 

NextGen into the National Airspace 

System. 

In effect, the proposed rule would 

accommodate future technological 

changes by setting safe minimum 

altitudes in each phase of flight that 

certified autopilots could operate to. 

Once a new piece of equipment or 

system is certified and the new 

limitations incorporated in the AFM, as 

required in §§ 21.5, 25.1501 and 

25.1581, a certificate holder might then 

make use of the new capabilities when 

authorized through OpSpecs. This 

change would enable new autopilots to 

utilize both current and future 

navigational systems. The current rule 

only references ground-based 

instrument approach facilities and 

Instrument Landing Systems (ILS). 

Sections 121.579(a), 125.329(a), and 

135.93(a) of the proposed rule would 

define altitude references for the 

different phases of flight, unlike the 

current rule which defines all altitudes 

with reference to terrain. All altitudes 

referring to takeoff, initial climb and go 

around/missed approach would be 

defined as being above airport elevation. 

All altitudes referring to enroute flight 

would be defined as being above terrain 

elevation. All altitudes referring to 

approach would be defined as being 

above Touchdown Zone Elevation 

(TDZE), except if the altitude is in 

reference to a Decision Altitude/Height 

(DA(H)) or Minimum Descent Altitude 

(MDA) in which case the altitude would 

be defined in relation to the DA(H) or 

MDA itself (e.g. 50 ft. below DA(H)). All 

altitudes defined as being above airport 

elevation, TDZE, or terrain would be 

considered to be above ground level 

(AGL). 

As a result, the proposed rule would 

allow operators to add the applicable 

altitudes or heights published in the 

AFM to the airport and TDZE published 

on the instrument approach plate. This 

also would provide a standard reference 

for all operators and manufacturers 

using and producing Flight Management 

Systems (FMS). 

The proposed rule would be 

formatted to model the actual phases of 

flight: Takeoff through landing or goaround. Each paragraph in the proposed 

rule would have a base minimum 

autopilot use altitude for the intended 

phase of flight that all aircraft may 

utilize. In order to protect the use of all 

legacy systems, the proposed base 

altitudes would remain identical to the 

altitudes in the current rule. Lower 

minimum use altitudes would be based 

on certification of the autopilot system 

and limitations found in the AFM. The 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 71737 

proposed enroute minimum use altitude 

would not change from the current rule. 

The minimum use altitude in each 

paragraph might also be raised by the 

Administrator if warranted by 

operational or safety need. 

B. Takeoff and Initial Climb 

(§§ 121.579(b), 125.329(b) and 

135.93(b)) 

The current rule defines the base 

minimum altitude at which all aircraft 

may engage the autopilot after takeoff as 

500 ft. or double the autopilot altitude 

loss (as specified in the AFM) above the 

terrain, whichever is higher. The current 

rule also gives the Administrator the 

authority to use OpSpecs to authorize a 

lower minimum engagement altitude on 

takeoff, which must be specified in the 

AFM. This takeoff paragraph was added 

as an amendment to the original 

autopilot rule that applied only to 

enroute operations. Although the 

amendment provided a vehicle to allow 

lower autopilot minimum use altitudes 

through OpSpecs, it did not place the 

authority for the operations directly in 

the rule. 

The proposed rule would retain the 

same minimum altitudes for all aircraft 

to protect legacy systems and would 

introduce the ability to use lower 

engagement altitude on takeoff/initial 

climb based upon the certified limits of 

the autopilot as specified in the AFM. 

The proposed rule would also give the 

Administrator the authority to specify 

an altitude above, but not below, that 

specified in the AFM. 

As a result, the proposed rule would 

establish the AFM as a performancebased standard by which a certificate 

holder might be authorized for 

operations through its OpSpecs. Once 

an autopilot’s capabilities and 

limitations are certified and reflected in 

the AFM, a certificate holder might 

request a change to its OpSpecs to 

authorize use of the new minimum use 

altitude specified in the AFM. 

C. Enroute (§§ 121.579(c), 125.329(c) 

and 135.93(c)) 

The enroute paragraph of the current 

rule specifies a minimum use altitude of 

500 ft. above terrain, or an altitude that 

is no lower than twice the autopilot 

altitude loss specified in the AFM, 

whichever is higher, for all operations. 

The proposed rule would maintain the 

same base minimum use altitude as the 

current rule. The proposed rule would 

also grant the Administrator the 

authority to specify a higher altitude. 

D. Approach (§§ 121.579(d), 125.329(d), 

135.93(d)) 

The base minimum use altitude for an 

approach for the proposed rule would 

remain the same as that of the current 

rule. No person may use an autopilot at 

an altitude lower than 50 ft. below the 

DA (H) or MDA of the instrument 

approach being flown. The current rule 

allows for exceptions to this altitude 

with the use of a coupled autopilot, 

instrument landing system (ILS), and in 

specified reported weather conditions. 

The proposed rule would maintain the 

limitation that no person may use an 

autopilot at an altitude lower than 50 ft. 

below the DA(H) or MDA of the 

approach being flown and provides 

weather criteria that would allow 

current aircraft to meet the same 

autopilot minimum use altitudes as 

today. 

However, the proposed rule would 

enable properly equipped aircraft to use 

the autopilot with other certified 

navigation systems in certain specified 

weather conditions to attain the same 

minimum use altitudes currently 

allowed with the coupled ILS. These 

aircraft must be capable of flying a 

coupled approach with both vertical 

and lateral path references being 

provided to the autopilot for guidance. 

A typical vertical path reference is a 

flight path angle provided by the signal 

of an ILS, microwave landing system, 

GNSS landing system or a navigation 

flight path provided for RNAV 

operations by an onboard database. This 

change would allow a greater number of 

aircraft to safely use their autopilots to 

lower minimum use altitudes. 

The remaining provisions in the 

approach paragraph would provide 

minimum use altitudes dependent on 

the type of autopilot certification found 

in the AFM. The potential lowest 

minimum use altitude allowed by the 

proposed rule would be 50 ft. above the 

elevation TDZE. The advantage of this 

provision, for example, is that it would 

allow operators to keep the autopilot 

engaged until over the runway during 

complex PBN approaches. This would 

enable a stable approach path in both 

Instrument Meteorological Conditions 

(IMC) and Visual Meteorological 

Conditions (VMC). In IMC, it would 

alleviate the transition from the 

autopilot to instrument hand flying 

during a critical segment of the 

approach. This would reduce the 

possibility of disorientation and a 

destabilized approach. In VMC, the 

same stabilized approach could be 

maintained while flightcrews monitor 

aircraft performance and watch for 

potential traffic conflicts. Currently, 

pilots must perform these tasks while 

disconnecting the autopilot half way 

through a descending final turn and 

continuing the approach manually. 

Although not being utilized, current 

technology exists to allow aircraft 

autopilot systems to remain engaged 

below the current allowable altitude 

using multiple forms of navigation. 

Such technology will eventually become 

a requirement for the implementation of 

NextGen. The proposed rule would 

provide a regulatory vehicle to meet this 

vision. 

E. Go Around/Missed Approach 

(§§ 121.579(e), 125.329(e) and 135.93(e)) 

The proposed rule would also provide 

guidance for executing a missed 

approach/go-around that the current 

rule lacks. This guidance is first 

presented in the approach paragraph, 

wherein an aircraft does not need to 

comply with the autopilot minimum use 

altitude of that paragraph provided it is 

executing a coupled missed approach/ 

go-around. A new subparagraph is also 

included to provide guidance on when 

the autopilot could be engaged on the 

missed approach/go-around, if a manual 

missed approach/go-around is 

accomplished. 

F. Landing (§§ 121.579(f), 125.329(f) and 

135.93(f)) 

The last paragraph proposed in the 

new rule would provide guidance for 

landing. Current language authorizes the 

Administrator, through OpSpecs, to 

allow an aircraft to touchdown with the 

autopilot engaged using an approved 

autoland flight guidance system. This 

authorization relies upon an ILS to meet 

this requirement. The proposed rule 

would state that minimum use altitudes 

do not apply to autopilot operations 

when an approved and authorized 

landing system mode is being used for 

landing. The difference in the two rules 

is that the proposed rule would stand 

alone and would not limit approved 

landing systems to be ground based 

systems, as the current rule does. The 

proposed rule would also allow new 

performance based landing systems to 

be approved and implemented for 

autoland operations as they become 

available. 

G. Rotorcraft Operations (§ 135.93(g)) 

The current rule expressly excludes 

rotorcraft operations from the minimum 

altitudes for use of autopilots. The 

proposed rule would continue to 

exclude rotorcraft operations. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
71738 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs 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 (Public Law 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Public Law 96–39) prohibits 

agencies from setting standards that 

create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States. 

In developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act 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 (Public 

Law 104–4) requires agencies to prepare 

a written assessment of the costs, 

benefits, and other effects of proposed 

or final rules that include a Federal 

mandate likely to result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

annually (adjusted for inflation with 

base year of 1995). This portion of the 

preamble summarizes the FAA’s 

analysis of the economic impacts of this 

proposed rule. We suggest readers 

seeking greater detail read the full 

regulatory evaluation, a copy of which 

we have placed in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this proposed rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows: 

Benefits 

The rule would incorporate the 

capabilities of current autopilots and 

would allow operators to more readily 

utilize the capabilities of future 

autopilots, flight guidance systems, and 

GNSS guidance systems as they are 

developed. These new capabilities 

would enable and accelerate the benefits 

of NextGen technologies and procedures 

that depend upon flight guidance 

systems to enhance aviation safety in 

the NAS. 

Costs 

The proposed rule would specify 

autopilot minimum use altitudes for 

parts 121, 125 and 135 operators. The 

rule would be based on the capabilities 

of the aircraft and the minimum use 

altitudes or lack of minimum use 

altitudes published in the Airplane 

Flight Manual (AFM). The proposed 

rule would not affect the minimum use 

altitudes presently used by operators in 

the National Airspace System. Operators 

would have the option to operate as 

they currently do or pursue the 

proposed lower minimum use altitudes 

based on their aircraft certification. 

Operators with aircraft that are certified 

and wishing to immediately achieve the 

proposed lower minimum use altitudes 

might incur the cost of accelerated 

training. This accelerated training cost 

is a change in present value, but not in 

total cost, because this type of training 

would have occurred in the future. 

Additionally, operators would not incur 

certification costs for aircraft, avionics 

equipment, autopilot and flight 

management systems that have already 

been certificated. Also, by setting new 

minimum altitudes for each phase of 

flight that certified equipment might 

operate to, the proposed rule would give 

manufacturers more certainty that new 

products can be used as they are 

developed. The FAA recognizes some 

older airplanes are not certificated to 

utilize the lower proposed minimum 

use altitudes. The FAA believes these 

operators would not incur these costs 

because they would not seek to modify 

their aircraft in order to be certified for 

the lower minimum use altitudes. The 

FAA seeks public comments regarding 

these findings and requests that all 

comments be accompanied with 

detailed supporting data. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined 

that this proposed rule would not 

qualify as 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. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Public Law 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. 

This proposed rule would not impose 

any additional costs on operators that 

operate under parts 121, 125, or 135. 

Consequently, the FAA certifies that the 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic 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 (Public 

Law 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 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 71739 

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 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule would 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 would 

be no new requirement for information 

collection associated with this proposed 

rule. 

F. International Compatibility 

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 312f 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 document. 

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. 

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 

14 CFR Part 121 

Air Carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, 

Aviation Safety, Charter Flights, Safety, 

Transportation. 

14 CFR Part 125 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation Safety. 

14 CFR Part 135 

Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, 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 121—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, 

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 121 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 

41706, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709– 

44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 46105. 

2. Revise § 121.579 to read as follows: 

§ 121.579 Minimum altitudes for use of 

autopilot. 

(a) Definitions. For purpose of this 

section: 

(1) Altitudes for takeoff/initial climb 

and go-around/missed approach are 

defined as above the airport elevation. 

(2) Altitudes for enroute operations 

are defined as above terrain elevation. 

(3) Altitudes for approach are defined 

as above the touchdown zone elevation 

(TDZE) unless the altitude is 

specifically in reference to DA(H) or 

MDA in which case the altitude is 

defined by reference to the DA(H) or 

MDA itself. 

(4) Altitudes specified as above 

airport elevation, runway TDZE or 

terrain are considered to be above 

ground level (AGL). 

(b) Takeoff and initial climb. 

No person may use an autopilot for 

takeoff or initial climb below the higher 

of 500 feet or an altitude that is no lower 

than twice the altitude loss specified in 

the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), 

except as follows: 

(1) At a minimum engagement 

altitude specified in the AFM, or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
71740 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(2) At an altitude specified by the 

Administrator, whichever is greater. 

(c) Enroute. 

No person may use an autopilot 

enroute, including climb and descent, 

below the following: 

(1) 500 feet, 

(2) At an altitude that is no lower than 

twice the altitude loss specified in the 

AFM for an autopilot malfunction in 

cruise conditions, or 

(3) At an altitude specified by the 

Administrator, whichever is greater. 

(d) Approach. 

No person may use an autopilot at an 

altitude lower than 50 feet below the 

DA(H) or MDA for the instrument 

procedure being flown, except as 

follows: 

(1) For autopilots with an AFM 

specified altitude loss for approach 

operations, the greater of: 

(i) An altitude no lower than twice the 

specified altitude loss, 

(ii) An altitude no lower than 50 feet 

higher than the altitude loss specified in 

the AFM when reported weather 

conditions are less than the basic VFR 

weather conditions in § 91.155 of this 

chapter, suitable visual references 

specified in § 91.175 of this chapter 

have been established on the instrument 

approach procedure, and the autopilot 

is coupled and receiving both lateral 

and vertical path references, 

(iii) An altitude no lower than the 

higher of the altitude loss specified in 

the AFM or 50 feet above the TDZE 

when reported weather conditions are 

equal to or better than the basic VFR 

weather conditions in § 91.155 of this 

chapter, and the autopilot is coupled 

and receiving both lateral and vertical 

path references, or 

(iv) An altitude specified by the 

Administrator. 

(2) For autopilots with AFM specified 

approach altitude limitations, the 

greater of: 

(i) The minimum use altitude 

specified for the coupled approach 

mode selected, 

(ii) 50 feet, or 

(iii) An altitude specified by 

Administrator. 

(3) For autopilots with an AFM 

specified negligible or zero altitude loss 

for an autopilot approach mode 

malfunction, the greater of: 

(i) 50 feet, or 

(ii) An altitude specified by 

Administrator. 

(4) If executing an autopilot coupled 

go-around or missed approach, using a 

certificated and functioning autopilot in 

accordance with paragraph (e) in this 

section. 

(e) Go-Around/Missed Approach. 

No person may engage an autopilot 

during a go-around or missed approach 

below the minimum engagement 

altitude specified for takeoff and initial 

climb in paragraph (b) in this section. 

An autopilot minimum use altitude 

does not apply to a go-around/missed 

approach initiated with an engaged 

autopilot. Performing a go-around or 

missed approach with an engaged 

autopilot must not adversely affect safe 

obstacle clearance. 

(f) Landing. 

Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of this 

section, autopilot minimum use 

altitudes do not apply to autopilot 

operations when an approved automatic 

landing system mode is being used for 

landing. Automatic landing systems 

must be authorized in an operations 

specification issued to the operator. 

PART 125—CERTIFICATION AND 

OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A 

SEATING CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE 

PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM 

PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000 

POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES 

GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD 

SUCH AIRCRAFT 

3. The authority citation for part 125 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701– 

44702, 44705, 44710–44711, 44713, 44716– 

44717, 44722. 

4. Revise § 125.329 to read as follows: 

§ 125.329 Minimum altitudes for use of 

autopilot. 

(a) Definitions. For purpose of this 

section: 

(1) Altitudes for takeoff/initial climb 

and go-around/missed approach are 

defined as above the airport elevation. 

(2) Altitudes for enroute operations 

are defined as above terrain elevation. 

(3) Altitudes for approach are defined 

as above the touchdown zone elevation 

(TDZE) unless the altitude is 

specifically in reference to DA(H) or 

MDA in which case the altitude is 

defined by reference to the DA(H) or 

MDA itself. 

(4) Altitudes specified as above 

airport elevation, runway TDZE or 

terrain are considered to be above 

ground level (AGL). 

(b) Takeoff and initial climb. 

No person may use an autopilot for 

takeoff or initial climb below the higher 

of 500 feet or an altitude that is no lower 

than twice the altitude loss specified in 

the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), 

except as follows: 

(1) At a minimum engagement 

altitude specified in the AFM, or 

(2) At an altitude specified by the 

Administrator, whichever is greater. 

(c) Enroute. 

No person may use an autopilot 

enroute, including climb and descent, 

below the following: 

(1) 500 feet, 

(2) At an altitude that is no lower than 

twice the altitude loss specified in the 

AFM for an autopilot malfunction in 

cruise conditions, or 

(3) At an altitude specified by the 

Administrator, whichever is greater. 

(d) Approach. 

No person may use an autopilot at an 

altitude lower than 50 feet below the 

DA(H) or MDA for the instrument 

procedure being flown, except as 

follows: 

(1) For autopilots with an AFM 

specified altitude loss for approach 

operations, the greater of: 

(i) An altitude no lower than twice the 

specified altitude loss, 

(ii) An altitude no lower than 50 feet 

higher than the altitude loss specified in 

the AFM when reported weather 

conditions are less than the basic VFR 

weather conditions in § 91.155 of this 

chapter, suitable visual references 

specified in § 91.175 of this chapter 

have been established on the instrument 

approach procedure, and the autopilot 

is coupled and receiving both lateral 

and vertical path references, 

(iii) An altitude no lower than the 

higher of the altitude loss specified in 

the AFM or 50 feet above the TDZE 

when reported weather conditions are 

equal to or better than the basic VFR 

weather conditions in § 91.155 of this 

chapter, and the autopilot is coupled 

and receiving both lateral and vertical 

path references, or 

(iv) An altitude specified by the 

Administrator. 

(2) For autopilots with AFM specified 

approach altitude limitations, the 

greater of: 

(i) The minimum use altitude 

specified for the coupled approach 

mode selected, 

(ii) 50 feet, or 

(iii) An altitude specified by 

Administrator. 

(3) For autopilots with an AFM 

specified negligible or zero altitude loss 

for an autopilot approach mode 

malfunction, the greater of: 

(i) 50 feet, or 

(ii) An altitude specified by 

Administrator. 

(4) If executing an autopilot coupled 

go-around or missed approach, using a 

certificated and functioning autopilot in 

accordance with paragraph (e) in this 

section. 

(e) Go-Around/Missed Approach. 

No person may engage an autopilot 

during a go-around or missed approach 

below the minimum engagement 

altitude specified for takeoff and initial 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 233 / Tuesday, December 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 71741 

climb in paragraph (b) in this section. 

An autopilot minimum use altitude 

does not apply to a go-around/missed 

approach initiated with an engaged 

autopilot. Performing a go-around or 

missed approach with an engaged 

autopilot must not adversely affect safe 

obstacle clearance. 

(f) Landing. 

Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of this 

section, autopilot minimum use 

altitudes do not apply to autopilot 

operations when an approved automatic 

landing system mode is being used for 

landing. Automatic landing systems 

must be authorized in an operations 

specification issued to the operator. 

PART 135—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND 

ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND RULE 

GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD 

SUCH AIRCRAFT 

5. The authority citation for part 135 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 40113, 

44701–44702, 44705, 44709, 44711–44713, 

44715–44717, 44722, 45101–45105. 

6. Revise § 135.93 to read as follows: 

§ 135.93 Minimum altitudes for use of 

autopilot. 

(a) Definitions. For purpose of this 

section: 

(1) Altitudes for takeoff/initial climb 

and go-around/missed approach are 

defined as above the airport elevation. 

(2) Altitudes for enroute operations 

are defined as above terrain elevation. 

(3) Altitudes for approach are defined 

as above the touchdown zone elevation 

(TDZE) unless the altitude is 

specifically in reference to DA(H) or 

MDA in which case the altitude is 

defined by reference to the DA(H) or 

MDA itself. 

(4) Altitudes specified as above 

airport elevation, runway TDZE or 

terrain are considered to be above 

ground level (AGL). 

(b) Takeoff and initial climb. 

No person may use an autopilot for 

takeoff or initial climb below the higher 

of 500 feet or an altitude that is no lower 

than twice the altitude loss specified in 

the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM), 

except as follows: 

(1) At a minimum engagement 

altitude specified in the AFM, or 

(2) At an altitude specified by the 

Administrator, whichever is greater. 

(c) Enroute. 

No person may use an autopilot 

enroute, including climb and descent, 

below the following: 

(1) 500 feet, 

(2) At an altitude that is no lower than 

twice the altitude loss specified in the 

AFM for an autopilot malfunction in 

cruise conditions, or 

(3) At an altitude specified by the 

Administrator, whichever is greater. 

(d) Approach. 

No person may use an autopilot at an 

altitude lower than 50 feet below the 

DA(H) or MDA for the instrument 

procedure being flown, except as 

follows: 

(1) For autopilots with an AFM 

specified altitude loss for approach 

operations, the greater of: 

(i) An altitude no lower than twice the 

specified altitude loss, 

(ii) An altitude no lower than 50 feet 

higher than the altitude loss specified in 

the AFM when reported weather 

conditions are less than the basic VFR 

weather conditions in § 91.155 of this 

chapter, suitable visual references 

specified in § 91.175 of this chapter 

have been established on the instrument 

approach procedure, and the autopilot 

is coupled and receiving both lateral 

and vertical path references, 

(iii) An altitude no lower than the 

higher of the altitude loss specified in 

the AFM or 50 feet above the TDZE 

when reported weather conditions are 

equal to or better than the basic VFR 

weather conditions in § 91.155 of this 

chapter, and the autopilot is coupled 

and receiving both lateral and vertical 

path references, or 

(iv) An altitude specified by the 

Administrator. 

(2) For autopilots with AFM specified 

approach altitude limitations, the 

greater of: 

(i) The minimum use altitude 

specified for the coupled approach 

mode selected, 

(ii) 50 feet, or 

(iii) An altitude specified by 

Administrator. 

(3) For autopilots with an AFM 

specified negligible or zero altitude loss 

for an autopilot approach mode 

malfunction, the greater of: 

(i) 50 feet, or 

(ii) An altitude specified by 

Administrator. 

(4) If executing an autopilot coupled 

go-around or missed approach, using a 

certificated and functioning autopilot in 

accordance with paragraph (e) in this 

section. 

(e) Go-Around/Missed Approach. 

No person may engage an autopilot 

during a go-around or missed approach 

below the minimum engagement 

altitude specified for takeoff and initial 

climb in paragraph (b) in this section. 

An autopilot minimum use altitude 

does not apply to a go-around/missed 

approach initiated with an engaged 

autopilot. Performing a go-around or 

missed approach with an engaged 

autopilot must not adversely affect safe 

obstacle clearance. 

(f) Landing. 

Notwithstanding paragraph (d) of this 

section, autopilot minimum use 

altitudes do not apply to autopilot 

operations when an approved automatic 

landing system mode is being used for 

landing. Automatic landing systems 

must be authorized in an operations 

specification issued to the operator. 

(g) This section does not apply to 

operations conducted in rotorcraft. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

27, 2012. 

John M. Allen, 

Director, Flight Standards Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29274 Filed 12–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 240 

Guides for Advertising Allowances and 

Other Merchandising Payments and 

Services 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Request for public comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) requests 

public comments on the overall costs 

and benefits of and the continuing need 

for its Guides for Advertising 

Allowances and Other Merchandising 

Payments and Services (‘‘the Fred 

Meyer Guides’’ or ’’the Guides’’), as part 

of the agency’s review of all its current 

regulations and guides. 

DATES: Written comments will be 

accepted until January 29, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a 

comment online or on paper, by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Write ‘‘Fred Meyer Guides 

Review’’ on your comment. You may 

file your comment online at https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

fredmeyerguides, by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, mail or deliver it to the following 

address: Federal Trade Commission, 

Office of the Secretary, Room H–113 

(Annex B), 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil 

W. Averitt (202) 326–2885, or Julie A. 

Goshorn (202) 326–3033, Bureau of 

Competition, Federal Trade 

Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with