50420 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, the Federal 

Aviation Administration proposes to 

amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

Part 71 continues to read as follows: 

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

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

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 9, 2011, and effective 

September 15, 2011 is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace 

Designated as Surface Areas. 

* * * * * 

ANM WA E2 Pullman, WA [Modified] 

Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport, WA 

(Lat. 46°44′38′′ N., long. 117°06′35′′ W.) 

Within a 4-mile radius of Pullman/Moscow 

Regional Airport, and within 1.7 miles each 

side of the Pullman/Moscow Regional 

Airport 046° bearing extending from the 4- 

mile radius to 8 miles northeast of the 

airport, and within 1.7 miles each side of the 

Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport 227° 

bearing extending from the 4-mile radius to 

6 miles southwest of the airport. This Class 

E airspace area is effective during the specific 

dates and times established in advance by a 

Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time 

will thereafter be continuously published in 

the Airport/Facility Directory. 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

ANM WA E5 Pullman, WA [Modified] 

Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport, WA 

(Lat. 46°44′38′′ N., long. 117°06′35′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 10-mile radius 

of the Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport, 

and within 1.7 miles each side of the 

Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport 229° 

bearing extending from the 10-mile radius to 

13 miles southwest of the airport, and that 

airspace bounded by a line beginning at the 

intersection of the 10-mile radius of the 

airport and the Pullman/Moscow Regional 

Airport 307° bearing to the intersection of the 

of the 23-mile radius of the airport and the 

Pullman/Moscow Regional Airport 328° 

bearing extending clockwise within a 23-mile 

radius of the Pullman/Moscow Regional 

Airport; thence to the intersection of the 23- 

mile radius of the airport and the Pullman/ 

Moscow Regional Airport 064° bearing of the 

airport to the intersection of the 10-mile 

radius of the airport and the Pullman/ 

Moscow Regional Airport 066° bearing of the 

airport; thence to the point of origin. That 

airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet 

above the surface bounded by a line 

beginning at lat. 46°46′00′′ N., long. 

117°51′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°06′00′′ N., long. 

117°29′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°10′00′′ N., long. 

117°13′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°07′00′′ N., long. 

116°50′00′′ W.; to lat. 46°57′00′′ N., long. 

116°28′00′′ W.; to lat. 46°38′00′′ N., long. 

116°41′00′′ W.; to lat. 46°31′00′′ N., long. 

116°23′00′′ W., to lat. 46°12′00′′ N., long. 

116°25′00′′ W.; to lat. 46°19′00′′ N., long. 

116°57′00′′ W.; to lat. 46°24′00′′ N., long. 

117°30′00′′ W.; thence to the point of origin. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 

14, 2012. 

John Warner, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Western 

Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20543 Filed 8–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 91, 97, 121, 125, 129, and 

135 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1082] 

Proposed Provision of Navigation 

Services for the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System (NextGen) 

Transition to Performance-Based 

Navigation (PBN); Disposition of 

Comments 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy; 

disposition of comments. 

SUMMARY: On December 15, 2011, the 

FAA published a Federal Register 

Notice (76 FR 77939) requesting 

comments on the FAA’s plans for 

providing PBN services, and 

particularly the transition from the 

current Very High Frequency 

Omnidirectional Ranges (VOR) and 

other legacy navigation aids (NAVAIDS) 

to Area Navigation (RNAV)-based 

airspace and procedures. This action 

responds to the public comments the 

FAA received. 

ADDRESSES: You may review the public 

docket for this notice (Docket No. FAA– 

2011–1082) at the Docket Management 

Facility at DOT Headquarters in Room 

W12–140 of the West Building Ground 

Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590–0001 between 9 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. You 

may also review the public docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Greg Joyner, AJM–324, Program 

Management Organization, Navigation 

Program Engineering, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington DC 20591: 

telephone 202–493–5721. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Summary of the December 15, 2011 

FRN 

The FAA sought comments on the 

proposed transition of the U.S. National 

Airspace System (NAS) navigation 

infrastructure to enable PBN as part of 

the NextGen. The FAA plans to 

transition from defining airways, routes 

and procedures using VOR and other 

legacy NAVAIDs, to a NAS based on 

RNAV everywhere and Required 

Navigation Performance (RNP) where 

beneficial. RNAV and RNP capabilities 

will primarily be enabled by the Global 

Positioning System (GPS) and the Wide 

Area Augmentation System (WAAS). 

The FAA plans to retain an optimized 

network of Distance Measuring 

Equipment (DME) facilities and a 

Minimum Operational Network (MON) 

of VOR facilities to ensure safety and 

support continued operations in high 

and low altitude en route airspace over 

the Conterminous United States 

(CONUS) and in terminal airspace at the 

Core 30 airports. The FAA is also 

conducting research on non-GPS based 

Alternate Positioning, Navigation and 

Timing (APNT) solutions that would 

enable further reduction of VORs below 

that of the MON. 

In addition, the FAA plans to satisfy 

any new requirements for Category I 

(CAT I) instrument landing operations 

with WAAS Localizer Performance with 

Vertical guidance (LPV) procedures. A 

network of existing Instrument Landing 

Systems (ILSs) will be sustained to 

provide alternative approach and 

landing capabilities to support 

continued recovery and dispatch of 

aircraft during GPS outages. 

This transition is consistent with the 

FAA’s NextGen Implementation Plan 

(NGIP), NAS Enterprise Architecture 

(NASEA), and other documentation. 

More information is available on the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50421 

FAA’s NextGen Web site at http:// 

www.faa.gov/nextgen and the NASEA 

Web site at https://nasea.faa.gov. 

Discussion of Comments Received 

Summary 

The FAA received 330 comments on 

the FRN. Commenters include aircraft 

manufacturers, airline operators, 

individuals, and associations 

representing users, airports and several 

federal, state and local government 

organizations. Most comments were 

supportive of the evolution of the NAS 

to an RNAV based system, but a 

significant number of commenters were 

concerned about reliance on GPS and 

WAAS related to possible impacts of 

interference or disruption, as well as the 

requirements and costs of avionics. A 

number of commenters were concerned 

about loss of approach services at 

specific airports in the event of 

discontinuation of service from specific 

VOR facilities. A substantial number of 

the comments (185) received were from 

individuals concerned about noise and 

environmental impact in the New York 

metropolitan area. Some reflected 

concerns about aircraft emissions and 

flight paths used by helicopters. These 

comments have been forwarded to the 

FAA Eastern Region for action. 

Discussion 

The FAA has reviewed all the 

comments received in response to the 

FRN and plans to proceed with the 

strategy as outlined in the FRN. The 

FAA is developing an initial VOR MON 

Plan, which will be publicly available 

when it is sufficiently matured. 

Development of this Plan will 

harmonize with development of a 

national Concept of Operations 

(CONOPS) supporting navigation and 

positioning in the NAS as it evolves 

from conventional navigation to PBN. 

When completed, this CONOPS will 

also be publicly available. 

As part of the coordination process, 

the FAA plans to develop a schedule 

showing the requisite activities 

associated with the discontinuance of 

VOR services. These activities will 

include timely notification for 

individual facilities and airspace and 

procedure redesign. 

Comment #1: Several commenters 

(International Air Traffic Association 

(IATA), Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

National Association of State Aviation 

Officials (NASAO), Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association (AOPA), Department 

of Defense (DoD), and Airlines For 

America (A4A)) expressed interest in 

being included in the working group 

that the FRN indicated would be formed 

to complete the details of VOR 

discontinuance. Some airlines 

commented that they would like to be 

consulted on the policy. 

FAA Response: The FAA will 

convene a working group that will 

engage aviation industry stakeholders 

and other members of the public for 

input once the Program has reached a 

sufficient level of maturity conducive to 

working group. 

Comment #2: NASAO commented 

that planning the transition to NextGen 

PBN well in advance would be 

beneficial to the FAA and the state 

government aviation agencies. 

FAA Response: The FAA’s VOR MON 

plan is proceeding to support transition 

to NextGen PBN in accordance with the 

NASEA. The NGIP, FRN and NASEA, 

all publicly available via FAA Web 

sites, are integral to the transition of the 

NAS to PBN operations. 

Comment #3: The Nebraska 

Department of Aviation (DoA) 

recommended that VORs remain 

available as a viable means for air 

navigation while the services to support 

NextGen PBN be provided for users that 

can obtain benefits from them during a 

transition. 

FAA Response: The VOR MON will 

remain in place during the PBN 

transition. 

Comment #4: Nebraska state-owned 

VORs, similar to the FAA inventory of 

Second Generation VORs, are 

maintained by the State, who reports 

there have been no problems with 

support cost or availability of parts. 

FAA Response: VOR facilities not 

owned or operated by the FAA are not 

being considered for discontinuance. 

Comment #5: Operators that fly 

outside the United States desired 

clarification on the GNSS reference to 

be used. 

FAA Response: The FRN used the 

terms GPS and WAAS, the specific U.S. 

implementations of the GNSS and Space 

Based Augmentation System (SBAS) 

described in ICAO Annex 10. Other 

countries have, or are building systems 

that implement these standards, such as 

Europe’s GNSS (Galileo) and SBAS 

(European Geostationary Navigation 

Overlay Service (EGNOS)). Since the 

U.S. does not make regulatory 

determinations on navigation systems 

allowed in other countries, the U.S. 

cannot authorize use of GPS in other 

countries. The FAA is responsible for 

determining which services are 

adequate for operations in the U.S. NAS, 

and has, to date, only approved the use 

of the U.S. GPS and WAAS, and 

Russia’s Globalnaya Navigatsionnaya 

Sputnikovaya Sistema (GLONASS) on a 

supplemental basis. The U.S. is working 

with other GNSS providers to assure 

that their signals may be used to 

improve performance in the U.S. when 

those signals become available. Plans for 

navigation services will continue to use 

specific references (e.g., GPS and 

WAAS) and policies will be updated as 

additional constellations are approved 

for use in the U.S. The ability of 

avionics to use different GNSS 

constellations and services depends 

both on the authorized equipment 

available for specific aircraft and the 

type of systems the operators decided 

with which to equip their aircrafts. It 

also depends on what avionics 

manufacturers decide to develop. FAA’s 

plans for navigation services will 

continue to use the ‘‘GPS’’ and ‘‘WAAS’’ 

terms so that it is clear that the U.S. is 

referring to U.S. systems/services for the 

U.S. NAS. Text describing this 

reasoning will be included in future 

documents to help ensure clarity. 

Comment #6: Some users stated that 

they either will not equip with GPS 

avionics or will not be flying in airspace 

that requires ADS–B. The Nebraska DoA 

stated that many pilots and users do not 

plan to equip aircraft with GPS and that 

instructors will still require students to 

learn VOR navigation. 

FAA Response: Pilots may continue to 

use VORs that remain in the MON or fly 

under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) in nonADS–B airspace. Instructors will still 

teach VOR navigation. 

Comment #7: Operators and some 

aircraft and equipment manufacturers 

stated that they did not intend to equip 

with WAAS because (1) WAAS service 

is not provided in many parts of the 

world outside the United States, and (2) 

many air carrier aircraft are equipped 

with avionics that allow at least RNAV, 

if not some level of RNP, and they do 

not believe WAAS provides benefits 

commensurate with the added 

complexity and cost involved with 

equipage. 

FAA Response: WAAS avionics 

(Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C145/ 

146) with suitable other avionics, such 

as Flight Management Systems (FMS) 

support LPV and Lateral Navigation/ 

Vertical Navigation (LNAV/VNAV) 

terminal procedures and lower minima 

instrument approaches that are not 

available to users equipped with nonaugmented GPS (TSO–C129 and C196) 

avionics. Pilots may continue to use 

non-augmented GPS or other RNAV 

capabilities as described in FAA 

advisory circulars AC 90–100, AC 90– 

101, AC 90–105, AC 90–107 and other 

directives. 

Comment #8: Federal Express stated 

that the FRN described implementation 

of PBN based on GPS and WAAS 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
50422 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

backed up by a minimum network of 

VORs and DMEs, which it stated would 

require equipage of aircraft with 

avionics that is not offered by major 

airline airframe manufacturers. 

FAA Response: While the FAA 

intends to reduce the VOR 

infrastructure to a MON, it will 

maintain an optimized DME network to 

support RNAV operations throughout 

the NAS. In the NextGen timeframe, an 

optimized DME network could be used 

to support APNT. 

Comment #9: The DoD was concerned 

about discontinuation of service from all 

types of ground based navigation aids. 

The concept and planning described in 

the FRN does not contemplate 

discontinuation of service from all 

ground based navigation aids. It 

describes the considerations for 

determining the discontinuation of 

service by VOR ground based navigation 

aids. Where the VOR functionality is 

collocated with DME or DME and UHF 

azimuth equipment (which is the 

Tactical Air Navigation or TACAN), the 

FRN only addresses the VOR service 

and not these other services. 

FAA Response: The MON described 

in the FRN is a network of VORs only, 

and does not include TACAN. Retention 

of DMEs and the DME function 

provided via TACAN is desirable 

because of the large proportion of the air 

carrier fleet that uses DME/DME or 

DME/DME/Inertial Reference Unit (IRU) 

for RNAV. Any national discontinuation 

of DME or TACAN service is separate 

from the VOR MON, not a part of this 

activity, and not contemplated in the 

near future. 

Comment #10: Some organizations 

(IATA, United Air Lines, FedEx, 

Honeywell, Thales, and A4A) expressed 

concern about the future of ILSs and 

other vertically guided approaches, in 

particular at 14 CFR Part 139 airports 

serving air carriers. 

FAA Response: The FAA has no 

current plans to remove ILSs, but most 

new vertically guided approach 

requirements using Facilities and 

Equipment funding will be fulfilled 

with LPV approaches. ILS can continue 

to be approved under Airport 

Improvement Program (AIP) funding. 

While LPVs will receive increasing 

emphasis for projects funded under the 

AIP, the needs of users for ILS 

equipment will be considered in the 

determination of the types of approach 

navigation installed under the AIP. It is 

envisioned that many air carrier 

runways at major airports will continue 

to be supported by ILS (in addition to 

LPV). Additionally, the FAA plans to 

continue to develop LNAV/VNAV 

approaches, which can be flown by 

GPS-equipped aircraft with barometric 

vertical navigation and by WAASequipped aircraft to qualified runways 

used by air carrier aircraft. RNP 

approaches will be developed where 

beneficial, and GLS approaches will be 

developed as appropriate at airports 

with access to GBAS equipment. 

APNT 

The FAA’s NextGen Alternate PNT 

(APNT) program ensures that alternate 

PNT services will be available to 

support flight operations, maintain 

safety, minimize economic impacts from 

GPS outages within the NAS and 

support air transportation’s timing 

needs. APNT will be an alternative for 

all users. Avionics equipage is a major 

consideration. APNT requirements will 

be met with the optimum use of existing 

avionics. The current plan is for APNT 

equipage to be optional. 

Comment #11: The airline industry 

voiced support for an increase in DME 

to provide additional coverage for DME– 

DME navigation provided by modern 

Flight Management Systems (FMS). 

FAA Response: The FAA concurs. 

Current planning is for implementation 

of the new DME sites beginning in 2014. 

The FAA goal is to have complete DME– 

DME coverage enroute at FL 180 and 

above throughout CONUS and in the 

terminal area of large airports in the 

CONUS. 

Comment #12: The airline industry 

was concerned about a statement in the 

FRN that seemed to indicate that WAAS 

was required for ADS–B. 

FAA Response: WAAS is not required 

for ADS–B. Other methods of meeting 

the performance requirements are being 

investigated. ADS–B implementation in 

international operations will require use 

of regionally or globally available 

services. 

Comment #13: IATA stated 

implementation of any new technology 

should be driven by coordinated 

operational requirements of 

stakeholders. The International Civil 

Aviation Organization PBN Manual 

(Document 9613) was cited by IATA in 

describing the steps that must be 

followed in implementing PBN, and 

states the FAA may not have followed 

the described process. IATA then 

related the plan described in the FRN to 

the ADS–B Out regulations at 14 CFR 

91.225 and 91.227 and the implied 

SBAS mandate and provides comments 

on the implementation and the 

requirements that it states are very 

different from European requirements to 

obtain the same performance with 

simpler equipage. IATA states they do 

not support use of any SBAS systems 

such as WAAS and desires to be 

consulted on revision of the VOR MON 

and alternate positioning, navigation 

and timing and systems, such as 

eLORAN, Galileo and others. IATA does 

not support the use of LPV approaches 

as a universal solution and requires an 

adequate number of precision 

approaches be maintained to provide 

capacity without GNSS. IATA states 

GBAS and Baro VNAV approaches 

should be published to complement 

LPV approaches at airports used by 

international carriers. IATA does not 

want PBN levels to be specified that 

require augmentation unless they are 

operationally required. 

FAA Response: FAA will engage 

stakeholders via the working group in 

implementing the MON. PBN transition 

strategy is currently being developed 

within the FAA. The FAA will not 

mandate WAAS. PBN can be achieved 

by multiple means, such as DME/DME 

and ILS. GBAS is currently in the 

Research & Development phase. 

Comment #14: Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes was concerned about the 

interpretation text for the operational 

requirements for two independent 

systems (reference 14 CFR 121.349, 

125.203, 129.17 and 135.165). 

Specifically, they questioned the 

statement that the requirements for a 

second navigation system apply to the 

entire set of equipment needed to 

achieve the navigation capability, not 

just the individual components. They 

are concerned that this statement could 

be interpreted as requiring dual 

independent navigation computers. 

Additionally, they state that existing, 

certified multi-sensor navigation 

systems under AC 20–130A can meet 

the proposed policy requirements. 

FAA Response: The text does not 

imply the need for dual independent 

navigation computers. The text instead 

emphasizes the need for independence 

of the navigation systems and their 

components to ensure that there will be 

no potential single point of failure or 

event that could cause the loss of the 

ability to navigate along the intended 

route or proceed safely to a suitable 

diversion airport. The interpretation of 

this requirement as applied to an 

aircraft approved for multi-sensor 

navigation and equipped with a single 

FMS is that the aircraft must maintain 

an ability to navigate or proceed safely 

in the event that any one component of 

the navigation system fails, including 

the FMS. Retaining an FMSindependent VOR capability would 

satisfy the requirement, even as the NAS 

is transitioned to the MON. This 

interpretation corresponds to the 

advisory wording in AC 20–130A. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50423 

Comment #15: The Maryland 

Aviation Administration (MAA) 

expressed concern about current GPS 

equipage rates. 

FAA Response: Though 

approximately 19 percent of all general 

aviation aircraft are equipped with 

aviation-qualified GPS, most aircraft 

that actually file IFR flight plans are 

typically equipped with GPS. 

Specifically, more than 72% of aircraft 

that filed at least two IFR flight plans in 

2011 filed with an equipment code 

indicating they had IFR GPS receivers 

on board. Of aircraft that filed more than 

100 IFR flight plans in a year the rate 

was above 97%. While it may be the 

case that a significant number of aircraft 

flying VFR are not equipped with GPS, 

the purpose of the VOR system is to 

provide navigation for aircraft flying 

IFR, not VFR. VFR traffic is permitted to 

use hand-held and non-IFR certified 

GPS equipment for situational 

awareness as an aid to navigation and 

often use pilotage and dead reckoning 

navigation. While the VORs retained in 

the MON will support VFR aircraft 

operations, their purpose is clearly to 

support those aircraft operating under 

IFR. 

Comment #16: Two commenters (the 

Nebraska DoA and Thales) were 

concerned over the impact that a 

reduction in VORs would have on 

training and training requirements. 

FAA Response: The current training 

standards for the FAA emphasize VORs 

as the primary navigation source. The 

transition to NextGen will require that 

the FAA shift emphasis from VOR 

navigation to satellite-based navigation 

by changing training syllabi and the 

PTS. However, some emphasis will 

need to remain on VOR and ILS to 

ensure that pilots can navigate using 

these systems in the event of a GPS 

outage. These considerations will be 

included in the FAA’s plan for 

discontinuance of VORs. Additionally, 

transfer of FAA-owned VORs not 

selected to be in the MON to operation 

under non-Federal ownership for 

training may be considered on a caseby-case basis. 

Comment #17: The Nebraska DoA and 

Thales were also concerned with airport 

infrastructure requirements resulting 

from development of RNAV or RNP 

approaches. 

FAA Response: FAA airport 

infrastructure requirements resulting 

from instrument approaches are 

published in FAA Advisory Circular 

150/5300–13. Because airport 

infrastructure upgrades may be required 

for the attainment of lowest instrument 

approach minima, collaboration with 

local and state officials will be 

accomplished during the approach 

development process. For example, 

development of an LPV approach could 

not be accomplished if the required 

runway length were not available. 

However, if a decision was made in 

collaboration with local and state 

officials, to extend the runway, then an 

LPV could be reconsidered. 

Comment #18: United Air Lines and 

GE Aviation expressed concern on the 

use of GPS approach capability by air 

carriers at alternate airports. 

FAA Response: Current FAA policy 

allows operators of aircraft equipped 

with WAAS to plan for RNAV (GPS) 

approaches to the LNAV line of minima 

at their alternate. Furthermore, the FAA 

is currently investigating what 

requirements will be necessary to allow 

un-augmented GPS (TSO–C129/–C129a, 

TSO–C196/–C196a) equipped aircraft to 

plan for RNAV (GPS) or RNAV (RNP) 

approaches at alternate airports. 

Comment #19: Several commenters 

expressed concern that the navigation 

transition strategy as outlined in the 

FRN is indirectly requiring certain types 

of equipage, specifically GPS or WAAS 

equipage. 

FAA Response: The FAA is 

committed to the use of performancebased operations in the NAS. They 

remain the optimal way to both enable 

technological advances while 

maintaining safety, efficiency and 

consistency. Therefore, it is not the 

intention of the FAA to limit 

operational approvals to specific 

technologies or to force retrofit 

navigation solutions on current 

operators with legacy equipment. VOR 

navigation will continue to be a viable 

option for airspace users for the near 

future. Once the FAA completes 

implementation of the VOR MON, VOR 

navigation will still serve the NAS, 

albeit in a less robust fashion than 

today. Early publication of transition 

considerations and planning will allow 

users to consider long-term equipage 

strategies for their aircraft. Operators are 

encouraged to continue to seek 

approvals for the use of navigation 

equipment that was emphasized in the 

FRN, e.g. DME/DME/IRU, GPS, and 

WAAS. The FAA will continue to work 

with industry to advance new 

technologies not yet matured, e.g., 

GBAS and APNT. Additionally, the 

FAA will continue to work with our 

international partners on global 

strategies for multi-constellation/multifrequency GNSS solutions. 

Comment #20: AOPA and the 

National Business Aviation Association 

(NBAA) both expressed support for 

direct routing and avoiding excessive 

implementation of additional T and Q 

routes. 

FAA Response: In the NextGen 

environment, T and Q routes increase 

capacity and efficiency while 

maintaining safety by minimizing 

impact to air traffic control. T and Q 

routes allow controllers to safely 

manage air traffic during peak periods 

and to ensure predictable transitions 

between busy traffic areas. T and Q 

routes overlaid on existing airways 

defined by VORs could mitigate 

potential impacts to the discontinuance 

of VOR navigation services. 

Comment #21: Comments from 

military and general aviation expressed 

interest in participating in VOR 

discontinuation planning. 

FAA Response: As stated in the FRN, 

‘‘The FAA will convene a working 

group that will develop a candidate list 

of VORs for discontinuance using 

relevant operational, safety, cost and 

economic criteria. As part of the 

process, this working group will engage 

aviation industry stakeholders and other 

members of the public for input.’’ 

Detailed planning for the 

implementation of the MON is still 

under development. As the program 

planning process is further developed, 

the FAA will solicit input from 

government and industry stakeholders 

before the VORs selected for the MON 

are finalized. 

Comment #22: Several commenters 

(MAA, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

United Air Lines, AOPA, Thales and 

DoD) indicated that an overall plan is 

necessary and requested more detail on 

the MON. MAA commented that 

without a national plan for 

discontinuation, the removal of specific 

VORs from service might be premature. 

They believed that several VORs in 

Maryland are currently planned for 

discontinuance and they suggested that 

the discontinuation of specific facilities 

should be considered on both a regional 

and national level using analysis to 

identify costs and benefits in a more 

holistic manner to make the 

consideration of facilities objective and 

consistent. 

FAA Response: The FAA has not 

developed a final list of VORs that will 

be included in the MON. The FAA is 

developing objective criteria, which will 

be applied consistently both nationally 

and regionally to help identify those 

VOR facilities that will remain 

operational. A specific overall national 

CONOPS and discontinuance plan are 

being developed to support this effort. 

The draft CONOPS and draft 

discontinuance plan will be presented 

to stakeholders, and the FAA will 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
50424 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

engage stakeholders in the 

discontinuance process. 

Comment #23: Military and airline 

industry commenters expressed concern 

with the FAA plan to establish the VOR 

MON by January 1, 2020. 

FAA Response: This date coincides 

with the January 1, 2020 mandate for 

ADS–B equipage. Once aircraft are 

equipped with ADS–B, it is assumed 

that they will be equipped with GPS as 

well, since currently GPS is the only 

known position source that can satisfy 

the NIC/NAC/SIL requirements of ADS– 

B. At that time, the VOR MON will 

serve as the required GPS backup for 

non DME–DME equipped aircraft in the 

event of a GPS outage. By January 1, 

2020, the VOR MON will provide 

sufficient VOR coverage to enable 

aircraft to fly VOR-to-VOR either 

through the GPS outage or to a safe 

landing. 

Comment #24: A number of operators, 

service providers and equipment 

manufacturers were concerned about 

the level of reliance on GPS expressed 

in the FRN in light of possible 

interference with the GPS service. 

Interference on a regular basis from 

government testing and training was 

specifically identified, as was possible 

widespread interference from licensed 

operators as well as unintentional 

interference from a variety of human 

and natural sources. There remains a 

concern among users that GPS is 

susceptible to interference and VORs 

should remain as a cost effective reliable 

means of navigation. 

FAA Response: U.S. National policy 

recognizes the vulnerability of GPS 

signals, from both human and natural 

sources, and requires operations reliant 

on GPS position, navigation, and timing 

(PNT) for safety, security, or significant 

economic benefit to have sufficient 

backups in place. The FAA has operated 

and will continue to operate GPSindependent systems to fulfill this 

requirement, such as ILS, DME, and 

VOR. As the NAS transitions to 

NextGen, there is also a requirement to 

move from conventional facility based 

navigation to point-to-point navigation 

using PBN, a role that the airways 

supported by VORs cannot support. The 

FAA will continue to operate a subset 

of the current VOR facilities in a MON 

to support those aircraft not equipped 

with GPS-independent RNAV 

capability, while developing an RNAVcapable APNT system to fulfill this role 

in the future. DoD Interference with 

GPS: The FAA recognizes the need for 

DoD elements as part of their mission to 

operate and conduct training in a GPSdenied environment. Both the FAA and 

DoD are committed to working together 

to ensure that the DoD mission will not 

impact the FAA’s mission to operate a 

safe and efficient NAS. DoD GPS 

interference testing is fully coordinated 

with the FAA and prior to testing, the 

FAA issues a Notice to Airmen 

(NOTAM) that describes the potential 

extent of interference and the timeframe 

in which it might occur. During testing 

the FAA maintains direct 

communications with DoD at all times 

and can have tests suspended in the 

event of any impact to NAS operations. 

Today, aircraft with non-GPS RNAV 

avionics are not impacted by this 

interference, and in the future, all 

APNT-equipped aircraft will similarly 

be unaffected. 

Comment #25: Comments were 

received relative to several specific 

VORs with reasons for their specific 

retention. In the case of the Wichita, KS 

VOR (ICT), it was stated that the facility 

is needed for testing and airworthiness 

demonstration of new manufactured 

aircraft by a number of companies in the 

area. 

FAA Response: While a VOR signal is 

necessary for this activity, it is not 

necessary that the service be provided 

by a FAA owned VOR, whose purpose 

under the MON will be to ensure safe 

operations in the event of a GPS outage. 

A non-Federal VOR, owned by an 

airport authority, state instrumentality 

or private entity could also perform this 

function. In cases where individuals/ 

organizations have an interest in 

maintaining a specific VOR service, the 

VOR could be transferred to and 

operated under agreement with the FAA 

as a non-federal facility. 

Comment #26: Thales expressed a 

concern over how the VOR MON will 

support non-GPS aircraft and GPS 

aircraft during GPS interference if a key 

MON VOR is down for maintenance. 

FAA Response: In determining the 

VORs that will make up the MON, 

consideration will be given to the 

availability and continuity of navigation 

service expected from each facility. The 

VOR MON’s purpose, a non-PBN 

backup in the event of a GPS outage, 

will be considered in making this 

determination. An element of this 

consideration will be the availability of 

non-GPS dependent surveillance 

services that would allow air traffic to 

provide services in the event of both a 

GPS and individual VOR service outage. 

Additionally, the equipage rate of IFR 

traffic with IFR GPS is significant and 

expected to be near 100% as we 

approach the year 2020 ADS–B 

mandate. While possible to fly IFR using 

the VOR MON, the increased distance of 

the VOR-only route as compared to 

using RNAV navigation will likely be 

highly undesirable. This will further 

drive GPS equipage. 

Comment #27: The DoD stated 

concern on the cost of transition versus 

benefits for their fleet of aircraft. 

FAA Response: The NAS’ transition to 

NextGen is a national priority, in which 

the FAA plays an important role in 

concert with other Federal agencies and 

the aviation community. The transition 

to PBN as enabling capability for 

NextGen is a key part of the NGIP. 

Additionally, the considerations of the 

military in transitioning a 14,600 

aircraft fleet and operating practices to 

RNAV/RNP stated in comments to the 

public docket appear to include the 

notion that TACAN services from 

VORTAC facilities will be terminated 

when VOR service is discontinued. This 

is not the case. The military also desires 

the FAA to retain VOR and TACAN 

service for specific enroute and terminal 

locations and procedures as the military 

aircraft fleet equipage and operating 

procedures evolve. 

The FAA notes that there is historic 

precedent for the transition to a single 

national system—specifically the 

establishment of VORs and associated 

airways, DME, and ILS in the 1950s. At 

that time the military did not want to 

equip with VOR or ILS in tactical 

aircraft due to weight and space 

constraints, stating that Non-Directional 

Beacons (NDB) and four course ranges 

for enroute navigation and ground 

controlled approach (GCA) for landing 

was sufficient pending implementation 

of TACAN. The military also wanted to 

evolve to use TACAN because of 

weight/size and operational advantages 

over VOR and to include their 

implementation of DME, rather than the 

civil DME standard. The civil 

community, particularly airlines, 

wanted VOR for improved accuracy and 

usability over four course ranges and 

NDBs with ILS for approaches. In the 

end the NDBs and four course ranges 

were retained until military aircraft and 

operating practices transitioned to 

TACAN, the military DME standard was 

adopted for all DMEs and ILS was 

standardized for approaches, though the 

military continued GCA approaches, 

particularly for tactical aircraft. 

The transition to RNAV/RNP may be 

undertaken economically for military 

aviation by retaining TACAN as a 

system, discontinuing only specific 

facilities on an individual basis; 

incorporating military use 

considerations for identifying VOR 

service for discontinuation in enroute 

and terminal environments; designating 

special use airspace and other military 

usage features with RNAV references as 

well as TACAN or VOR rho/theta and 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50425 

1 17 CFR 145.9. Commission regulations may be 

accessed through the Commission’s Web site, 

http://www.cftc.gov. 

2See Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act, Public Law 111–203, 124 

Stat. 1376 (July 21, 2010). 

3 7 U.S.C. 1 et seq. (2006). 

4CEA section 2(h)(1)(A), 7 U.S.C. 2(h)(1)(A). 

5See CEA section 2(h)(1)(A), 7 U.S.C. 2(h)(1)(A). 

The CEA’s clearing requirement states that, ‘‘[i]t 

shall be unlawful for any person to engage in a 

swap unless that person submits such swap for 

Continued 

distance references; and retaining ILS at 

current sites with installation of new 

ILSs by military where needed in lieu of 

LP and LPV. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 14, 

2012. 

Lansine Toure, 

Acting Manager, Navigation Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20464 Filed 8–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 39 

RIN 3038–AD47 

Clearing Exemption for Swaps 

Between Certain Affiliated Entities 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (‘‘CFTC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) is proposing a rule to 

exempt swaps between certain affiliated 

entities within a corporate group from 

the clearing requirement (the ‘‘interaffiliate clearing exemption’’ or the 

‘‘proposed exemption’’) under Section 

2(h)(1)(A) of the Commodity Exchange 

Act (‘‘CEA’’). The Commission also is 

proposing rules that detail specific 

conditions counterparties must satisfy 

to elect the proposed inter-affiliate 

clearing exemption, as well as reporting 

requirements for affiliated entities that 

avail themselves of the proposed 

exemption. The Commission has 

finalized a rule that addresses swaps 

that are subject to the end-user 

exception. Counterparties to interaffiliate swaps that qualify for the enduser exception would be able to elect to 

not clear swaps pursuant to the end-user 

exception or the proposed rule. The 

proposed rule does not address swaps 

that an affiliate enters into with a third 

party that are related to inter-affiliate 

swaps that are subject to the end-user 

exception. The Commission intends 

separately to propose a rule addressing 

swaps between an affiliate and a third 

party where the swaps are used to hedge 

or mitigate commercial risk arising from 

inter-affiliate swaps for which the enduser exception has been elected. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 20, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN number 3038–AD47, 

by any of the following methods: 

• The agency’s Web site, at: http:// 

comments.cftc.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

through the Web site. 

• Mail: David A. Stawick, Secretary of 

the Commission, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 

Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20581. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as 

mail above. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Please submit your comments using 

only one method. 

All comments must be submitted in 

English, or if not, accompanied by an 

English translation. ‘‘Inter-affiliate 

Clearing Exemption’’ must be in the 

subject field of responses submitted via 

email, and clearly indicated on written 

submissions. Comments will be posted 

as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You 

should submit only information that 

you wish to make available publicly. If 

you wish the Commission to consider 

information that is exempt from 

disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act, a petition for 

confidential treatment of the exempt 

information may be submitted according 

to the established procedures in CFTC 

regulation 145.9.1

Throughout this proposed 

rulemaking, the Commission requests 

comment in response to specific 

questions. For convenience, the 

Commission has numbered each of 

these comment requests. The 

Commission asks that, in submitting 

responses to these requests, commenters 

identify the specific number of each 

request to which their comments are 

responsive. 

The Commission reserves the right, 

but shall have no obligation, to review, 

pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse, or 

remove any or all of a submission from 

www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be 

inappropriate for publication, such as 

obscene language. All submissions that 

have been redacted or removed that 

contain comments on the merits of the 

rulemaking will be retained in the 

public comment file and will be 

considered as required under the 

Administrative Procedure Act and other 

applicable laws, and may be accessible 

under the Freedom of Information Act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gloria Clement, Assistant General 

Counsel, (202) 418–5122, 

gclement@cftc.gov, Office of General 

Counsel; Jonathan Lave, Associate 

Director, Exchange & Data Repository, 

(202) 418–5983, jlave@cftc.gov, and 

Alexis Hall-Bugg, Attorney-Advisor, 

(202) 418–6711, ahallbugg@cftc.gov, 

Division of Market Oversight; Warren 

Gorlick, Supervisory Attorney-Advisor, 

(202) 418–5195, wgorlick@cftc.gov, and 

Anuradha Banerjee, Attorney-Advisor, 

(202) 418–5661, abanerjee@cftc.gov, 

Office of International Affairs; Theodore 

Kneller, Attorney-Advisor, (202) 418– 

5727, tkneller@cftc.gov, Division of 

Enforcement; Elizabeth Miller, 

Attorney-Advisor, (202) 418–5985, 

emiller@cftc.gov, Division of Swap 

Dealer and Intermediary Oversight; Esen 

Onur, Research Economist, (202) 418– 

6146, eonur@cftc.gov, Office of the Chief 

Economist; and Jolanta Sterbenz, 

Counsel, (202) 418–6639, 

jsterbenz@cftc.gov, Office of General 

Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581. 

I. Background 

A. Clearing Requirement for Swaps 

On July 21, 2010, President Obama 

signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

(‘‘Dodd-Frank Act’’ or ‘‘DFA’’).2 Title 

VII of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the 

CEA,3 and established a new regulatory 

framework for swaps. The legislation 

was enacted to reduce systemic risk, 

increase transparency, and promote 

market integrity within the financial 

system by, among other things: (1) 

Imposing clearing and trade execution 

requirements on standardized derivative 

products; (2) creating rigorous 

recordkeeping and data reporting 

regimes with respect to swaps, 

including real-time public reporting; 

and (3) enhancing the Commission’s 

rulemaking and enforcement authorities 

over all registered entities, 

intermediaries, and swap counterparties 

subject to the Commission’s oversight. 

Section 723 of the Dodd-Frank Act 

added section 2(h) to the CEA, which 

establishes a clearing requirement for 

swaps.4 The new section makes it 

unlawful for any person to engage in a 

swap, if the Commission determines 

such swap is required to be cleared, 

unless the person submits the swap for 

clearing to a registered derivatives 

clearing organization (‘‘DCO’’) (or a DCO 

that is exempt from registration).5 The 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1