Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30317 

We will consider all comments we 

receive by the closing date for 

comments. We may change these special 

conditions based on the comments we 

receive. 

Background 

On February 2, 2017, Airbus applied 

for a change to Type Certificate No. 

A28NM for the installation of electronic 

network system architecture or Flight 

Operations and Maintenance Exchanger 

(FOMAX) equipment in the Model 

A318, A319, A320 and A321 series 

airplanes. The Airbus Model A318, 

A319, A320 and A321 series airplanes 

are twin-engine, transport category 

airplanes with a passenger seating 

capacity of 136 to 230 and a maximum 

takeoff weight of 123,458 to 213,848 

pounds, depending on the specific 

design. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, 

Airbus must show that the Model A318, 

A319, A320 and A321 series airplanes 

as changed, continue to meet the 

applicable provisions of the regulations 

listed in Type Certificate No. A28NM or 

the applicable regulations in effect on 

the date of application for the change, 

except for earlier amendments as agreed 

upon by the FAA. 

If the Administrator finds that the 

applicable airworthiness regulations 

(i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

for the Airbus Model A318, A319, A320 

and A321 series airplanes because of a 

novel or unusual design feature, special 

conditions are prescribed under the 

provisions of § 21.16 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should the type certificate 

for that model be amended later to 

include any other model that 

incorporates the same novel or unusual 

design feature, or should any other 

model already included on the same 

type certificate be modified to 

incorporate the same novel or unusual 

design feature, these special conditions 

would also apply to the other model 

under § 21.101. 

In addition to the applicable 

airworthiness regulations and special 

conditions, the Airbus Model A318, 

A319, A320 and A321 series airplanes 

must comply with the fuel vent and 

exhaust-emission requirements of 14 

CFR part 34, and the noise certification 

requirements of 14 CFR part 36. 

The FAA issues special conditions, as 

defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance 

with § 11.38, and they become part of 

the type certification basis under 

§ 21.101. 

Novel or Unusual Design Features 

The Airbus Model A318, A319, A320 

and A321 series airplanes will 

incorporate the following novel or 

unusual design feature: 

The installation and activation of 

electronic network system architecture 

or Flight Operations and Maintenance 

Exchanger (FOMAX) equipment that 

allows access from internal sources (e.g., 

wireless devices, internet connectivity) 

to the airplane’s once isolated internal 

electronic components. 

Discussion 

The Airbus Model A318, A319, A320 

and A321 series airplanes architecture is 

novel or unusual for commercial 

transport airplanes because it allows 

connection to previously isolated data 

networks connected to systems that 

perform functions required for the safe 

operation of the airplane. This data 

network and design integration may 

result in security vulnerabilities from 

intentional or unintentional corruption 

of data and systems critical to the safety 

and maintenance of the airplane. The 

existing regulations and guidance 

material did not anticipate this type of 

system architecture or electronic access 

to aircraft systems. Furthermore, 14 CFR 

regulations and the current system 

safety assessment policy and techniques 

do not address potential security 

vulnerabilities, which could be 

exploited by unauthorized access to 

airplane networks and servers. 

Therefore, these special conditions are 

to ensure that the security of airplane 

systems and networks is not 

compromised by unauthorized wired or 

wireless internal access. 

These special conditions contain the 

additional safety standards that the 

Administrator considers necessary to 

establish a level of safety equivalent to 

that established by the existing 

airworthiness standards. 

Applicability 

As discussed above, these special 

conditions are applicable to the Model 

A318, A319, A320 and A321 series 

airplanes. Should Airbus apply at a later 

date for a change to the type certificate 

to include another model incorporating 

the same novel or unusual design 

feature, these special conditions would 

apply to that model as well. 

Conclusion 

This action affects only a certain 

novel or unusual design feature on 

Airbus Model A318, A319, A320 and 

A321 series airplanes. It is not a rule of 

general applicability. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25 

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority Citation 

The authority citation for these 

special conditions is as follows: 

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

44701, 44702, 44704. 

The Special Conditions 

■ Accordingly, pursuant to the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the following special conditions are 

issued as part of the type certification 

basis for Airbus Model A318, A319, 

A320 and A321 series airplanes. 

1. The applicant must ensure that the 

design provides isolation from, or 

airplane electronic system security 

protection against, access by 

unauthorized sources internal to the 

airplane. The design must prevent 

inadvertent and malicious changes to, 

and all adverse impacts upon, airplane 

equipment, systems, networks, or other 

assets required for safe flight and 

operations. 

2. The applicant must establish 

appropriate procedures to allow the 

operator to ensure that continued 

airworthiness of the aircraft is 

maintained, including all post type 

certification modifications that may 

have an impact on the approved 

electronic system security safeguards. 

Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 

25, 2018. 

Victor Wicklund, 

Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy 

and Innovation Division, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13948 Filed 6–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 97 

[Docket No.: FAA–2017–0879] 

RIN 2120–AA65 

Criteria and Process for the 

Cancellation of Standard Instrument 

Approach Procedures as Part of the 

National Procedures Assessment 

(NPA) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Statement of policy. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
30318 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1The TOC is a subcommittee comprised of FAA 

and industry representatives established under the 

RTCA advisory committee in accordance with the 

provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA). 

2Section 2–8 of FAA Order 8260.19 (Flight 

Procedures and Airspace) sets forth the minimum 

frequency of review of instrument procedures. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) is finalizing 

specific criteria to guide the 

identification and selection of 

appropriate circling procedures that can 

be considered for cancellation. These 

procedures include certain circling 

procedures (to include circling-only 

instrument approach procedures (IAPs) 

and circling minima charted on straightin IAPs). The circling procedures 

associated with this cancellation 

initiative will be selected based on the 

criteria outlined in this statement of 

policy. This document is not a part of 

the FAA’s VOR minimum operating 

network (MON) initiative. 

DATES: This statement of policy is 

effective July 30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

statement of policy, see ‘‘How To Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lonnie Everhart, Aeronautical 

Information Services, AJV–5, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Air Traffic 

Organization, 6500 S. MacArthur Blvd., 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169; Telephone 

(405) 954–4576; Email AMC-ATO-IFPCancellations@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority for This Rulemaking 

Under 49 U.S.C. 40103(a), the 

Administrator has broad authority to 

regulate the safe and efficient use of the 

navigable airspace. The Administrator is 

also authorized to issue air traffic rules 

and regulations to govern the flight, 

navigation, protection, and 

identification of aircraft for the 

protections of persons and property on 

the ground and for the efficient use of 

the navigable airspace. 49 U.S.C. 

40103(b). Under section 44701(a)(5), the 

Administrator promotes safe flight of 

civil aircraft in air commerce by 

prescribing regulations and minimum 

standards for other practices, methods, 

and procedures necessary for safety in 

air commerce and national security. 

This action is within the scope of that 

authority. 

SIAPs are promulgated by rulemaking 

procedures and are incorporated by 

reference pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 

and 1 CFR part 51 into Title 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations; Part 97 (14 

CFR part 97), Subpart C—TERPS 

Procedures. 

II. Background 

The National Airspace System (NAS) 

is currently in transition to a ‘‘NextGen 

NAS.’’ During this transition, the FAA 

is managing the technology and 

procedures to support both the legacy 

(NavAid-based) NAS as well as the 

NextGen (satellite-based) NAS. As new 

technology has facilitated the 

introduction of area navigation (RNAV) 

instrument approach procedures over 

the past decade, the number of 

procedures available in the NAS has 

nearly doubled. The complexity and 

cost to the FAA of maintaining the 

instrument flight procedures inventory 

while expanding the new RNAV 

capability is not sustainable. Managing 

two versions of the NAS requires excess 

manpower, infrastructure, and 

information management which is 

costly and unsupportable in the longterm. To mitigate these costs, the FAA 

has a number of efforts underway to 

effectively transition from the legacy to 

the NextGen NAS. One area of focus for 

this transition is instrument flight 

procedures (IFPs). The FAA seeks to 

ensure an effective transition from 

ground-based IFPs to greater availability 

and use of satellite-based IFPs while 

maintaining NAS safety. 

In early 2015, the FAA requested the 

RTCA’s Tactical Operations Committee 

(TOC) 1 with providing 

recommendations on criteria and 

processes for cancelling instrument 

flight procedures. Among the many 

recommendations provided by the TOC 

were criteria to identify circling 

procedures that would qualify as 

candidates for cancellation. As of March 

29, 2018, there are 12,068 IAPs in 

publication, consisting of 33,825 lines of 

minima, 11,701 of which are circling 

lines of minima. This represents a 

nearly 9 percent increase in IAP lines of 

minima from September 18, 2014. 

Circling procedures account for 

approximately one-third of all lines of 

minima for IAPs in the NAS. 

In response to the unsustainable 

growth in the number of IFPs, the FAA 

requested feedback and 

recommendations from the RTCA TOC 

related to removing underutilized or 

unneeded IFPs to facilitate a transition 

to NextGen and reduce FAA 

maintenance costs related to IFPs. The 

task group assigned to study IFP 

reduction adopted the following guiding 

principles when considering their 

recommendations: 

• Utilization was determined not to 

be a valid stand-alone criterion, as usage 

data can be inaccurate or unavailable in 

some cases and does not necessarily 

reflect the operational value of an IFP. 

• Effort was focused on a NAS-level 

examination of public procedures 

maintained by the FAA. Additionally, 

specific criteria for special operating 

conditions, such as those in Alaska, 

where additional considerations may be 

required, should be developed apart 

from this effort. 

• The FAA procedure reduction 

program is highly dependent upon and 

interwoven with other efforts such as 

VOR Minimum Operating Network 

(MON), the Performance Based 

Navigation (PBN) NAS Navigation 

Strategy effort and the ongoing rewrite 

of the Regional Airspace Procedures 

Team (RAPT) Order, and these efforts 

need to be synchronized as each effort 

progresses. 

• Airways were deemed to be beyond 

the focus of this group’s effort. 

• When evaluating any procedure, air 

traffic personnel and operators should 

be involved. 

Proposed Criteria 

In its continued effort to right-size the 

NAS through optimization and 

elimination of redundant and 

unnecessary IAPs, on October 6, 2017, 

the FAA published a proposed policy 

and request for comment that identified 

the following criteria to guide the 

identification and selection of 

appropriate circling procedures to be 

considered for cancellation. 82 FR 

46738. 

The FAA proposed that all circling 

procedures will continue to be reviewed 

through the established IAP periodic 

review process.2 As part of that review 

process, the FAA proposed that each 

circling procedure be evaluated against 

the following questions: 

• Is this procedure a designated MON 

airport procedure? 

• If multiple IAPs serve a single 

runway end, is this the lowest circling 

minima for that runway? 

Note: If the RNAV circling minima is not 

the lowest, but is within 50’ of the lowest, 

the FAA would give the RNAV preference. 

• Would cancellation result in 

removal of circling minima from all 

conventional NAVAID procedures at an 

airport? 

Note: If circling minima exists for multiple 

Conventional NAVAID procedures, 

preference would be to retain ILS circling 

minima. 

• Would cancellation result in all 

circling minima being removed from all 

airports within 20 NM? 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30319 

3The FAA has placed sample copies of the 

memorandum and checklist into the docket for this 

document. 

4FAA Order 8260.43 (Flight Procedures 

Management Program) and FAA Order 8260.26 

(Establishing Submission Cutoff Dates for Civil 

Instrument Procedures) contain additional 

information on this process. These orders are 

available on the FAA website. 

5A copy of this report has been placed in the 

docket for this action. 

• Will removal eliminate lowest 

landing minima to an individual 

runway? 

The following questions are 

applicable only to circling-only 

procedures: 

• Does this circling-only procedure 

exist because of high terrain or an 

obstacle that makes a straight-in 

procedure unfeasible or which would 

result in the straight-in minimums being 

higher than the circling minima? 

• Is this circling-only procedure (1) at 

an airport where not all runway ends 

have a straight-in IAP, and (2) does it 

have a Final Approach Course not 

aligned within 45 degrees of a runway 

which has a straight-in IAP? 

The FAA proposed that further 

consideration for cancellation under 

this policy would be terminated if any 

of the aforementioned questions are 

answered in the affirmative. If all 

questions are answered in the negative, 

the procedure would be processed as 

described in the following paragraph. 

When a candidate has been identified, 

Aeronautical Information Services 

would send a notification of procedure 

cancellation memorandum and 

completed checklist to the appropriate 

Regional Service Area, Operations 

Support Group.3 The Regional Service 

Area, Operations Support Group would 

follow the same notification process 

used for standard IFP requests.4

Consistent with FAA procedures 

outlined in the procedure cancellation 

memorandum, comments regarding the 

aforementioned circling procedure 

would need to be submitted within 30 

days of the timestamp on the 

communication media through which it 

was delivered. Comments would be 

directed to the Regional Service Area, 

Operations Support Group for 

dissemination to Aeronautical 

Information Services. Comments would 

be adjudicated by Aeronautical 

Information Services within 30 days of 

the timestamp on the communication 

media through which it was received. A 

final decision would be forwarded to 

Regional Service Area, Operations 

Support Group to disseminate to 

commenter(s). The cancellation of the 

part 97 instrument procedure will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

In its proposed policy, the FAA noted 

that National Procedures Assessment 

(NPA) Instrument Flight Procedure (IFP) 

cancellation activities and associated 

criteria do not supersede similar 

activities being performed under the 

FAA’s VOR MON Program. See 81 FR 

48694 (July 26, 2016). However, NPA 

IFP cancellation activities have been 

coordinated with the FAA office 

responsible for the VOR MON 

implementation program, and its input 

has been thoroughly considered. 

III. Discussion of Comments Received 

The FAA received 11 comments 

pertaining to the proposed statement of 

policy. Commenters included the 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

(AOPA), National Business Aviation 

Association (NBAA), and nine 

individuals. 

AOPA suggested adding language to 

the proposed policy to point out the 

cancellation criteria’s consideration of 

circling procedures being required for 

pilot training and testing. AOPA 

expressed concern that flight procedures 

critical to part 142 training centers 

could be cancelled without the 

awareness of these training centers, and 

requested coordination with the 

National Simulator Program (and 

simulator operators) before any IFPs are 

cancelled to prevent adversely 

hindering simulator training and testing. 

AOPA also requested the FAA 

implement outreach recommendations 

made in the March 2016 RTCA NPA 

Report ‘‘Process and Criteria for 

Cancellation of Instrument Flight 

Procedures’’ 5 to ensure users and air 

traffic control are able to provide input 

prior to IFP cancellation decisions being 

made. 

Language has been added to one of 

the questions used to evaluate each 

circling procedure expressing awareness 

of the need to retain sufficient circling 

procedures to allow for instrument 

flight proficiency and training. That 

criterion now states, ‘‘Would 

cancellation result in all circling 

minima being removed from all airports 

within 20 NM?’’ This particular criteria 

recognizes the circling-related content 

of the Instrument Rating—Airplane 

Airman Certification Standards (ACS). 

Once a circling procedure is proposed 

for cancellation, it will be posted on the 

Instrument Flight Procedures 

Information Gateway (https://

www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/ 

aeronav/procedures/). This information 

will be provided to the National 

Simulator Program, Air Traffic Services, 

and the Operations Support Groups. 

This notification will enable them to 

maintain awareness of IFP-related 

actions, including proposed 

cancellations for circling procedures, 

and communicate this site’s availability 

to their stakeholders for their awareness. 

Additionally, language has been added 

to the statement of policy that informs 

users how to access the FAA’s 

Instrument Flight Procedures 

Information Gateway (IFP Gateway), 

through which they can be notified 

when there are proposed actions to 

instrument flight procedures at airports 

of their choosing. Users will be able to 

submit comments pertaining to 

proposed circling flight procedure 

cancellations, and each comment will 

be taken into consideration before a 

final determination is made. 

NBAA requested the proposed policy 

be temporarily suspended while Flight 

Management Systems (FMS) issues that 

resulted in a number of IFPs being 

inadvertently eliminated from FMS IFP 

databases could be evaluated and 

considered with respect to the proposed 

policy. 

The inadvertent removal of IFPs from 

certain FMS was unrelated to any action 

by the FAA with regard to IFP process. 

The NBAA’s suggestion that the 

effective date of this policy be 

temporarily suspended or delayed while 

these FMS issues are addressed is not 

practical considering these criteria have 

been discussed, vetted via the RTCA 

TOC, in which NBAA has been a 

participant, and finally published in the 

2016 RTCA Final NPA Report. 

Additionally, any circling procedure 

cancellations that result from 

implementation of this policy should 

not impact the probability of future FMS 

issues as mentioned in the NBAA’s 

comment. 

One commenter expressed approval of 

the cancellation of a circling procedure 

only if all runways accessible by the 

procedure have a straight-in IAP with 

lower minimums than those associated 

with the cancelled procedure. The 

individual also expressed the need for 

some circling procedures to remain in 

the NAS given the tasks and maneuvers 

of the Instrument Rating—Airplane 

Airman Certification Standards (ACS). 

The FAA’s policy is not intended to 

ensure straight-in IAPs for every runway 

end, but rather minimizing IFP 

redundancy in the NAS. The FAA 

acknowledges that with the cancellation 

of some circling procedures, there may 

be reduced airport accessibility, but no 

reduction in runway availability. To the 

extent that the commenter expressed 

concern over the ACS, the criteria the 

FAA is finalizing takes into account 

circling procedures in the ACS. The 

fourth criteria, which asks whether 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
30320 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

cancellation will result in all circling 

minima being removed from all airports 

within 20 NMs, should ensure that there 

are sufficient circling procedures for 

pilot training and testing. 

One individual expressed concern 

that economic, environmental and air 

traffic management impacts of removing 

the circling approaches needs to be 

considered in this policy. The 

individual also recommended that IFR 

use over the last several years be 

evaluated and included as part of the 

policy. 

The FAA has invested significant 

resources in the infrastructure of the 

NAS pertaining to IFPs, and a 

significant portion of those resources 

have resulted in an increased number of 

NextGen IFPs. Because of this, the IFP 

inventory is at an unsustainable level 

given the current and projected 

resources needed to maintain IFPs. 

Also, the criteria outlined in the 

proposed policy is a result of a 

collaborative effort between the FAA 

and aviation industry stakeholders to 

accomplish a reduction in the number 

of circling procedures while considering 

the very concerns expressed by the 

individual. One of the guiding 

principles adopted by the TOC Task 

Group in considering their 

recommendations for this effort was that 

IFP utilization was determined not to be 

a valid stand-alone criterion, as usage 

data can be inaccurate or unavailable in 

some cases and does not necessarily 

reflect the operational value of an IFP. 

The proposed criteria are only a 

foundation for identifying procedures 

for cancellation and is not sole 

justification for any IFP being cancelled. 

Once a procedure is identified and 

proposed for cancellation, and that 

proposal is posted on the IFP Gateway, 

stakeholders will have the opportunity 

to present their justification for 

retaining that procedure, and each 

justification will be considered and 

adjudicated before a determination is 

made to either retain or cancel that 

procedure. 

One individual stated that the 

proposed policy does not account for 

convenience and efficiency, and 

provided an example of the VOR–A at 

MOTON FIELD MUNI (K06A). The 

individual also asked the FAA to add 

the following to the criteria: 

• Does circling allow the pilot to 

access runways not served by other 

IAPs? 

• Does the existing approach allow 

the pilot to approach the field and/or 

access the runway more directly than 

the alternative straight in approaches? 

• Are sufficient alternatives available 

so that the removal of this circling 

approach will not force pilots to fly 

significantly further to access each 

runway when considering all possible 

arrival sectors and winds? 

• Would removing this circling 

approach cause harm by forcing pilots 

to fly further to access straight in 

approaches? 

As stated previously, the proposed 

policy could minimally impact 

accessibility to some airports, but the 

current inventory of IFPs is not 

sustainable. The proposed policy is 

intended to minimize IFP redundancy 

currently present in the NAS, and 

convenience and efficiency could be 

impacted at some airports. However, 

convenience and efficiency have also 

been significantly enhanced at 

numerous airports with the 

implementation of NextGen IFPs, so the 

commenter’s assertion would need to be 

considered for each specific IFP and 

each airport with consideration given to 

the IFP enhancements made at that 

airport over the last several years. As 

noted, the public will have an 

opportunity to provide comment on a 

proposed cancellation of a specific IFP 

prior to its cancellation. 

The K06A VOR–A is a good example 

of the IFP redundancy that currently 

exists within the NAS, as it highlights 

the investment of resources in NextGen 

IFPs. At this particular airport, K06A, 

two RNAV (GPS) IAPs have been 

installed—one for each runway end. 

Both of the NextGen approaches have 

circling minima as good as or better 

than the minima offered by the VOR–A. 

Additionally, both of the NextGen IAPs 

have straight-in minima substantially 

better than the circling minima offered 

by the VOR–A, and yet the commenter 

points out that the VOR–A is useful 

because the NextGen IAPs add 

significant distance (time and fuel) to 

‘‘shoot those approaches from the north 

or south.’’ The FAA notes that NextGen 

IAPs can also be used to approach from 

a particular direction, east in the 

commenter’s comment, then circle to 

land on the appropriate runway if 

needed. Additionally, straight-in 

approaches with circling minima are 

viable IAPs for circling to other runways 

at that airport in accordance with any 

circling restrictions noted on the 

associated IAP. 

Regarding the additional questions 

the commenter recommended adding to 

the criteria, the first criterion request is 

unnecessary as the FAA’s proposed 

criteria prevents the cancellation of all 

circling procedures at an airport, so 

runways currently accessible via 

circling will remain accessible. For the 

other 3 criteria recommendations from 

the commenter, all users will be able to 

provide justification for objecting to the 

cancellation of specific circling 

procedures once a particular circling 

procedure has been proposed for 

cancellation and publicized on the IFP 

Gateway, and those objections will be 

adjudicated on their own merits. 

Additionally, the commenter’s terms 

‘‘more directly’’, ‘‘significantly further’’, 

and ‘‘cause harm’’ are both subjective 

and ambiguous, and do not provide 

measurable elements with which to 

determine a specific procedure’s 

necessity and/or value. 

One individual expressed their 

approval of the proposed policy and 

expressed their opinion, based upon 

their stated aviation experience, that 

circle-to-land maneuvers are dangerous 

as they can lead to task saturation. The 

commenter also supported the proposed 

criteria that ensures at least one circling 

procedure remains at airports that 

currently have a circling procedure. 

The FAA appreciates the commenter’s 

support of this initiative, but also 

recognizes the need and purpose for 

circling procedures in the NAS. While 

circling maneuvers may involve unique 

requirement for aviators and air traffic 

control specialists, it is something that 

is accounted for in training 

requirements and, as such, is not 

considered dangerous. The FAA 

recognizes that unique situations and 

conditions could warrant a circling 

approach, and the design criteria for 

circling approaches reflects that. 

One individual expressed concern 

regarding their inability to utilize RNAV 

(GPS) IFPs due to their lack of ADS–B 

equipage at this time, and the only nonNextGen IAP at their home airport, 

CLARENCE E. PAGE MUNI (KRCE), is 

the VOR–B. 

The FAA notes that this particular 

approach would not be considered for 

cancellation as part of this policy due to 

it not meeting the criteria that states, 

‘‘Would cancellation result in removal 

of circling minima from all conventional 

NAVAID procedures at an airport?’’ 

Because the cancellation of the KRCE 

VOR–B would result in the cancellation 

of circling minima from all conventional 

NAVAID procedures at KRCE, it would 

not be considered for cancellation as 

part of this policy. 

One individual expressed concerns 

pertaining to the safety critical nature of 

circling minima for piston aircraft due 

to the ability to remain in closer 

proximity to an airport than when using 

‘‘direct RNAV approaches,’’ and cited 

‘‘deteriorating weather, possible icing, 

and thunder storm conditions’’ as 

justification for retention of circling 

minima. The individual’s assertions 

lack sufficient details and specifics for 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30321 

6Section 2–8 of FAA Order 8260.19 (Flight 

Procedures and Airspace) sets forth the minimum 

frequency of review of instrument procedures. 

7This criterion has been slightly reworded for 

clarity. 

8The FAA has placed sample copies of the 

memorandum and checklist into the docket for this 

document. 

9FAA Order 8260.43 (Flight Procedures 

Management Program) and FAA Order 8260.26 

(Establishing Submission Cutoff Dates for Civil 

Instrument Procedures) contain additional 

Continued 

the FAA to provide an informed 

response. Accounting for every possible 

situation and condition of flight with 

flight procedures is not practical. Both 

circling maneuvers and straight-in 

maneuvers are evaluated using the same 

criteria and one is not safer than the 

other is. Access to airports is a separate 

issue and should be raised to the airport 

owner/operator and Air Traffic Control 

through comments submitted after 

notification of a candidate procedure for 

cancellation under this program. 

One individual requested the 

following criteria to assure that the FAA 

maintains or improves the access to the 

airport, stating that access to a candidate 

location should never be reduced in the 

interest of process efficiency: 

• Availability of SBAS approach 

procedure to the intended landing 

runway in lieu of the circle approach 

to provide direct access to that 

runway 

• If SBAS and ground based navigation 

is available at that facility the circling 

minima for the ground based 

approach should be retained to allow 

facility access in the event that GPS 

availability is degraded or not 

available 

As previously stated, this IFP 

reduction effort could impact access at 

some airports, but the criteria in this 

policy are in agreement with the PBN 

NAS Navigation Strategy effort. The 

addition of NextGen IFPs at airports 

across the country has substantially 

improved access at numerous airports, 

which significantly offsets and 

frequently outweighs claims of circling 

procedure cancellations resulting in 

reduced access to airports. The 

transition to a predominantly NextGen 

NAS requires a reduction in groundbased IFPs and infrastructure as 

outlined in the VOR MON Final Policy 

Statement published in the Federal 

Register July 26, 2016. VOR MON 

policy specifically states, ‘‘The MON 

will enable pilots to revert from 

Performance Based Navigation (PBN) to 

conventional navigation for approach, 

terminal and en route operations in the 

event of a GPS outage and supports the 

NAS transition from VOR-based routes 

to a more efficient PBN structure 

consistent with NextGen goals and the 

NAS Efficient Streamlined Services 

Initiative.’’ In accordance with VOR 

MON, NextGen, NAS Efficient 

Streamlined Services Initiative, and 

PBN NAS Navigation Strategy, 

conventional navigation services for 

approach, terminal and en route 

operations will be minimized in a 

strategic manner consistent with these 

initiatives. 

One individual recommended 

additional criteria to take into 

consideration nearby ‘‘high volume 

airports’’ when considering the 

cancellation of circling procedures, and 

the example of using the ILS OR LOC 

RWY 16 to circle to land RWY 34 at 

CHICAGO EXECUTIVE (KPWK), and its 

‘‘close proximity to CHICAGO OHARE 

INTL (KORD)’’ as an example. The 

criteria requested by the individual 

states, ‘‘Would the potential cancelling 

of the circling minimums involve an 

airport that is in close proximity to a 

high volume airport, impact safety, 

procedures or encounter delays?’’ 

In the commenter’s example, the ILS 

OR LOC RWY 16 at KPWK would retain 

its circling minima in accordance with 

the FAA’s proposed policy’s criteria, 

‘‘Would cancellation result in removal 

of circling minima from all conventional 

NAVAID procedures at an airport? Note: 

If circling minima exists for multiple 

Conventional NAVAID procedures, 

preference would be to retain ILS 

circling minima.’’ 

Regarding the criteria proposed by the 

individual, circling procedures are 

being reviewed at every U.S. airport that 

has instrument approach procedures. 

ATC’s involvement via notification from 

the Operations Support Group (Flight 

Procedures Team) will allow them 

ample opportunity to prevent the 

cancellation of circling procedures they 

deem necessary to their operations, and 

public notification, via the IFP Gateway, 

will allow the public ample opportunity 

to communicate concerns regarding the 

proposed cancellation of any circling 

procedure. 

IV. Statement of Policy 

Based on the comments received, the 

FAA is finalizing the following policy 

regarding the criteria and process for the 

cancellation of standard instrument 

approach procedures as Part of the 

national procedures assessment as 

follows: 

All circling procedures will continue 

to be reviewed through the established 

IAP periodic review process.6 As part of 

that review process, each circling 

procedure will be evaluated against the 

following questions: 

• Is this the only IAP at the airport? 

• Is this procedure a designated MON 

airport procedure? 

• If multiple IAPs serve a single 

runway end, does this procedure 

provide the lowest circling minima for 

that runway? 7 Note: If the RNAV 

circling minima is not the lowest, but is 

within 50′ of the lowest, the FAA would 

give the RNAV preference. 

• Would cancellation result in 

removal of circling minima from all 

conventional NAVAID procedures at an 

airport? Note: If circling minima exists 

for multiple Conventional NAVAID 

procedures, preference would be to 

retain ILS circling minima. 

• Would cancellation result in all 

circling minima being removed from all 

airports within 20 NMs? This particular 

criterion recognizes the circling content 

of the Instrument Rating—Airplane 

Airman Certification Standards (ACS). 

• Will removal eliminate lowest 

landing minima to an individual 

runway? 

The following questions are 

applicable only to circling-only 

procedures: 

• Does this circling-only procedure 

exist because of high terrain or an 

obstacle which makes a straight-in 

procedure infeasible or which would 

result in the straight-in minimums being 

higher than the circling minima? 

• Is this circling-only procedure (1) at 

an airport where not all runway ends 

have a straight-in IAP, and (2) does it 

have a Final Approach Course not 

aligned within 45 degrees of a runway 

which has a straight-in IAP? 

Further consideration for cancellation 

under this policy will be terminated if 

any of the aforementioned questions are 

answered in the affirmative. If all 

questions are answered in the negative, 

the procedure will be processed as 

described in the following paragraph. 

When a candidate has been identified 

for cancellation, Aeronautical 

Information Services will post the 

proposed cancellation on the Instrument 

Flight Procedures Information Gateway 

(IFP Gateway) (https://www.faa.gov/air_

traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/) 

and send a notification of procedure 

cancellation memorandum and 

completed checklist (see attached NPA 

Checklist Sample) to the appropriate 

Regional Service Area, Operations 

Support Group.8 The Regional Service 

Area, Operations Support Group will 

follow the same notification process 

used for standard IFP requests.9


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
30322 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

information on this process. These orders are 

available on the FAA website. 

1See Release No. 34–82373 (Dec. 21, 2017), 83 FR 

291 (Jan. 3, 2018) (‘‘Proposing Release’’). 

2The Commission is making one technical, 

clarifying modification from the proposal. 

Specifically, in the first sentence of Section 

200.80(a)(2)(ii), the word ‘‘Those’’ is changed to 

‘‘Persons.’’ 

3The Commission is making one technical, 

clarifying modification from the proposal. 

Specifically, the third sentence of Section 200– 

.80(f)(3), is changed from ‘‘Appeals should include 

a statement of the requester’s arguments as to why 

the records requested should be made available and 

why the adverse determination was in error’’ to 

‘‘Appeals should include a statement of the 

requester’s arguments as to why the records 

requested should be made available and the 

reason(s) the FOIA requester contends the adverse 

determination was in error.’’ 

Comments regarding the 

aforementioned circling procedure 

should be submitted via email to: AMCATO-IFP-Cancellations@faa.gov. 

Comments will only be considered and 

adjudicated when submitted prior to the 

comment deadline associated with the 

flight procedure as listed on the IFP 

Coordination tab of the Instrument 

Flight Procedures Information Gateway 

site. Aeronautical Information Services 

will adjudicate and respond to each 

comment within 30 days of being 

received. When a determination is made 

to cancel a part 97 instrument flight 

procedure or circling line of minima, 

the cancellation will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

Issued in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on 

June 21, 2018. 

Gary Powell, 

Director, Aeronautical Information Services. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13875 Filed 6–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 200 

[Release Nos. 34–83506; FOIA–193; File No. 

S7–09–17] 

RIN 3235–AM25 

Amendments to the Commission’s 

Freedom of Information Act 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘SEC’’) 

is adopting amendments to the 

Commission’s regulations under the 

Freedom of Information Act (‘‘FOIA’’). 

The Commission is amending the FOIA 

regulations to reflect changes required 

by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 

(‘‘Improvement Act’’) and to clarify, 

update, and streamline the regulations. 

DATES: Effective July 30, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Tallarico, Senior Counsel, Office 

of the General Counsel, (202) 551–5132; 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 

20549–5041. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

On December 21, 2017, the 

Commission proposed amendments to 

its existing regulations under the FOIA, 

5 U.S.C. 552,1 to reflect changes 

required by the Improvement Act and to 

clarify, update, and streamline the 

language of several procedural 

provisions. The Commission received 

four comment letters on the proposed 

amendments. After consideration of the 

comments received, the Commission is 

adopting the amendments to its FOIA 

regulations as proposed, other than 

changes to two definitions related to the 

collection of fees and a few technical 

modifications for clarity. Due to the 

scope of the amendments, this final rule 

replaces the Commission’s existing 

FOIA regulations in their entirety (17 

CFR 200.80 through 200.80f). 

II. Final Amendments 

A. Changes To Conform to the 

Improvement Act 

The Commission is adopting four 

changes to the Commission’s FOIA 

regulations to conform them to the 

Improvement Act. These changes are 

being adopted largely as proposed.2

First, the final rule revises Section 

200.80(a) to provide that records the 

FOIA requires to be made available for 

public inspection will be available in 

electronic format on the Commission’s 

website, http://www.sec.gov. Second, 

the final rule revises Section 200.80(c) 

to provide that a request for records may 

be denied to the extent the exemptions 

in 5 U.S.C. 552(b) apply to the requested 

records and Commission staff 

reasonably foresees that disclosure 

would harm an interest protected by the 

applicable exemption, the disclosure of 

the requested records is prohibited by 

law, or the requested records are 

otherwise exempted from disclosure 

under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3). Third, the final 

rule revises the regulations to state that 

FOIA requesters may seek assistance 

from the Office of FOIA Services’ FOIA 

Public Liaisons (Sections 200.80(b), (d), 

and (e)) and to advise FOIA requesters 

of their right to seek dispute resolution 

services offered by the Office of 

Government Information Services in the 

case of a denied request (Section 

200.80(e)). Fourth, the final rule 

incorporates the amendments to the 

FOIA requiring agencies, if they do not 

comply with the time limits, to waive 

fees, under certain circumstances 

(Section 200.80(g)). 

B. Amendments to Certain Procedural 

Provisions 

The final amendments also revise 

certain procedural provisions. Those 

changes clarify, update, and streamline 

the Commission’s regulations, and most 

of the changes make the regulations 

consistent with existing practices. These 

changes are being largely adopted as 

proposed.3 The amended regulations, 

among other things, update the various 

methods for submitting FOIA requests 

and administrative appeals (Sections 

200.80(b) and (f)); incorporate language 

requiring requesters to include their full 

names and return addresses in their 

FOIA requests (Section 200.80(b)); 

describe certain information that is 

required when submitting requests for 

records about oneself or another 

individual (Section 200.80(b)); explain 

the situations in which the Office of 

FOIA Services staff will work with other 

Federal agencies that have an interest in 

agency records that may be responsive 

to a request (Section 200.80(c)); 

incorporate language that allows the 

Office of FOIA Services to seek a onetime clarification of an ambiguous 

request and toll the time period for 

responding to the request until the 

requester clarifies the request (Section 

200.80(d)); clarify when the 20-day 

statutory time limit for responding to 

requests begins (i.e., when requests are 

received by the Office of FOIA Services 

and when requests are modified so that 

they reasonably describe the records 

sought) (Section 200.80(d)); clarify the 

Office of FOIA Services’ system for 

multitrack processing of requests 

(Section 200.80(d)); and insert a 

provision to enable the Office of FOIA 

Services to aggregate requests involving 

related matters where it appears that 

multiple requests together constitute a 

single request that would involve 

unusual circumstances (Section 

200.80(d)). 

The final rule also clarifies, consistent 

with existing practice, that the Office of 

FOIA Services will close requests if 

requesters do not take certain steps 

within set time periods. For example, 

requesters must respond to the Office of 

FOIA Services’ one-time clarification 

request within 30 calendar days 

(Section 200.80(d)); agree to pay 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES