5936 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA–1999–5925; Amdt. No. 91–

261]

RIN 2120–AG82

Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum

(RVSM)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the

airspace where Reduced Vertical

Separation Minimum (RVSM) may be

applied to include Pacific oceanic

airspace. RVSM is the reduction of the

vertical separation of aircraft from 2,000

feet to 1,000 feet at flight levels (FLs)

between FL 290 (29,000 feet) and FL 410

(41,000 feet). RVSM is applied only

between aircraft that meet stringent

altimeter and autopilot performance

requirements. RVSM is currently

applied only in North Atlantic (NAT)

Minimum Navigation Performance

Specifications (MNPS) airspace. The

introduction of RVSM in Pacific oceanic

airspace will make more fuel and time

efficient flight levels and tracks

available to operators. RVSM will also

enhance airspace capacity in the Pacific.

In North Atlantic airspace, RVSM has

been shown to maintain in acceptable

level of safety since March 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 24, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy

Grimes, Flight Technologies and

Procedures Division, Flight Standards

Service, AFS–400, Federal Aviation

Administration, 600 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591,

telephone (202) 267–3734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Final Rules

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded using a modem and

suitable communications software from

the FAA regulations section of the

FedWorld electronic bulletin board

service (telephone: (703) 321–3339) or

the Government Printing Office’s (GPO)

electronic bulletin board service

(telephone: (202) 512–1661).

Internet users may reach the FAA’s

web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/

arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the GPO’s web

page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara

for access to recently published

rulemaking documents.

Any person may obtain a copy of this

final rule by submitting 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. Communications must

identify the amendment number or

docket number of this final rule.

Persons interested in being placed on

the mailing list for future rulemaking

actions should request from the above

office a copy of Advisory Circular No.

11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Distribution System, that describes the

application procedure.

Background

This final rule is based on Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) No. 99–

15 published in the Federal Register on

July 8, 1999 (64 FR 37018) as amended

by correction that was published in the

Federal Register on July 28, 1999 (64 FR

40791). That proposed rule proposed to

amend 14 CFR Part 91 Appendix G,

Operations within Airspace Designated

as Reduced Vertical Separation

Minimum (RVSM) Airspace.

A final rule is published in the

Federal Register at least 30 days before

the effective date unless it is determined

that good cause exists to provide an

effective date that is less than 30 days

after publication. This final rule will be

effective less than 30 days after

publication to meet the implementation

date agreed to by the International Civil

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Pacific

RVSM Implementation Task Force. The

Flight Information Regions (FIRs) and

aircraft associated with specific oceanic

airspace have planned to implement

RVSM in the Pacific on the effective

date.

Statement of the Problem

Air traffic on Pacific routes between

the U.S. and Asia has increased steadily

in the past few years and is projected to

continue to increase. The North Pacific

Track System (NOPAC) is the densest

oceanic traffic area in the Pacific.

Between 1994 and 1998, the annual

traffic count on the NOPAC increased

from 42,305 to 60,772 flights which

represents an increase of 44 percent.

The FAA Aviation Forecast for Fiscal

Years 1998–2010 estimates that

transpacific passenger traffic will

continue to increase at the rate of 6.6

percent per year through 2010. Studies

conducted by independent aviation

industry analysts forecast the Pacific

area to be the fastest growing area for

flights to and from the United States.

Unless action is taken, as traffic

increases, the opportunity for aircraft to

fly at fuel-efficient altitudes and tracks

will be significantly diminished. In

addition, air traffic service providers

may not be able to accommodate greater

numbers of aircraft in the airspace

without invoking restrictions that can

result in traffic delays and fuel

penalties.

RVSM alleviates the limitation on air

traffic management at high altitudes

imposed by the conventional 2,000-foot

vertical separation standard. Increasing

the number of FLs available in the

Pacific region is projected to achieve

operator benefits similar to those

achieved in the NAT (i.e., mitigation of

fuel penalties attributed to the inability

to fly optimum altitudes and tracks). In

the Pacific, the FAA plans to initially

implement RVSM between FL 290 and

FL 390 (inclusive). At this time, traffic

density above FL 390 does not warrant

implementing RVSM at FL 400 and FL

410.

History

The International Civil Aviation

Organization (ICAO) Asia Pacific Air

Navigation Planning and

Implementation Regional Group

(APANPIRG) develops and provides

oversight for plans and policy related to

air navigation in the Pacific and Asia.

The APANPIRG established the Asia

Pacific RVSM Task Force to develop

and implement RVSM policy and

programs in the Region. The Task Force

is using the policy and criteria

developed in other ICAO forums to

build the RVSM program for the Pacific.

The following paragraphs review the

RVSM program development in U.S.

and ICAO forums.

Rising traffic volume and fuel costs,

which made flight at fuel-efficient

altitudes a priority for operators,

sparked an interest in the early 1970s in

implementing RVSM above FL 290. In

April 1973, the Air Transport

Association of America (ATA)

petitioned the FAA for a rule change to

reduce the vertical separation minimum

to 1,000 feet for aircraft operating above

FL 290. The petition was denied in 1977

in part because (1) aircraft altimeters

had not been improved sufficiently, (2)

improved maintenance and operational

standards had not been developed, and

(3) altitude correction was not available

in all aircraft. In addition, the cost of

modifying nonconforming aircraft was

prohibitive. The FAA concluded that

granting the ATA petition at that time

would have adversely affected safety.

Nevertheless, the FAA recognized the

potential benefits of RVSM under

certain circumstances and continued to

review technological developments,

committing extensive resources to

studying aircraft altitude-keeping

performance and necessary criteria for

safely reducing vertical separation

above FL 290. Data showing that RVSM

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 5937

implementation is technically and

economically feasible has been

published in studies conducted

cooperatively in international forums, as

well as separately by the FAA.

Because of the high standard of

performance and equipment required

for RVSM, the FAA advocated initial

introduction of RVSM in oceanic

airspace where special navigation

performance standards were already

required. Special navigation areas

require high levels of long-range

navigation precision due to the

separation standard applied. RVSM

implementation in such airspace

requires an increased level of precision

demanded of operators, aircraft, and

vertical navigation systems.

On March 27, 1997, RVSM was

implemented in one such special

navigation area of operation established

in the ICAO NAT Region, the NAT

MNPS. In designated NAT MNPS

airspace, tracks are spaced 60 nautical

miles (NM) apart. Between FLs 310 and

390 (inclusive), aircraft are separated

vertically by 1000 feet. All aircraft

operating in this airspace must be

appropriately equipped and capable of

meeting required lateral navigation

performance standards of part 91,

section 91.705 and vertical navigation

performance standards of part 91,

section 91.706. Operators must follow

procedures that ensure the navigation

standards are met. Flight crews must

also be trained on RVSM policy and

procedures. Each operator, aircraft, and

navigation system combination must

receive and maintain authorization to

operate in the NAT MNPS. The North

Atlantic Systems Planning Group

(NATSPG) Central Monitoring Agency

monitors NAT aircraft fleet performance

to ensure that a safe operating

environment is maintained.

FAA data indicate that the altitudekeeping performance of most aircraft

flying in oceanic airspace can meet the

standards for RVSM operations. The

FAA and ICAO research to determine

the feasibility of implementing RVSM

included the following four efforts:

1. FAA Vertical Studies Program. This

program began in mid-1981, with the

objectives of collecting and analyzing

data on aircraft performance in

maintaining assigned altitude,

developing program requirements to

reduce vertical separation, and

providing technical and operational

representation on the various working

groups studying the issue outside the

FAA.

2. RTCA Special Committee (SC)–150.

RTCA, Inc., (formerly Radio Technical

Commission for Aeronautics) is an

industry organization in Washington,

DC, that addresses aviation technical

requirements and concepts and

produces recommended standards.

When the FAA hosted a public meeting

in early 1982 on vertical separation, it

was recommended that RTCA be the

forum for development of minimum

system performance standards for

RVSM. RTCA SC–150 was formed in

March 1982 to develop minimum

system performance requirements,

identify required improvements to

aircraft equipment and changes to

operational procedures, and assess the

impact of the requirements on the

aviation community. SC–150 served as

the focal point for the study and

development of RVSM criteria and

programs in the United States from 1982

to 1987, including analysis of the results

of the FAA Vertical Studies Program.

3. ICAO Review of the General

Concept of Separation Panel (RGCSP).

In 1987, the FAA concentrated its

resources for the development of RVSM

programs in the ICAO RGCSP. The U.S.

delegation to the ICAO RGCSP used the

material developed by SC–150 as the

foundation for U.S. positions and plans

on RVSM criteria and programs. The

panel’s major conclusions were:

• RVSM is technically feasible

without imposing unreasonably

demanding technical requirements on

the equipment.

• RVSM provides significant benefits

in terms of economy and en route

airspace capacity.

• Implementation of RVSM on either

a regional or global basis requires sound

operational judgment supported by an

assessment of system performance based

on: aircraft altitude-keeping capability,

operational considerations, system

performance monitoring, and risk

assessment.

4. NATSPG and the NATSPG Vertical

Separation Implementation Group

(VSIG).

The NATSPG Task Force was

established in 1988 to identify the

requirements to be met by the future

NAT Region air traffic services system;

to design the framework for the NAT

airspace system concept; and to prepare

a general plan for the phased

introduction of the elements of the

concept. The objective of this effort was

to permit significant increases in

airspace capacity and improvements in

flight economy. At the meeting of the

NATSPG in June 1991, all of the NAT

air traffic service provider States, as

well as the International Air Transport

Association (IATA) and International

Federation of Airline Pilots Association

(IFALPA), endorsed the Future NAT Air

Traffic Services System Concept

Description developed by the NATSPG

Task Force. With regard to the

implementation of RVSM, the Concept

Description concludes that priority must

be given to implementation of this

measure as it is believed to be

achievable within the early part of the

concept time frame. The NATSPG’s

initial goal was to implement RVSM

between 1996 and 1997. To meet this

goal, the NATSPG established the VSIG

in June 1991 to take the necessary

actions to implement RVSM in the NAT.

These actions included:

• Developing programs and

documents to approve aircraft and

operators for conducting flight in the

RVSM environment and to address all

issues related to aircraft airworthiness,

maintenance, and operations. The group

has produced guidance material for

aircraft and operator approval that ICAO

has distributed to civil aviation

authorities and NAT users. Also, ICAO

has planned that the guidance material

be incorporated in the approval process

established by the States.

• Developing the system for

monitoring aircraft altitude-keeping

performance. This system is used to

observe aircraft performance in the

vertical plane to determine that the

approval process is uniformly effective

and that the RVSM airspace system is

safe.

• Evaluating and developing ATC

procedures for RVSM, conducting

simulation studies to assess the effect of

RVSM on ATC, and developing

documents to address ATC issues.

The ICAO Limited NAT Regional Air

Navigation Meeting held in Portugal in

November 1992 endorsed the NATSPG

RVSM implementation program. At that

meeting, it was concluded that RVSM

implementation should be pursued. The

FAA concurred with the conclusions of

the NATSPG on RVSM implementation.

Reference Material

The FAA and other organizations

developing RVSM requirements have

produced a number of studies and reports.

The FAA used the following documents in

the development of this amendment:

• Summary Report of United States

Studies on 1,000-Foot Vertical Separation

Above Flight Level 290 (FAA, July 1988).

• Initial Report on Minimum System

Performance Standards for 1,000-Foot

Vertical Separation Above Flight Level 290

(RTCA SC–150, November 1984); the report

provides information on the methodology for

evaluating safety, factors influencing vertical

separation, and strawman system

performance standards.

• Minimum System Performance

Standards for 1,000-Foot Vertical Separation

Above Flight Level 290 (Draft 7, RTCA,

August 1990); the FAA concurred with the

material developed by RTCA SC–150.

5938 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

• The Report of RGCSP/6 (ICAO, Montreal,

28 November–15 December 1988) published

in two volumes. Volume 1 summarizes the

major conclusions reached by the panel and

the individual States. Volume 2 presents the

complete RVSM study reports of the

individual States:

• European Studies of Vertical Separation

Above FL 290—Summary Report (prepared

by the EUROCONTROL Vertical Studies

Subgroup).

• Summary Report of United States

Studies on 1,000-Foot Vertical Separation

Above Flight Level 290 (prepared by the FAA

Technical Center and ARINC Research

Corporation).

• The Japanese Study on Vertical

Separation.

• The Report of the Canadian Mode C Data

Collection.

• The Results of Studies on the Reduction

of Vertical Separation Intervals for USSR

Aircraft at Altitudes Above 8,100 m

(prepared by the USSR).

• Report of RGCSP/7 (Montreal, 30

October–20 November 1990) containing a

draft Manual on Implementation of a 300 M

(1,000 Ft) Vertical Separation Minimum

(VSM) Between FL 290 and 410 Inclusive,

approved by the ICAO Air Navigation

Commission in February 1991 and published

as ICAO Document 9574.

• 14 CFR Part 91 Section 91.706—

Operations Within Airspace Designed As

Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum

Airspace

• 14 CFR Part 91 Appendix G—Operations

in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum

(RVSM) Airspace.

• Flight Standards Handbook Bulletin for

Air Transportation (HBAT) and General

Aviation (HBGA) ‘‘Approval of Aircraft and

Operators for Flight in Airspace Above Flight

Level 290 Where a 1,000 Foot Vertical

Separation Minimum is Applied’’ (HBAT 99–

11A and HBGA 99–17A).

• Interim Guidance Material 91–RVSM,

‘‘Approval of Aircraft and Operators for

Flight in Airspace Above FL 290 Where a

1,000 Foot Vertical Separation is Applied’’,

Change 1 (June 30, 1999). The interim

guidance continues to provide recommended

procedural steps for obtaining FAA approval.

• AC No. 91–70, ‘‘Oceanic Operations’’

(September 6, 1994).

• NATSPG Airspace Monitoring Subgroup Vertical Monitoring Report. (Issued

quarterly)

Related Activity

Project increases in Pacific oceanic air

traffic and the successful

implementation of RVSM operations in

the NAT support the implementation of

RVSM in the Pacific. Pacific operators

and Air Traffic Service (ATS) providers

have requested that RVSM be pursued

aggressively.

The ICAO Asia Pacific RVSM

Implementation Task Force is the

international body that is developing

Pacific RVSM implementation plans.

The Task Force is chaired by an FAA

representative from the Air Traffic

International Staff and supported by an

ICAO representative from the Asia/

Pacific Regional Office. The Task Force

has three standing sub-groups: The Air

Traffic Operations Group, the Aircraft

Operations and Airworthiness Group

and the Safety and Monitoring Group.

The working groups are chaired by FAA

air traffic and flight standards

specialists. The Task Force includes

representatives from Asia and Pacific

civil aviation authorities, operators and

the pilot and air traffic controller

associations. The Task Force meets at

approximately quarterly intervals to

develop policy and procedure

documents and to progress

implementation tasks.

Discussion of Comments

The FAA received comments on the

proposed rule from the following 6

organizations:

(1) The Air Traffic Control

Association (ATCA)

(2) United Airlines (UAL)

(3) The Department of Defense (DOD)

(4) The National Business Aviation

Association, Inc. (NBAA)

(5) The Hagadone Corporation

(6) The Independent Pilots

Association (IPA)

Detailed Discussion of Comments and

Disposition

ATCA Comments. ATCA states that it

concurs with the proposed rule to

implement RVSM in Pacific oceanic

airspace. ATCA also states that RVSM

will improve Air Traffic Management

(ATM) and accommodate traffic growth

in the Pacific.

UAL Comments. United Airlines

(UAL) commented that it has no

technical objections to this NPRM. UAL

already has approval to operate four

major aircraft types in RVSM airspace

and anticipates no difficulties in

obtaining RVSM approval for three

other aircraft types prior to the February

24, 2000 implementation date. UAL

supports the initial requirement for

operators to monitor the altitudekeeping performance of two aircraft per

fleet type, however it objects to the

potential for a long term monitoring

requirement.

FAA Response. Since the initial

implementation of RVSM in March

1997, operator monitoring requirements

have been systematically reduced as

aircraft altitude-keeping performance

data has been accumulated. FAA

specialists are currently working with

the airlines on the ICAO Asia Pacific

RVSM Implementation Task Force to

develop a post-implementation aircraft

monitoring program that will

accumulate enough data and

information to show that RVSM

operations remain safe. UAL is

represented on that group and the FAA

will continue to seek UAL’s input and

consider its arguments.

DOD Comments. DOD concurs, in

principal, with the NPRM. It requests,

however, that the FAA acknowledge

and specific wording agreed to in recent

meetings on the procedure for handling

aircraft that are not RVSM compliant.

FAA Response. The FAA is adopting

the wording on this issue that DOD

cited in its comment. The FAA and the

other Pacific Air Traffic Service

Providers are adopting the following

policy: ‘‘Aircraft that are not RVSM

compliant (e.g., State aircraft, ferry and

maintenance flights) will only be

cleared to operate between FL 290 and

390 (inclusive) after coordination with

the first and notification given to

subsequent oceanic centers. Notification

constitutes approval.’’

NBAA Comments. First, the NBAA

states that RVSM is currently

implemented only between FLs 310–390

(inclusive) in the North Atlantic (NAT)

and in portions of Canadian airspace.

(Note: Canada only applies RVSM in

designated transition airspace where

aircraft transition between conventional

and reduced vertical separation). NBAA

requests that Pacific RVSM altitudes be

made consistent with RVSM altitudes in

the NAT and Canada. Second, NBAA

states that general aviation aircraft

manufacturers will not be able to

publish approved RVSM Service

Bulletins (SBs) for certain aircraft types

by the February 24, 2000

implementation date. NBAA states that

efforts must be made to accommodate

such aircraft on a case by case basis for

a designated period of time to allow

manufacturers enough time to publish

SBs.

FAA Response. (1) Consistency of

RVSM Implementation. 14 CFR 91,

Appendix G, Section 1 defines RVSM

airspace as airspace between FL 290–FL

410 (inclusive) where 1,000-foot vertical

separation is applied. Air Traffic Service

Providers (ATSP) have elected to

implement RVSM in phases. In October

1998, the NAT ATSP implemented

RVSM between FL 310–FL 390

(inclusive). The planned initial

implementation of Pacific RVSM will be

FL 290–FL 390 (inclusive). The Pacific

ATSP have published these FLs in

NOTAMS and Aeronautical Information

Publications. The FAA has provided

adequate information to the operators

and does not consider the applying

RVSM to different FL stratum in the

NAT and Pacific as a significant safety

or training issue.

(2) Accommodation of Unapproved

Aircraft in Pacific RVSM Airspace.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 5939

NBAA states that aircraft manufacturer

engineering packages may not be

available for the February 24, 2000

implementation for 1,000 business jet

airframes. The FAA has the following

comments:

(a) Prior Notification. The FAA

believes it has given the operator

community adequate time to prepare for

Pacific RVSM implementation and has

made extensive efforts to keep it

informed on the progress of

implementation plans. In January 1998,

the ICAO Pacific RVSM Implementation

Task Force identified February 2000 as

the target date for Pacific RVSM

implementation. Since that time, FAA

representatives have briefed the target

Pacific implementation date at user

forums such as the NBAA International

Operations Conference and the Pacific

Oceanic Working Group. In February

1999, the FAA published an

International NOTAM announcing the

RVSM implementation target date of

February 2000 for Oakland and

Anchorage Oceanic airspace. Also,

RVSM has been implemented for the

past two and a half years in North

Atlantic airspace. It was implemented

there between FL 330–FL 370

(inclusive) in March 1997 and expanded

to FL 310–FL 390 (inclusive) in October

1998. The operators and aircraft

manufacturers have been well informed

of the planned expansion of RVSM to

other airspace.

(b) Non-group Approval Option.

Operators have the option of having

their aircraft approved as a non-group

aircraft if an aircraft manufacturer does

not develop a group approval process.

Although this is a more expensive

process, certain operators have used it

successfully to gain RVSM approval for

their aircraft. This option is available to

the business aviation community.

(c) Number of Airframes Affected.

NBAA states that 1,000 business jet

airframes could be non-compliant on

the 24 February 2000 Pacific RVSM

implementation date. The FAA estimate

is that 700 airframes could be affected,

but this figure represents all airframes in

the fleet. Not all of these airframes

actually conduct operations in Pacific

oceanic airspace.

(d) Percentage of Flights Affected. The

majority of operators that will be

prepared for RVSM implementation

should not be denied the benefits of

RVSM because a small percentage of

operators are not yet prepared. One

percent (1.0%) of flights in Pacific

oceanic airspace are conducted by

business aviation. Airworthiness

documents (e.g., Aircraft Service

Changes, Service Bulletins) that detail

the requirements for RVSM aircraft

approval are available for the majority of

aircraft types including the major

business jet types. The percentage of

flights conducted by aircraft for which

RVSM airworthiness documents are not

forecast to be available by February

2000 is 0.16 per cent. This situation will

not affect 99.84 percent of flights.

(e) Accommodation of Unapproved

Aircraft: Effect on Controller Workload.

RVSM has been implemented as

exclusionary airspace. That is, aircraft

operating in RVSM designated areas at

designated FLs are normally required to

be RVSM approved. The flight of

unapproved aircraft is only allowed on

an infrequent basis, if the operator

coordinates the operation with ATC

prior to the flight and ATC can

accommodate them in accordance with

CFR Part 91, Appendix G, Section 5. By

standardizing RVSM approval in a given

airspace, air traffic controllers can apply

one aircraft separation standard to the

vast majority of aircraft operating in that

airspace.

Note: Pacific ATSP have made provisions

for infrequent flight of non-compliant aircraft

such as State aircraft and maintenance and

humanitarian flights.

If, on a regular basis, controllers are

required to apply 1,000-foot vertical

separation to certain aircraft and 2,000-

foot vertical separation to others, the

operation of the airspace becomes more

complex and there is a negative effect

on air traffic management and on

controller workload. Additionally,

service to RVSM-approved aircraft

would be significantly diminished if

unapproved aircraft were

accommodated in RVSM airspace on

other than rare occasions, such as those

stated above. It should be noted that the

application of RVSM in the North

Atlantic is also exclusionary and the

same provisions for limited

accommodation of unapproved aircraft

are applied.

(f) Concluding Comment. For the

reasons cited above, the FAA has

determined that in RVSM airspace it

will accommodate only the infrequent

flight of unapproved aircraft for

maintenance, humanitarian and State

aircraft flights.

The Hagadone Corporation

Comments. The Hagadone Corporation

states that the FAA has not approved an

aircraft modification kit to enable

Gulfstream II (GII) aircraft to comply

with the requirements for RVSM. The

Hagadone Corporation requests one of

three options for RVSM implementation

on the Hawaii routes. One option would

be to limit the upper RVSM altitude to

FL 370 on all or some of the routes from

the West Coast of the U.S. to Hawaii.

The second option would be to delay

the implementation on these routes. The

third option would be that Oakland

Oceanic, with prior notice, would

provide 2,000-foot separation for nonRVSM aircraft for these routes.

FAA Response. First, Hagadone states

that the FAA has not approved an

RVSM aircraft modification kit for the

GII aircraft. The FAA has approved

aircraft engineering packages for aircraft

for which it has received adequate

justifying data. The FAA has approved

Aircraft Service Change (ASC) 499

(effective September 27, 1999) for a

group of 20 GII aircraft equipped with

the Honeywell SPZ–800 autopilot. Also,

ASC 498 that addresses a group of 184

GII aircraft equipped with the

Honeywell SP–50 autopilot is expected

to be released in the 1st quarter of 2000.

In addition, ASC 505 that addresses a

group of 11 GIIB aircraft equipped with

the Honeywell SPZ–800 autopilot and

ASC 504 that addresses a group of 31

GIIB equipped with the Honeywell SP–

50 autopilot is expected to be released

in the 2nd quarter of 2000.

Second, Hagadone suggests three

options for RVSM implementation on

the Hawaii routes.

Option 1: Limit the ceiling of RVSM

airspace to FL 370. This option has not

been accepted. The planned ceiling is

FL 390. The small percentage of flights

affected (0.16%) does not warrant

limiting the RVSM ceiling for the large

majority of aircraft that will be

compliant.

Option 2: Delay RVSM

implementation on the West Coast to

Hawaii routes. This option has not been

accepted. The vast majority of operators

and aircraft will be ready for RVSM on

24 February 2000. These operators

should not be denied the benefits of

RVSM because a small minority will not

be ready.

Option 3: Following prior notification

from the operator, Oakland Oceanic to

provide conventional 2,000-foot vertical

separation to non-compliant aircraft.

This option has not been accepted. As

noted in the response to the NBAA

comments, this option affects airspace

complexity and controller workload and

negatively impacts service to approved

users.

IPA Comments. IPA believes that

Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance

System (TCAS) must be required

equipment for the introduction of RVSM

into Pacific oceanic airspace.

Note: RVSM has been implemented since

March 1997 in North Atlantic oceanic

airspace. IPA does not recommend that

Section 91.706 and Appendix G be revised to

require aircraft operating in NAT RVSM

airspace to equip with TCAS.

5940 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

IPA believes that the introduction of

RVSM into Pacific oceanic airspace will

increase the probability of accidents

occurring and that TCAS will provide a

safety net.

FAA Response. (1) Part 91 Aircraft

Equipage Requirements for RVSM

Approval. Part 91 Section 91.706 and

Appendix G do not require TCAS

equipage for aircraft approval for RVSM

operations. 1,000-foot vertical

separation has been applied up to flight

level 290 since the early 1960s without

special aircraft equipage or performance

requirements. RVSM programs enable

the use of 1,000-foot vertical separation

between FL 290–410 (inclusive). Section

91.706 and Appendix G require that for

an aircraft to be approved for RVSM

operations, the aircraft altimetry

systems, automatic altitude-keeping

devices and altitude alerters must meet

stringent performance requirements and

also be equipped with a transponder.

Aircraft equipage and performance

requirements were developed in the

ICAO Review of the General Concept of

Separation Panel (RGCSP) and

published in ICAO Document 9574 in

1992. Section 91.706 and Appendix G

reflect the ICAO requirements.

(2) North Atlantic RVSM Experience.

RVSM has been applied successfully

since March 1997 in North Atlantic

oceanic airspace. NAT airspace has the

highest traffic density of any oceanic

airspace in the world. Between 900 to

1100 flights are conducted each day in

the RVSM airspace of the North

Atlantic. By contrast, the busiest route

system in the Pacific is the North Pacific

Route System (NOPAC) where

approximately 175 flights are conducted

each day. In addition, approximately

440 flights operate per day in the entire

Pacific.

(3) Applicability of IPA Comments to

TCAS Rulemaking. The FAA believes

that the IPA comments relate more

specifically to the benefits of TCAS as

a safety net in general operations and

are more applicable to the rulemaking

related specifically to TCAS equipage

requirements. The FAA does not believe

that the IPA recommendation for TCAS

equipage related specifically to the

expansion of 1,000-foot vertical

separation above FL 290. IPA cited

several incidents where TCAS could

have or did contribute to the prevention

of an accident. None of these incidents

occurred in airspace where RVSM is

applied and many of them occurred

below FL 290.

(4) Current Projects Related to TCAS

Equipage Requirements. There are

efforts under way in the United States

to revise the existing regulations related

to TCAS equipage. Also, ICAO has now

published Standards and Recommended

Practices (SARPS) addressing TCAS

equipage. The status of these efforts is

as follows:

(a) Revision of Regulations Related to

TCAS Equipage. In response to the IPA

petition for rulemaking, the FAA is

developing an NPRM. The FAA believes

that the IPA comments are more

applicable to this effort than to RVSM

rulemaking.

(b) ICAO Annex 6 (Operation of

Aircraft): Part I (International

Commercial Air Transport Aeroplanes)

and Part II (International General

Aviation Aeroplanes). ICAO has

published standards intended to expand

equipage with collision avoidance

systems and transponders. In November

1998, Annex 6 Part 1 was amended to

state that by January 1, 2003, aircraft in

excess of 15,000 kg (33,000 pounds)

takeoff weight or authorized to carry

more than 30 passengers shall be

equipped with an airborne collision

avoidance system (ACAS II) and by

January 1, 2005, aircraft in excess of

5,700 kg (12,500 pounds) take off weight

or authorized to carry more than 19

passengers shall be equipped with

ACAS II. In addition, Annex 6 Part II

paragraph 6.13 now states that by

January 1, 2003, unless exempted by

appropriate authorities, all aeroplanes

shall be equipped with a pressurealtitude reporting transponder that

operates in accordance with Annex 10,

Volume IV. A note also states that this

provision is intended to support the

effectiveness of ACAS.

Summary of Specific IPA Issues

(1) Non-concur Due to Unacceptable

Risk. IPA states that it has no objection,

in principal, to the concept of reducing

vertical separation if safety is not

compromised. IPA, however, opposes

this rule because the FAA does not

mandate that all transport category

aircraft operating in RVSM airspace

must be equipped with an operational

Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance

System (TCAS). Without a TCAS

requirement, IPA believes that RVSM

poses unacceptable risks to safety.

(2) Applicability of Collision Risk

Modeling to Operational Safety. IPA

questions the FAA statement that ‘‘all

factors have been assessed’’ in

developing the safety goals for RVSM.

They question the FAA statement that

the Target Level of Safety of 5 accidents

in 1 billion flight hours leads to a

theoretical calendar year interval

between accidents in RVSM airspace of

322 years.

(3) Need for Safety Net. IPA argues

that RVSM will lead to higher density

traffic in airspace where it is applied

and that will increase the risk of

collision. IPA believes that TCAS is

required to provide a safety net.

(4) Pilot Error; Mis-setting Altimeters.

IPA states that mis-set altimeters in an

RVSM environment will pose a threat to

safety. They are particularly concerned

about aircraft operating to and from

Russian and Chinese airspace where

metric altitudes are used and operating

from Alaska and Canada where

extremely low altimeter settings can be

encountered.

(5) Review of TCAS Saves. IPA cites

a number of incidents or accidents both

below and above FL 290 where TCAS

could have or did contribute to the

prevention of a collision.

FAA Response to IPA Issues

(1) Unacceptable Risk Posed by RVSM

Implementation Without TCAS. RVSM

has been applied successfully in the

NAT for 2.5 years. 1,000-foot vertical

separation has been applied below FL

290 in both oceanic and continental

airspace for approximately 35 years.

TCAS has not been specifically required

for the application of 1,000 foot-vertical

separation in these environments.

Instead, TCAS equipage is required by

operational rules in part 121, 125, 129,

and 135.

Although TCAS is not specifically

required for RVSM aircraft approval, a

large percent of oceanic operations are

already conducted by aircraft that are

TCAS equipped. Because 14 CFR parts

121, 125, 129, and 135 require TCAS

equipage of airplanes with passenger

seat configurations of up to 30 seats,

approximately 90 percent of flights in

Pacific Oceanic airspace are conducted

by TCAS equipped aircraft.

The United States was the first State

to require TCAS equipage. The FAA

recognizes the benefits to operational

safety provided by TCAS, however it

does not believe that the requirement for

TCAS equipage is related to the RVSM

standard. TCAS equipage requirements

are, therefore, published in separate

regulations.

The primary threat to safety in the

vertical plane both prior to and after

RVSM implementation has been from

human errors such as the pilot failing to

level at the assigned FL. (These are

referred to hereafter as operational

errors). These types of errors can occur

in airspace where 2,000-foot vertical

separation is applied as well as those

where a 1,000-foot vertical separation is

applied. Recognizing the TCAS safety

benefit when such errors occur, as noted

previously, ICAO has already published

SARPs to expand TCAS equipage and

the FAA published rules requiring

TCAS equipage. Also, as noted, the FAA

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 5941

is developing an NPRM in response to

the IPA petition for additional

rulemaking related to TCAS equipage

requirements.

Operational errors are also being

addressed by RVSM implementation

groups. Airspace monitoring

organizations have been established in

both the North Atlantic and the Pacific.

(in the Pacific, the organization is the

Asia/Pacific Approvals Registry and

Monitoring Organization (APARMO).

One of the stated responsibilities of the

monitoring organizations is to track

operational errors, analyze their effect

on risk in the airspace and to administer

the effort to ensure operator compliance

with RVSM requirements. The

APARMO will track civil aviation

authority investigation of operational

errors and coordinate measures to

mitigate the occurrence.

The safety of RVSM is based on

standardized aircraft equipage and

performance and pilot and controller

procedures related to altitude keeping.

Monitoring of the altitude-keeping

performance of RVSM approved aircraft

in the NAT has shown that aircraft

maintain FL better than that required for

airspace system safety. The ICAO

Altimetry System Error (ASE)

requirements are for mean ASE not to

exceed 80 feet and the mean plus 3

standard deviations of ASE not to

exceed 245 feet. The mean ASE

observed in the NAT aircraft population

is ¥4 feet and the mean plus 3 standard

deviations observed is 150 feet.

(2) Applicability of Collision Risk

Modeling (CRM) to Operational Safety.

CRM is an ICAO recognized tool that is

used to analyze traffic density, aircraft

altitude-keeping and human errors. It is

used to establish aircraft performance

requirements as well as to establish

limits on the frequency of large errors.

It provides a statistical probability of an

accident occurring. The Target Level of

Safety (TLS) established for RVSM is a

theoretical 2.5 equipment related fatal

accidents in a billion flight hours. The

NAT Central Monitoring Agency (CMA)

and the Asia/Pacific Approvals

Registration and Monitoring

Organization (APARMO) are tasked

with collecting and investigating all

errors beyond established limits in

RVSM airspace. Both aircraft and

human errors observed and reported are

evaluated against this TLS.

Both ICAO and the FAA consider

CRM to be only a tool to be used to

evaluate safety and not a substitute for

operational and engineering judgment.

Because of this, the NAT CMA and

APARMO investigate altitude-keeping

errors that exceed established values

individually to determine their cause

and recommend measures to mitigate

future errors. The FAA and the other

civil aviation authorities have

established operational procedures and

policy to mitigate the occurrence of

errors that can threaten safety.

(3) Need for a Safety Net Due to

Increases in Traffic Density. As noted

previously, a large percentage of U.S.

aircraft are already required to be TCAS

equipped by the existing regulations

and ICAO has published SARPs that are

intended to standardize and increase the

effectiveness of TCAS operation in

international airspace.

(4) Pilot Error: Mis-Setting Altimeters.

Setting of altimeters to 29.92 when

passing the transition altitude and rechecking for proper setting when

reaching the initial cleared FL is

identified as a special emphasis item for

pilot training for RVSM operations. The

FAA will re-emphasize the importance

of properly following altimeter setting

procedures for operations in all RVSM

airspace. The FAA will emphasize this

to FAA Flight Standards Offices as well

in the ICAO Pacific RVSM

Implementation Task Force that is

providing guidance to the international

community on RVSM policy and

procedures. In regard to low altimeter

settings, aircraft have operated for the

past 2.5 years from Canada where low

altimeter settings are encountered into

NAT RVSM airspace.

(5) Review of TCAS Saves. The FAA

recognizes the safety net that TCAS

provides. The FAA agrees that TCAS

plays a major role in limiting the

probability of collision in the incidents

cited in Attachment A of the IPA

comments. However, none of these

incidents occurred in RVSM airspace

and most of them occurred below FL

290. The FAA believes this supports its

position that TCAS equipage should be

related to the existing operational

regulations requiring TCAS and not to

the regulations governing RVSM

operations.

After considering the comments

submitted in response to the final rule,

the FAA determined that no further

rulemaking is necessary.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The reporting and recordkeeping

requirements associated with this rule

remain the same as under current rules

and have previously been approved by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3507(d)), and have been assigned

OMB Control Number 2120–0026. There

are no new requirements for information

collection associated with this

amendment.

International Compatibility

In keeping with U.S. obligations

under the Convention on International

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to

comply with International Civil

Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards

and Recommended Practices (SARP) to

maximum extent practicable. The

operator and aircraft approval process

was developed jointly by the FAA and

the JAA under the auspices of NATSPG.

The FAA has determined that this

amendment does not present any

differences.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

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 requires agencies to analyze the

economic effect of regulatory changes

on small entities. Third, OMB directs

agencies to assess the effect of

regulatory changes on international

trade. And fourth, the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a

written assessment of the costs, benefits,

and other effects of proposed or final

rules that include a Federal mandate

likely to result in the expenditure by

State, local, or tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or by private sector, or $100

million or more annually (adjusted for

inflation).

In conducting these analyses, the FAA

has determined that this rule is not ‘‘a

significant regulatory action’’ under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866

and, therefore, is not subject to review

by the Office of Management and

Budget. The rule is not considered

significant under the regulatory policies

and procedures of the Department of

Transportation (44 FR 11034, February

26, 1979). This rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities and

will not constitute a barrier to

international trade.

This final rule amends 14 CFR 91,

Appendix G. Section 8 (Airspace

Designation) by adding the appropriate

Pacific oceanic Flight Information

Regions (FIRs) where RVSM would be

implemented. The benefits of this

amendment are that, for Pacific oceanic

operations, it will (1) increase the

number of available flight levels, (2)

enhance airspace capacity, (3) permit

operators to operate more fuel/time

efficient tracks and altitudes, and (4)

enhance air traffic controller flexibility

5942 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

by increasing the number of available

flight levels, while maintaining an

equivalent level of safety.

The FAA estimates that this final rule

will cost U.S. operators $21.7 million

for the ten-year period 2000–2009 or

$19.5 million, discounted. Estimated

benefits, based on fuel savings for the

commercial airplane fleet over the years

2000–2009, would be $120 million, or

$83.8 million, discounted. Therefore,

based on a quantitative and qualitative

evaluation of this action, the proposed

rule would be cost-beneficial.

Final Regulatory Flexibility

Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

establishes ‘‘as a principle of regulatory

issuance that agencies shall endeavor,

consistent with the objective of the rule

and of applicable statutes, to fit

regulatory and informational

requirements to the scale of the

business, organizations, and

governmental jurisdictions subject to

regulations.’’ To achieve that principle,

the Act requires agencies to solicit and

consider flexible regulatory proposals

and to explain the rationale for their

actions. The Act covers a wide-range of

small entities, including small

businesses, not-for-profit organizations

and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to

determine whether a proposed or final

rule will have significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. If the determination is that it

will, the agency must prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as

described in the Act.

However, if an agency determines that

a proposed or final rule is not expected

to have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act

provides that the head of the agency

may so certify and an RFA is not

required. The certification must include

a statement providing the factual basis

for this determination, and the

reasoning should be clear.

A review of the Pacific traffic data

shows that no small entities operate in

Pacific oceanic airspace where this rule

applies. The FAA has also examined the

impact of this rulemaking on small

commercial operators of business jet

aircraft and found that such operators

are all computer or air taxi operators

that do not operate in Pacific oceanic

airspace. This information was obtained

from the FAA database of U.S.

registered aircraft and operators.

The FAA has determined that there

are reasonable and adequate means to

accommodate the transition to RVSM

requirements, particularly for general

aviation operators (many of whom are

small). As of May 1999, 50% of the U.S

registered GA airframes that are capable

of conducting oceanic operations were

approved for RVSM. Operators of such

aircraft have already obtained approved

in order to operate in the NAT.

The FAA conducted the required

review of this final rule and determined

that it will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Accordingly,

pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Federal

Aviation Administration certifies that

this final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

International Trade Impact Statement

The provisions of this rule would

have little or no impact on trade for U.S.

firms doing business in foreign

countries and foreign firms doing

business in the United States.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The FAA has analyzed this proposed

rule under the principles and criteria of

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The

agency determined that this action will

not have a substantial direct effect on

the States, on the relationship between

the national Government and the States,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, the

FAA has determined that this final rule

does not have federalism implications.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 Assessment

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), codified

as 2 U.S.C. 1501, 1571, requires each

Federal agency, to the extent permitted

by law, to prepare a written assessment

of the effects of any Federal mandate in

a proposed or final agency rule that may

result in the expenditure by State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, of $100 million

or more (adjusted annually for inflation)

in any one year. Section 204(a) of the

Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the

Federal agency to develop an effective

process to permit timely input by

elected officers (or their designees) of

State, local, and tribal governments on

a proposed ‘‘significant

intergovernmental mandate.’’ A

‘‘significant intergovernmental

mandate’’ under the Act is any

provision in a Federal agency regulation

that would impose an enforceable duty

upon state, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, of $100

million (adjusted annually for inflation)

in any one year. Section 203 of the Act,

2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements

section 204(a), provides that before

establishing any regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, the

agency shall have developed a plan that,

among other things, provides for notice

to potentially affected small

governments, if any, and for a

meaningful and timely opportunity to

provide input in the development of

regulatory proposals.

This rule does not contain a Federal

intergovernmental and private sector

mandate that exceeds $100 million a

year, therefore, the requirements of Title

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act of 1995 do not apply.

Environmental Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA

actions that may be categorically

excluded from preparation of a National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

environmental assessment or

environmental impact statement. In

accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,

appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this rule

qualifies for a categorical exclusion.

Energy Impact

The energy impact of the notice has

been assessed in accordance with the

Energy Policy and Conservation Act

(EPCA) and Pub. L. 94–163, as amended

(42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1.

It has been determined that the final

rule is not a major regulatory action

under the provisions of the EPCA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen,

Airports, Aviation safety, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends part 91 of Title 14 Code of

Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND

FLIGHT RULES

1. The authority citation for Part 91

continues to read as follows:

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

40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44709, 44711,

44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306,

46315, 46316, 46502, 46504, 46506–46507,

47122, 47508, 47528–47531.

2. Appendix G is amended by revising

Section 8 to read as follows:

Appendix G to Part 91—Operations in

Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum

(RVSM) Airspace

* * * * *

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 25 / Monday, February 7, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 5943

Section 8. Airspace Designation

(a) RVSM in the North Atlantic.

(1) RVSM may be applied in the NAT

in the following ICAO Flight

Information Regions (FIRs): New York

Oceanic, Gander Oceanic, Sondrestrom

FIR, Reykjavik Oceanic, Shanwick

Oceanic, and Santa Maria Oceanic.

(2) RVSM may be effective in the

Minimum Navigation Performance

Specification (MNPS) airspace within

the NAT. The MNPS airspace within the

NAT is defined by the volume of

airspace between FL 285 and FL 420

(inclusive) extending between latitude

27 degrees north and the North Pole,

bounded in the east by the eastern

boundaries of control areas Santa Maria

Oceanic, Shanwick Oceanic, and

Reykjavik Oceanic and in the west by

the western boundaries of control areas

Reykjavik Oceanic, Gander Oceanic, and

New York Oceanic, excluding the areas

west of 60 degrees west and south of 38

degrees 30 minutes north.

(b) RVSM in the Pacific.

(1) RVSM may be applied in the

Pacific in the following ICAO Flight

Information Regions (FIRs): Anchorage

Arctic, Anchorage Continental,

Anchorage Oceanic, Auckland Oceanic,

Brisbane, Edmonton, Honiara, Los

Angeles, Melbourne, Nadi, Naha, Nauru,

New Zealand, Oakland, Oakland

Oceanic, Port Moresby, Seattle, Tahiti,

Tokyo, Ujung Pandang and Vancouver.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 1,

2000.

Jane F. Garvey,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–2556 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M