Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules 33215

intervals. As a result, revising the

existing AD is no longer required.

Accordingly, the proposed rule is

hereby withdrawn.

Withdrawal of this notice of proposed

rulemaking constitutes only such action,

and does not preclude the agency from

issuing another notice in the future, nor

does it commit the agency to any course

of action in the future.

Since this action only withdraws a

notice of proposed rulemaking, it is

neither a proposed nor a final rule and

therefore, is not covered under

Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034,

February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Withdrawal

Accordingly, the notice of proposed

rulemaking, Docket 90–ANE–25–AD,

published in the Federal Register on

October 12, 2000, (65 FR 60597), is

withdrawn.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on

June 14, 2001.

Robert J. Ganley,

Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–15574 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. 26112; Notice No. 90–2]

RIN 2120–AD26

Sole Radio Navigation System;

Minimum Standards for Certification

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPRM); withdrawal.

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA or ‘‘we’’) is

withdrawing a previously published

ANPRM that sought information on the

minimum standards for certification of

a sole radio navigation system in aircraft

conducting flight under instrument

flight rules (IFR) en route, and in

terminal area operations including

nonprecision approach, in controlled

airspace in the United States. The

proposal was in response to a

requirement of the Airport and Airway

Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of

1987. We are withdrawing the

document because the navigation issues

set forth in the ANPRM have been

superseded by new technology, and

Flight Standards Service of the FAA is

drafting a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) which will

encompass those issues that remain

relevant and update the terminology of

our general operating and flight rules.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The advance notice of

proposed rulemaking published at 55

FR 2206 is withdrawn on June 21, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bonnie Fritts, ARM–28, Office of

Rulemaking, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;

telephone (202) 267–7037.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

On January 22, 1990, the FAA

published ANPRM No. 90–2 (55 FR

2206) proposing amendments to 14 CFR

part 91, in response to Section 310(c) of

the Airport and Airway Safety and

Capacity Expansion Act of 1987 (Public

Law 100–223), which required that—

Not later than September 30, 1989, the

Administrator shall establish by

regulation minimum standards under

which a radio navigation system may be

certified as the sole radio navigation

system required in an aircraft for

operation in airspace in the United

States.

The ANPRM invited public comment

to aid the FAA in implementing the

provisions of the law. The comment

period closed on May 22, 1990.

Discussion of Comments

Aviation industry groups,

manufacturers of navigation systems,

and interested individuals responded to

the notice with a total of 19 comments.

Commenters agreed on the need for

minimum standards for certification of

navigation systems. While commenters

were generally supportive of our

proposed rulemaking, many requested

additional enhancements to the

proposal.

Air Transport Association (ATA) and

Aerospace Industries Association (AIA),

as well as individuals associated with

the aviation industry, expressed

concerns that satellite-based navigation

systems, and other viable non-radio

systems, be addressed by the standards.

The aviation community’s reliance on

ground-based navigation systems was

being encroached upon by new

technologies, such as the Global

Positioning Satellite (GPS) navigation

system, providing more efficient use of

airspace and an increase in flight safety.

Geostar Corporation and Litton Aero

Products, manufacturers of navigation

systems, also shared this concern that

FAA recognize new technologies and

not artifically limit technology growth

with overly rigid standards. Years have

passed since these comments were

made and growth in navigation systems

technology has continued to even

further surpass radio navigation

systems.

Several individual commenters

expressed their desire that any system

resulting from the minimum

certification standards be affordable for

individual pilots who are without the

financial support of large organizations.

National Business Aircraft

Association and ATA requested that

FAA task the Radio Technical

Commission for Aeronautics with

developing the necessary

documentation for the minimum

standards.

Air Line Pilots Association expressed

general support for the rulemaking

proposal.

Commenters from all categories stated

that definitions of terms in the ANPRM

were not clear, some suggesting

alternative definitions or the addition of

terms like ‘‘testability,’’ ‘‘sole means

navigation system,’’ and ‘‘precision

approach.’’ Aircraft Owners & Pilots

Association (AOPA), Air Traffic Control

Association, and AIA took issue, in

particular, with the phrase ‘‘near 100%’’

in relation to reliability and availability

measurement, requesting a more

specific measurement to avoid

confusion.

AIA and AOPA stated that results of

FAA studies should be shared with

readers and requested that those results

be included in the final rule.

One individual commented that a

particular proposed passage,

§ 91.205(g)(2)(i), was not necessary

because operations ‘‘are already far too

burdened by unjustified requirements.’’

The Illinois Department of

Transportation asserted the GPS and

Loran-C systems should be allowed to

be used in ‘‘fly-direct’’ configuration,

rather than ‘‘along the route to be

flown,’’ as the wording of § 91.33 (new

§ 91.205 (g)(2)(ii) states. While this

comment and the preceding comment

had relevance when originally

submitted, they now serve as another

illustration of justification for

withdrawal—the regulatory action that

has been superseded by events.

The ANPRM which we are

withdrawing identifies the pertinent

section of the Code of Federal

Regulations most commonly as § 91.33

(new § 91.205). From today’s

perspective, § 91.33 has not existed in

33216 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Proposed Rules

the Code of Federal Regulations in other

than a reserved capacity for over ten

years. Even in these two specific

comment references, the ‘‘new

§ 91.205(g)(2)’’ has long since

disappeared from the Code of Federal

Regulations. Issues have likewise

disappeared, or evolved to find

relevance in today’s new technologies.

The passage of time, along with its

accompanying growth in technology,

has transformed once valid concerns

into obsolete issues. The remaining

issues addressed in the ANPRM that

have retained their relevance will be

encompassed within an NPRM currently

being drafted by FAA.

In that NPRM, the FAA will propose

to update not only 14 CFR part 91, but

also parts 1, 95, 97, 121, 129, and 135,

to allow for the use of the additional

capabilities and developing

technologies of navigation systems that

are other than ground-based. The use of

ground-based navigation systems often

results in less than optimal routes or

instrument procedures and an

inefficient use of airspace. The proposal,

under development in a separate action,

would allow for the use of Area

Navigation (RNAV) systems to provide

greater flexibility in defining routes,

instrument procedures, and airspace

design, along with an associated

increase in flight safety.

Reason for Withdrawal

A considerable amount of time has

elapsed since the ANPRM was

published. Issues set forth in the

ANPRM have been supersede by new

technology and the development of

operating concepts that are being

addressed in joint FAA/industry

working groups. The Flight Standards

Service of FAA is drafting in NPRM that

will update the terminology in 14 CFR

part 91 to address, among other things,

the issue of satellite-based navigation

systems.

Conclusion

The FAA has determined that this

regulatory course of action is no longer

necessary. Accordingly, Notice No. 90–

2, published at 55 FR 2206 on January

22, 1990, is withdrawn.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 24,

2001.

Nicholas Sabatini,

Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 01–15607 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[KY–103–; KY–107–; KY–110–; KY–114–;

KY–115–; KY–122–9817(b); FRL–6999–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Kentucky; Approval of Revisions to

State Implementation Plan; Revised

Format for Materials Being

Incorporated by Reference for

Jefferson County, KY

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the Jefferson County portion

of the Kentucky State Implementation

Plan (SIP). The revisions were

submitted to EPA on February 3, 1998;

September 22, 1998; February 11, 1999;

May 21, 1999; July 20, 1999; and

September 22, 2000 by the

Commonwealth of Kentucky through

the Kentucky Natural Resources and

Environmental Protection Cabinet.

These submittals include miscellaneous

rule revisions and the recodification of

Jefferson County regulations.

EPA is also proposing to revise the

format of 40 CFR part 52 for materials

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Kentucky that are incorporated by

reference (IBR) into the Jefferson County

portion of the Kentucky SIP. The

regulations affected by this format

change have all been previously

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Kentucky pursuant to revisions to the

Jefferson County SIP and either

previously approved by EPA or

proposed for approval in this Federal

Register. This format revision will

primarily affect the ‘‘Identification of

plan’’ section of CFR part 52, as well as

the format of the SIP materials that will

be available for public inspection at the

Office of the Federal Register (OFR), the

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center located in Waterside

Mall, Washington, D.C., and the

Regional Office. The sections of 40 CFR

part 52 pertaining to provisions

promulgated by EPA or State-submitted

materials that are not subject to IBR

remain unchanged.

DATES: To be considered, comments

must be received by July 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

proposed action should be addressed to

Allison Humphris, Regulatory Planning

Section, Air Planning Branch, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960.

Copies of documents relative to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

Region 4 Air Planning Branch; 61

Forsyth Street, SW; Atlanta, Georgia

30303–8960

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Natural

Resources and Environmental

Protection Cabinet; Division for Air

Quality; 803 Schenkel Lane;

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601–1403

Air Pollution Control District of

Jefferson County; 850 Barrett Avenue;

Louisville, Kentucky 40204

The interested persons wanting to

examine these documents should make

an appointment with the appropriate

office at least 24 hours before the

visiting day and reference files KY–103,

KY–107, KY–110, KY–114, KY–115,

KY–122. The Region 4 office may have

additional background documents not

available at the other locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Allison Humphris, Regulatory Planning

Section, Air Planning Branch, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960, 404/562–

9030, (humphris.allison@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

supplemental information is organized

in the following order.

I. Rule Revisions Being Proposed for

Approval By EPA in This Action.

A. February 3, 1998 and September 22,

1998 Submittals

B. February 11, 1999 Submittal

C. May 21, 1999 Submittal

D. July 20, 1999 Submittal

E. September 22, 2000 Submittal

II. Revised IBR Format Being Proposed for

Approval By EPA in This Action.

A. Background

B. Content of Revised IBR Document

C. Revised Format of the ‘‘Identification of

plan’’ Sections in Each Subpart

D. Enforceability and Legal Effect

III. Administrative Requirements

I. Rule Revisions Being Proposed for

Approval By EPA in This Action

The Commonwealth of Kentucky,

through the Kentucky Natural Resources

and Environmental Protection Cabinet,

submitted to EPA revisions to the

Jefferson County portion of the SIP on

February 3, 1998, September 22, 1998,

February 11, 1999, May 21, 1999, July

20, 1999 and September 22, 2000. The

revisions include updates and

modifications of the Jefferson County

regulations. The recodification

renumbers Jefferson County rule

sections to make the SIP less complex

and corrects typographical errors,

capitalization, spelling, and

punctuation.