Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/05/01/E9-10089/communication-and-area-navigation-equipment-rnav-operations-in-remote-locations-and-mountainous
Timestamp: 2016-09-27 20:49:01
Document Index: 614745618

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u200991', '§\u2009135', '§\u200991', '§\u2009135', '§\u2009135', 'art 135', 'art 135', 'art2', '§\u200991', 'art4', '§\u2009135']

:: Communication and Area Navigation Equipment (RNAV) Operations in Remote Locations and Mountainous Terrain
Effective Date--This amendment becomes effective June 30, 2009.
20202-20205
Changes to § 91.175
Changes to § 135.161
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/E9-10089
The FAA is adopting this final rule without prior notice and public Start Printed Page 20203comment because an immediate action fulfills the FAA's regulatory intent and serves the public interest. The Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 1134; February 26, 1979) provide that, to the maximum extent possible, operating administrations for the DOT should provide an opportunity for public comment on regulations issued without prior notice. Accordingly, the FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The FAA also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting this final rule. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or, if filing comments electronically, please submit comments only once.
The Area Navigation and Miscellaneous Amendments Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposed that published ODPs must be followed under IFR conditions to ensure adequate obstacle clearance (67 FR 77326, Dec. 17, 2002). The proposal also provided that if an operation did not use an ODP, the operator may use an alternative procedure or route assigned by ATC. The final RNAV rule however did not include the alternative procedures and prohibited IFR takeoffs from airports with published obstacle departure procedures (ODPs) for the takeoff runway to be used unless the pilot uses the ODP for that runway.[1] (72 FR 31662, June 7, 2007). The final rule inadvertently omitted the exception for ATC-assigned alternative routes. The rule without the proposed exception for ATC-assigned alternative routes is unnecessarily restrictive because it prohibits pilots from using Standard Instrument Departure (SID) procedures and ATC radar vectoring, which provide obstacle and terrain clearance comparable to an ODP.
Accordingly, this final rule corrects the omission and prescribes the use of an ODP or alternative procedure or route assigned by ATC in the circumstances set forth in § 91.175(f). This final rule accords with the intent of the final rule to ensure adequate obstacle clearance and provides a comparable level of safety to the final rule while increasing operational flexibility.
The Area Navigation and Miscellaneous Amendments final rule amended § 135.161 to require aircraft, operating under VFR over routes that can be navigated by pilotage, be equipped with equipment to, in relevant part, communicate with at least one appropriate station from any point on the route and receive meteorological information from any point en route.[2] (72 FR 31662, June 7, 2007). Following publication of the final rule, the FAA determined that compliance with § 135.161(a)(1) and (a)(3) may be impossible in certain situations. Part 135 air carriers sometimes operate in remote and mountainous areas of the National Airspace System (NAS). Because of the terrain or gaps in communication coverage in these areas, it may be impossible to communicate from some points along the route, and therefore part 135 air carriers may be unable to comply with the current rule for reasons beyond their control.
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Start Printed Page 20204Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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 the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995).
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and do not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA notes the purpose is to ensure the safety of the American public, and has assessed the effects of this rule to ensure it does not exclude imports that meet this objective. As a result this final rule will have only a domestic impact, and, therefore, will not create any unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.
You also may obtain a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Start Printed Page 20205Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Please identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting or signing the comment (if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://docketsinfo.dot.gov/​.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question about this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/​regulations_​policies/​rulemaking/​sbre_​act/​.
Start Amendment Part2. Revise § 91.175(f)(3) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 44113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 45101-41505.
Start Amendment Part4. In § 135.161, revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Of the forty comments received in response to the proposed rule, four addressed portions of the amendments to section 91.175 (Takeoff and landing under IFR). However, those comments related only to engine-out departure procedures and not to ODPs or other departure procedures under normal operating conditions.
Of the forty comments received in response to the proposed rule, none addressed the proposed changes to section 135.161 which is the subject of this rulemaking.