[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 25 (Monday, February 7, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5936-5943]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2556]



[[Page 5935]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Federal Aviation Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



14 CFR Part 91



Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM); Final Rule

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

[[Page 5936]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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 altitude-keeping 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.

[[Page 5938]]

     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 Sub-group 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 altitude-keeping 
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.

[[Page 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 non-RVSM 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.



[[Page 5940]]


    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 pressure-altitude 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

[[Page 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 re-checking 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

[[Page 5942]]

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

* * * * *

[[Page 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