[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56981-56983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24147]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2000-7937]


Runway Safety Areas

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Section 514 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2000 requires 
the FAA to solicit comments on the need for improvement of runway 
safety areas through the use of engineered material arresting systems, 
longer runways, and such other alternatives as the Administrator 
considers appropriate. This notice is being issued in response to that 
legislative requirement.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Address your comments to the Docket Management System, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-
2000-7937 at the beginning of your comments. If you wish to receive 
confirmation that FAA received your comments, include a self-addressed 
stamped postcard.
    You may also submit comments through the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov/. You may review the public docket containing comments to 
these proposed regulations in person in the Dockets Office between 
(9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The Dockets Office is on the plaza level of the Nassif 
Building at the Department of Transportation at the above address. Also 
you may review the comments on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert E. David, AAS-300, Airport 
Safety and Operations Division, Office of Airport Safety and Standards, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-3085.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to comment on the need to improve 
runway safety areas and the alternatives outlined in this notice that 
the FAA considers in determining whether or not it is practicable to 
improve a particular runway safety area. The FAA is also interested in 
receiving comments that identify other alternatives that may be used to 
improve runway safety areas. Comments on the costs associated with 
implementing any of these measures are also invited.
    Comments must identify the docket number and be submitted in 
duplicate to the DOT Rules Docket address

[[Page 56982]]

specified above. The docket is available for inspection before and 
after the comment closing date.

Background

    In the early years of aviation, all airplanes operated from 
relatively unimproved airfields. As aviation developed, the alignment 
of takeoff and landing paths became centered on a well-defined area 
known as a landing strip. Thereafter, the requirements of more advanced 
airplanes necessitated improving or paving the center portion of the 
landing strip. The term ``landing strip'' was retained to describe the 
graded area surrounding and upon which the runway or improved surface 
was constructed. The primary role of a landing strip changed to that of 
a safety area surrounding a runway. Later, the designation of the area 
was changed to ``Runway Safety Area,'' and the distance it extended 
beyond the runway end was lengthened to reflect its functional role.
    Prior to conducting an aircraft operation on a runway, a pilot is 
responsible for determining that the runway length and width is 
sufficient for the operation. The presence or absence of a runway 
safety area (RSA) is not part of this determination. The RSA is 
considered a safety enhancement that is beneficial if something 
abnormal occurs during the takeoff or landing.
    The RSA enhances the safety of airplanes that undershoot, overrun, 
or veer off the runway. It provides greater flexibility and access for 
firefighting and rescue equipment during such incidents. RSAs extend 
along the sides and beyond the end of the runway and are capable, under 
normal (dry) conditions, of supporting airplanes without causing 
substantial damage to the airplanes or injury to their occupants. RSAs 
are cleared, graded, and have no potentially hazardous ruts, humps, 
depressions, or other surface variations. The only objects allowed in 
the RSA are those which are fixed by their function, such as an 
approach light system that provides pilots with visual navigation to 
the runway's end. These objects are as frangible as practical so that 
they will break away when hit by an aircraft, thereby minimizing the 
damage to the aircraft and reducing the risk of injuries to its 
occupants.

Standards for RSAs

    The dimensional standards for RSAs vary according to the type of 
aircraft that the runway is intended to seve and visibility minimums 
associated with the runway. For example, the standard for the RSA for 
runways designed for visual approaches by small general aviation 
aircraft is an area 120 feet wide that extends 240 feet beyond each end 
of the runway. For larger aircraft the standard for an RSA is an area 
500 feet wide that extends 1000 feet beyond each end of the runway. As 
a rule of thumb, the RSA length beyond the runway end is twice the RSA 
width.
    The FAA's current design standards for RSAs are contained in 
Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design (This advisory 
circular is available on the web: http://www.faa.gov/arp). The RSA 
dimensional standards have increased over the last thirty years as 
aircraft have become larger and faster. As with any change in 
standards, it is difficult for many existing airports to meet to the 
changed standards.
    The FAA's policy is that these airports must improve the RSA for 
each runway, to the extent practicable, whenever the airport operator 
undertakes construction work on that runway.

Considerations in Determining Practicability

    In determining the practicability of obtaining or improving RSAs, 
there are many factors that could affect the viability of the 
alternative. What may be viable at one airport may not be viable at 
another. Factors to be considered include:
    a. Historical records of airport accidents/incidents.
    b. The airport plans as reflected in current and forecast volume of 
passengers and operations, percent runway use, both of all weather and 
IFR operations; and the design aircraft, i.e., the aircraft category 
for which the runway length is based.
    c. The extent to which the existing RSA complies with the standard. 
High performance aircraft, operating at higher loads and speeds have 
greater requirements than small, low performance aircraft.
    d. Site constraints. These include, for example, precipitous 
terrain dropoff, the existence of bodies of water, wetlands, a major 
highway, a railroad at a runway end, etc.
    e. Weather and climatic conditions. These include conditions such 
as low visibility, rain, snow, and ice and the frequency of these 
conditions. Overruns on contaminated runways constitute a significant 
percentage of runway excursions.
    f. Availability of visual and electronic aids for landing.

Alternatives for Improving RSA's

    The FAA believes that wherever it is practicable an airport 
operator should construct a safety area that complies with the 
standards contained in Advisory Circular 150/5300-13. Accomplishing 
this may involve land acquisition, grading, obstacle removal/
relocation, and environmental mitigation. When it is not practicable to 
obtain the entire RSA in this manner, then the airport operator should 
obtain as much safety area as is possible.
    When it is not possible to obtain the entire RSA as specified 
above, then the airport operator should consider the following 
alternatives. The applicability and practicability of these 
alternatives will vary depending upon the specific situation. In some 
instances it may be practicable to use these alternatives in 
combination with each other to obtain the RSA. A brief description of 
each alternative is provided.

a. Shifting, Realignment, or Relocation of the Runway

    Shifting involves moving the runway along its extended runway 
centerline. This alternative may be applicable where land that could be 
used for RSA is available on one end of the runway but not on the 
other.
    Realignment involves reorienting the runway heading at its present 
site. Generally, this alternative is only feasible if the entire runway 
is undergoing a major rehabilitation and the runway is not part of a 
parallel runway system.
    Relocation involves moving the physical location of the runway. 
This alternative is practicable if sufficient land exists on the 
airport or adjacent to it for the construction of the relocated runway. 
The runway may have the same or a different orientation from the 
existing runway.

b. Reduction in Runway Length

    This alternative is applicable where the existing runway length 
exceeds that which is required for the current or projected design 
aircraft operations. The alternative involves reducing the physical 
length of the pavement by removing pavement or marking it as unusable. 
This alternative may be applicable at a military base that has been 
transferred to civilian use or an air carrier airport that has been 
replaced with a new airport for the air carriers but remains open for 
use by general aviation aircraft.

c. Declared Distances

    This alternative is applicable where the existing runway length 
exceeds that which is required for the current or projected design 
aircraft operations. This alternative involves the airport operator 
declaring that a length less than the actual pavement length is

[[Page 56983]]

available for landing or accelerate-stop distance calculations. For 
example, if a runway is 7000 feet in length, an airport operator may 
declare that only 6000 feet is available for landing or takeoff. The 
pilot then calculates his/her landing distance and accelerate-stop 
distance based upon 6000 feet, thereby providing an effective RSA of 
1000 feet at the end of the runway. The 1000 feet of runway that is not 
available for use in the one direction may be available for operations 
in the other direction on the runway. (Note: this is how the declared 
distance alternative differs from the reduction in runway length 
alternative discussed in paragraph b.) Additional information on 
declared distances is contained in Appendix 14 of AC 150/5300-13.

d. Engineered Material Arresting Systems (EMAS)

    This alternative provides a way to enhance safety when it is not 
practicable to obtain a full RSA through the preceding alternatives. It 
is only applicable to aircraft overruns. EMAS is a passive system 
consisting of material designed to decelerate an aircraft passing 
through it. Advisory Circular 150/5220-22, Engineered Materials 
Arresting Systems for Aircraft Overruns contains additional information 
on EMAS (This advisory circular is available on the web: htts://
www.faa.gov/arp). EMAS is not a substitute for, nor equivalent to any 
length or width of runway safety area. It is placed off the end of the 
runway centered upon the extended runway centerline. The width of the 
EMAS installation is the same as the width of the runway while its 
length is dependent upon the design aircraft and amount of land area 
available beyond the end of the runway.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on September 13, 2000.
David L. Bennett,
Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-24147 Filed 9-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M