[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 243 (Monday, December 18, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79284-79291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31687]



[[Page 79283]]

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

Part V





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 91



Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM); Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 243 / Monday, December 18, 2000 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 79284]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2000-8490; Notice No. 00-16]
RIN 2120-AH12


Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would add the New York Flight Information 
Region (FIR) portion of the West Atlantic Route System (WATRS) to the 
airspace where Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) may be 
applied. RVSM saves fuel and minimizes traffic delays by accommodating 
greater numbers of aircraft in the most fuel-efficient routes 
available. This is accomplished by reducing the vertical separation 
between aircraft that fly in RVSM airspace. Safety is maintained by 
restricting RVSM airspace to aircraft with approved equipment that is 
operated by crews with proper training to assure high levels of long-
range navigation precision. International RVSM planning groups have 
agreed to implement RVSM in the New York Flight Information Region 
(FIR) portion of WATRS on November 1, 2001. This NPRM also proposes to 
require aircraft that are equipped with Traffic Alert and Collision 
Avoidance System (TCAS) to incorporate a version of TCAS that is 
compatible with RVSM operations.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before February 16, 2001.

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-
2000-8490 at the beginning of your comments, and you should submit two 
copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that the 
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 
public dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Maloy, Flight Technologies and 
Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, AFS-400, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20591, telephone (860) 654-1006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    You are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by 
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as you may desire. 
You are also invited to submit comments relating to the environmental, 
energy, federalism, or economic impact that may result from adopting 
the proposals in this notice. Comments that provide the factual basis 
supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful 
in developing reasoned regulatory decisions. Your comments should 
identify the regulatory docket number and you should submit two copies 
of your comments to the address shown above.
    Because this proposed rule was developed as a result of an 
international agreement, comments deemed substantive will be presented 
for consideration and reviewed by the international community under the 
auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). If 
considered relevant, the comments will be included for use by all 
participating member States.
    All comments received will be available both before and after the 
closing date for comments in the Department of Transportation Docket 
for examination by interested persons.
    The FAA will acknowledge receipt of a comment if the commenter 
includes a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following 
statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2000-8490.'' The FAA 
will date, time stamp, and return the postcard.

Availability of This Document

    You may download an electronic copy of this document, 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 proposed 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 NPRM.

Background

Introduction

    Below flight level (FL) 290 (29,000 feet), air traffic controllers 
can assign aircraft operating under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) 
altitudes a minimum of 1,000 feet apart. Above FL 290, however, the 
Conventional Vertical Separation Minimum (CVSM) is 2,000 feet.
    RVSM is the reduction of vertical separation of aircraft from the 
conventional 2,000 feet of separation to 1,000 feet of separation 
between flight levels (FL) 290 (29,000 feet) and 410 (41,000 feet). 
RVSM is authorized only for aircraft flying in RVSM airspace that have 
equipment and training to maintain long term navigation precision.
    Flight levels are stated in digits that represent hundreds of feet. 
The term flight level is used to describe a surface of constant 
atmospheric pressure related to a reference datum of 29.92 inches of 
mercury. Rather than adjusting altimeters for changes in atmospheric 
pressure, pilots base altitude readings above the transition altitude 
(in the United States, 18,000 feet) on this standard reference. FL 290 
represents the pressure surface equivalent to 29,000 feet based on the 
29.92" Hg datum; FL 310 represents 31,000 feet, and so on.
    The 2,000-foot minimum vertical separation restricts the number of 
flight levels available. Flight levels 310, 330, 350, 370, and 390 are 
flight levels at which aircraft crossing oceanic airspace operate most 
economically. At peak hours these flight levels can become congested 
When all RVSM flight levels (FL290-410) are utilized, six additional 
flight levels are available: FLs 300, 320, 340, 360, 380 and 400.
    RVSM has been successfully established in the North Atlantic (NAT) 
and in Pacific airspace. Increasing the number of flight levels 
available in the WATRS airspace is projected to enhance operator 
benefits in a similar way to those achieved in the NAT (i.e., 
mitigation of fuel penalties attributed to the inability to fly optimum 
altitudes and tracks).

[[Page 79285]]

    This proposed rule complies with international agreements under 
which the international aviation community, including the United 
States, plans to implement RVSM in the New York FIR portion of the 
WATRS airspace. Based on three years of successful RVSM operations in 
the NAT, the users, Air Transport Association (ATA), International Air 
Transport Association (IATA), International Civil Aviation Organization 
(ICAO), and the New York Oceanic Capacity Enhancement Task Force 
(NYOCETF) have requested the FAA to implement RVSM in WATRS airspace as 
well.

Why RVSM in WATRS Airspace Is Necessary

    Air traffic in WATRS airspace has increased steadily in the past 
few years and is projected to continue to increase. Between 1997 and 
1999, the annual traffic count in the WATRS airspace increased from 
72,020 to 109,044 flights. This represents an increase of 51 percent. 
This is a result of several years of economic downturn followed by a 
resurgence of activity. The Office of International Operations for New 
York Center estimates a similar increase over at least the next several 
years, assuming the economy stays healthy. A substantial portion of the 
increase is the Europe to Caribbean traffic that overflies the WATRS 
airspace.
    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 Has Been Implemented Successfully in the North Atlantic (NAT) and 
in the Pacific

    With air traffic levels increasing annually worldwide, FAA airspace 
planners and their international counterparts continually explore 
methods of enhancing the air traffic control (ATC) system's ability to 
accommodate traffic in a safe and efficient manner. NAT MNPS (Minimum 
Navigation Performance Specifications) airspace was chosen to be the 
first airspace for RVSM introduction because it is the busiest oceanic 
airspace in the world and traffic is forecast to continue to increase. 
The NAT Traffic Forecasting Group Report shows that the number of 
annual flight operations increased 28 percent between 1993 and 1998 
with a forecast 65 percent rise over the 1994 level of 164,500, by 
2004.
    On March 27, 1997, RVSM was implemented from FL 330 to FL 370 in 
the NAT MNPS. On October 8, 1998 the RVSM airspace was increased from 
FL 310 to FL 390 (inclusive). 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, Sec. 91.705 and vertical navigation performance 
standards of part 91, Sec. 91.706. Operators must follow procedures 
that ensure the 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 RVSM/MNPS airspace.
    The North Atlantic Systems Planning Group (NATSPG) Central 
Monitoring Agency (CMA) monitors NAT aircraft fleet performance to 
ensure that a safe operating environment is maintained.
    Pacific RVSM was implemented on February 24, 2000. The Asia/Pacific 
Approval Registry and Monitoring Agency performs the function of the 
CMA in the Pacific.
    Prior to the introduction of RVSM, 27 percent of flights in NAT 
airspace were issued clearances on tracks and at altitudes other than 
those requested by the operators in their filed flight plans. These 
flights were, therefore, generally conducted at less than optimum 
tracks and altitudes for the aircraft, resulting in time and fuel 
inefficiencies.
    The NAT Implementation Management Group (IMG) has observed the 
following improvements in NAT operations due to the introduction of 
RVSM:
    1. Fifty percent of the fuel penalty attributed to NAT system 
operation was eliminated. The total NAT system fuel penalty is 
estimated based on track design, meteorological forecast, cruise level 
and traffic congestion penalties.
    2. Twenty five percent fewer fixed tracks were required to be 
published. This allows more airspace for operators to fly preferred 
tracks.
    3. There was a five percent increase in flights cleared to fly both 
at the altitude and on the track that the operator requested.

Most WATRS Operators Already Have Experience With RVSM

    Approximately 60% of the operations in the WATRS airspace are 
conducted by aircraft and operator combinations that already have 
experience with RVSM operations. This is because some of the WATRS 
operators conduct operations worldwide and therefore, have been 
required to obtain RVSM approval to operate in NAT and Pacific RVSM 
airspace. Aircraft that have been approved for RVSM are approved for 
RVSM in any area of the world where it is applied. This high percentage 
of operators that already have RVSM experience has encouraged WATRS 
planners to expeditiously implement RVSM in WATRS airspace.

Applying RVSM to the New York Flight Information Region (FIR) of WATRS

    The New York Oceanic Capacity Enhancements Task Force (NYOCETF) 
provides oversight for plans and policy related to:

1. Changes to separation minima
2. Issues relating to traffic management
3. Airspace/ATS Routes
4. Standardization of ATC and Operator procedures
5. Contingency procedures
6. Communication issues
7. Status of oceanic ATC automation

    The Task Force is using the policy and criteria developed in other 
ICAO forums to build the RVSM program for the WATRS airspace.
    Projected increases in WATRS air traffic and the successful 
implementation of RVSM operations in the NAT and the Pacific support 
the implementation of RVSM in WATRS airspace. WATRS operators and Air 
Traffic Service (ATS) providers have requested that RVSM be pursued 
aggressively.
    The NYOCETF is developing WATRS RVSM implementation plans. The New 
York ARTCC Plans and Procedures Manager chair the Task Force. The Task 
Force chairperson and representatives will oversee the two phases of 
the WATRS implementation process, which are (1) the system verification 
phase and (2) the initial operational capability/operational trials 
phase.

System Verification Phase

    During the system verification phase, unapproved aircraft will 
continue to be separated vertically by 2,000 feet. Operators and 
aircraft that have not already been approved for RVSM will begin to 
receive RVSM approval in accordance with Sec. 91.706 and Appendix G (or 
their equivalent for foreign operators). The overall objectives of the 
system verification phase are to:
    1. Confirm that the target level of safety (TLS) will continue to 
be met.
    2. Confirm that aircraft approved for RVSM operation demonstrate 
altitude-

[[Page 79286]]

keeping performance that meets RVSM standards. This will be achieved 
by:
     Identifying and eliminating any causes of out-of-tolerance 
altitude-keeping performance, in general or for specific aircraft 
groups and
     Monitoring a sample of RVSM-approved aircraft and 
operators that is representative of the total population.
    3. Verify that operational procedures adopted for RVSM are 
effective and appropriate.
    4. Confirm that the altitude-monitoring program is effective. The 
principal purpose of this phase has been to gain confidence that the 
operational trial phase can begin.

Initial Operational Capability/Operational Trials Phase

    When the objectives of the system verification phase have been met, 
initial operational capability will be declared and RVSM will be 
implemented at designated flight levels. The first year after 
implementation is considered the operational trials phase. The 
objectives of the operational trial phase are to:
    1. Continue to collect altitude-keeping performance data.
    2. Increase the level of confidence that safety goals are being 
met.
    3. Demonstrate operationally that there are no difficulties with 
RVSM implementation.
    Beginning November 1, 2001, only RVSM approved operators and 
aircraft will be cleared to operate in the New York FIR portion of the 
WATRS airspace between FLs 290 and 410 (inclusive). Aircraft that are 
not RVSM compliant (e.g., State aircraft, ferry and maintenance 
flights) will only be cleared to operate between FLs 290 and 410 
(inclusive) after coordination with the first and notification given to 
subsequent oceanic centers. Notification constitutes approval. A 2,000-
foot vertical separation will be applied to such aircraft.
    Provided that all requirements continue to be met, at the end of 
one year, RVSM will be declared fully operational.

Altitude-Keeping Performance

    For the past three years, the FAA, in conjunction with the NATSPG, 
has monitored aircraft altitude-keeping performance of RVSM approved 
aircraft. A major objective of monitoring is to establish that the 
altitude-keeping performance of the aircraft fleet operating in 
airspace where RVSM is applied continues to meet minimum requirements.
    Altimeter system error (ASE) is the major component of aircraft 
altitude-keeping performance. In the past three years, 42,648 
measurements of altimetry system error have been taken for over 3,400 
different airframes. Those measurements have shown that the altitude-
keeping performance of aircraft approved for RVSM operations is 
significantly better than the minimum requirement. For group aircraft, 
the ASE requirement established for RVSM is that average ASE not exceed 
80 feet and 99.9% of ASE observed not exceed 245 feet. The monitoring 
results have shown that actual average ASE is -4 feet and 99.9% of ASE 
is within 156 feet.
    The FAA has determined that the appropriate method of assessing 
collision risk is the Reich collision risk model (CRM). As noted in AC 
No. 91-70, Oceanic Operations, collision risk refers to the number of 
midair accidents likely to occur due to the loss of separation in a 
prescribed volume of airspace for a specific number of flight hours.
    Collision Risk Methodology (CRM) was used to develop the 
requirements for safe implementation of a 1,000-foot vertical 
separation standard. The United States supported the methodology used 
to derive the accepted level of safety for RVSM implementation.
    The TLS that is being used in the NAT, the Pacific, and the WATRS 
airspace to assess safety is no more than five fatal accidents in 1 
billion flying hours. The level of safety was developed using 
historical data on safety from global sources. One precedent used was a 
period of 100 to 150 years between midair collisions. When the TLS of 5 
accidents in a billion flying hours is projected in terms of a calendar 
year interval between accidents in the WATRS, it yields a theoretical 
interval between midair collisions of more than 600 years. The accepted 
level of safety is consistent with the acceptable level for aircraft 
hull loss and is based on the precedence of extremely improbable events 
as they relate to system safety, the basis for certain requirements in 
certification regulations such as 14 CFR 25.1309.
    To ensure that the TLS is met, the FAA is monitoring the total 
vertical error (TVE) and the remaining CRM parameters that are critical 
for safety assessment (probability of lateral and longitudinal 
overlap). TVE is defined as the geometric difference between the 
aircraft and the flight level altitude. To monitor TVE, the FAA has 
deployed measurement systems that will produce estimates of aircraft 
and flight level geometric altitude. The overall goal of monitoring is 
to ensure that airworthiness, maintenance, and operational approval 
requirements result in required system performance (and level of 
safety) in the flight environment on a continuing basis. One such 
measurement/monitoring system is a Global Positioning System (GPS)-
based monitoring system (GMS). The GMS has been used extensively in the 
NAT along with ground based Height Monitoring Units (HMUs).
    The on-going assessment of risk in the NAT over the past two years 
has shown that the TLS of 5 accidents in 1 billion flight hours can be 
met. All sources of error related to aircraft performance and to human 
error have been assessed.

Current Requirements

    The FAA published 14 CFR 91.706 (Operations within airspace 
designated as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace.) and 
Appendix G to Part 91 (OPERATIONS IN REDUCED VERTICAL SEPARATION 
MINIMUM (RVSM) AIRSPACE) in April 1997. They are based on the ICAO 
Manual on RVSM, NAT Doc 9574. Technical and operational experts from 
the FAA, the European Joint Airworthiness Authorities (JAA), the 
aircraft manufacturers, and pilot associations developed the criteria 
in a joint FAA/JAA working group. Section 91.706 requires that aircraft 
and operators meet the requirements of Appendix G and receive 
authorization from the FAA prior to flying in airspace where RVSM is 
applied. Appendix G contains requirements in eight sections:

1. Definitions
2. Aircraft Approval
3. Operator Authorization
4. RVSM operations (flight planning into RVSM airspace)
5. Deviation Authority Approval
6. Reporting Altitude-keeping Errors
7. Removal or Amendment of Authority
8. Airspace Designation

    Flight Standards Handbook Bulletin for Air Transportation (HBAT) 
99-11A and General Aviation (HBGA) 99-17A entitled ``Approval of 
Aircraft and Operators for Flight in Airspace Above Flight Level 290 
Where 1,000 foot Vertical Separation Minimum Is Applied'', has been 
distributed through Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs). This 
document provides guidance to FAA Flight Standards inspectors on the 
process and procedures to follow before approving an operator and its 
aircraft for RVSM operations. It details inspector responsibilities for 
assessment of airworthiness approval, maintenance program approval, and 
operations approval requirements in the rule. It discusses timing, 
process, and maintenance and operations material that the operator 
should submit for FAA

[[Page 79287]]

review and evaluation normally at least 60 days before the planned 
operation in RVSM airspace. Operators under Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR) part 91 receive FAA approval in the form of a 
Letter of Authorization (LOA), and operators under 14 CFR parts 121, 
125, and 135 receive Operations Specifications (OPS-SPEC) approval.
    For operations over the high seas outside the United States, 14 CFR 
91.703 requires that aircraft of U.S. registry comply with Annex 2 
(Rules of the Air) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. 
Annex 2, amendment 32, effective February 19, 1996, reflects the change 
from 2,000 feet to 1,000 feet vertical separation for Instrument Flight 
Rules (IFR) traffic between FL 290 and FL 410, based on appropriate 
airspace designation, international agreements, and conformance with 
specified conditions.

General Discussion of the Proposal

    The proposal would allow operation of civil aircraft of U.S. 
registration in WATRS airspace where RVSM is applied. It is based on 
improvements in altitude-keeping technology. These improvements 
include:
     Introduction of the air data computer (ADC), which 
provides an automatic means of correcting the known static source error 
of aircraft to improve aircraft altitude measurement capability.
     Development of altimeters with enhanced transducers or 
double aneroid for computing altitude.
    Under this proposal, airspace or routes in the WATRS airspace where 
RVSM is applied would be considered special qualification airspace. 
Both the operator and the specific types of aircraft that the operator 
intends to use in RVSM airspace would have to be approved by the 
appropriate FAA office before the operator conducts flights in RVSM 
airspace.
    Implementation of a 1,000-foot vertical separation standard above 
FL 290 offers substantial operational benefits to operators, including:
     Greater availability of the most fuel-efficient altitudes. 
In the RVSM environment, aircraft are able to fly closer to their 
optimum altitude at initial level off and through step climbing to the 
optimum altitude during the enroute phase.
     Greater availability of the most time and fuel-efficient 
tracks and routes (and an increased probability of obtaining these 
tracks and routes). Operators often are not cleared on the track or 
route that was filed due to demand for the optimum routes and resultant 
traffic congestion on those routes. RVSM allows ATC to accommodate a 
greater number of aircraft on a given track or route. More time and 
fuel-efficient tracks or routes would therefore be available to more 
aircraft.
     Increased controller flexibility. RVSM gives ATC greater 
flexibility to manage traffic by increasing the number of flight levels 
on each track or route.
     Reduction of pilot and controller work load. When 
controllers are required to re-route aircraft from their filed track 
and/or altitude they are required to re-coordinate and revise 
clearances. Pilots are required to re-program aircraft navigation 
systems (which has been a major cause of navigational errors). RVSM 
will reduce the number of re-routes required and therefore reduce both 
pilot and controller workload.
     Enhanced flexibility to allow aircraft to fly across route 
systems. Operators are often required to remain at lower, less fuel-
efficient altitudes until the aircraft crosses a route system. RVSM 
makes more flight levels available at higher, more fuel-efficient 
altitudes to allow aircraft to cross route systems.
     Enhanced safety in the lateral dimension. Studies indicate 
that RVSM produces a wider distribution of aircraft among different 
tracks and altitudes, resulting in less exposure to aircraft at 
adjacent separation standards. RVSM reduces the number of occasions 
when two aircraft pass each other separated by a single separation 
standard (e.g., 60 NM laterally). The benefit to safety is that, in the 
event of a gross navigation error, the deviating aircraft is less 
likely to find another aircraft on the adjacent route at the same 
flight level.
    This amendment to 14 CFR part 91, appendix G, section 8 would add 
the New York FIR portion of the WATRS airspace to the list of airspace 
where RVSM can be applied.

TCAS (Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System) II, Version 7 for 
RVSM Operations

    Currently, 14 CFR 121.356, 125.224, and 135.180 require that 
certain aircraft be operated with TCAS II, or an equivalent, and the 
appropriate class of Mode S transponder. Certain other aircraft may be 
operated with TCAS I or an equivalent. Airworthiness Directives issued 
to the avionics manufacturers in 1994 require that those aircraft that 
are required to be TCAS II equipped be equipped with TCAS II, Version 
6.04 Enhanced. Approximately 90% of the flights now conducted in RVSM 
airspace are equipped with TCAS II, version 6.04 Enhanced.
    This proposed rule would require that aircraft operated in RVSM 
airspace and equipped with TCAS II, be modified to incorporate 
collision avoidance system logic software version 7.0, or a later 
version. This requirement is added because, as further explained below, 
only version 7.0 incorporates revised alert thresholds for traffic 
alerts (TA) and resolution advisories (RA) for flight levels (FL) 300 
through FL 420 that are compatible with RVSM operations. The alert 
thresholds in Version 6.04 Enhanced are not totally compatible with 
RVSM operations. This proposal is specifically related to TCAS II 
operating characteristics needed in RVSM airspace and would not amend 
or be affected by rules that require that TCAS be installed in an 
aircraft.
    TCAS I is compatible with RVSM operations and no modifications are 
necessary.

Why This Proposed Rule Would Require Version 7 of TCAS II

1. Background
    RVSM was implemented in North Atlantic Minimum Navigation 
Performance Specifications Airspace (NAT MNPSA) in March 1997. In 
preparation for RVSM implementation, the North Atlantic System Planning 
Group (NATSPG) Operations/Airworthiness (Ops/Air) group reviewed the 
effect that RVSM would have on the operation of TCAS II, Version 6.04 
Enhanced in NAT oceanic airspace. The group recognized that TCAS II, 
Version 6.04 Enhanced was designed with a TA alert threshold of 1,200 
feet for FL 300 through FL 420 and would produce inappropriate TA's for 
aircraft that were separated in RVSM airspace by 1,000 feet vertically, 
especially in certain situations. For example, the group recognized 
that in situations where two aircraft were separated by 1,000 feet 
vertically and one nautical mile or less longitudinally, on the same 
track and proceeding in the same direction at approximately the same 
speed, TA's could be received in the cockpit repeatedly over an 
extended period of time. The group observed, however, that the traffic 
levels in oceanic airspace are low relative to continental operations 
and operations are relatively stable (i.e., aircraft generally climb or 
descend infrequently). For this reason, it concluded that TCAS II, 
Version 6.04 Enhanced was acceptable during the early stages of RVSM 
operations in oceanic airspace provided pilots were informed on the 
operating characteristics of TCAS II, Version 6.04 Enhanced operations 
in RVSM airspace. To do this, the group developed and

[[Page 79288]]

distributed a document to educate pilots on these characteristics. The 
document also recommended that pilots limit their vertical speed to 
1,000 feet per minute when close to other aircraft to reduce the number 
of unnecessary alerts.
    RVSM has been implemented for over 3 years in North Atlantic 
airspace and since February 2000 in the Pacific Oceanic Flight 
Information Regions. In that time, TCAS II, Version 6.04 Enhanced has 
proven generally acceptable for RVSM operations in oceanic airspace, 
however, multiple TA events have, in fact, been found to occur in 
situations where aircraft are on the same track, speed and direction 
with one nm or less longitudinal spacing.
2. Effect on Safety
    TCAS provides an aural TA in the form of the announcement 
``Traffic, Traffic'' in the cockpit. The ``Traffic, Traffic'' 
announcement repeated over a period of time distracts the pilot from 
the execution of his or her duties and produces the potential to cause 
a pilot error. As an example, during the flight, pilots program 
navigation computers with a series of numbers representing positions on 
the route of flight. A distraction while programming the navigation 
computer can cause the pilot to make an error that results in the 
aircraft straying from its assigned route and posing a hazard to itself 
and other aircraft.
3. Increase in RVSM Operations
    As air traffic increases in areas where RVSM is currently 
implemented and as RVSM is implemented in new areas, there will be more 
aircraft conducting RVSM flights and increased exposure to distracting 
TA's. Air traffic in NAT and Pacific oceanic airspace where RVSM has 
already been implemented is projected to increase 4-6% each year. New 
RVSM implementations are planned in the near future in airspace over 
the Western and South Atlantic, the western Pacific, and the Caribbean. 
The number of RVSM flights will continue to increase and therefore, the 
probability of aircraft experiencing distracting multiple TA's will 
also increase.
4. TCAS II, Version 7.0 Compatibility With RVSM Operations
    To avoid the potential for an increase in distracting TA's that can 
lead to pilot errors, aircraft that are used in RVSM operations that 
are equipped with TCAS II systems must be modified to incorporate a 
version of TCAS that is compatible with RVSM operations. TCAS II, 
version 7.0 was designed to be compatible with RVSM operations and 
mitigates the occurrence of unnecessary TA's in RVSM operations. In 
TCAS II, version 7.0, the TA alert threshold between flight levels 300 
and 420 is reduced from 1,2000 feet to 850 feet. This revision will 
eliminate unwarranted TA's between aircraft that are correctly 
separated by 1,000 feet vertically in RVSM airspace.
5. ICAO and Foreign Standards
    ICAO Annexes and civil aviation authorities in foreign countries 
have already established standards and requirements for specified 
aircraft to be equipped with TCAS II, version 7. ACAS II is the ICAO 
term that describes aircraft collision avoidance systems and related 
equipment. To comply with ICAO ACAS II Standards, version 7 must be 
incorporated in TCAS II. The aircraft covered and compliance dates for 
ACAS II (TCAS II, Version 7) are discussed in the paragraphs below.
a. Part 91, Section 91.703 Requirements Applicable to U.S. Operators
    Various countries through out the world have adopted the ICAO Annex 
6 requirements discussed below for ACAS II equipage in their airspace. 
In some major areas, countries and regions have adopted accelerated 
equipage compliance dates. Because 14 CFR 91.703 requires U.S. 
operators to comply with the regulations of the countries in which they 
are operating, the ACAS II equipage requirements of foreign countries 
have already required U.S. operators to plan to equip with Version 7.
    Section 91.703 is entitled ``Operations of civil aircraft of U.S. 
registry outside of the United States''. Paragraph 91.703(a)(2) states 
that each person operating a civil aircraft of U.S. registry outside 
the United States shall ``[w]hen within a foreign country, comply with 
the regulations relating to the flight and maneuver of aircraft there 
in force''.
b. ICAO Annex 6 Standards for ACAS II Equipage
    ICAO Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft), Part 1 (International 
Commercial Air Transport--Aeroplanes), paragraph 6.18 contains 
standards calling for TCAS II, Version 7 (ACAS II) equipage for 
specified aircraft by 1 January 2003. Paragraph 6.18 is entitled 
``Aeroplanes required to be equipped with an airborne collision 
avoidance system (ACAS II). Specifically, it states that all turbine-
engine aircraft with a maximum certified take-off mass (gross weight) 
that exceeds 15,000 kg (33,000 pounds) or authorized to carry more than 
30 passengers shall be equipped with ACAS II by January 1, 2003. Annex 
6 also calls for all aircraft to be equipped with a pressure altitude 
reporting transponder that operates in accordance with the relevant 
provisions of ICAO Annex 10.
c. Asia/Pacific Regional Standards for ACAS II
    The ICAO Regional Supplements for the Middle East/Asia and the 
Pacific are published in the ICAO document entitled ``Regional 
Supplementary Procedures'' (ICAO Doc 7030). Those regional supplements 
call for TCAS II, Version 7 equipage for the aircraft specified in 
Annex 6 by 1 January 2000. Since version 7 was not widely available 
from avionics manufactures, most aircraft were not able to meet that 
date. In response, the Asia/Pacific Air Navigation Planning and 
Implementation Regional Group (APAN/PIRG) has adopted a regional policy 
that calls for the specified aircraft to be equipped by January 1, 
2002.
d. North Atlantic Regional Standards for ACAS II
    The ICAO Doc 7030 Regional Supplement for the NAT Region calls for 
TCAS II, version 7.0 equipage for the aircraft specified in Annex 6 by 
March 31, 2001. The ICAO NAT Region encompasses most of WATRS airspace.
e. European Country Requirements for ACAS II
    The requirements for ACAS II equipage in European countries have 
been published in the European Regional Supplements contained in ICAO 
Doc 7030. European Supplement paragraph 16.1 (Carriage and operation of 
ACAS II) calls for the aircraft specified in Annex 6, Part 1 to be ACAS 
II equipped by 1 January 2000. In response to the lack of availability 
of version 7, the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) member 
States have granted exemptions to allow aircraft to continue to operate 
until 31 March 2001 with TCAS, Version 6.04 Enhanced.
f. Requirements for TCAS II, Version 7 in Countries in the Pacific and 
Asian Regions
    The ICAO Bangkok office has conducted a survey of countries in Asia 
and the Pacific to determine those countries that have established or 
plan to establish requirements for ACAS II equipage in their airspace. 
To date, 28 countries have established or are developing requirements 
for operators to equip by the ICAO Annex 6 compliance date of 1 January 
2003 or sooner. This list includes: Australia, China, Japan, Korea, New 
Zealand and Singapore.

[[Page 79289]]

6. Effect of Linking TCAS II, Version 7 Equipage to RVSM Operations
    The proposal is that aircraft used in RVSM operations and equipped 
with TCAS II be equipped version 7.0 because it is compatible with RVSM 
operations. Because other countries and ICAO Regions are already 
requiring ACAS II (Version 7), however, the economic and aircraft 
engineering impact directly related to this proposal will be minimal.
    RVSM is currently applied only in certain major oceanic airspaces 
outside the US--the NAT and Pacific. As detailed above, requirements 
for TCAS, Version 7 have already been established for operators and 
aircraft operating outside the US to destinations in Europe, Asia and 
the Pacific. Since operators will already be required to equip with 
TCAS II, Version 7 to operate in the airspace of most countries in the 
Pacific and European regions, the effect of requiring TCAS II, version 
7.0 for RVSM operations after march 31, 2002 will be minimal.
7. Justification for Compliance Date
    The FAA proposes that operators be required to incorporate Version 
7.0 software into TCAS II equipment when used in RVSM operations after 
March 31, 2002. The following are factors the FAA considered in 
arriving at this proposed date.
    First, an earlier date has not been proposed because adequate 
numbers of Version 7.0 units and upgrade kits have not been available 
to operators. This is one reason that European aviation authorities 
delayed to TCAS II, Version 7.0 requirement for European airspace to 
March 31, 2001. A large number of U.S. operators will be complying with 
the European requirements for their operations. In proposing a 
compliance date for this amendment, the FAA has allowed adequate time 
for additional Version 7.0 units and upgrade kits to be made available 
following the European compliance date, for other operators. This will 
allow 12 months after the initial demand for Version 7.0 to meet the 
European requirement, for adequate numbers of modified TCAS units to be 
made available to operators not covered by the European requirement.
    Second, incorporation of version 7.0 in TCAS II units is not a 
major aircraft engineering effort. Incorporation of version 7.0 is a 
software change. Existing equipment is removed from the aircraft and 
the Version 7.0 software modification is accomplished by an authorized 
service facility. Considering these factors, the FAA believes 
establishing a requirement for incorporation of version 7.0 for 
operations after March 31, 2002 will provide adequate time for all 
aircraft operating in RVSM.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Proposed 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 impact of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) 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 also requires the consideration of 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
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).
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined this rule: (1) 
Has benefits which do justify its costs, is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order and is not 
``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; 
(2) will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities; (3) reduces barriers to international trade; and (4) does not 
impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or 
on the private sector. These analyses, available in the docket, are 
summarized below.
    This proposal amends 14 CFR part 91, appendix G, section 8 
(Airspace Designation) by adding the New York FIR portion of the WATRS 
airspace to the list of airspaces where RVSM would be implemented. The 
benefits of this proposed rulemaking are (1) an increase in 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 by increasing the number 
of available flight levels, while maintaining an equivalent level of 
safety.
    The FAA estimates that this proposed rule would cost U.S. operators 
$26.0 million for the fifteen-year period 2001-2015 or $23.3 million, 
discounted. The costs can be considered voluntary as they would be 
incurred only by operators that participate in WATRS RVSM. However, 
operators of non-RVSM aircraft would still be able to fly above or 
beneath the WATRS RVSM airspace. Benefits would begin accruing in 2001. 
Estimated benefits, based on fuel savings for the commercial aircraft 
fleet over the years 2001 to 2015, would be $34.7 million or discounted 
at $19 million.
    In addition to fuel savings, many non-quantifiable or value-added 
benefits would result from the implementation of RVSM in WATRS. Input 
from air traffic managers, controllers, and operators has identified 
numerous additional benefits.
    Through implementation of RVSM in the North Atlantic (NAT) and 
Pacific (PAC) regions, operators and controllers have realized some 
additional benefits. The major additional benefits as identified by air 
traffic managers and controllers are:
     Enhanced capacity
     Reduced airspace complexity
     Decreased operational errors in these regions
     Reduction of user-requested off course climbs for altitude 
changes
     Improved flexibility for peak traffic demands
     More options in deviating aircraft during periods of 
adverse weather.
    The benefits outlined above for RVSM in the NAT and PAC regions are 
anticipated in WATRS as well. There should be expected efficiencies 
through reduced airspace complexity, increased flight levels, and fewer 
altitude changes with crossing traffic.
    Operators can expect increased performance due to greater airspace 
capacity eliminating current restrictions to desired airspace. 
Operators can also expect increased aircraft performance and decreased 
delays due to improved airspace efficiency. Specific benefits cited by 
aircraft operators are:
     Decreased flight delays
     Improved access to desired flight levels
     Reduced average flight times
     Increased availability of step climbs
     Increased likelihood of receiving a clearance for weather 
deviations
     Seamless, transparent, and harmonious operations between 
the NAT and WATRS regions
     Consistent procedural environment throughout the entire 
flight
     Reduced impact of adverse weather by permitting aircraft 
deviations to other airways without any efficiency loss.
    Implementation of RVSM in WATRS should result in increased under

[[Page 79290]]

satisfaction. The benefits described in this section are compelling in 
number and operational impact. These benefits are also significant in 
that they are enjoyed both by air traffic service providers and 
aircraft operators.
    TCAS II Version 7 is also included in this rule as described in a 
previous section. There is no economic impact to operators upgrading to 
TCAS II Version 7 because many destination countries served by U.S. air 
carriers already require this equipment.

Initial 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 regulation.'' 
To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to solicit and 
consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rational 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.
    Operators that met the Small Business Administration (SBA) small 
entity criteria were extracted from the 44-day traffic sample of 
enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS) data. These operators were 
cross-referenced with the Central Monitoring Agency (CMA) and the Asia 
Pacific Approvals and Monitoring Organization (APARMO) databases to 
determine if they operated any RVSM-approved aircraft. The small entity 
operators with RVSM-approved aircraft were not considered further in 
this impact determination.
    The list of potential small entity operators, taken from the 
traffic sample, was used to identify six operators currently reporting 
financial data to the FAA Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Revenue 
information for these small entities for year 1999 was obtained from 
the Air Carrier Financial Statistics Quarterly. The operators were then 
ranked with respect to their total operating revenue. Using this 
financial data, the impact threshold of $305,540.00 was determined for 
the six small entity operators. The impact threshold, which is 
calculated as 1% of the 1999 median impacted small business annual 
revenues, was compared to the cost of compliance.
    Research of operators in WATRS has revealed that implementation of 
RVSM in WATRS would impact only one small entity operator. Moreover, 
the costs of implementing RVSM are not mandated by the FAA. These costs 
will be voluntarily incurred by those small operators who wish to 
participate in the RVSM program in WATRS. The FAA, therefore, concludes 
that a substantial number of small entity operators would not be 
significantly affected by the proposed rule. Accordingly, pursuant to 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Federal Aviation 
Administration certifies that this rule would not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Statement

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards. In addition, consistent with the Administration's belief in 
the general superiority and desirability of free trade, it is the 
policy of the Administration to remove or diminish to the extent 
feasible, barriers to international trade, including both barriers 
affecting the export of American goods and services to foreign 
countries and barriers affecting the import of foreign goods and 
services into the United States.
    In accordance with the above statute and policy, the FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined 
that it would impose the same costs on domestic and international 
entities and thus has a neutral trade impact.

Federalism Implications

    The regulations proposed herein would 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, in 
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this 
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The reporting and record keeping requirements associated with this 
rule remain the same as under the current rules and have previously 
been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-511) and 
have been assigned OMB Control Numbers 2120-0026. The FAA believes that 
this rule does not impose any additional record keeping or reporting 
requirements.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Assessment

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as 
Public Law 104-4 on March 22, 1995, is intended, among other things, to 
curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, 
local, and tribal governments.
    Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a 
written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a 
proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100 million or more 
expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, 
local and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector; such as a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory 
action.''
    This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the 
requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do 
not apply.

International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation 
Regulations

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on ICAO, it 
is FAA policy to comply with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
(SARP) to the 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 difference.

[[Page 79291]]

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), 
regulations, standards, and exemptions (excluding those, which if 
implemented may cause a significant impact on the human environment) 
qualify for a categorical exclusion. The FAA proposes that this rule 
qualifies for a categorical exclusion because no significant impacts to 
the environment are expected to result from its finalization or 
implementation.

Energy Impact

    The energy impact of this proposed rule has been assessed in 
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and 
Public Law 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). It has been determined 
that this proposed 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 Proposed Amendment

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend part 91 of title 14 of the 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), 1155, 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. In Appendix G, amend section 2 by revising paragraph (g) and 
adding a new paragraph (h) and by revising section 8 to read as 
follows:

Appendix G to Part 91--Operations In Reduced Vertical Separation 
Minimum (RVSM) Airspace

* * * * *

Section 2. Aircraft Approval

* * * * *
    (g) Traffic alert and collision avoidance system compatibility with 
RVSM operations: all aircraft. After March 31, 2002, unless otherwise 
authorized by the FAA, if you operate an aircraft that is equipped with 
TCAS II in RVSM airspace, it must be a TCAS II that meets TSO C-119b 
(version 7.0), or a later version.
    (h) If the FAA finds that the applicant's aircraft comply with this 
section, we will notify the applicant in writing.

Section 8. Airspace Designation

    (a) 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. RVSM may be effective in the Minimum Navigation Performance 
Specifications (MNPS) airspace within the NAT. The MNPS airspace within 
the NAT is defined by the volume of airspace between FL 285 and FL 420 
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 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.
    (c) RVSM may be applied in the New York FIR portion of the West 
Atlantic Route System (WATRS). The area is defined as beginning at a 
point 38 deg.30'N/60 deg.00'W direct to 38 deg.30'N/69 deg.15'W direct 
to 38 deg.20'N/69 deg.57'W direct to 37 deg.31'N/71 deg.41'W direct to 
37 deg.13'N/72 deg.40'W direct to 35 deg.05'N/72 deg.40'W direct to 
34 deg.54'N/72 deg.57'W direct to 34 deg.29'N/73 deg.34'W direct to 
34 deg.33'N/73 deg.41'W direct to 34 deg.19'N/74 deg.02'W direct to 
34 deg.14'N/73 deg.57'W direct to 32 deg.12'N/76 deg.49'W direct to 
32 deg.20'N/77 deg.00'W direct to 28 deg.08'N/77 deg.00'W direct to 
27 deg.50'N/76 deg.32'W direct to 27 deg.50'N/74 deg.50'W direct to 
25 deg.00'N/73 deg.21'W direct to 25 deg.00'05"N/69 deg.13'06"W direct 
to 25 deg.00'N/69 deg.07'W direct to 23 deg.30'N/68 deg.40'W direct to 
23 deg.30'N/60 deg.00'W to the point of beginning.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 6, 2000.
Ava L. Mims,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 00-31687 Filed 12-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M