[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 91 (Friday, May 10, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31920-31929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11704]



[[Page 31919]]

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

Part V





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 91



Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum in Domestic United States Airspace; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 91 / Friday, May 10, 2002 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 31920]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2002-12261; Notice No. 02-09]
RIN 2120-AH63


Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum in Domestic United States 
Airspace

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to permit Reduced Vertical Separation 
Minimum (RVSM) flights in the airspace over the contiguous 48 States of 
the United States (U.S.) and Alaska and that portion of the Gulf of 
Mexico where the FAA provides air traffic services. The RVSM program 
would allow the use of reduced vertical separation between aircraft at 
certain altitudes. This reduction of vertical separation minima would 
only be applied between those aircraft that meet stringent altimeter 
and auto-pilot performance requirements. This proposed rule would also 
require any aircraft that is equipped with Traffic Alert and Collision 
Avoidance System version II (TCAS II) and flown in RVSM airspace to 
incorporate a version of TCAS II that is compatible wit RVSM 
operations. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance airspace 
capacity and to assist aircraft operators to save fuel and time.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 8, 2002.

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-
2002-XXXXX at the beginning of your comments, and you should submit two 
copies 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 Docket Office between 9 
a.m. to 5 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: 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:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this proposed 
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also 
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy or 
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in 
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion 
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written 
comments.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public 
inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to 
review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the 
Internet at the web address in the ADDRESSES section.
    Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we 
receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider 
comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring 
expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments 
we receive.
    If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this 
proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard 
on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the 
postcard and mail it to you.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of this copy through in Internet by 
taking the following steps:
    (1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's 
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search).
    (2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket 
number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on ``search.''
    (3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information 
for the Docket you selected, click on the document number of the item 
you wish to view.
    You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the 
Office of Rulemaking's web page at _http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm 
or the Federal Register's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    You can also get a copy 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. Make 
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.

Why RVSM Implementation in US and Gulf of Mexico Airspace Is 
Warranted: Benefits, Proven Safety, Existing Aircraft Eligibility

Statement of the Problem

    Air traffic levels were reduced following the events of September 
11, 2001. The FAA anticipates, however, that over the next 12-18 
months, air traffic will resume the steady increase that has been 
exhibited in past years. Air traffic at FAA air route traffic control 
centers is projected to increase over the next ten years at an average 
annual rate of 1.5 percent. By 2012, FAA air route traffic control 
centers are projected to be required to manage approximately 9 million 
more instrument flight rule (IFR) flights than they did in 2000 (55.0 
million versus 46.0 million).
    As air traffic increases, the opportunity for aircraft to fly the 
desired time and fuel-efficient flight levels and routes will be 
significantly diminished. In addition, traffic increases will diminish 
the capability of the FAA to move aircraft through and around areas 
affected by significant weather systems. In areas characterized by 
high-density traffic, the FAA may be required to invoke restrictions 
that can result in traffic delays and fuel penalties.

National Airspace System Operational Evolution Plan (NAS OEP) 
Initiatives

    In 2001, the FAA began a focused study of initiatives to enhance 
the efficiency and reliability of air traffic operations in the NAS. 
This study and inputs from the airspace user community has led the FAA 
to pursue a variety of options and initiatives to enhance airport 
capacity and arrival, approach, and enroute operations. The initiatives 
and FAA plans to pursue them are published in the NAS OEP.

[[Page 31921]]

The website address for this document is: www.faa.gov/programs/oep.
    The FAA believes that the option to implement RVSM in the NAS 
should be a high priority initiative because RVSM has proven over the 
past several years to provide significant enhancements to enroute 
operations in other areas. The RVSM implementation project is listed in 
the Enroute Congestion Solutions section of the NAS OEP.

Advocacy by User Groups

    Organizations and representatives from the aviation community have 
advocated the implementation of RVSM in U.S. and Gulf of Mexico 
airspace. The U.S. operators view RVSM as a proven operational program 
that can mitigate some of the problems encountered in U.S. domestic 
operations.

RVSM Mitigation of Air Traffic Management Problems

    The explanation of the term ``flight levels (FL)'' in this 
paragraph is provided to introduce the discussion of RVSM benefits 
below. Flight levels are stated in three digits that represent 
thousands 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. Flight levels are separated by specific pressure 
intervals. Rather than adjusting altimeters for changes in atmospheric 
pressure, pilots base altitude readings above the transition altitude 
(18,000 feet in the United States) on this standard reference. Thus 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.
    With air traffic levels increasing annually, FAA airspace planners 
and their international counterparts have established programs to 
implement RVSM as a primary measure to enhance air traffic management 
and operating efficiency. RVSM has been successfully implemented in 
both oceanic and continental airspace. The RVSM program has been 
implemented in oceanic airspace in the North and South Atlantic, the 
Pacific, the South China Sea, and in the portion of the West Atlantic 
Route System (WATRS) that is in the New York Oceanic Flight Information 
Region (FIR). The RVSM program has also been implemented in the 
continental airspace of Australia and Europe.
    The RVSM program allows the vertical separation standard that is 
applied below FL 290 to be applied between FL 290 and 410. Below FL 290 
(29,000 feet), air traffic controllers can assign Instrument Flight 
Rules (IFR) aircraft to flight levels that are separated by 1,000 feet. 
Above FL 290, however, the Conventional Vertical Separation Minimum 
(CVSM) is 2,000 feet and IFR aircraft must be assigned to FL's 
separated by 2,000 feet.
    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 operate most economically. During peak 
periods, these FL's can become congested. When all RVSM FL's (FL 290-
410) are utilized, six additional flight levels are available: FL's 
300, 320, 340, 360, 380, and 400. Increasing the number of FL's 
available in the U.S. domestic airspace is projected to provide 
enhancements to aircraft operations similar to those gained in the 
North Atlantic (NAT) and Pacific (PAC) (i.e., mitigation of fuel 
penalties attributed to the inability to fly optimum altitudes and 
tracks and enhanced controller flexibility for air traffic management).

Benefits and Enhancements

    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 more likely to receive their 
requested altitude enabling them to consistently fly closer to their 
most fuel efficient FL.
     Greater availability of the most time and fuel-efficient 
routes (and an increased probability of obtaining these routes). 
Operators may not be cleared on the route that was filed due to demand 
for the optimum routes and resultant traffic congestion on those 
routes. The RVSM program allows the FAA 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 air traffic controller flexibility. The RVSM 
program gives the FAA greater flexibility to manage traffic by 
increasing the number of flight levels available on each track or 
route. This enhanced flexibility is especially desirable in situations 
where the FAA must re-route traffic around weather.
     Reduction of air traffic controller workload. The enhanced 
flexibility described above will reduce controller workload and allow 
them to work more efficiently.
     Enhanced flexibility to allow aircraft to cross 
intersecting routes. The RVSM program makes more flight levels 
available to enable aircraft to cross intersecting flight paths above 
or below conflicting traffic.
     Enhanced safety in the application of separation 
standards. Studies show that the RVSM program produces a wider 
distribution of aircraft among different routes and altitudes.

Example of RVSM Benefits to NAT Operations

    Over the past five years, the FAA and the other NAT Air Traffic 
Service Providers have observed significant benefits provided by RVSM 
implementation in NAT airspace. Prior to the introduction of RVSM, 27 
percent of flights in NAT airspace were issued clearances on tracks and 
at altitudes other than the optimum tracks and altitudes requested by 
the operators in their filed flight plans. These flights were, 
therefore, generally subject to time and fuel penalties.
    The NAT Implementation Management Group (IMG) (of which the FAA is 
a member) 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 at 
both the altitude and on the track that the operator requested.

Aircraft Operating in U.S. Airspace Already Approved for RVSM

    Approximately twenty-two percent of flights in U.S. airspace are 
already conducted by aircraft that have been approved for RVSM 
operations. Approximately 2,600 aircraft of U.S. registry have already 
been FAA-approved for RVSM operations under the existing RVSM 
regulation. Many U.S. operators have obtained RVSM approval for these 
aircraft so they can be flown in airspace outside the U.S. where RVSM 
has been implemented. Aircraft that have been approved for RVSM are 
currently approved for RVSM operations in any area of the world where 
RVSM is applied.

Developing of RVSM Programs

    Rising traffic volume and fuel costs, which made flight at fuel-
efficient altitudes a priority for operators, sparked an interest in 
the early 1970's in implementing RVSM above FL 290.

[[Page 31922]]

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 affect safety.

Forums for Development of RVSM Policy and Procedures

    The FAA recognized, however, the potential benefits of RVSM and in 
the 1980's, focused its efforts and resources on establishing the 
criteria and policies that would allow RVSM to be implemented safely. 
In conjunction with this effort, the FAA also considered the economic 
feasibility of RVSM. These efforts were considered in the following 
national and international forums.
    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, D.C., 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 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. International Civil Aviation Organization (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 RTCA 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 
enroute 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.
    The RGCSP developed the ICAO Manual on Implementation of a 300-
meter (1,000-foot) Vertical Separation Minimum Between FL 290 and FL 
410 (inclusive) (ICAO Document 9574) that was published in 1992. This 
document provided the FAA with the basis for: The development of 
detailed aircraft and operator approval documents, planning for 
required RVSM implementation tasks, and developing programs to monitor 
aircraft performance and system safety.
    4. North Atlantic System Planning Group (NATSPG) and the NATSPG 
Vertical Separation Implementation Group (VSIG).
    After developing and reviewing cost/benefit studies, the NATSPG (of 
which the FAA is a member) concluded in 1991 that RVSM should be 
implemented in North Atlantic Minimum Navigation Performance 
Specification airspace and that working groups and programs should be 
established to implement it in 1996-1997. The NATSPG, thus, became the 
first ICAO regional group to develop the technical and operational 
programs to implement RVSM.
    To pursue implementation, the NATSPG established the VSIG in June 
1991 to take the necessary actions to implement RVSM in the NAT. These 
actions included:
     Aircraft and Operator Approval. The Operations and 
Airworthiness Group (chaired by the FAA) developed a detailed document 
containing the criteria and process to approve aircraft and operators 
for RVSM operations. The document addressed issues related to aircraft 
airworthiness, maintenance, and operations. The ICAO regional 
implementation groups and civil aviation authorities world-wide have 
adopted this document as the basis for aircraft airworthiness and 
operations programs.
     Safety Analysis and Monitoring Aircraft Altitude-keeping 
performance. The VSIG provided the forum to develop criteria and 
process for safety analysis and for the development and use of two 
different, but complementary, monitoring systems to assess aircraft 
altitude-keeping in-service performance. These systems are the ground-
based Height Monitoring Unit (HMU) and the Global Position System 
Monitoring System (GMS). The NATSPG used these systems to observe the 
performance of individual airframes and groups of aircraft with the 
objective of confirming that the approval process was uniformly 
effective and that the airspace system was safe.
     Air Traffic Policy and Procedures. The NATSPG Air Traffic 
Management Group developed ATC procedures for RVSM, conducted 
simulation studies to assess the effect of RVSM on ATC, and developed 
documents to address ATC issues.
    Policy, procedures and documents developed in the NATSPG forum are 
used as the basis for RVSM program implementation worldwide.

Safety Observed in RVSM Operations

    Application of 1,000-foot Vertical Separation Below FL 290. Before 
discussing the safety observed in the application, over the past 
several years, of 1,000-foot vertical separation at and above FL 290, 
it is important to note that 1,000-foot vertical has been applied 
safety below FL 290 for over 40 years. The 1,000-foot vertical 
separation of aircraft below FL 290 is an ICAO separation standard and 
since the 1960's, it has been applied below FL 290 worldwide, including 
in the U.S. The RVSM program enables the use of 1,000-foot vertical 
separation to be expanded above FL 290 to FL 410.

Existing and Proposed Regulations: Criteria for Aircraft and Operator 
Approval

    Part 91, Sec. 91.706 (Operations within airspace designated as 
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace) and part 91, Appendix G 
(Operations in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) Airspace) 
contain the FAA requirements for aircraft and operator approval for 
RVSM operations outside the U.S. They have been applied to operations 
outside the U.S. since they were published in April of 1997. A major 
objective of the proposed part 91 amendment is to add Sec. 91.180 
(Operations Within Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace in the 
United States) to make the standards of Appendix G applicable to RVSM 
operations within the U.S.
    The aircraft and operator approval requirements published in part 
91, Appendix G, and European Joint Airworthiness Authorities (JAA) RVSM 
documents was developed in a joint

[[Page 31923]]

FAA/JAA working group. In that group, technical and operational experts 
from the FAA, the European Joint Airworthiness Authorities (JAA), the 
aircraft manufacturers, and pilot associations developed detailed 
criteria and procedures for RVSM approval using the ICAO RVSM Manual 
(Doc 9574) as the starting point. These FAA and JAA regulations and 
standards have been used worldwide for RVSM aircraft and operator 
approval.
    Section 91.706 requires that aircraft and operators meet the 
standards of Appendix G and receive authorization from the 
Administrator 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
    The criteria and procedures published in FAA Appendix G and in JAA 
and ICAO documents have produced aircraft performance that is 
significantly better than the minimum required for safety in the ICAO 
RVSM Manual.

Observed Altitude-Keeping Performance

    For the past several years, the FAA, in conjunction with the 
NATSPG, has evaluated (or monitored) the altitude-keeping performance 
of RVSM approved aircraft. The GMS and the ground-based HMU have been 
used to observe aircraft performance in both oceanic and continental 
airspace.
    Altimeter system error (ASE) is the major component of aircraft 
altitude-keeping performance. The ASE is the difference between the 
pressure altitude displayed on the altimeter (assuming a correct 
altitude barometric setting) and the true pressure altitude.
    Measurements have shown that the altitude-keeping performance of 
the population of aircraft approved for RVSM operations is 
significantly better than the minimum requirement established by the 
ICAO RGCSP in the ICAO RVSM Manual. The ICAO RVSM Manual calls for 
average or mean ASE for groups of aircraft not to exceed 80 feet and 
99.9% of ASE measurements not to exceed 245 feet. To date, over 120,000 
measurements of ASE taken for approximately 6,000 airframes has shown 
that the observed average ASE is -4.69 feet and 99.9% of ASE is within 
approximately 165 feet.

RVSM Safety Analysis

    Over the past several years, the on-going assessment of RVSM risk 
in various areas worldwide has shown that operational safety is 
maintained. All sources of aircraft, pilot, and controller error in 
RVSM operations have been assessed using safety analysis processes. The 
FAA and other civil aviation authorities have concluded that RVSM 
operations are safe.

Proposed Implementation Plans and Schedules

Domestic RVSM (DRVSM) Implementation Team

    The FAA has established a Domestic RVSM Implementation Team to 
develop U.S. Domestic RVSM implementation plans and programs. It is the 
objective of the FAA team to develop and coordinate the DRVSM program 
and to complete the necessary tasks to implement RVSM in U.S. and Gulf 
of Mexico airspace.

Proposed DRVSM Implementation Plan

    The FAA proposes to implement DRVSM in the airspace of the 
continguous 48 states, Alaska and Gulf of Mexico airspace where the FAA 
provides air traffic service in December of 2004 between FL 290-410 
(inclusive). When DRVSM is implemented, with limited exceptions 
described below, to fly in that airspace, civil operators and aircraft 
must comply with the standards of part 91 Appendix G and the operator 
must be authorized by the Administrator or, if a foreign operator, the 
country of registry to conduct RVSM operations. Implementing DRVSM in 
this manner enhances safety by requiring the aircraft/operator 
population to be approved to common standards, thus, enabling 
controllers to apply, in normal operations, a single vertical 
separation standard. It also enables a significant majority of 
operators to consistently flight plan, fuel plan and fly RVSM FL's and, 
therefore to maximize RVSM benefits.
    In accordance with Appendix G, Section 5 (Deviation Authority 
Approval), the FAA proposes to allow the following exceptions to RVSM 
standards for civil aircraft operating in DRVSM airspace:
     The FAA will accommodate unapproved aircraft conducting 
air ambulance flights using a Lifeguard call sign as described in the 
Aeronautical Information Manual.
     Unapproved aircraft may be allowed to climb through RVSM 
FL's to operate above RVSM airspace at FL 430 and above, traffic 
permitting.
    When such aircraft operate in RVSM aircraft, their lack of RVSM 
approval status will be displayed to FAA controllers and 2,000-foot 
vertical or the appropriate lateral or longitudinal separation standard 
will be applied to them.

Factors Considered in Developing the Implementation Plan

    In proposing a FL stratum and implementation date, the FAA has 
considered the following factors:
     Feasibility of phased implementation
     Timeframe for significant majority of flights to be 
conducted by approved aircraft
     Justification to avoid further delay of RVSM benefits
     Capability and timeframe for the majority of operators and 
aircraft to obtain approval
     Options for unapproved aircraft to continue to operate
    These implementation factors are discussed below:
    Phased implementation. The FAA does not consider phased 
implementation to be feasible. Prior to reaching this conclusion, the 
FAA conducted real-time simulations at the William J. Hughes Technical 
Center to assess the feasibility of implementing RVSM initially between 
FL 350-390 or between 330-390. In the simulations of these 
implementation scenarios, the FAA analyzed controller workload, the 
potential for controller error and the impact on airspace complexity. 
Observations were made of qualified FAA controllers managing 
representative air traffic flows in three RVSM airspace scenarios: FL 
350-390, FL 350-390, and FL 290-410. The FAA concluded that the FL 290-
410 implementation scenario offered significant advantages in that it 
provided reductions in controller workload, airspace complexity and 
potential for error. Controllers were required to vector aircraft 
significantly less frequently and required coordination between air 
route centers was significantly reduced.
    Timeframe for a significant majority of flights to be conducted by 
RVSM approved aircraft. In preparation for RVSM implementation, the FAA 
has worked with U.S. operators to establish a timeframe when a 
significant majority of flights would be conducted by RVSM approved 
aircraft. The FAA conducted a survey of U.S. operators to determine 
their plans to schedule and complete RVSM aircraft engineering tasks. 
The FAA found that many U.S. aircraft and operators have already 
obtained RVSM approval in order to operate in RVSM

[[Page 31924]]

airspace outside the U.S. In addition, anticipating DRVSM 
implementation, many operators are planning for completion of RVSM 
engineering work in late 2004. A significant motivation noted was the 
desire to accomplish RVSM aircraft work during scheduled maintenance 
checks to avoid costs associated with special inspections outside the 
normal maintenance cycle.
    The FAA used the operator survey information in combination with 
data obtained from the Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS) to 
project the percentage of flights to be conducted in domestic airspace 
in December of 2004 by individual aircraft types. The FAA has projected 
that by December of 2004 over 90% of flights conducted between FL 290-
410 will be conducted by RVSM approved aircraft.
    Justification to avoid further delay. The FAA believes that further 
delay beyond December 2004 would result in an unwarranted loss of 
benefits. Based on the enhanced capability for aircraft to operate at 
more fuel-efficient altitudes, the FAA has projected $388 million 
dollars in fuel savings for the period from December 2004 through 
calendar year 2005, assuming DRVSM is implemented in December 2004. In 
addition, as noted previously, the FAA has projected that the addition 
of six FL's between FL 290-410 would significantly enhance controller 
flexibility to manage traffic in situations such as weather re-routes 
and increase the number of aircraft that can traverse a sector. These 
benefits would be lost if implementation were delayed.
    Capability for operators to obtain aircraft approval. First, 
aircraft certification authorities have approved RVSM aircraft 
engineering packages for all major aircraft types used in either 
airline or general aviation operations. Second, Appendix G provides 
operators with the option of obtaining approval for their aircraft in a 
non-group or individual airframe status. Third, the FAA is working with 
Aircraft Service Centers and other organizations that provide RVSM 
engineering service, as well as operator organizations, to standardize 
and clarify the aircraft approval process, as necessary. In addition, 
the FAA will conduct RVSM seminars and enhance the FAA RVSM information 
network to ensure that operators have ready access to information on 
the RVSM approval process.
    Options for unapproved aircraft to continue to operate. Operators 
unable or unwilling to obtain RVSM approval for their aircraft by the 
proposed December 2004 implementation date would still be able to 
operate at and below FL 280. The FAA recognizes that aircraft operating 
at and below FL 280 would not be operating at fuel-efficient altitudes. 
In addition, aircraft that can operate at and above FL 430 would be 
allowed to climb through to operate above RVSM airspace, traffic 
permitting. Finally, the FAA will plan to accommodate civilian air 
ambulance flights conducted by unapproved aircraft operating under a 
``Lifeguard'' call sign. (Guidance on Lifeguard flights is published in 
the Aeronautical Information Manual).

Specific Airspace Issues

    Coordination with Mexico and Canada. The FAA has established 
contact with representatives from the civil aviation authorities of 
Canada and Mexico and is coordinating RVSM implementation plans with 
them. Canadian representatives have informed the FAA that RVSM will be 
implemented in Northern Canadian Domestic airspace in April 2002, and 
Canada is planning to implement RVSM implementation in Canadian 
Southern Domestic airspace at the time that it is implemented in the 
U.S.
    Gulf of Mexico Airspace. The airspace in the Gulf of Mexico for 
which the FAA provides air traffic services has been included in this 
proposal. The regulations, at 14 CFR 71.33(c), already designate 
portions of Houston and Miami Oceanic and Jacksonville Offshore 
Airspace as Class A airspace ``within which domestic ATC procedures are 
applied.'' The offshore airspace is treated in the regulations as an 
extension of the Class A airspace of the continental U.S. In addition, 
certain routes where RVSM is proposed begin in continental U.S. 
airspace, cross the Gulf of Mexico and then re-enter continental 
airspace on the other side. Inclusion of Gulf of Mexico airspace in the 
proposal will mitigate unwarranted air traffic management complexity 
and contribute to maximizing benefits to the operators.
    Hawaiian Airspace. The airspace of the Hawaiian Islands is 
surrounded by Pacific Oceanic RVSM airspace. RVSM approved aircraft 
operate to and from Hawaiian airspace, however, there is currently no 
plan to require RVSM approval for all aircraft to operate within that 
airspace. Instead, 1,000-foot vertical separation is applied between FL 
290-410 when two passing aircraft are both RVSM approved and 2,000-foot 
vertical or horizontal separation is applied if either of the passing 
aircraft is not RVSM approved.

Exploration of Tactical RVSM

    The FAA is exploring allowing controllers to apply ``tactical 
RVSM'' prior to the proposed DRVSM implementation date of December 
2004. Prior to December 2004, RVSM approval would not be mandatory for 
operation in U.S. domestic airspace. Application of tactical RVSM would 
allow controllers to use 1,000-foot vertical separation between FL 290-
410, at controller's discretion, if both passing aircraft are RVSM 
approved. In this situation, the approval status would be displayed to 
the controller. This provision has been used successfully in Europe 
since April 2001.

DRVSM Aircraft and Operator Approval Factors

    The intent of this rulemaking is to expand the application of the 
RVSM aircraft and operator approval requirements to all aircraft 
operating in the U.S. and Gulf of Mexico airspace. Currently, 14 CFR 
91.706 addresses RVSM operations for U.S. registered civil aircraft 
outside of the U.S. The FAA proposes to locate new RVSM Sec. 91.180 in 
part 91, subpart B (Flight Rules). Section 91.180 would, therefore, 
apply to RVSM operations conducted in the NAS. The new section 
instructs domestic operators and their aircraft to comply with part 91, 
Appendix G and obtain an authorization from the Administrator prior to 
conducting RVSM operations. In addition, proposed Sec. 91.180 would 
provide that foreign operators and their aircraft would comply with 
appendix G and be authorized by the country of registry prior to 
conducting flight in RVSM airspace of the U.S.
    Eligibility of Aircraft Approved for RVSM Operations Outside the 
U.S. Aircraft that have already received RVSM airworthiness approval in 
accordance with Appendix G that have been used in RVSM operations 
outside the U.S. are eligible for RVSM operations within the NAS. Prior 
to conducting NAS RVSM operations, however, operators will be required 
to adopt RVSM operational policies and procedures unique to the U.S. 
for pilots and, if applicable, dispatchers.
    TCAS II Version 7.0 Requirement. A significant majority of the 
aircraft that operate in the domestic U.S. at and above flight level 
290 area already required to be equipped with TCAS II, Version 6.04a. 
Requirements for aircraft TCAS equipage are published in 14 CFR parts 
121, 125, 129 and 135. Approximately 85% of domestic operations above 
FL 290 are conducted by large jet aircraft operating under parts 121 or 
129. These parts call for aircraft equipage with an approved TCAS II if 
the aircraft has seating capacity of more than 30 seats. FAA

[[Page 31925]]

Airworthiness Directives published in 1994 mandate TCAS II, Version 
6.04a for TCAS II installations.
    Part 91, appendix G, section 2, paragraph (g) states that ``after 
March 31, 2002, unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, 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.'' This provision was adopted because Version 7.0 incorporates 
Traffic Alert and Resolution Advisory thresholds that mitigate 
unnecessary alerts when 1,000-foot vertical separation is applied above 
FL 290. Version 7.0 generally requires a software modification that is 
not a major system modification. The cost for this modification has 
been accounted for in the cost-benefit analysis. Operators of aircraft 
equipped with TCAS II must consider this provision when planning for 
the proposed DRVSM implementation date of December 2004.
    Eligibility of turbo-propeller Aircraft Operated Under Part 91 and 
Equipped with a single RVSM Compliant Altimeter. In the proposed 
amendment, the FAA proposes operational and airworthiness criteria for 
turbo-propeller aircraft operated under part 91 to conduct RVSM 
operations when equipped with a single RVSM compliant altimeter. The 
FAA believes that aircraft can be used in RVSM operations conducted 
under part 91 in US operations for the following reasons:
    Frequency of Single Altimeter Operations. General aviation (part 
91) operations account for approximately ten percent of the total 
flights in the U.S. between FL 290-410. Of these flights, only a small 
percentage of flights operating above FL 290 would be conducted by 
turbo-propeller aircraft equipped with a single RVSM compliant 
altimeter.
    NAS Communications/Navigation/Surveillance (CNS) capabilities. 
Direct pilot-controller communications, a robust navigation aid 
structure, and ATC radar surveillance are available in US domestic 
airspace. ATC will have the CNS tools to aid a pilot experiencing a 
failure or malfunction of the primary altimeter in exiting RVSM 
airspace, to apply the appropriate separation to the aircraft, and to 
aid the pilot in diverting to an alternate airport, if necessary.
    Continued Airworthiness. Aircraft approved for RVSM operations must 
be maintained under the Continued airworthiness requirements of 
appendix G, section 3 (Operator Authorization).
    Altitude-keeping Performance Monitoring. Part 91 aircraft have 
participated in the altitude-keeping performance monitoring program 
established for RVSM implementation in oceanic operations and have 
demonstrated satisfactory RVSM performance. Aircraft equipped with a 
single RVSM compliant altimeter will participate in the monitoring 
program for domestic RVSM.
    Loss of function and integrity. The single RVSM compliant 
altimeter/second or stand by altimeter installation detailed in the 
proposed Appendix G amendment would meet airworthiness requirements for 
availability and integrity of the RVSM altitude function.

Air Traffic Control Factors Related to RVSM Operations

    RVSM implementation will require that certain air traffic policies 
and procedures be implemented to address issues related to the 
introduction of a reduced vertical separation standard. Policies and 
procedures will be established for the following:
     As discussed previously, unapproved aircraft will be 
allowed to climb or descend through RVSM airspace to operate above or 
below it, traffic permitting.
     Limited accommodation will be made for unapproved aircraft 
conducting air ambulance flights under a ``Lifeguard'' call sign.
     In areas when and where mountain wave is active, ATC will 
establish policies for the use of appropriate separation.
    Wake turbulence events experienced in the past five years of RVSM 
operations have shown wake turbulence at RVSM FL's to be generally 
moderate or less than moderate. FL changes or aircraft lateral path 
offsets have been shown to mitigate the effect of wake turbulence.
    Proposed Amendment to Part 91, Appendix G, Section 5 (Deviation 
Authority Approval). First, the FAA would only grant authority to 
deviate from the requirements of part 91 Sec. 91.706 or the proposed 
Sec. 91.180 in limited circumstances. The FAA may choose not to grant a 
deviation if the operator has elected not to equip its aircraft for 
RVSM operations because the presence of an unapproved aircraft could 
affect traffic flow and increase controller workload. Second, the FAA 
proposes to require the operator to submit an appropriate request in a 
time and manner acceptable to the Administrator, as published in the 
Aeronautical Information Manual and appropriate FAA orders. Section 5 
currently calls for the operator to submit a request at least 48 hours 
in advance. However, several years of RVSM experience has shown that 
air traffic has been able, in certain circumstances, to accommodate the 
operation of unapproved aircraft with less lead-time. The proposed 
wording would allow the FAA to prescribe more appropriate policy when 
warranted by operational circumstances.
    Proposed Amendment to VFR and IFR Cruising Altitudes At and Above 
FL 290. The FAA proposes to revise part 91, Sec. 91.159 (VFR cruising 
altitude or flight level) and Sec. 91.179 (IFR cruising altitude or 
flight level). The proposed revision to Sec. 91.159 would eliminate 
reference to VFR FL's above FL 180. Airspace above FL 180 is 
established as Positive Control Airspace where aircraft must maintain 
the altitude or flight level assigned by ATC.
    The proposed revision to Sec. 91.179 would revise the altitudes or 
FL's that are considered to be appropriate for IFR flight in 
uncontrolled airspace above FL 290 in airspace where RVSM is 
implemented. In accordance with RVSM policy, this revision would 
provide FL's that are separated by 1,000 feet vertically based on the 
direction of flight.

Factors Related to Safety Analysis and Monitoring of Altitude-
keeping Performance in the Pre-and Post Implementation Phases

    Necessity for Monitoring Programs. DRVSM implementation would 
require RVSM standards to be applied to the thousands of aircraft and 
operators that operate above FL 290 in domestic airspace. In order to 
assess the uniform effectiveness of aircraft and operator actions and 
identify adverse trends that may arise, the FAA would establish a DRVSM 
monitoring program similar to those established for oceanic RVSM 
implementation.
    Monitoring Experience. The altitude-keeping performance of RVSM 
approved aircraft has generally been significantly better than the 
minimum required by RVSM standards, however, in the past five years of 
RVSM operations, a few individual airframes and aircraft groups have 
demonstrated altitude-keeping that has not met RVSM standards. A major 
purpose of monitoring is to identify performance that does not meet 
RVSM standards and, when necessary, to ensure that operators and/or 
manufacturers take appropriate corrective actions.
    Justification for Sampling Process and Monitoring After Approval 
Granted. Altitude-keeping performance monitoring began in 1996. Since 
that time, the FAA and other authorities responsible for monitoring 
have obtained approximately 120,000 measurements for appropriately 
6,000 individual airframes and 80 individual

[[Page 31926]]

aircraft types. To date only seven airframes have been observed 
exhibiting performance that exceeded RVSM standards. In addition, 
altimetry system error for the aircraft population as a whole has been 
demonstrated to be significantly better than the minimum standards. 
These results have given the FAA and other authorities confidence in 
RVSM aircraft engineering processes. Based on the monitoring results, 
authorities have adopted the position that monitoring may take the form 
of a sampling of newly approved airframes and, for most aircraft, it 
was not necessary for operators to complete monitoring prior to RVSM 
operating authority being granted.
    Systems Developed to Monitor Aircraft Performance. Two systems have 
been deployed to perform monitoring for RVSM purposes. One is the 
ground-based Height Monitoring Unit (HMU). The other is the GPS-based 
Monitoring Unit (GMU). HMU's are now placed in strategic locations in 
Canada, the UK and Europe so that a large percentage of flights will be 
observed. At least three FAA HMU's will be deployed by the FAA in the 
U.S. for the same purpose. Only aircraft that fly in close proximity to 
the HMU location can be observed.
    To obtain performance measurements with the GMU system, a GMU unit 
is temporarily installed, in accordance with appropriate certification 
documents, on an aircraft for a flight. The unit contain a GPS to 
obtain the geometric height of the aircraft in flight. This data is 
processed after the flight by the FAA Technical Center to obtain 
measurement of ASE, Total Vertical Error (TVE) and Assigned Altitude 
Deviation (AAD).
    Operators have had and will have for DRVSM, the options of 
overflying an HMU at no cost or contracting for service to have the GMU 
installed on the aircraft and data processed.
    Operators have been notified of monitoring program processes and 
procedures in the following formats: letters to State authorities 
issued by ICAO Regional Offices, NOTAMS, FAA and JAA guidance and the 
FAA RVSM website.

Pre-Implementation Programs

    In the 2-3 year period leading to RVSM implementation, operators 
will begin to obtain RVSM airworthiness approval for aircraft that have 
not already been approved for RVSM. During this period, the FAA will 
review aircraft operations with the overall objections of:
    1. Confirming that operators are conducting RVSM operations safely.
    2. Confirming through observation (monitoring) that aircraft 
approved for RVSM operation demonstrate altitude-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. Verifying that operational procedures adopted for RVSM are 
effective and appropriate.
    4. Confirming that the altitude-monitoring program is effective.

Post Implementation Programs

    After DRVSM is implemented, the FAA will continue to:
    1. Collect altitude-keeping performance data relying primarily on 
the ground-based HMU.
    2. Monitor to confirm that safety goals are being met.
    3. Monitor to establish that there are no unresolved adverse trends 
in DRVSM operations.

Conclusion

    The FAA has examined the success of existing RVSM programs, the 
costs and benefits for DRVSM implementation, the measures to be taken 
to protect operational safety, the factors bearing on the 
implementation schedule and implementation scenario and the factors 
related to aircraft and operator approval and air traffic programs. The 
FAA proposes that RVSM should be implemented between FL 290-410 
(inclusive) in December 2004.

Regulatory Impact Analysis Summary

    Executive Order 12866 directs federal agencies to promulgate new 
regulations or modify existing regulations after consideration of the 
expected benefits to society and the expected costs. Each federal 
agency shall assess both the costs and the benefits of proposed 
regulations while recognizing that some costs and benefits are 
difficult to quantify. A proposed rule is promulgated only upon a 
reasoned determination that the benefits of the proposed rule justify 
its costs.
    The order also requires federal agencies to assess whether a 
proposed rule is considered a ``significant regulatory action''. The 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the 
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. The Office of 
Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the effect of 
regulatory changes on international trade. Finally, Public Law 104-4 
requires federal agencies to assess the impact of any federal mandates 
on state, local, tribal governments, and the private sector.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
rule: (1) Generates benefits that justify its costs for the significant 
majority of U.S. operators and is ``a significant regulatory action'' 
as defined in the Executive Order; (2) is significant as defined in 
Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (3) 
does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities; and (4) does not constitute a barrier to international trade. 
These analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.
    This proposal expands Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) 
operations to aircraft operating between FL 290-410 (inclusive) in the 
airspace of the 48 contiguous States of the U.S., Alaska and the FIR's 
in the Gulf of Mexico where the FAA provides air traffic services. The 
benefits of this proposed rulemaking are: (1) An increase in the number 
of available flight levels; (2) enhanced airspace capacity; (3) permits 
operators to operate more fuel/time efficient routes and altitudes; and 
(4) enhanced 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 
$634.0 million for the fifteen-year period 2002-2016 or $539.9 million, 
discounted. For the purposes of this cost analysis, the FAA assumed 
that operators would choose to upgrade all of their aircraft to meet 
RVSM standards. Operators of non-RVSM approved aircraft would, however, 
retain the option of flying above or below RVSM airspace. Benefits 
would begin accruing in December 2004. Estimated benefits, based on 
fuel savings for the commercial aircraft fleet over the years 2004 to 
2018, would be $5.8 billion or discounted at $2.9 billion.
    In addition to fuel savings, many non-quantifiable or value-added 
benefits would result from the implementation of RVSM in domestic U.S. 
airspace. Input from air traffic managers, controllers, and operators 
has identified numerous additional benefits.
    Through implementation of RVSM in the NAT and 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

[[Page 31927]]

     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 period of 
adverse weather.
    The benefits outlined above for RVSM in the NAT and PAC regions ae 
anticipated in domestic U. S. airspace. There should be expected 
efficiencies through reduced airspace complexity, increased flight 
levels, and fewer altitude changes with crossing traffic.
    Operators can also expect enhanced operating efficiency and the 
potential for decreased departure 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 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 U.S. domestic airspace should increase 
user satisfaction. The benefits described in this section are 
compelling in number and operational impact. These benefits are also 
important in that they are enjoyed both by air traffic and aircraft 
operators.

Analysis of Alternatives

    This NPRM is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined by 
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) because 
this NPRM would impose costs exceeding $100 million annually. The E.O. 
requires that agencies promulgating economically significant rules 
provide an assessment of feasible alternatives to their respective 
rulemaking actions. In addition, the E.O. requires that an explanation 
of why the final rule, which is significant, is preferable to the 
identified potential alternatives. The FAA identified and considered 
three alternatives to the proposed rule.

Alternative One--The Status Quo

    The alternative would maintain the 2,000-foot separation above FL 
290 and would avoid the equipment and testing requirements of this 
NPRM, which impose a cost of $634.0 million ($539.9 million, 
discounted) from 2002 to 2004 on the aviation industry and the FAA. But 
maintaining the status quo also means that aviation industry would not 
receive any of the cost-savings afforded by Domestic RVSM.
    As mentioned earlier, the cost-savings afforded by this NPRM are 
estimated to be $5.8 billion ($2.9 billion, discounted) in fuel savings 
over the same period. Since the foregone cost-savings of the 
alternative greatly exceed the avoided NPRM costs, the FAA rejects this 
alternative in favor of the proposed rule.

Alternative Two--Implement Domestic RVSM Without the Equipment and 
Testing Requirements

    This alternative would allow RVSM between FL 290 and FL 410 without 
requiring aircraft system engineering to 14 CFR part 91, appendix G. 
This alternative would allow the aviation industry to receive the 
estimated $5.8 billion ($2.9 billion, discounted) in fuel savings while 
the aviation industry and the FAA avoids the NPRM costs of $634.0 
million ($539.9 million, discounted). Unfortunately, this is not a 
viable alternative due to safety considerations.
    Studies by the FAA and European civil aviation authorities have 
shown that many aircraft that have not been calibrated to the proposed 
RVSM standards exhibit altitude-keeping errors that exceed the 
Standards established for RVSM safety. In these studies, non-RVSM 
calibrated aircraft were observed with errors of up to 700 feet. Under 
RVSM aircraft are allowed to operate with only 1,000 feet vertical 
separation. If non-RVSM calibrated aircraft were allowed to operate 
with only 1,000 feet vertical separation, there could be a 400 foot 
altitude overlap in altitude-keeping errors for two non-RVSM calibrated 
aircraft operating in close proximity to each other. Thus, there is an 
increase risk of midair collisions if non-RVSM calibrated aircraft are 
allowed to operate under RVSM. Sine there are some aviation safety 
concerns with this alternative, this alternative is also rejected in 
favor of the proposed rule.

Alternative Three--Delay Implementation of the RVSM by Seven or 
Eight Years

    This alternative would delay implementation of the proposed rule by 
seven or eight years. This would allow the costs to be spread over a 
longer period of time so that costs in any one-year would be below $100 
million. This would make the proposed rule no longer economically 
significant under E.O. 12866. The cost of this alternative would still 
be the same as the cost of the proposed rule, although the discounted 
costs would be lower than the discounted costs of the proposed rule. 
However, if implementation of the rule is delayed by seven or eight 
years, the estimated cost-savings would be reduced by $2.0 billion or 
$2.4 billion, respectively ($1.5 billion, discounted or $1.8 billion, 
discounted, respectively). This is a considerable amount of cost-
savings to forego in order for the FAA to avoid issuing an economically 
significant rule. For this reason, this alternative is rejected in 
favor of the proposed rule.

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 applicable status, 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 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 a 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.
    Only two small operators were found to have significant costs of 
compliance. This is not a substantial number of small entities that 
would be significantly affected by this proposed rulemaking. Therefore, 
the FAA certifies that this proposed rulemaking does not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA 
requests comments from small operators affected by this rulemaking 
concerning the findings of this regulatory flexibility determination.

International Trade Impact Statement

    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rulemaking and 
has determined that it would impose the

[[Page 31928]]

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

    This proposal contains the following new information collection 
requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Transportation has submitted the 
information requirements associated with this proposal to the Office of 
Management and Budget for its review.
    Title: Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum.
    Summary: This proposal requires aircraft operators seeking 
operational approval to conduct RVSM operations within the 48 
contiguous States of the United States (U.S.), Alaska and that portion 
of the Gulf of Mexico where the FAA provides air traffic services to 
submit application to their Certificate-Holding District Office (CHDO).
    Use of: This proposal would support the information needs of the 
operator's CHDO as they register RVSM approved airframes in the FAA 
RVSM Approvals Database. When operators complete airworthiness, 
continued airworthiness and operations program requirements, the CHDO 
grants operational approval.
    Respondents: The 2,275 likely respondents to this proposed 
information requirement are scheduled and non-scheduled commercial air 
carriers, and corporations or individuals operating RVSM-capable 
aircraft.
    Frequency: The FAA estimates that this proposed information 
requirement would be a one-time submission of application for 
operational approval. Thus, the frequency of an annual requirement is 
zero.
    Annual Burden Estimate: This proposal would result in a one-time 
recordkeeping and reporting burden. The proposed rule, while imposing 
additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements on those operators, 
would have the following impacts:
     The estimated preparation time for an operator to complete 
and submit an application for operational approval to their CHDO would 
be 16 hours.
     All pilots would need to be trained to ensure familiarity 
with RVSM operations. Each organization would have a navigation 
specialist prepare a document. The FAA anticipates that it would take 
this specialist approximately 14 hours to prepare the document; and
     Each pilot would have to receive a copy of the 4-page 
training document. To be conservative, the FAA is assuming that each 
pilot's document has been photostated. Each organization would need to 
spend 30 hours on paperwork at a cost of approximately $950 each. The 
total hours and costs sum to 68,250 hours and $2,147,052.40.
    The FAA estimates that aircraft upgrade costs for this proposed 
rule would cost U.S. operators $578.3 million. While it is impossible 
to accurately isolate the equipment costs associated with these upgrade 
costs, the FAA estimates that approximately 50% or $289.2 million of 
the upgrade costs will be due to equipment costs. In addition, all 
aircraft equipped with TCAS version 6.04 would be required to upgrade 
to TCAS II Version 7.0 at a cost of $45.6 million. The total equipment 
costs for this proposed rule are estimated at $334.8 million.
    The regulation will increase paperwork for the Federal government:
    The FAA assumes that it would take either an avionics inspector or 
an operations inspector 8 hours to process each applicant submission. 
The time and cost to the Federal government for processing 2,275 
application packages is 18,200 and $981,162.00.
    The FAA is soliciting comments to--(1) Evaluate whether the 
proposed information requirement is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the 
information will have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of 
the agency's estimate of the burden; (3) enhance the quality, utility, 
and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the 
burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, 
including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, 
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms 
of information technology.
    Individuals and organizations may submit comments on the 
information collection requirement by July 9, 2002, and should direct 
them to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
    According to the regulations implementing the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not conduct or 
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
The OMB control number for this information collection will be 
published in the Federal Register, after the Office of Management and 
Budget approves it.

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 
Requirements

    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 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.

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.

[[Page 31929]]

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 record-keeping 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 (14 CFR Part 91) 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, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528,-47531, 
articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation 
(61 stat. 1180).
* * * * *

Subpart B--Flight Rules

    1. Amend Sec. 91.159 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows 
and by removing paragraph (c):
* * * * *


Sec. 91.159  VFR cruising altitude or flight level.

* * * * *
    (b) When operating above 18,000 feet MSL, maintain the altitude or 
flight level assigned by ATC.
* * * * *
    2. Amend Sec. 91.179 by revising paragraph (b)(3), introductory 
text, and adding a new paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:


Sec. 91.179  IFR cruising altitude or flight level.

* * * * *
    (b) In uncontrolled airspace. * * *
    (3) When operating at flight level 290 and above in non-RVSM 
airspace, and--
* * * * *
    (4) When operating at flight level 290 and above in airspace 
designated as Reduced Vertical Separate Minimum (RVSM) airspace and--
    (i) On a magnetic course of zero degrees through 179 degrees, any 
odd flight level, at 2,000-foot intervals beginning at and including 
flight level 290 (such as flight level 290, 310, 330, 350, 370, 390, 
410); or
    (ii) On a magnetic course of 180 degrees through 359 degrees, any 
even flight level, at 2000-foot intervals beginning at and including 
flight level 300 (such as 300, 320, 340, 360, 380 or 400).
    3. Add section 91.180 to subpart B to read as follows:
* * * * *


Sec. 91.180  Operations within airspace designated as Reduced Vertical 
Separation Minimum airspace.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person 
may operate a civil aircraft in airspace designated as Reduced Vertical 
Separation Minimum (RVSM) airspace unless:
    (1) The operator and the operator's aircraft comply with the 
minimum standards of appendix G of this part; and
    (2) The operator is authorized by the Administrator of the country 
of registry to conduct such operations.
    (b) The Administrator may authorize a deveration from the 
requirements of this section.
    4. Amend Appendix G as follows:
    a. Amend Section 2 by revising paragraph (c)(1) and paragraph (h) 
and adding a new paragraph (i).
    b. Amend Section 5 by revising the introductory text; redesignating 
paragraph (2) as paragraph (a) and by revising newly redesignated (a);
    c. Amend Section 8 by adding new paragraphs (d) and (e).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Appendix G To Part 91--Operations in Reduced Vertical Separation 
Minimum (RVSM) Airspace

Section 2. Aircraft Approval

* * * * *
    (c) Altitude-keeping equipment: All aircraft. * * *
    (1) The aircraft must be equipped with two operational 
independent altitude measurement systems that meet the requirements 
of paragraphs (d), (e) or (f), as appropriate, unless the aircraft 
is approved and operated in accordance with the provisions of 
paragraph (h) of this section.
* * * * *
    (h) Turbo-propeller Aircraft Operated Under Part 91 Equipped 
With a Single RVSM Compliant Altitude Measurement System. Such 
aircraft will be considered eligible for RVSM operations conducted 
under part 91 within the airspace of the U.S. and within the 
airspace of foreign countries that authorize such a provision, 
provided that:
    (1) Altimeters are installed in the aircraft in accordance with 
the provisions of part 23 or part 25, as appropriate; and
    (2) The Administrator finds that at least one of the installed 
altitude measurement systems meets the standards for altimetry 
system error containment detailed in paragraphs (d), (e), or (f), as 
appropriate, of this section; and
    (3) A second altitude measurement system is installed and the 
pilot provided with a means (such as correction cards) to correct 
for the inaccuracy in that altimeter when operating in RVSM 
airspace; and
    (4) Procedures are established for pilots to:
    (1) Use the appropriate means (e.g., correction cards), after 
initial level off, to compare the accuracy of the RVSM compliant 
altitude measurement system to the second system; and
    (ii) Report as soon as practical to ATC any malfunction of the 
installed RVSM compliant altimeter occurring in flight that would 
prevent the aircraft from maintaining altitude to the degree of 
accuracy required for RVSM operations.
    (i) If the Administrator finds that the applicant's aircraft 
complies with this section, the Administrator will notify the 
applicant in writing.
* * * * *

Section 5. Deviation Authority Approval

    The Administrator may authorize an aircraft operator to deviate 
from the requirements of Sec. 91.180 or 91.706 for a specific flight 
in RVSM airspace if that operator has not been approved in 
accordance with Section 3 of this appendix if:
    (a) The operator submits a request in a time and manner 
acceptable to the Administrator; and
* * * * *

Section 8. Airspace Designation

* * * * *
    (d) RVSM in the United States. (1) RVSM may be applied in the 
airspace of the 48 contiguous states and Alaska, including that 
airspace overlying the waters within 12 nautical miles of the coast.
    (e) RVSM in the Gulf of Mexico. (1) RVSM may be applied in the 
Gulf of Mexico in the following areas: Houston Oceanic ICAO FIR, 
Miami Oceanic ICAO FIR, and the Jacksonville Offshore Airspace.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2002.
James J. Ballough,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 02-11704 Filed 5-7-02; 12:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M