[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9818-9822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-4765]



[[Page 9817]]

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

Part VI





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 91



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 40 / Friday, February 28, 2003 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 9818]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2002-12261; Notice No. 03-04]
RIN 2120-AH68


Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum in Domestic United States 
Airspace

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is supplementing the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) on Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum in Domestic United States 
Airspace (DRVSM) that was published in the Federal Register on May 10, 
2002 (67 FR 31920). The FAA is adding a proposal to implement Reduced 
Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) between flight levels (FL) 290-410 
in Atlantic High and Gulf of Mexico High Offshore airspace and in the 
San Juan Flight Information Region (FIR). This addition to the proposal 
better defines RVSM airspace off the eastern and southern coasts of the 
United States (U.S.) and harmonizes RVSM operations off the east coast 
of the U.S. between adjoining airspaces in the domestic U.S., Atlantic 
High Offshore, and the New York Oceanic FIR. The FAA also proposes to 
remove the proposed option that would have permitted part 91 turbo-
propeller aircraft to operate in DRVSM airspace with a single RVSM 
compliant altimeter.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 14, 2003.

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-
2002-12261 at the beginning of your comments, and you should submit two 
copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that the 
FAA (we) 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 
a.m. and 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: Robert Swain, Flight Technologies and 
Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, AFS-400, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20591, telephone (202) 385-4576.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite 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 us to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this 
proposal, please 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 documents related to this or any 
rulemaking through the 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. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 5, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.
    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.

Summary of the NPRM Published on May 10, 2002

    The NPRM published on May 10, 2002, proposed to implement Reduced 
Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) between flight levels 290-410 over 
the contiguous U.S. and Alaska and the portion of the Gulf of Mexico 
where the FAA provides air traffic services. RVSM allows 1,000 feet of 
vertical separation between aircraft operating between FL 290-410. The 
FAA would only apply reduced vertical separation minimum between 
aircraft that meet stringent altimeter and auto-pilot performance 
requirements. We proposed the action to assist aircraft operators to 
save fuel and time, to enhance air traffic control flexibility and to 
provide the potential for enhanced airspace capacity.

Summary of Proposed Changes to the NPRM

    We are proposing some changes to the NPRM. First, we propose to add 
Gulf of Mexico High and Atlantic High Offshore Airspace to the list of 
potential RVSM airspace published in part 91, Appendix G, section 8 
(Airspace Designation). Second, in response to a comment made by the 
Air Transport Association, in the same timeframe as domestic U.S. 
implementation, we propose to implement RVSM between FL 290-410

[[Page 9819]]

in the San Juan FIR and in the airspace corridor between Florida and 
the San Juan FIR. Third, we propose to remove the proposal that would 
have allowed part 91 turbo-propeller aircraft to operate in RVSM 
airspace with a single RVSM compliant altimeter. The part 91 proposal 
received opposition from pilot organizations and civil aviation 
authorities of other countries, including countries with airspace 
adjoining the U.S.

Proposal To List Atlantic High and Gulf of Mexico High Offshore 
Airspace

    Listing these airspaces would better define the offshore and 
oceanic airspaces off the eastern and southern coasts of the U.S. where 
we propose to implement RVSM. Certain airspace beyond 12 miles of the 
eastern and southern coasts of the U.S. is designated in FAA Order 
7400.9 (Airspace Designations and Reporting Points) as Atlantic High 
and Gulf of Mexico High Offshore Airspace. This area includes airspace 
between Florida and the San Juan FIR. FAA Order 7400.9 contains a 
complete description of the horizontal boundaries of this airspace. We 
have published a chart showing the boundaries of Offshore and Oceanic 
airspace off the eastern and southern coasts of the U.S. in the docket 
at http://dms.dot.gov, docket number FAA-2002-12261.
    Listing Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico High Offshore Airspace in part 
91, Appendix G, with oceanic airspace completes the list of airspace 
off the eastern and southern coasts of the U.S. where we may implement 
RVSM.

Proposal To Add the Airspace Between Florida and Puerto Rico and the 
San Juan FIR to the Implementation Plan

    The NPRM that we published on May 10, 2002, proposed to implement 
RVSM in Miami Oceanic FIR airspace over the Gulf of Mexico. In comments 
on the NPRM, the Air Transport Association (ATA) suggested including 
``* * *the San Juan and Miami FIR's in their entirety * * *'' in the 
list of airspace where RVSM is proposed to be implemented. We believe 
that this proposal has merit and can be accomplished by listing 
Atlantic High Offshore Airspace and the San Juan FIR in part 91, 
Appendix G, section 8 (Airspace Designation). As noted previously, 
Atlantic High Offshore Airspace includes a corridor of airspace between 
Florida and the San Juan FIR. This corridor is bounded in the north by 
RVSM airspace in the New York Oceanic FIR and in the south by the 
Havana, Santa Domingo and Port-au-Prince FIR's.
    A primary objective of this action is to implement RVSM in the 
airspaces discussed above at the same time that we implemented it in 
the domestic U.S. We believe that this will have the following 
benefits:
    (1) It harmonizes RVSM operations between RVSM airspace implemented 
in 2001 in the New York Oceanic FIR and RVSM airspace proposed over the 
State of Florida as part of the domestic U.S. RVSM proposal.
    (2) It harmonizes RVSM operations for traffic operating north and 
south between the San Juan and New York Oceanic FIR.
    (3) It reduces the complexity of operations and improves safety by 
providing a common vertical separation standard and flight level 
orientation scheme for the New York Oceanic FIR, Atlantic High Offshore 
Airspace, the San Juan FIR and the domestic U.S.
    (4) It improves the flow of traffic between Florida and the San 
Juan FIR by making six more flight levels available.
    (5) It provides the potential for harmonizing RVSM operations with 
the Air Traffic Service Providers in the Caribbean when RVSM is 
implemented in that area.
    (6) It makes all the benefits of RVSM cited in the NPRM available 
in these airspaces. This benefit includes increased controller 
flexibility, reduction of controller workload, and enhanced flexibility 
to enable aircraft to cross intersecting routes.

Effect on Operators

    We do not believe that this proposal would require a significant 
number of operators that had not already obtained or planned to obtain 
RVSM authority to do so. We have examined the aircraft types and 
operators that fly in the San Juan FIR and in the airspace between 
Puerto Rico and Miami. We have found that all of the flights operating 
between FL 290-410 in the airspace are flown to or from destinations in 
the U.S., Canada and Europe.
    To operate on the routes to or from airports in the U.S. northeast, 
mid-Atlantic and Canada, operators have already been required to obtain 
RVSM approval to fly through RVSM airspace in the New York Oceanic FIR. 
To operate to or from airports in Europe, operators have already been 
required to obtain RVSM approval to operate in RVSM airspace in the 
North Atlantic and Europe. In addition, the NPRM proposed to implement 
RVSM in domestic U.S. airspace. Aircraft operating to or from 
destinations in the domestic U.S. would be required by that proposal to 
comply with RVSM standards.
    We believe this proposal has a minimal financial impact on U.S. 
operators, as it would not affect any beyond those identified in the 
NPRM. We request your comments regarding financial impact on any 
operators not identified in the NPRM.

Withdrawal of the Proposal To Permit a Single RVSM-Compliant Altimeter

    The RVSM standards for aircraft approval are published in 14 CFR 
part 91, Appendix G, section 2. Section 2 calls for the aircraft to be 
equipped with two independent altitude measurement systems. In the 
NPRM, we proposed that turbo-propeller aircraft operated under part 91 
that were equipped with a single RVSM-compliant altitude measurement 
system and all other RVSM required aircraft systems could be considered 
eligible to conduct RVSM operations within the U.S. airspace and the 
airspace of foreign countries that authorize such a provision.
    In making the proposal, we recognized that the precedence in the 
first five years of RVSM operations was for RVSM-compliant aircraft to 
be equipped with two altimetry systems. Both FAA regulations and other 
civil aviation authorities worldwide followed this precedence. We 
noted, however, that the 1992 Edition 1 of the International Civil 
Aviation Authority (ICAO) Manual on RVSM (ICAO Document 9574) contained 
provision for small aircraft to be equipped with a single RVSM-
compliant altimetry system and elected to make the NPRM proposal.
    We propose to withdraw the proposal to allow turbo-propeller 
aircraft operated under part 91 and equipped with a single RVSM-
compliant altimeter to conduct RVSM operations within the U.S. and 
foreign countries adopting that provision. We now conclude that the 
benefit is not significant enough to warrant changing the RVSM aircraft 
equipage standard that the FAA and other world authorities have applied 
for the past five years. We considered the following factors:
    First, turbo-propeller aircraft represent a very low percentage of 
the traffic that operates at FLs where RVSM would be applied, that is, 
between FLs 290 and 410. Turbo-propeller aircraft operated under part 
91 represent an even less significant percentage of traffic at those 
flight levels. Turbo-propeller aircraft were found to conduct only 0.4 
percent of operations between FLS 290 and 410. Turbo-propeller aircraft 
operated under part 91 are estimated to conduct only 0.3 percent of 
operations

[[Page 9820]]

in the airspace where RVSM will be applied.
    The majority of turbo-prop aircraft do not normally operate at or 
above FL 290, due to performance or design limitations. Operators would 
most likely avoid RVSM upgrade costs and continue to operate below FL 
290. Costs and benefits to turbo-prop operators, therefore were not a 
factor in the benefit/cost analysis. The vast majority of turbo-
propeller aircraft already operate below the floor of RVSM airspace, FL 
290, and would retain the option to do so if we implement domestic 
RVSM.
    Second, neither Canada nor Mexico has elected to pursue this 
proposal for their airspace. U.S. operators are required by 14 CFR part 
91, Sec.  91.703 to comply with the regulations in force in foreign 
countries related to aircraft flight. U.S. operators, therefore, would 
not be allowed to file a flight plan or accept ATC vectors that would 
place them in Canadian or Mexican airspace. This would add unnecessary 
complications to air traffic control in the airspace that borders 
neighboring countries.
    Third, during the comment period, we received comments from other 
civil aviation authorities and pilot associations advocating that we 
retain a single standard for RVSM aircraft equipage. They noted that 
the FAA and world standard for aircraft equipage for the past five 
years has been for RVSM aircraft to be equipped with two compliant 
altimeters. They also noted that the Edition 2 (2002) of ICAO Doc 9574 
distributed in spring 2002 does not retain the single RVSM compliant 
altimeter provision provided in Edition 1.
    We believe that in the interest of harmonization and 
standardization of policy and procedures with neighboring states and 
civil aviation authorities worldwide, we should withdraw the proposal 
to allow single RVSM compliant altimeter equipped aircraft to conduct 
RVSM operations within the United States. We have concluded that the 
potential benefit is not significant enough to warrant revising a 
standard that has been applied worldwide for the past five years.

Economic Summary

    We expect domestic RVSM to produce efficiency benefits for aircraft 
operators who fly at altitudes from FL 290 through 400. The NPRM for 
domestic RVSM proposed to require dual altimeters for all aircraft 
except turbo-propeller aircraft. Canada and Mexico do not permit an 
exemption from the dual altimeter requirement for turbo-propeller 
aircraft. Some civil aviation authorities have expressed concern that 
the proposal in the NPRM is incompatible with Canadian, Mexican, and 
international standards for RVSM. We have agreed to withdraw the 
proposal to exempt turbo-propeller aircraft from the dual altimeter 
requirement. Though this would affect a relatively small number of 
operators, our decision to require dual altimeters for all aircraft is 
necessary to achieve the overall benefits attributed to domestic RVSM. 
U.S. aircraft flying in domestic U.S. RVSM airspace without dual 
altimeters would not be able to continue at RVSM flight levels on 
entering Canada or Mexico and would therefore lose the benefits of 
flying at more efficient altitudes.
    We have examined the potential aircraft upgrade costs associated 
with a dual altimeter requirement for turbo-propeller aircraft to fly 
in RVSM airspace under part 91 and find the cost to average $140,000 
per turbo-propeller aircraft. Flights by turboprop aircraft at (FL) 
290-410 and above account for only 0.4 percent of all flights, only 0.1 
percent of which are other than part 91 flight. This suggests that, 
though there may be a large number of turbo-propeller aircraft subject 
to this rule, few of those aircraft fly at FL 290-410 regularly. We 
also believe that only a small percentage of those affected operators 
will find it economical to upgrade their aircraft for RVSM. Those that 
choose to upgrade would do so because the fuel savings that they would 
receive regularly from flying at their optimal altitude would pay for 
the cost of these upgrades. In the economic analysis for the final rule 
for DRVSM, we have calculated, for the industry as a whole, the cost 
savings exceeded the upgrade cost by a factor of 6. You can find the 
analysis for the final rule to Domestic RVSM in the docket on the 
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, docket number FAA-2002-12261. We 
believe that those operators that would upgrade their aircraft are not 
small entities and would not be significantly impacted in an adverse 
way should they elect to upgrade their aircraft for this requirement.
    The FAA recognizes that these upgrade costs could have a 
significant impact on small operators, but the FAA believes that most 
small operators would choose not to upgrade. For small operators, the 
fuel savings associated with flying in FL 290-410 would not exceed the 
cost of the equipment upgrade. The operational penalties associated 
with not upgrading or delaying aircraft upgrade plans would not prevent 
the operators from continuing to operate. Small operators that elect 
not to upgrade or delay their aircraft upgrade plans would incur on 
average a 6 percent fuel penalty from conducting operations beneath 
FL290. We do not believe these operators would fly in RVSM airspace 
often enough or long enough to incur a significant fuel penalty cost if 
they choose to fly below RVSM airspace. We request comments on this 
determination.
    Adding Gulf of Mexico High and Atlantic High Offshore Airspace and 
airspace between Florida and Puerto Rico and the San Juan FIR benefits 
operators by implementing RVSM in all U.S. domestic airspace. This 
allows operators who are authorized to fly in RVSM airspace to achieve 
the full benefits of flying at efficient altitudes.

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 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.
    As flights by turboprop aircraft at FL 290-410 and above account 
for only 0.3 percent of all flights, we believe that only a small 
percentage of those affected operators will upgrade their aircraft for 
RVSM. These upgrade costs are estimated to be $140,000 per aircraft. We 
believe that those operators that upgrade their aircraft are not small 
entities.

[[Page 9821]]

    The FAA recognizes that these upgrade costs could have a 
significant impact on small operators, but the FAA believes that most 
small operators would choose not to upgrade. For small operators, the 
fuel savings associated with flying at FL 290-410 would not exceed the 
cost of the equipment upgrade. The operational penalties associated 
with not upgrading or delaying aircraft upgrade plans would not prevent 
the operators from continuing to operate. Small operators that elect 
not to upgrade or delay their aircraft upgrade plans would incur on 
average a 6% fuel penalty from conducting operations beneath FL290. We 
do not believe these operators would fly in RVSM airspace often enough 
or long enough to incur a significant fuel penalty cost if they choose 
to fly below RVSM airspace. We request comments on this determination.
    We have determined that the proposed airspace expansion to 
implement RVSM between FL 290-410 in Atlantic High and Gulf of Mexico 
High Offshore airspace and in the San Juan Flight Information Region 
(FIR) would have no cost to U.S. operators beyond those identified in 
the NPRM.
    We therefore conclude that a substantial number of small entity 
operators would not be significantly affected by the proposals 
contained in this SNPRM. We request comments on this Regulatory 
Flexibility Determination.

International Trade Impact Statement

    We have assessed the potential effect of this rulemaking and have 
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, we have determined that this 
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
section 3507(d)), there are no requirements for information collection 
associated with this proposed rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Assessment

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 2 U.S.C. 1501-
1571, 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 
(SARPs) to maximum extent practicable. The FAA and the JAA jointly 
developed the operator and aircraft approval process under the auspices 
of the North Atlantic System Planning Group. We have determined that 
this amendment would 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. We propose 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). We have determined that 
this proposed rule is not a major regulatory action under the 
provisions of the EPCA.

Plain Language

    In response to the June 1, 1998, Presidential Memorandum regarding 
the use of plain language, the FAA re-examined the writing style 
currently used in the development of regulations. The memorandum 
requires federal agencies to communicate clearly with the public. We 
are interested in your comments on whether the style of this document 
is clear, and in any other suggestions you might have to improve the 
clarity of FAA communications that affect you. You can get more 
information about the Presidential memorandum and the plain language 
initiative at http://www.plainlanguage.gov.
    For the convenience of the reader, the entire proposal (NPRM as 
modified by the SNPRM) has been published.

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 (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 section 91.159 by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows and by deleting 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 section 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.
* * * * *

[[Page 9822]]

    (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 Separation 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, 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 deviation from the 
requirements of this section.
    4. In Appendix G, amend section 5 by revising the introductory 
text; redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (a) and by revising 
newly redesignated (a); and amend section 8 by adding new paragraphs 
(d), (e), and (f) to read as follows:

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

* * * * *

Section 5. Deviation Authority Approval

    The Administrator may authorize an aircraft operator to deviate 
from the requirements of Sec.  91.180 or Sec.  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
    (b) * * *
* * * * *

Section 8. Airspace Designation

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 21, 2003.
James J. Ballough,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 03-4765 Filed 2-27-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P