[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 207 (Monday, October 27, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61304-61321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-27028]



[[Page 61303]]

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

Part V





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Parts 11 and 91



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 2003 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 61304]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 11 and 91

[Docket No. FAA-2002-12261; Amendment Nos. 11-49 and 91-276]
RIN 2120-AH68


Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum in Domestic United States 
Airspace

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule permits the initiation of Reduced Vertical 
Separation Minimum (RVSM) flights in the airspace over the contiguous 
48 States of the United States, the District of Columbia, Alaska, that 
portion of the Gulf of Mexico where the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA) provides air traffic services, the San Juan Flight Information 
Region (FIR), and the airspace between Florida and the San Juan FIR. 
The RVSM program allows the use of 1,000-foot vertical separation at 
certain altitudes between aircraft that meet stringent altimeter and 
autopilot performance requirements. This rule also requires 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 software that is compatible with RVSM operations. 
The FAA is taking this action to assist aircraft operators to save fuel 
and time, to enhance air traffic control flexibility, and to enhance 
airspace capacity.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective November 26, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Swain, Flight Technologies and 
Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, AFS-400, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC 
20591, telephone (202) 385-4576.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of this document and of a chart 
showing the affected airspace 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 five digits of the Docket 
number shown at the beginning of this document. 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 Government Printing Office'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.

The Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) Program

    The term ``flight level'' (FL) describes a surface of constant 
atmospheric pressure related to a reference datum of 29.92 inches of 
mercury. Flight levels are stated in three digits that represent 
thousands of feet. 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 inches of mercury datum; FL 310 represents 31,000 feet, and 
so on.
    The RVSM program allows the vertical separation standard that is 
applied below FL 290 to be applied between FL 290 and FL 410. Below FL 
290, air traffic controllers can assign Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) 
aircraft to flight levels that are separated by 1,000 feet. Above FL 
290, however, unless RVSM standards are implemented, the vertical 
separation minimum is 2,000 feet and IFR aircraft must be assigned to 
flight levels separated by 2,000 feet.
    The 2,000-foot minimum vertical separation restricts the number of 
flight levels available above FL 290. During peak periods, these flight 
levels can become congested. When all RVSM flight levels (FL 290-410) 
are utilized, six additional flight levels are available: FL 300, 320, 
340, 360, 380, and 400. Increasing the number of flight levels 
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 control).

Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Published on May 
10, 2002, and the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) 
Published on February 28, 2003

    The NPRM published on May 10, 2002 (67 FR 31920) proposed to 
implement RVSM from FL 290 through FL 410 over the contiguous U.S. and 
Alaska, and the portion of the Gulf of Mexico where the FAA provides 
air traffic services. This reduced vertical separation minimum would 
only be applied between those aircraft that meet stringent altimeter 
and autopilot performance requirements. The FAA (``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. The NPRM outlined the FAA plan during the 
pre- and post implementation phases to monitor the program to ensure 
that RVSM safety standards are maintained and that aircraft altitude-
keeping performance meets RVSM standards.
    We subsequently revised the proposal in an SNPRM published on 
February 28, 2003 (68 FR 9818). We added a proposal to implement RVSM 
from FL 290 through FL 410 in Atlantic High Offshore airspace, Gulf of 
Mexico High Offshore airspace, and in the San Juan Flight Information 
Region (FIR). This supplement to the NPRM proposed to better define 
RVSM airspace off the eastern and southern coasts of the United States 
and harmonize RVSM airspace 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. We also proposed to remove the proposal in 
the NPRM that would have permitted part 91 turbo-propeller aircraft to 
operate in domestic RVSM airspace with a single RVSM compliant 
altimeter.
    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 aircraft operating efficiency. 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. The RVSM program has also been implemented in the continental 
airspace of Australia and Europe.

[[Page 61305]]

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

    Approximately 38 percent of flights in U.S. airspace are already 
conducted by aircraft that have been approved for RVSM operations. 
Approximately 5,400 aircraft of U.S. registry have 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.

Existing and New Regulations: Criteria for Aircraft and Operator 
Approval

    Part 91, Section 91.706 (Operations within airspace designed 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. The 
objective of this rulemaking is to add Section 91.180 (Operations 
Within Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace in the United 
States) and amend Part 91 Appendix G Section 8 (Airspace Designation) 
so that part 91 Appendix G standards can be applied within the domestic 
U.S and the other airspaces being added to Appendix G, Section 8.

Domestic RVSM Implementation Plan

    We have selected January 20, 2005, as the target date to implement 
RVSM between FL 290 and FL 410 in the airspace described in this 
rulemaking. When RVSM is implemented, to fly in RVSM airspace civil 
operators and aircraft must comply with the RVSM standards of part 91 
with only limited exceptions.
    In accordance with part 91, Appendix G, Section 5 (Deviation 
Authority Approval), the FAA may accommodate the following noncompliant 
operators in RVSM airspace:
    [sbull] The FAA may accommodate unapproved aircraft conducting air 
ambulance flights using a Lifeguard call sign as described in the 
Aeronautical Information Manual.
    [sbull] In accordance with the FAA/Department of Defense (DoD) 
Memorandum of Understanding, the FAA may accommodate unapproved DoD 
aircraft.
    [sbull] Unapproved aircraft may be allowed to climb through RVSM 
flight levels without intermediate level off to operate above RVSM 
airspace at FL 430 and above, traffic permitting and
    [sbull] After coordination and consultation provided for in 
Appendix G, Section 5, the FAA may accommodate flights conducted for 
aircraft certification and development and customer acceptance 
purposes.
    When such aircraft operate in RVSM airspace, their lack of RVSM 
approval status will be displayed to FAA controllers and the 
controllers will apply a 2,000-foot vertical or the appropriate lateral 
or longitudinal separation standard.

Safety

    Since its initial implementation in the North Atlantic in March 
1997, RVSM has proven to be safe in both oceanic and continental 
operations. To date approximately 10 million flights representing 19 
million flight hours have been conducted safely in RVSM airspace 
worldwide.
    FAA personnel will apply the experience they have gained in safely 
implementing RVSM in other areas to the domestic U.S. implementation 
program. To date, they have served as implementation program managers 
in three major oceanic areas and have played significant leadership 
roles in developing and implementing standards and programs under which 
RVSM could be implemented safely.
    In preparation for RVSM implementation in the domestic U.S., FAA 
Flight Standards and Air Traffic specialists and safety analysts have 
reviewed the elements contributing to RVSM safety. They concluded that 
U.S. RVSM operations will meet the level of safety endorsed by the 
International Civil Aviation Organization and adopted in other regions 
in the world. In addition, in the period leading up to implementation 
and during the post-implementation period, they will continue to 
evaluate the elements of RVSM safety against the accepted level of 
safety.

Exploration of Tactical RVSM

    We explored allowing controllers to apply ``tactical RVSM'' prior 
to the target RVSM implementation date. We have decided not to pursue 
this initiative. It has been found to present unacceptable difficulties 
related to scheduling and completing document updates and controller 
and pilot training. Application of tactical RVSM would have allowed 
controllers to use 1,000-foot vertical separation between FL 290 and FL 
410 prior to the target implementation date, at the controller's 
discretion, if both passing aircraft were RVSM approved.

Specific Airspace Issues

    Coordination with Mexico and Canada. We are coordinating RVSM 
implementation plans with the civil aviation authorities of Canada and 
Mexico. RVSM was implemented in Northern Canadian Domestic airspace in 
April 2002, and Canada is planning to implement RVSM in Canadian 
Southern Domestic airspace at the time that it is implemented in the 
U.S.
    Gulf of Mexico, San Juan FIR and Florida-San Juan FIR Airspace. The 
airspace in the Gulf of Mexico, the San Juan FIR, and the airspace 
between the San Juan FIR and Florida have been included in this final 
rule. Inclusion of this airspace in the final rule allows the FAA to 
harmonize operations between RVSM airspace in the domestic U.S., RVSM 
airspace already established in the New York Oceanic FIR and the San 
Juan FIR.
    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 and FL 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.
    TCAS II Version 7.0 Requirement. A significant majority of the 
aircraft that operate in the domestic U.S. at and above FL 290 are 
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. These requirements were revised in a final rule 
published in April 2003 and are discussed in detail in the TCAS section 
of the Discussion of Comments. Approximately 85% of domestic operations 
above FL 290 are conducted by large jet aircraft operating under parts 
121, 129, or 135. An FAA Airworthiness Directive published in 1994 
mandates TCAS II, Version 6.04a, for all 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 on December 10, 2001 (66 FR 
63888). Version 7.0 incorporates Traffic Alert and Resolution Advisory 
thresholds that mitigate unnecessary

[[Page 61306]]

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.
    Eligibility of Turbo-propeller Aircraft Operated Under Part 91 and 
Equipped with a Single RVSM Compliant Altimeter. In the NPRM, we 
proposed operational and airworthiness criteria for turbo-propeller 
aircraft operated under part 91 to conduct RVSM operations when 
equipped with a single RVSM compliant altimeter. In the SNPRM, we 
proposed withdrawing this option. After considering the SNPRM comments, 
we have not adopted the provision in this final rule. For the past six 
years, standards applied worldwide have called for aircraft to be 
equipped with two RVSM compliant altimeters. We have concluded that 
different criteria for turbo-propeller aircraft operated under part 91 
to conduct RVSM operations should not be adopted. We have determined 
that adopting this provision would add unnecessary complications to air 
traffic control in the airspace that borders Canada and Mexico. Those 
countries have informed us that they will not adopt the provision. We 
also believe that it is in the best interests of U.S. operators and 
manufacturers to harmonize with global RVSM standards unless there is 
adequate justification for a difference. Since the proposal would 
affect only 0.3 percent of domestic operations, we have concluded that 
the minor benefit provided is not warranted when considering the major 
benefits provided by sharing common standards for RVSM operations and 
air traffic control with neighboring countries and of continued 
harmonization with global RVSM standards.
    Amendment to VFR and IFR Cruising Altitudes At and Above FL 290. 
This rule revises part 91, Section 91.159 (VFR cruising altitude or 
flight level) and Section 91.179 (IFR cruising altitude or flight 
level). The revision to Section 91.159 eliminates reference to VFR 
flight levels 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 revision to Section 91.179 revises the altitudes or flight 
levels 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 regulations, this revision will 
provide flight levels that are separated by 1,000 feet vertically based 
on the direction of flight.
    Revision to Deviation Authority Requirements. The rule revises part 
91 Appendix G, Section 5 (Deviation Authority Approval). The revision 
deletes the requirement to submit requests 48 hours in advance in order 
to operate non-compliant aircraft under a deviation. The revision calls 
for the request to be submitted in a time and manner acceptable to the 
FAA. This revision allows us to publish in the Aeronautical Information 
Manual and appropriate FAA orders procedures and processes that are 
acceptable in different scenarios and circumstances. We intend to grant 
deviation authority only in limited circumstances because the presence 
of unapproved aircraft could affect traffic flow and increase 
controller workload.

Discussion of Comments

    We received 79 comments during the NPRM comment period (67 FR 
31920, May 10, 2002) and eight comments during the SNPRM comment period 
(68 FR 9818, February 28, 2003). The FAA response to comments received 
on both the NPRM and the SNPRM are provided in the discussion of 
comments below. During the SNPRM comment period, comments were received 
from Boeing and Viking Transport. Neither of these comments addressed 
the two specific issues raised in the SNPRM. Both addressed issues only 
in the underlying NPRM. The issues in these two comments were 
considered with similar comments received during the original NPRM 
period.
    Some comments supported the proposed domestic RVSM program and 
implementation date. Included in the organizations that provided 
comments supporting the proposal or supporting with minor comments were 
the Air Transport Association (ATA), United Airlines, American 
Airlines, Federal Express, American Trans Air, The Boeing Company, 
Cessna Aircraft Company, the Department of Defense, the Air Traffic 
Control Association (ATCA), and the Port Authority of New York and New 
Jersey.
    Some comments requested major changes in the domestic RVSM 
implementation program or expressed reservations. Many of these 
proposed to delay implementing RVSM for a year or more or to implement 
RVSM in vertical or geographical phases. Organizations making these 
proposals included the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), 
the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), the Aircraft 
Electronics Association (AEA), and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
Association (AOPA).
    Some commenters expressed opposition to implementing RVSM in the 
United States. These included a number of small operators.
    Some commenters provided comments that expressed concerns about 
safety or what we would require operators to do before they could 
operate in RVSM airspace. These included organizations such as the 
Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), the Allied Pilots Association (APA), 
and the Coalition of Airline Pilots Association (CAPA).
    No SNPRM commenters opposed adding Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic High 
Offshore and San Juan FIR airspace to the list of RVSM airspaces 
published in part 91, Appendix G, Section 8.
    Most SNPRM comments supported the SNPRM proposal to withdraw the 
proposal made in the NPRM to allow turbo-propeller aircraft operated 
under part 91 to equip for RVSM operations with a single RVSM compliant 
altimeter. Two SNPRM comments opposed withdrawal of the NPRM proposal 
for part 91 turbo-propeller aircraft.
    We also received comments from the National Transportation Safety 
Board (NTSB) and the Regional Airlines Association (RAA), among others.

Air Traffic Services Issues

    1. A number of commenters recommended that the FAA should implement 
RVSM in the National Airspace System (NAS) in vertical phases. For 
example, one recommendation was to use one of the following two 
implementation plans:
    a. Implement between FL 350-390 in December 2004; then implement in 
all RVSM flight levels (FL 290-410) in December 2005 or
    b. Implement between FL 310-410 in December 2004; then implement 
between FL 290-410 in 2010
    FAA Response: We discussed in the NPRM the option to implement RVSM 
in phases. The NPRM noted testing and simulation that caused us to 
decide against implementing RVSM in vertical phases. Extensive 
simulation testing of various phased implementation possibilities 
resulted in significantly increased controller workload and an 
increased level of operational complexity directly related to phase-in 
scenarios such as those recommended in the comments. These scenarios 
were shown to increase the potential for error for controllers. The 
``Final Report for Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (DRVSM) 
Initial Simulation''

[[Page 61307]]

is posted on the federal docket. It can found by searching docket 
number 12261 at http://dms.dot.gov.
    2. A commenter recommended that the FAA should implement RVSM 
between FL 290-370 in December 2004 to allow access to higher flight 
levels for non-compliant aircraft.
    FAA Response: We did not accept this recommendation for two 
reasons. First, during the simulation testing, an increase of non-
compliant aircraft transitioning through RVSM flight levels to fly 
above RVSM airspace increased complexity of ATC operations and 
increased the potential for controller error. The proposal to implement 
between FL 290-410 provides for a limited number of operations at or 
above FL 430. Second, topping RVSM flight levels at FL 370 would make 
two flight levels (380 and 400) unavailable at implementation. This 
loss would diminish benefits in terms of fuel savings and improvements 
to air traffic controller flexibility to manage aircraft.
    3. Some commenters recommended that we should implement RVSM only 
on designated routes or in certain areas.
    FAA Response: We concluded that this proposal is not feasible for 
the same reasons that a vertical phase-in of RVSM flight levels is not 
feasible. A plan that would provide multiple areas within domestic U.S. 
airspace where the vertical separation standards would change between 
2,000 feet to 1,000 feet would add an unacceptable amount of complexity 
to air traffic control and increase controller workload and the 
potential for controller error.
    4. Some commenters, including ALPA and APA, opposed tactical 
implementation, citing concerns about complexity and safety. They also 
raised a question about applying the monitoring program before full 
implementation.
    FAA Response: We explored allowing controllers to apply ``tactical 
RVSM'' prior to the target RVSM implementation date. We have decided 
not to pursue this initiative. It has been found to present 
unacceptable difficulties related to scheduling and completing document 
updates and controller and pilot training. Application of tactical RVSM 
would have allowed controllers to use 1,000-foot vertical separation 
between FL 290 and FL 410 prior to the target implementation date, at 
the controller's discretion, if both passing aircraft were RVSM 
approved.
    5. A Congressman asked us to re-evaluate our plan to implement RVSM 
in all Alaskan airspace. One operator, Security Aviation, made a 
similar request. More specifically, the Congressman and Security 
Aviation requested us to consider implementing in Alaska on only 
designated routes or areas. The rationale was that RVSM invoked large 
costs to small Alaskan operators and that operation below FL 290 
invoked operational penalties.
    FAA response: We believe RVSM implementation in Alaska should 
proceed on the same date and with the same implementation plan that we 
are adopting for the lower 48 states and Canadian Southern Domestic 
airspace. We do not believe RVSM can or should be implemented in 
Alaskan airspace differently than the surrounding RVSM airspace. RVSM 
is currently mandated in oceanic airspace to the west and south of 
Alaska and in Canadian Northern Domestic airspace to the east. In 
addition, Canadian authorities plan to implement RVSM in Canadian 
Southern Domestic airspace in January 2005 in conjunction with 
implementation in the U.S.
    In summary, we believe we should implement RVSM in Alaskan airspace 
in conjunction with the domestic U.S. and Canada for the following 
reasons:
    a. Alaskan RVSM operations cannot be considered in isolation. 
Alaska is surrounded on three sides by existing RVSM airspace. 
Operators flying between those airspaces and Alaskan airspace are 
required to meet RVSM standards. If we do not implement RVSM in Alaska 
in conjunction with the U.S. lower 48 states and Canada, it will deny 
benefits to these operators.
    b. Implementing a single vertical separation standard in Alaska 
mitigates problems related to air traffic control complexity and to the 
potential for controller error both within Alaskan airspace and for 
operations between Alaska and adjoining RVSM airspace.
    c. This rule does not affect operations below FL 290. Operators 
that now operate below FL 290 can continue to operate as they do 
currently. Operators that now operate above FL 290 that do not elect to 
obtain RVSM authority can continue to operate below FL 290. Operation 
below FL 290 appears feasible since typical leg lengths for flights 
originating and terminating within Alaska are relatively short duration 
(1 to 2 hour flights).
    6. ATA asked us to implement RVSM in the San Juan FIR and Miami 
Offshore airspace where the FAA provides air traffic control. The 
objective would be to align this airspace with RVSM airspace already 
planned or implemented in adjoining airspace.
    FAA Response: We concluded that this proposal had merit and made a 
proposal in a Supplemental NPRM (SNPRM). The SNPRM proposed to include 
Atlantic High Offshore, Gulf of Mexico High Offshore Airspace, and the 
San Juan FIR airspace as RVSM airspace in part 91, Appendix G, Section 
8 (Airspace Designation). A number of SNPRM commenters supported and no 
SNPRM commenters opposed the proposal. We have adopted the SNPRM 
proposal in the final rule.
    7. APA recommended that we should require RVSM in Hawaiian airspace 
at and above FL 290.
    FAA Response: We do not believe that it is necessary to mandate 
RVSM in Hawaiian airspace at this time. Hawaiian airspace has operated 
successfully in its present configuration as transition airspace 
between adjoining flight information regions where RVSM is mandated 
since February 2000.
    8. One commenter recommended that we should consider Domestic RVSM 
in the Airspace Re-design program.
    FAA Response: We are considering RVSM in the High Altitude Redesign 
program.
    9. GAMA, Bombardier, Raytheon and Cessna recommended that 
provisions be made in the rule for accommodation of non-compliant 
aircraft flown for flight testing for certification, new aircraft 
production and customer acceptance purposes.
    They requested rule language as follows:
    [sbull] Accommodate air ambulance flights using Lifeguard call sign 
as detailed in AIM.
    [sbull] Provide for flight in RVSM airspace under special flight 
permit or standard certificate of airworthiness of non-compliant 
experimental, new production flight test, new production aircraft flown 
for customer acceptance purposes
    [sbull] Provide for experimental and new production aircraft to 
climb to FL 430 without ``traffic permitting'' caveat
    They also proposed that the FAA designate useable airspace within 
proximity to aircraft manufacturers.
    FAA Response: We believe that the language in part 91, Appendix G, 
Section 5 (Deviation Authority Approval), will provide for FAA 
authorization of operation of non-compliant aircraft in RVSM airspace. 
We recognize that the organizations that made this proposal are seeking 
assurance that they will be able to fly non-compliant aircraft in RVSM 
airspace for the purposes of flight-testing for certification and 
customer acceptance purposes. We recognize that this is an important 
provision for aircraft manufacturers to conduct their business. We 
believe that Section 5 enables aircraft manufacturers to work with 
local ATC Centers to develop

[[Page 61308]]

procedures to accommodate their activity.
    10. The ALPA and APA request detail on ATC procedures for wake 
turbulence, mountain wave, and guidance on pilot actions for aircraft 
contingencies such as aircraft system malfunction.
    FAA Response: We have established an RVSM Procedures Work Group to 
review existing procedures and to develop or revise procedures for ATC 
in the RVSM environment. We have also established a Mountain Wave 
Activity (MWA) effort that includes representatives from the Air Route 
Traffic Control Centers where MWA occurs. We will develop procedures 
and circulate them for comment. We plan to complete this process in the 
February 2004 timeframe.
    11. A number of commenters raised concerns about the increase of 
enroute traffic below FL 290 after RVSM is implemented. These concerns 
relate to the concern that a number of aircraft and operators will not 
complete RVSM compliance work by the proposed implementation date and 
will be required to operate below FL 290. The concern is that ATC will 
not be able to effectively manage this increase of traffic at lower 
levels.
    FAA Response: We have played a significant role in implementing 
RVSM in four major areas of the world. In each of these implementation 
programs, we projected the number and percentage of flights that would 
and would not be conducted by RVSM compliant aircraft on the date and 
time of initial RVSM implementation. The purpose of this effort was to 
gain confidence that there would not be a major disruption to air 
traffic control after RVSM was implemented. In this effort, ATC 
organizations identified a percentage of flights that they believed 
could be effectively managed below FL 290.
    In the Domestic RVSM planning process, we have made the same 
effort. We have projected the percentage of flights that will be 
conducted by RVSM compliant aircraft in January 2005. We project that 
RVSM compliant aircraft will conduct approximately 90 percent of 
flights in January 2005. We believe that the approximately 10 percent 
of flights that may be conducted by non-compliant aircraft can be 
effectively managed for operations below FL 290.
    We have conducted traffic simulations to assess the effect of 5 to 
15 percent of flights now operating above FL 290 being required to 
operate below FL 290 and have found the situation to be manageable. We 
have the option of changing the vertical limits of air traffic sectors 
if experience indicates that it is necessary to enhance air traffic 
control.
    12. Some commenters raised concerns that RVSM would induce a 
significant traffic increase that would affect controller staffing and 
workload.
    FAA Response: Domestic RVSM implementation should not induce an 
immediate significant increase in air traffic. Experience in previous 
RVSM implementation programs has shown this to be the case. In 
addition, the implementation of RVSM has been shown to decrease 
controller workload. RVSM adds an additional six flight levels to 
control air traffic. Simulations have shown that by providing an 
additional six flight levels where aircraft can be operated, RVSM 
decreases the need for controller intervention to vector aircraft and 
to climb or descend aircraft to provide separation.
    13. One commenter questioned the capability of the Air Traffic 
Control (ATC) system to accommodate RVSM-induced traffic increases.
    FAA Response: First, domestic RVSM should not induce an immediate, 
significant increase in traffic. ATC systems are adequate to 
accommodate the projected gradual increase in traffic. Prior to 
implementation, we will modify ATC systems for operation in an RVSM 
environment. We are modifying the conflict alert for the application of 
1,000-foot vertical separation between FL 290-410. We are modifying 
controller displays to show the controller when a non-compliant 
aircraft is in the airspace. We are modifying the flight plan system so 
that the appropriate information in the equipment block of the 
operator's flight plan can be displayed to the controller.
    14. The NTSB recommended that we should conduct comprehensive 
controller training that includes simulator training.
    FAA Response: We plan to conduct controller training that will 
include classroom, Computer Based Instruction, and Dynamic Simulation 
(DYSIM) training.
    15. A commenter questioned whether RVSM would enable ATC to more 
effectively control traffic in weather situations.
    FAA Response: It is common in air traffic operations for aircraft 
to be routed around areas where thunderstorms or severe turbulence is 
present. The additional six flight levels that RVSM will provide will 
significantly enhance air traffic control's capability to accomplish 
this task. The six additional flight levels provide more airspace where 
aircraft can operate and be separated from other aircraft.
    16. One commenter expressed concern that the phrase ``Traffic 
Permitting'' attached to the provisions for non-RVSM compliant 
Lifeguard flights in RVSM airspace and non-compliant aircraft access to 
FL 430 would limit such flights.
    FAA Response: We intend to accommodate Lifeguard flights to the 
degree possible. ``Traffic permitting'' simply provides a caveat that 
the controller may not accommodate such a flight in the event that it 
cannot be conducted within acceptable safety parameters.

Airworthiness: RVSM Compliance Including Aircraft RVSM Compliance 
Package Availability

    1. A number of commenters raised a concern that aircraft RVSM 
compliance packages would not be available for all aircraft.
    FAA Response: RVSM operations started in the North Atlantic in 
March 1997. Since that time the FAA and other civil aviation 
authorities have approved RVSM compliance packages for the large 
airline and air cargo type aircraft and business aviation type aircraft 
that conduct the significant majority of operations in domestic 
airspace. In general, the aircraft manufacturers develop and obtain 
certification authority approval of compliance packages for aircraft 
types that they manufacture. Some independent aircraft engineering 
organization have also developed compliance packages.
    We maintain a list of approved RVSM engineering packages on our 
RVSM documentation Web site. These packages generally take the form of 
Service Bulletins or Supplemental Type Certificates. The list shows 
available packages for both large transport aircraft and small 
commercial and general aviation type aircraft. Using this list of 
approved packages, we estimate that currently 97.4 percent of all 
flights are conducted by aircraft with approved RVSM engineering 
packages. We have observed a significant increase in the availability 
of RVSM packages in 2002 and anticipates further increase in 2003.
    Operators retain the option of having their aircraft approved as a 
Non-group aircraft. The operator can obtain a Supplemental Type 
Certificate that applies to a single aircraft or to a small group of 
aircraft.
    Compliance packages are being developed for aircraft that have not 
previously been available. As an example, non-manufacturer engineering 
organizations are now developing compliance packages for the Learjet 20 
Series. Until recently, there had not been a compliance package 
projected for

[[Page 61309]]

those aircraft. We anticipate that the options for modifying aircraft 
to RVSM standards will continue to increase as the RVSM implementation 
date approaches.
    2. A commenter was concerned that a large volume of non-group 
approvals will be required for types of aircraft that are used in 
general or business aviation. A related concern was that FAA Aircraft 
Certification Office resources would not be adequate to handle the 
demand.
    FAA Response: We are identifying RVSM focal points for each of the 
Aircraft Certification Offices (ACO) to facilitate the process for RVSM 
compliance package approval. We recognize the potential increase in the 
volume of work required for aircraft used in general aviation or 
business aviation work and are preparing for it.
    Our plan for proceeding with domestic RVSM implementation is based 
on proceeding with RVSM implementation when a significant majority of 
the flights are RVSM compliant. Based on experience in previous RVSM 
implementation programs, we recognize that a percentage of aircraft and 
operators may not be ready at the time of implementation.
    3. A commenter expressed concern that FAA Flight Standards field 
office resources will be inadequate.
    FAA Response: We recognize that Flight Standards (AFS) field 
offices will be required to assess a large volume of operators seeking 
RVSM authority. In preparation for RVSM, we are taking the following 
steps: First, AFS is enhancing and expediting communication between 
RVSM program leads at FAA Headquarters, in Regional Offices, in Flight 
Standards District Offices, and in Certificate Management Offices. 
Headquarters leads are meeting with already designated Regional program 
leads and RVSM focal points are being designated in each AFS field 
office. Second, AFS is enhancing existing guidance to make it clearer, 
more complete, and more user friendly. As an example, AFS is updating 
the RVSM documentation Web site to more specifically address issues 
related to operations under part 91. Third, AFS is working with 
regional offices to identify AFS field offices that may require 
additional support.
    4. A commenter was concerned that there could be a limited 
availability of parts that would hinder an operators' capability to 
meet RVSM compliance standards.
    FAA Response: In the course of planning the Domestic RVSM program, 
we raised the question of parts availability with aircraft and avionics 
manufacturers. Parts availability was not cited as a problem in these 
discussions.
    5. NATA stated that there is inadequate repair station capacity for 
the volume of aircraft to be worked on for RVSM compliance and that no 
formal survey of capacity had been conducted.
    FAA Response: We have considered the availability of engineering 
facilities for small and large aircraft, and small and large operators. 
Many large operators use company owned and operated engineering 
facilities. Other operators use independent engineering facilities such 
as repair stations or aircraft manufacturer service centers. While we 
did not conduct a formal survey of engineering capacity, we did consult 
with operators and aircraft manufacturers to project the capability of 
operators to bring their aircraft into RVSM compliance by January 2005. 
We found the following:
    [sbull] Some aircraft manufacturers and repair stations have 
expanded their engineering facilities to meet the demands of the RVSM 
program.
    [sbull] In 2002 and 2003, aircraft manufacturer service center and 
repair station facilities were underutilized for RVSM work.
    [sbull] Many operators are completing RVSM engineering during 
scheduled maintenance to avoid costs associated with removing them from 
service to complete RVSM work.
    Based on consultation with the operator community, we have 
concluded that:
    [sbull] A large percentage of aircraft operated by large airplane 
operators will be RVSM compliant by the January 2005 timeframe.
    [sbull] If a large number of small aircraft operators plan to 
complete aircraft engineering work within the 12 month period prior to 
RVSM implementation, they will risk not having aircraft work completed 
by January 2005 and may have to operate below FL 290 until they obtain 
RVSM authority.
    We project that RVSM compliant aircraft will conduct approximately 
90 percent of flights by January 2005. We believe that it is in the 
best interest of the majority of operators to implement RVSM as soon as 
feasible.
    6. NPRM proposal to allow turbo-propeller aircraft operated under 
part 91 to equip with a single RVSM compliant altimeter. Some NPRM 
commenters, including Cessna, supported the proposal while others, 
including ALPA and APA, opposed it. The FAA re-considered the NPRM 
proposal and published an SNPRM in February 2003 with a request for 
comment by April 14, 2003. The SNPRM proposed to withdraw the provision 
to allow turbo-propeller aircraft operated under part 91 to conduct 
RVSM operations using aircraft equipped with a single RVSM compliant 
altimeter. Most SNPRM comments supported withdrawing the proposal. 
However, two organizations opposed it. The SNPRM comments are 
summarized below with our response.
    a. Most commenting organizations concurred with the proposal to 
withdraw the single RVSM-compliant altimeter provision.
    FAA Response: In this final rule, we have not adopted the provision 
to allow turbo-propeller aircraft operated under part 91 to conduct 
RVSM operations using aircraft equipped with a single RVSM-compliant 
altimeter. For the past six years, standards applied worldwide have 
required aircraft to be equipped with two RVSM compliant altimeters. We 
have concluded that different criteria for turbo-propeller aircraft 
operated under part 91 to conduct RVSM operations should not be 
adopted.
    b. Two commenters opposed withdrawal of the single RVSM compliant 
altimeter provision for part 91 turbo-prop aircraft. One commenter 
stated that operators should retain the ability to determine how their 
aircraft are equipped. That commenter also stated that standards for 
RVSM operations in the United States should not be affected by those 
adopted in other countries including those countries with airspace 
adjoining the U.S.
    FAA Response: First, since March 1997, RVSM operations have been 
shown to be safe and beneficial in both oceanic and continental 
airspace. We believe it is critical to RVSM safety that aircraft used 
in RVSM operations comply with common standards for equipage, system 
error and performance. We have published those standards in part 91 
Appendix G. Aircraft that have not complied with Appendix G have shown 
altitude-keeping errors that are incompatible with RVSM safety. Second, 
when new standards are adopted for operations such as RVSM, we believe 
that we must, to the extent possible, attempt to adopt standards that 
are common to neighboring countries and other countries worldwide. We 
have determined that adopting the single RVSM compliant altimeter 
provision would add unnecessary complications to air traffic control in 
the airspace that borders Canada and Mexico. Those countries have 
informed us that they will not adopt the provision. We also believe 
that it is in the best interests of U.S. operators and

[[Page 61310]]

manufacturers to harmonize with global RVSM standards unless there is 
adequate justification for a difference in our regulations. Common 
country, region and global standards enable operators to fly across 
boundaries without incurring operational limitations or penalties. 
Common standards also enable aircraft manufacturers to sell products to 
operators in other countries and regions without requiring special 
aircraft system modifications. We have concluded that, since the 
proposal would affect only 0.3 percent of domestic operations, the 
minor benefit provided does not justify a difference from international 
standards when considering the major benefits provided by sharing 
common standards for RVSM operations and air traffic control with 
neighboring countries and of continued harmonization with global RVSM 
standards.
    c. One commenter believed that if we did not retain the single RVSM 
compliant altimeter provision then we should raise the floor of RVSM 
airspace to flight level 300 so that turbo-propeller aircraft could 
operate at flight level 290.
    FAA Response: To allow non-RVSM aircraft to operate at FL 290 would 
require us to raise the floor of RVSM airspace to FL 310, not FL 300. 
Above FL 290, 2,000-foot vertical separation is required between 
aircraft unless the aircraft are RVSM compliant. If we were to allow 
non-RVSM aircraft to operate at FL 290, FL 300 could not be used since 
it does not provide 2,000-foot vertical separation when non-RVSM 
aircraft are involved. The loss of one of the six new flight levels 
provided by RVSM would limit RVSM benefits for the significant 
percentage of the operator community that is preparing for RVSM 
implementation.
    7. ATA asked for a single source of material for RVSM programs.
    FAA Response: We established an RVSM Documentation Web page to 
provide ready access to RVSM regulations and to RVSM guidance. Official 
documents related to RVSM are available from that Web page at http://www.faa.gov/ats/ato/rvsm_documentation.htm. In addition, these 
documents can be obtained from FAA Flight Standards District Offices 
and Certificate Management Offices.

Benefits

    1. A number of commenters expressed concern that RVSM will not 
alleviate delay or holding problems in the terminal area and will, in 
fact, exacerbate the situation by increasing arriving and departing 
traffic.
    FAA Response: First, the implementation of RVSM will not 
automatically lead to a significant traffic increase in the short to 
mid term in either the enroute or the terminal area. The near doubling 
of flight levels will not lead to a near doubling of the number of 
airframes that operate in the national airspace system (NAS). Air 
traffic at FAA air route traffic control centers is projected to 
increase at an average annual rate of 2.0 percent. RVSM will enhance 
air traffic's capability to manage this increase efficiently. Second, 
the enhancements to enroute operations stand on their own merit. They 
are estimated to account for approximately $800,000 annual savings as a 
result of reduced ground delays. Also, we do not believe that we should 
make no effort to enhance enroute operating efficiency until additional 
enhancements to terminal area operations are made. Third, domestic RVSM 
is a project in the NAS Operational Evolution Plan (OEP). It is in the 
En Route Congestion section of the OEP. The NAS OEP also contains 
projects that address Arrival/Departure Rate problems including runway 
capacity and terminal area problems. The domestic RVSM project should 
not be considered in isolation, but as an element of OEP projects that 
are addressing: Arrival/Departure Rate, En Route Congestion, Airport 
Weather Conditions, and En Route Severe Weather.
    2. One commenter stated that fuel savings is not an adequate 
justification for Domestic RVSM implementation.
    FAA Response: The Regulatory Impact Analysis cites both 
quantitative and qualitative benefits to domestic RVSM implementation. 
Fuel savings due to enhanced access to more fuel-efficient flight 
levels is quantified. We forecast 5.3 billion dollars in fuel savings 
from January 2005 through January 2016. The analysis also cites 
qualitative benefits to air traffic control. These benefits include 
increased controller flexibility, enhanced sector throughput allowing 
more aircraft to operate on time and fuel efficient routes, reduced 
controller workload allowing them to control traffic more efficiently, 
enhanced flexibility to allow aircraft to cross intersecting routes, 
mitigation of traffic congestion at conflict points, and potential for 
enhanced overall enroute airspace capacity in the long term.
    3. One commenter stated that domestic RVSM benefits will not be 
significant to small operators.
    FAA Response: We recognize that the aircraft utilization rate for 
small operators is significantly lower than that for larger operators 
and therefore small operators accrue RVSM benefits at a lower rate. We 
believe that RVSM provides significant enhancements to daily operations 
in the National Airspace System (NAS) and provides benefits to the 
operators that conduct the significant majority or approximately 90 
percent of operations in the NAS. We are considering the overall 
benefit to the majority of operators as well as the overall enhancement 
to NAS operations.

Costs Including Downtime Issues

    1. A number of commenters stated that they believed the average 
cost to modify aircraft to comply with RVSM standards will be in the 
$200,000-$300,000 range.
    FAA Response: In the Regulatory Impact Analysis we have estimated 
the costs to modify individual aircraft types for RVSM compliance. The 
range of modification costs for individual airframes varies from less 
than $100 for some aircraft types up to $175,000 to $235,000 for a 
small number of older aircraft types.
    2. Comments were made that the costs of operation below FL 290 
should be considered in the Benefit/Cost analysis. Also, comments were 
made that raised issues related to range limitation and fuel burn costs 
below FL 290.
    We have examined operations below FL 290. We anticipate that 
approximately 10 percent of daily flights in the NAS that are currently 
operated above FL 290 may operate below FL 290 in the initial period of 
domestic RVSM implementation. We have examined the time of flight in 
NAS operations and the affect of operating below FL 290 on aircraft 
range and fuel burn and have posted the study entitled ``An Examination 
of Range and Fuel-Burn Penalties Associated With Operating Business Jet 
Type Aircraft Beneath Proposed Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation 
Minimum (DRVSM) Airspace'' in the public docket. You can find the 
public docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Search for docket 
number 12261. For this analysis, we first examined five older small 
commercial/ general aviation aircraft types with high modification 
costs under the assumption that some operators may elect to operate 
these aircraft types below FL 290 rather than incur RVSM modification 
costs. We next examined all business jet aircraft types operated under 
14 CFR part 135. We reached the following conclusions in the study:
    [sbull] We estimate the average annual cost of operation below FL 
290 per airframe to be $1,147.

[[Page 61311]]

    [sbull] The average fuel penalty for business jet aircraft operated 
under part 135 is 7.15 percent.
    [sbull] Eight percent of operations flown prior to DRVSM above FL 
290 could no longer be flown without a fuel stop due to range penalties 
associated with operating below FL 290.
    Other factors that the FAA considered were:
    [sbull] Average flight time at enroute cruise was 1.9 hours for 
aircraft used in commercial operations and 1.4 hours for aircraft used 
in general aviation operations.
    [sbull] Time at enroute cruise was 2 hours or less for 82 percent 
of general aviation flights.
    3. Some commenters stated that after comparing RVSM aircraft 
modification costs to the residual value of the aircraft, they could 
not justify modifying certain aircraft types.
    FAA Response: Operators have two basic options. They can upgrade 
their aircraft to comply with RVSM standards or they can operate their 
aircraft below FL 290 or, if capable, above FL 410. We recognize that 
in some cases operators may decide for economic reasons not to pursue 
RVSM compliance.
    4. Some commenters stated that DRVSM will significantly impact the 
part 135 on-demand charter industry.
    FAA Response: We support DRVSM implementation because it provides 
significant benefits to NAS operations and to the operators that 
conduct the significant majority of flights in NAS airspace. We 
recognize that some operators will have to make economic decisions on 
whether to retain an aircraft and operate it below FL 290 or to modify 
it to RVSM standards so that it can operate above FL 290. Based on our 
analysis of operations below FL 290, it appears that operation below FL 
290 is a viable option for some operators if they choose not to modify 
their aircraft.
    5. One commenter stated that if it did not modify its aircraft for 
RVSM there would be a significant negative impact on the residual value 
of the aircraft.
    FAA Response: RVSM is a worldwide program. RVSM has already been 
implemented in the North and West Atlantic, Pacific and Western 
Pacific, Europe, Australia, and Northern Canada. In addition, there are 
implementation groups established for the Middle East, the Caribbean, 
and South America. We believe that the aviation community must 
recognize the global nature of RVSM and plan accordingly. The residual 
value of aircraft is not a primary consideration in this rulemaking.
    6. One commenter proposed that the costs to small operators should 
be subsidized either by the Airport and Airways Trust fund or by the 
airlines.
    FAA Response: A proposal to subsidize small operators by either the 
airlines or by the Airport and Airways Trust Fund was not proposed in 
the NPRM and is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    7. Some commenters stated that the Regulatory Impact Analysis needs 
to be updated and the modification costs for small aircraft should be 
re-estimated and should include the out of service cost during the 
period the aircraft are undergoing modification.
    FAA Response: The Regulatory Impact Analysis that is summarized in 
this document and published in full in the DOT Docket includes updated 
costs and benefit estimates. We have estimated the number of aircraft 
that may be out of service for RVSM modification. We have also 
estimated costs related to the loss of revenue when certain aircraft 
are out of service undergoing RVSM modification. Many operators have 
scheduled RVSM compliance work to be completed during scheduled 
aircraft inspections to avoid the cost of additional out of service 
time for RVSM modification.
    8. RAA stated that it did not believe that RAA operators were 
considered in the NPRM Regulatory Impact Analysis.
    FAA Response: RAA operator costs were considered in the Regulatory 
Impact Analysis that was included with the NPRM in the DOT Docket and 
are considered in the Regulatory Impact Analysis included with this 
final rule.
    9. One commenter stated that operators were unable to accurately 
assess the costs related to monitoring of aircraft altitude keeping.
    FAA Response: We assessed operator costs associated with monitoring 
in the Regulatory Impact Analysis published in conjunction with the 
NPRM and the final rule. In that assessment, the FAA estimated that 
operator costs associated with monitoring of the DRVSM fleet would be 
approximately $4.3 million. For this assessment, we projected that the 
GPS-based Monitoring System (GMS) would monitor a portion of the RVSM 
fleet and the ground based Aircraft Geometric Height Monitoring Element 
would monitor those not monitored by the GMS. The $4.3 million in 
monitoring costs are not significant when compared to estimated fleet 
upgrade costs of $735 million. Operators have two options for obtaining 
information on monitoring systems and procedures. They can obtain 
information by accessing the FAA RVSM Web site at http://www.faa.gov/ats/ato/rvsm1.htm. They can obtain the same information by contacting 
one of the Flight Standards District Offices in their area.

Implementation Program: Necessity To Implement, Implementation 
Scenarios, Planned Implementation Date

    1. A number of aviation organizations and some individuals provided 
comments supporting the implementation plan and schedule published in 
the NPRM. These commenters opposed proposals to vertically phase-in 
RVSM flight levels. Commenters cited significant public benefit and 
benefit to the national interest. They cited proven benefits in areas 
outside the United States, including reduced operating costs (time, 
fuel efficiency) and enhanced air traffic control.
    FAA Response: We acknowledge these comments and have considered 
them in our evaluation of the DRVSM implementation plan.
    2. The ATA proposed that the FAA should change the target 
implementation date to a more suitable Aeronautical Information 
Regulation and Control (AIRAC) date of January 20, 2005. The ATA's 
rationale for this proposal is that the AIRAC date in December 2004 is 
December 23. Since this date is just before a major holiday, ATA 
proposed that the FAA should target January 20, 2005 as the date to 
implement DRVSM.
    FAA Response: We understand the benefits of this proposal and will 
use January 20, 2005 for planning purposes. The AIRAC dates are agreed 
dates when changes to aeronautical information are made for flight 
planning and also for aircraft navigation databases. We agree that 
January 20, 2005 is a more practical date to implement DRVSM.
    3. Federal Express proposed that the implementation date for DRVSM 
be harmonized with the Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) 
on March 31, 2005 so that aircraft modification schedules for the two 
programs could be coordinated.
    FAA Response: We have projected that RVSM compliant aircraft will 
conduct ninety percent of flights by January of 2005. We believe this 
is an appropriate time to implement DRVSM.
    4. RAA asserts that 85% of regional jets will be required to be 
RVSM compliant on the DRVSM implementation date.
    FAA Response: We are tracking RVSM compliance of operators and 
aircraft types. Since regional jets are a significant fleet in domestic 
operations, we are closely tracking the status of the regional jet 
fleet. As stated previously, we believe that we should implement DRVSM 
when approximately 90 percent

[[Page 61312]]

of flights are RVSM compliant and we must consider benefits to overall 
NAS operations.
    5. A number of commenters proposed that the FAA should delay 
implementing DRVSM. Dates proposed included: Late 2005, 2006, and 2010. 
The rationale for the proposed delays included request for more time 
for operators to complete aircraft compliance work, suggestion that 
RVSM should be delayed until airport capacity projects were completed, 
limitations to repair station capacity, and concern for operator log 
jam in the final year.
    FAA Response: We have chosen a target implementation date on which 
we project approximately 90 percent of flights in the NAS to be 
conducted by RVSM compliant aircraft. For each year of delay, we 
estimate that approximately $394 million dollars in fuel savings will 
be lost. In addition, air traffic control enhancements such as enhanced 
controller flexibility and decreased workload, mitigation of traffic 
congestion at conflict points, and increased sector throughput will 
also be delayed. We believe that those operators that do not obtain 
RVSM authority by the implementation date can operate viably below FL 
290 until they obtain RVSM authority.
    Also, based on past experience, we believe that a delay in the 
target implementation date will only result in many operators delaying 
their own plans to obtain RVSM authority.
    For these reasons, we believe that January 20, 2005, should remain 
the target date for Domestic RVSM implementation.
    6. A number of commenters stated that many operators would not 
start work to obtain RVSM authority until the final rule is published. 
Since we intend to publish the final rule in June 2003, those operators 
will only have 18 months to complete the work.
    FAA Response: We cannot compel compliance with any rulemaking 
action until the final rule takes effect; however, there is no 
prohibition in an operator taking action based on an NPRM. Many 
operators, including operators that conduct a major percentage of NAS 
operations, already have significant parts of their fleets RVSM 
compliant or have begun work to obtain RVSM compliance. In operator 
surveys conducted during development of the NPRM many operators 
indicated the intention of having their fleets RVSM ready by late 2004. 
Many major operators have expressed support for the implementation date 
stated in the NPRM. Delaying DRVSM implementation would deny benefits 
to operators that have aggressively pursued RVSM programs.
    7. Some operators opposed DRVSM implementation due to costs and a 
perception of limited benefits.
    FAA Response: We have shown quantified benefits for fuel savings 
and qualitative benefits for ATC enhancements. The benefit/cost ratio 
for the period 2002 to 2016 is approximately 6 to 1. RVSM has provided 
significant benefits in other major world airspaces. We believe that 
DRVSM is justified.
    8. Comments were made questioning the need for aircraft to complete 
the RVSM compliance process. The commenters proposed that non-compliant 
aircraft should be allowed to operate at RVSM flight levels.
    FAA Response: The FAA and other civil aviation authorities 
conducted studies of aircraft altitude-keeping performance in 
preparation for developing regulations and standards for RVSM 
operation. These studies showed that altitude-keeping at RVSM flight 
levels was not standardized. The tolerance for errors greater than 300 
feet in RVSM airspace is very small. The studies showed that the 
aircraft population exhibited large errors at an unacceptable rate.
    The aircraft RVSM compliance standards published in part 91 
Appendix G were established to ensure safety in RVSM operations.

Maintenance

    1. Some commenters believe there should be separate rulemaking for 
RVSM Maintenance program requirements. AEA recommended that we should 
remove RVSM maintenance requirements from part 91, Appendix G and 
related FAA RVSM guidance material and publish them in regulations with 
more general applicability. The rationale was that RVSM operations 
would become standard operation rather than a special operation.
    FAA response: Since initial RVSM implementation in the North 
Atlantic five years ago, basic standards for maintenance programs have 
been provided in part 91, Appendix G. In addition, specific provisions 
for aircraft RVSM systems have been published in the RVSM compliance 
packages approved by certification authorities for individual aircraft 
types or groups.
    First, RVSM requirements apply to operations between FL 290-410, 
inclusive. They do not apply to aircraft operating below FL 290. 
Second, we acknowledge that RVSM may become the standard worldwide in 
the future for operations between FL 290-410 and in the future it may 
be appropriate to consider placing RVSM maintenance requirements in 
other regulations. At this time, however, RVSM maintenance program 
requirements are published in Appendix G.
    2. AEA states that there is a lack of direction and standardization 
from FAA Headquarters for maintenance programs.
    FAA Response: We have chosen not to arbitrarily limit the ways an 
operator or the industry may meet RVSM requirements. Since different 
equipment solutions, based on different error budgets and component 
tolerances are being used by applicants, maintenance programs will 
vary.
    A single maintenance requirement has been placed on aircraft 
obtaining RVSM authorization. The requirement is to maintain the 
aircraft within the specifications of Appendix G. The elements of the 
maintenance programs are developed during certification of an 
aircraft's altitude keeping performance. We have chosen not to limit an 
operator or the industry to a single method of compliance, therefore, 
elements of the maintenance program will vary.
    3. NATA questioned the assertion that RVSM maintenance costs are 
not significant.
    FAA Response: There are two major elements in maintenance programs 
related to RVSM required aircraft systems. The first is requirements 
established by aircraft and avionics manufacturers for the basic 
certification of the aircraft. The second is maintenance requirements 
approved by certification authorities in the RVSM compliance package 
for individual aircraft types.
    Since March 1997, we have granted RVSM authority to hundreds of 
operators and approximately 5,400 aircraft including approximately 
3,700 general aviation aircraft. Operators have not cited maintenance 
costs as a major factor in the initial five years of RVSM operations. 
We anticipate that maintenance costs will lower as service center 
availability and experience expands.

Military Operations

    1. The Department of Defense (DoD) said that it is necessary for 
the FAA to accommodate the operation of DoD aircraft that could not 
meet RVSM standards in order to assist the DoD accomplish its 
operational mission.
    FAA Response: The DoD has elected, to the extent possible, to 
modify its aircraft to meet RVSM standards so that they can operate 
safely without special accommodation in RVSM airspace. Most large DoD 
transport and tanker aircraft are already RVSM compliant. The

[[Page 61313]]

percentage of flights in the NAS by DoD fighter and bomber aircraft 
that are unable to meet RVSM standards is projected to be less than 1 
percent.
    The FAA recognizes the critical nature of the DoD mission to 
national defense, recognizes that some DoD aircraft types are unable to 
meet RVSM standards, and plans to accommodate non-compliant DoD 
aircraft by applying 2,000 foot vertical separation or the appropriate 
horizontal separation standard to those aircraft. The FAA and DoD 
already have agreed procedures to coordinate the operation of DoD 
aircraft on special operations such as formation flights and have 
developed similar agreements in a joint FAA/DoD Memorandum of 
Understanding for RVSM operations.
    2. ALPA stated that the rule language should be amended to state 
that non-compliant military aircraft would be provided increased 
separation.
    FAA Response: Part 91, Appendix G, Section 5 provides the basic 
standards for operation of non-compliant aircraft in RVSM airspace. 
Section 5 permits deviations for a specific flight if air traffic 
control determines that the aircraft may be provided `` * * * 
appropriate separation * * *''. Controller handbooks define appropriate 
separation in these circumstances as 2,000 feet vertical separations or 
the applicable horizontal separation standard.
    3. ALPA proposed that the word ``civil'' be removed from the 
proposed Section 91.180 to ensure the compliance of military aircraft 
with RVSM standards.
    FAA Response: The FAA and DoD have entered into a Memorandum of 
Understanding that details DoD obligations in RVSM operations in the 
NAS. The military has used the standards of part 91, Appendix G to 
approve its aircraft for RVSM operations since the 1997 implementation 
of RVSM. The FAA/DoD MOU provides adequate assurance that this will 
continue to be the case.

Miscellaneous

    1. One commenter proposed that vertical separation could be 
provided by GPS.
    FAA Response: The geometric height above the earth provided by GPS 
is not compatible with the pressure flight level displays provided by 
pressure altimeters. The geometric height of pressure levels is not 
constant, but varies during the flight. Since aircraft altitude-keeping 
and performance are based on pressure levels world-wide, an evolution 
to altitude-keeping and vertical separation based on GPS is not 
possible at this time.

Monitoring

    1. ALPA raised concerns related to the adequacy of monitoring 
resources and requested more information on the location and schedule 
for ground-based Aircraft Geometric Height Measurement Element (AGHME) 
units.
    FAA Response: We are planning for AGHME units to be deployed in 
September of 2003. The FAA Technical Center is conducting studies to 
establish the most effective location for the units and the number of 
units necessary to provide adequate coverage. We will inform the 
aviation community as these studies progress.
    We now have 40 portable GPS-based Monitoring Units (GMU) available 
to conduct monitoring and will acquire 40 enhanced GMUs starting in 
2003.
    2. ALPA raised concerns that certain operator's may not participate 
in the monitoring program.
    FAA Response: Each operator is required to participate in the 
monitoring program as a condition for obtaining RVSM authority. Since 
1997, operators have recognized the importance of monitoring programs 
and have participated in the programs.
    3. One commenter questioned the need for independent monitoring 
considering RVSM airworthiness standards.
    FAA Response: The monitoring programs are designed to give 
authorities an independent assessment of aircraft altitude-keeping 
performance in a given airspace. The monitoring program has identified 
aircraft types and individual aircraft that were not performing to RVSM 
standards. Based on monitoring information, in a small number of cases, 
the FAA and other authorities have found it necessary to remove RVSM 
authority for an aircraft type, to revise the aircraft RVSM compliance 
package, or to require aircraft inspection and maintenance. We believe 
that monitoring is a valuable tool to confirm that RVSM operations are 
conducted to standards.

Operational Issues

    1. A commenter suggested that there is a need for a separate Letter 
of Authorization (LOA) for domestic-only operators.
    FAA Response: We believe that the current LOA format can be used to 
grant multiple authorities for operation in special areas of operation, 
including the domestic United States. We do not believe it is necessary 
to develop a separate LOA for domestic RVSM only. In addition, we have 
published expanded guidance to explain the use of the LOA.
    2. A commenter questioned the practice of engaging the autopilot 
during RVSM operations.
    FAA Response: Since 1997, it has been standard practice to engage 
the autopilot during RVSM operations unless the pilot deems it 
necessary to do otherwise. Performance standards are established for 
autopilot systems used in RVSM operations. The purpose of these 
standards is to ensure acceptable altitude-keeping in RVSM airspace.
    3. Several commenters expressed the concern that the FAA should 
take steps to enhance field inspector training and better standardize 
processes
    FAA Response: We believe that an effort is necessary to enhance 
training, guidance, and standardization for Flight Standards District 
Offices (FSDOs). We are dedicating resources to accomplish this task.
    4. NBAA proposed that operators be granted provisional authority to 
conduct RVSM operations for 90 days while FSDOs complete the evaluation 
of the operator's application.
    FAA Response: We do not agree with this proposal. We believe that 
each operator's application must be thoroughly evaluated to ensure 
aircraft compliance and program compliance before the operator conducts 
RVSM operations.
    5. One commenter suggested that the process for an operator 
acquiring a previously RVSM approved aircraft to obtain LOA should be 
simplified.
    FAA Response: We will examine this situation and clarify and 
simplify the authorization process in this situation.
    6. A commenter questioned the necessity to re-issue an LOA to part 
91 operators every two years. The rationale was that RVSM would become 
the standard for daily operations after DRVSM implementation.
    FAA Response: We believe that this requirement should be reviewed 
as part of a post implementation review. We will coordinate with 
industry to address this issue in the year following DRVSM 
implementation.

Safety Issues--General

    1. Several commenters expressed the concern that the FAA must 
perform an adequate safety analysis before DRVSM implementation.
    FAA Response: The ICAO Review of the General Concept of Separation 
Panel (RGCSP), which included FAA representatives, conducted a safety 
analysis on U.S. domestic operations in the course of developing the 
worldwide requirements for aircraft altitude-keeping performance. The 
RGCSP

[[Page 61314]]

determined that the busiest enroute airspace in the U.S. and the world 
was that between Albuquerque and Los Angeles. Operations in this high 
traffic density airspace were analyzed using Collision Risk Modeling. 
This analysis provided the basis for aircraft altimeter accuracy and 
autopilot performance requirements that are published in part 91, 
Appendix G, and in the ICAO RVSM Manual.
    The Separation Standards Group (ACB-310) at the FAA William J. 
Hughes Technical Center provides safety analysis capabilities for FAA 
programs reducing the separation between aircraft. ACB-310 personnel 
have participated in or lead the Safety and Monitoring (SAM) Groups in 
all of the RVSM implementation programs in oceanic airspace except the 
South Atlantic. The SAM groups have been responsible for completing 
safety analysis in each individual area of operation. ACB-310, in 
coordination with FAA Flight Standards and Air Traffic will be 
responsible, prior to DRVSM implementation, for updating the safety 
analysis for DRVSM airspace.
    2. A commenter expressed the concern that the Target Level of 
Safety (TLS) should be stringent enough to protect NAS safety.
    FAA Response: We have adopted the TLS endorsed by ICAO and used to 
assess RVSM implementation safety worldwide.
    3. APA expressed the concern that increased or better navigation 
accuracy in the vertical and horizontal planes increases risk when 
pilot or controller errors occur.
    FAA Response: The Collision Risk Model (CRM) accounts for aircraft 
navigation accuracy. Navigation accuracy is one of the major elements 
considered in the CRM to assess airspace system safety.
    4. A number of commenters expressed a concern that RVSM may have 
been a factor in the July 2002 mid-air collision in Europe.
    FAA Response: The German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accidents 
Investigation is conducting the investigation into the July 2002 mid-
air collision in Europe. The investigation is still underway, however, 
neither the RVSM program nor the 1,000-foot vertical separation 
standard appear to have been a factor. The aircraft were correctly 
established at their assigned altitude of FL 360 and were separated 
horizontally. When their paths converged, the controller attempted to 
issue a clearance for one of the aircraft to descend so that the 
aircraft would be separated vertically. When that aircraft descended, 
it did so in conflict with its TCAS Resolution Advisory (RA) to climb 
and descended into another aircraft. The second aircraft was following 
its TCAS RA to descend. It appears that this scenario could have 
occurred as it did under the conventional vertical separation rules 
that were applied prior to European RVSM implementation in January 
2002. RVSM does not appear to have been a factor and RVSM operations 
have continued in European airspace.
    5. AOPA proposed that non-compliant aircraft should be allowed to 
climb to and above FL 290 if required to avoid weather.
    FAA Response: We are making provision for non-compliant aircraft to 
climb through RVSM airspace without intermediate level off to operate 
above RVSM airspace. The AOPA proposal would allow non-compliant 
aircraft to climb into RVSM airspace on a regular basis and operate 
there for a sustained period of time. We oppose this proposal because 
we have found in simulations that increasing the number of non-
compliant aircraft in RVSM airspace significantly increases controller 
workload, complicates air traffic control, and increases the potential 
for controller and pilot error.
    When warranted by the circumstances, the pilot retains the option 
under existing regulations to take the action necessary to protect the 
safety of the aircraft.
    6. An individual proposed that aircraft should fly random vertical 
paths rather than standard flight levels.
    FAA Response: Air Traffic Control, air traffic conflict alert 
systems, vertical separation standards, pilot and controller 
procedures, and aircraft operations are based worldwide on aircraft 
accurately maintaining cleared flight level and track. The DRVSM 
project is intended to introduce a new vertical separation standard 
into the existing operational environment. It is not within the scope 
of the DRVSM project to implement random vertical paths into NAS 
operations.
    7. One commenter raised a concern about non-compliant aircraft 
operating without authorization at RVSM flight levels.
    FAA Response: RVSM programs provide protection against aircraft 
operating at RVSM flight levels without authorization in several ways. 
First, FAA regulations require aircraft and operators to have FAA 
authorization before flying in RVSM airspace. Second, part 91, Appendix 
G, Section 4 requires operators to correctly annotate the flight plan 
filed with ATC with the RVSM status of their aircraft. Third, the 
operator's RVSM status is displayed to the controller so that the 
correct vertical separation will be applied. Fourth, the Separation 
Standards Group (ACB-310) at the FAA Technical Center tracks both 
individual airframes and operators on an RVSM Approvals Database and 
periodically compares the database to airframes observed operating in 
RVSM airspace to identify unauthorized aircraft. Fifth, the FAA 
investigates any operators found operating in RVSM airspace without 
authority.
    8. The NTSB recommended that the FAA should track wake turbulence 
events in the post implementation period.
    FAA Response: Wake turbulence may occur when one aircraft is 
trailing another by 10-12 miles on the same track and is 1,000 feet 
below another. It may also occur if two aircraft pass each other in 
opposite directions on the same track separated by 1,000 feet. The 
occurrence of wake turbulence is dependant on wind direction and 
atmospheric conditions at the time that the aircraft pass.
    Since the initial RVSM implementation in 1997, wake turbulence has 
generally been found to be moderate or less in magnitude and has 
affected crew and passenger comfort rather than safety. Pilots are able 
to avoid wake turbulence in airspace such as the U.S. where direct 
pilot-controller communications are available by requesting a flight 
level change, a minor track offset, or a track change.
    Wake turbulence has not been a factor in the past year of RVSM 
operations in Europe.
    Before we implement RVSM in domestic airspace we will apply 
experience that we have gained since 1997 to develop and publish pilot 
guidance on wake turbulence. In addition, we will conduct a post 
implementation problem detection/resolution effort that includes wake 
turbulence.
    9. The NTSB recommended that the FAA should conduct adequate 
training so that operators, pilots, and controllers clearly understand 
aircraft requirements and status including enroute aircraft system 
failures.
    FAA Response: The FAA Flight Standards Service is coordinating with 
the FAA Air Traffic organization to develop appropriate guidance for 
the Aeronautical Information Manual and other FAA documents posted on 
the FAA RVSM Web site and available in Flight Standards field offices. 
We will emphasize these areas of concern.
    10. One commenter questioned the pilot actions in the event of 
autopilot failure enroute.

[[Page 61315]]

    FAA Response: The FAA and other Air Traffic Service Providers 
provide guidance on recommended pilot actions in events such as 
aircraft system malfunctions, medical emergencies, and weather 
encounters. These recommendations are referred to as contingency 
procedures. In an environment such as the domestic U.S. where direct 
pilot-communications and radar surveillance is available, ATC 
assistance is readily available in contingency events such as autopilot 
failures.

Small Entity Analysis

    1. Part 91 and 135 small businesses were not identified in the NPRM 
Small Entity Analysis. NATA questioned the finding of insignificant 
impact on small entities and questioned its treatment of part 91 and 
part 135 businesses.
    FAA Response: We have updated the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 
published with this final rule. The Small Entity analysis was updated 
for the RIA.

TCAS

    1. A number of commenters asserted that TCAS installation should be 
a requirement for operation in RVSM airspace.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not concur with this assertion for the 
reasons discussed below.
    1,000-foot separation. First, we believe it is important to note 
that 1,000 ft vertical separation has been applied up to flight level 
290 on a global basis, including the U.S., for about 40 years. The 
1,000-foot vertical separation below FL 290 is based on basic 
certification standards for aircraft altimeters, autopilots, and pilot 
and controller procedures. The current requirements for TCAS equipage 
are not based on this separation standard.
    TCAS and Transponder Equipage Requirements. TCAS equipage is 
required by parts 121, 125, 129, and 135. Equipage requirements are not 
related to a specific separation standard or operational procedure. 
Part 91 Sec.  91.215 requires transponder equipage for operation in 
Class A airspace. Class A airspace is between FL 180-600 in the U.S.
    We estimate that in domestic U.S. operations approximately 90% of 
flights are currently equipped with TCAS. In addition, all aircraft 
must be equipped with transponders to operate in U.S. Class A airspace. 
Aircraft that are transponder equipped, though not TCAS equipped, are 
still displayed to TCAS equipped aircraft and produce TA's and RA's 
when within the parameters.
    Revision to FAA TCAS Equipage Rules. The FAA published a Final Rule 
in April 2003 that will, in the January 2005 timeframe, increase the 
number, percentage and categories of aircraft operating in U.S. 
domestic airspace that are equipped with TCAS. This is so because in 
the revised regulations TCAS equipage requirements for turbine-powered 
airplanes are no longer based on passenger seat configuration. A major 
provision of the revised part 121 Sec.  121.256, part 125 Sec.  
125.224, and part 129 Sec.  129.18 is that, effective January 1, 2005, 
turbine-powered airplanes of more than 33,000 pounds maximum certified 
takeoff weight must be operated with one of the following:

[sbull] TCAS II that meets TSO C-119b (version 7.0) or a later version
[sbull] TCAS II that meets TSO C-119a (version 6.04A Enhanced)
[sbull] A collision avoidance system equivalent to TSO C-119b (version 
7.0) or later version capable of coordinating with units that meet TSO 
C-119a (version 6.04A Enhanced)

    In addition, these sections contain requirements for new TCAS II 
installations made after April 30, 2003; requirements for replacement 
of TCAS II (version 6.04A Enhanced) installations that cannot be 
adequately repaired with TCAS II (version 7.0) installations; 
provisions, effective January 1, 2005, for the operation of airplanes 
with a passenger seat configuration of 10-30 seats and provisions for 
piston-powered airplanes of more than 33,000 pounds maximum 
certificated takeoff weight.
    Part 91 Aircraft TCAS Equipage. Many business aviation operators 
equip their aircraft with TCAS voluntarily, as a safety measure.
    Other factors. Other factors related to the discussion of TCAS as 
it relates to RVSM are:
    a. Safety Analysis. The safety analysis conducted prior to RVSM 
implementation does not consider the effect of TCAS on risk bearing 
events such as altitude busts, controller errors, etc. Instead, risk is 
estimated based on aircraft altitude-keeping errors (technical errors) 
and operational or human errors. This estimated risk is compared to the 
agreed Target Level of Safety. The intent is to identify errors and 
mitigate their occurrence. Nowhere in the safety analysis or in 
operational evaluation is it assumed that an error event is not 
significant because risk is mitigated by TCAS when the event occurs.
    b. RVSM Experience. Since March 1997, in RVSM operations worldwide, 
approximately 14 million RVSM flight hours have been accumulated and 6 
million RVSM flights have been conducted safely. The criteria for 
altimeter accuracy, autopilot performance, and altitude alerts, plus 
the RVSM policies and procedures have been effective since their 
publication in guidance form in 1994 and in part 91, appendix G in 
April 1997.
    c. ICAO Aircraft Equipage Standards. The ICAO RVSM aircraft 
equipage standards applied worldwide, including Europe, do not include 
a requirement for TCAS.
    d. TCAS Events. The events in enroute airspace where TCAS has 
provided a safety net have not been related to the separation standard 
applied. Instead, events in enroute airspace where aircraft have come 
into proximity, generally have related to human error. Such events have 
occurred in airspace where 2,000-foot vertical separation is applied 
and in some cases where 60 nm lateral separation was applied.
    e. TCAS II Version 7.0. In December 2001, we published a revision 
to Part 91, Appendix G to require that Version 7.0 be incorporated into 
TCAS II if TCAS is installed on the aircraft and the aircraft is used 
in RVSM operations. RVSM operations will require Version 7.0 in 
domestic U.S. operations.
    2. One commenter stated the belief that TCAS was a requirement for 
RVSM in other areas of the world.
    FAA Response: Neither FAA regulations nor ICAO standards and 
policies require TCAS installation in order to conduct RVSM operations. 
ICAO Annex 6 (Operation of Aircraft), Part 1 (International Commercial 
Air Transport Aeroplanes) contains the ICAO standard for TCAS II, 
Version 7.0 installation on an aircraft. ICAO standards call for TCAS 
II, Version 7.0 installation on aircraft with a take-off gross weight 
exceeding 33,000 pounds or with a passenger carrying capacity of more 
than 30.
    ICAO Annex 6, Part II (International General Aviation Aeroplanes) 
calls for aircraft to be equipped with a pressure altitude reporting 
transponder, but does not call for TCAS installation. TCAS installation 
policies for individual ICAO regions are published in ICAO Regional 
Supplementary Procedures (Doc 7030). ICAO Doc 7030 TCAS and transponder 
installation policies reflect ICAO Annex 6, Parts I and II.
    3. Some comments proposed that an operating TCAS should be a 
requirement for entry into RVSM airspace and also for continued 
operation in the event of TCAS failure enroute.

[[Page 61316]]

    FAA Response: TCAS installation and operation is not a requirement 
for the application of enroute separation standards including 1,0000-
foot vertical separation below FL 290. Master Minimum Equipment List 
policy allows for TCAS to be inoperative for up to 3 days. The aircraft 
equipage requirements for RVSM have provided safe RVSM operations since 
1997.
    4. ALPA asked us to analyze the incremental safety benefit of 
requiring TCAS on all aircraft.
    FAA Response: The safety analysis performed prior to RVSM 
implementation considers the frequency of aircraft altitude-keeping 
errors and of human errors. The risk of error events is not considered 
to be mitigated by TCAS.
    We have estimated that there will be a high probability of TCAS 
equipage in encounters between aircraft. We have estimated that in 81 
percent of encounters between pairs of aircraft both aircraft will be 
TCAS equipped and in 99 percent of such encounters at least one 
aircraft will be TCAS equipped.
    5. CAPA suggested that encounters between aircraft where one is 
TCAS equipped and the other is not are similar to the European mid-air 
collision event that occurred in July of 2002.
    FAA Response: First, we do not believe that the potential event 
described is specific to a single separation standard, including 1,000-
foot separation above FL 290. Second, 1,000-foot vertical separation is 
applied without requirements for TCAS below FL 290. Third, the mid-air 
event in Europe occurred despite the fact that both aircraft were TCAS 
equipped. In NAS airspace, approximately 90 percent of aircraft are 
estimated to be TCAS equipped.
    6. AEA asked for confirmation of TCAS I acceptability for 
operations in RVSM airspace.
    FAA Response: The only RVSM requirement related to TCAS 
installation is that if the aircraft is equipped with TCAS II and used 
in RVSM operations then TCAS II, Version 7.0 must be incorporated. 
There is no prohibition in RVSM requirements against TCAS I.
    7. AEA asked if Mode S waivers would remain in effect.
    FAA Response: All TCAS installations require a TCAS-compatible Mode 
S transponder. This is to allow for coordination during events where 
more than one aircraft is TCAS equipped. This is true for Version 7 and 
all previous versions. TCAS Version 7 and all earlier versions are 
capable of tracking other aircraft that are equipped with either a Mode 
A/C or Mode S transponder. TCAS will provide TA and RA protection 
against aircraft equipped with either type of transponder.
    We have not issued any waivers to the requirement for a Mode S 
transponder on a TCAS-equipped aircraft. This would have resulted in 
TCAS being inoperative at all times.
    The requirement for Version 7 instead of earlier versions of the 
TCAS logic should have no affect on waivers issued to Mode S 
requirements for aircraft that are not TCAS equipped.

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, we have 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) 
has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, but 
provides benefits that justify a final rule; and (4) does not 
constitute a barrier to international trade. These analyses, available 
in the docket, are summarized below.
    This rule 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., the District of 
Columbia, Alaska, that portion of the Gulf of Mexico where we provide 
air traffic services, the San Juan FIR and the airspace between Florida 
and the San Juan FIR. Some of the benefits of this 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.
    We estimate that this rule will cost U.S. operators $869.2 million 
for the fifteen-year period 2002-2016 or $764.9 million, discounted. 
For the purposes of this cost analysis, we assumed that operators would 
choose to upgrade almost 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 on January 20, 2005. Estimated quantifiable benefits, based on 
fuel savings for the U.S. aircraft fleet over the years 2005 to 2016, 
would be $5.3 billion or discounted at $3.0 billion.
    In addition to fuel savings, many non-quantifiable or value-added 
benefits will 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:

[sbull] Enhanced capacity
[sbull] Reduced airspace complexity
[sbull] Decreased operational errors in these regions
[sbull] Reduction of user-requested off course climbs for altitude 
changes
[sbull] Improved flexibility for peak traffic demands
[sbull] Reduction of the effect of traffic converging at critical 
points
[sbull] Increased number of options in deviating aircraft during 
periods of adverse weather

    The benefits outlined above for RVSM in the NAT and PAC regions are 
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:

[sbull] Decreased flight delays
[sbull] Improved access to desired flight levels

[[Page 61317]]

[sbull] Reduced average flight times
[sbull] Increased likelihood of receiving a clearance for weather 
deviations
[sbull] Seamless, transparent, and harmonious operations between 
adjoining RVSM airspaces
[sbull] Consistent procedural environment throughout the entire flight
[sbull] 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 rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined by 
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) because 
this rule will 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. We identified and considered three 
alternatives to the final rule.

Alternative One--The Status Quo

    This alternative would maintain the 2,000-foot separation above FL 
290 and would avoid the equipment and testing requirements of this 
rule, which impose a cost of $869.2 million ($764.9 million, 
discounted) from 2002 to 2016 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 DRVSM. As mentioned 
earlier, the cost-savings afforded by this rule are estimated to be 
$5.3 billion ($3.0 billion, discounted) in fuel savings over the same 
period. Since the foregone cost-savings of the alternative greatly 
exceed the avoided costs, we reject this alternative in favor of the 
final 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 $5.3 billion ($3.0 billion, discounted) in fuel savings while 
the aviation industry and the FAA avoid RVSM costs of $869.2 million 
($764.9 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 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 
increased risk of midair collisions if non-RVSM calibrated aircraft are 
allowed to operate under RVSM. Since there are some aviation safety 
concerns with this alternative, this alternative is also rejected in 
favor of the final rule.

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

    This alternative would delay implementation of the 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 rule no longer economically significant 
under E.O. 12866. The cost of this alternative would still be the same 
as the cost of the final rule, although the discounted costs would be 
lower than the discounted costs of the final rule. However, if 
implementation of the rule were 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 final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    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 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.

Findings of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Operators of large transport aircraft meeting the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) small entity criteria were identified in the 6-day 
traffic sample of ETMS data and appear in Table 2 of the Regulatory 
Impact Analysis. Revenue information for the small entity operators was 
obtained from the Air Carrier Financial Statistics Quarterly, Dun and 
Bradstreet Million Dollar Directory, J&P Airline Fleets International, 
and the Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics Office of Airline Information Web Site.
    Operators of small commercial or general aviation aircraft are 
typically operated under either 14 CFR part 91 or 14 CFR part 135. This 
study focuses on part 135 operators. Since they utilize their aircraft 
as their primary means of revenue generation through offering non-
scheduled charter flights, they are more prone to being impacted by 
this rule. The FAA estimates that 380 operators with less than 1,500 
employees operate 2,780 turbojet aircraft on part 135 generating $7.0 
billion in charter revenue per annum. As of December 2002, 422 of these 
aircraft are RVSM approved leaving 2,358 non-approved aircraft. The FAA 
estimates the cost to upgrade the non-approved airframes is $211.4 
million. In addition, the FAA estimates that these operators will incur 
approximately $74.1 million, or $195,000 per operator, in lost revenue 
associated with the downtime necessary to upgrade these airframes for 
RVSM operations. Based on these estimates, the FAA has

[[Page 61318]]

determined that this group of approximately 380 operators is 
significantly impacted by this rule.
    The following reviews some of the factors associated with the costs 
of upgrading part 135 aircraft that the FAA considered in the 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA):
    [sbull] Table 1 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) provides 
projected costs associated with upgrading individual aircraft types. 
The FAA recognizes that the costs may change. In some cases, the FAA 
has seen costs decrease as more upgrade options become available. The 
FAA also recognizes, however, that in the period before the RVSM 
implementation date competition for upgrade facilities may lead to an 
increase in costs. Therefore, the FAA concludes that this cost may vary 
and can only be estimated.
    [sbull] For the purposes of estimating costs associated with 
upgrading part 135 aircraft to RVSM standards, the FAA used the 
conservative assumption in RIA Tables 2 and 3 that all operators will 
incur upgrade costs during the 15-year cost analysis period, 2002-2016. 
The FAA recognizes that some operators of high upgrade cost aircraft 
may elect to fly below flight level 290 for an indefinite period of 
time. The FAA conducted a study entitled ``An Examination of Range and 
Fuel-Burn Penalties Associated with Operating Business Jet Type 
Aircraft Beneath Proposed U.S. Domestic Reduced Vertical Separation 
Minimum (DRVSM) Airspace''. The study is available in the rulemaking 
docket. The study provides costs for flight operation below 290 for 
such aircraft. The FAA concluded that the costs associated with flight 
below flight level 290 are less than that for upgrade. The FAA, 
therefore, believed that assuming all aircraft would incur upgrade 
costs was a conservative approach.
    [sbull] RIA Table 5 provides an estimate of revenue lost to part 
135 operators when their aircraft are in service centers undergoing 
RVSM upgrade. For the purpose of developing this table, the FAA assumed 
an average aircraft downtime of two weeks. The FAA recognizes that 
actual downtime can vary in individual situations, however, we believe 
two weeks to be a reasonable assumption for average downtime. These 
costs can be mitigated if upgrades occur during other scheduled 
maintenance.
    [sbull] In the RFA Affordability Analysis, the FAA recognizes that 
the 380 part 135 operators will fund upgrade costs from company 
sources, lenders or through the issuance of equity capital.
    [sbull] Although in January 2005 approximately 90 per cent of 
flights in domestic U.S. RVSM airspace are projected to be conducted by 
RVSM-compliant aircraft, approximately 10 percent of flights that now 
operate above FL 290 are projected to operate below that level. The FAA 
recognizes that some operators may not complete RVSM engineering work 
and FAA Flight Standards office processing by the RVSM implementation 
date. Such operators retain the option to fly below FL 290 until they 
receive RVSM authority. FAA flight simulations have shown that the 
approximate 10 percent increase in traffic below FL 290 can be 
accommodated without degrading safety.
    [sbull] The FAA examined the fuel consumption penalties and range 
limitations associated with flight below FL 290. The study entitled 
``An Examination of Range and Fuel-Burn Penalties Associated with 
Operating Business Jet Type Aircraft Beneath Proposed U.S. Domestic 
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (DRVSM) Initial Simulation'' is 
available for review in the docket. Using data from the FAA Enhanced 
Traffic Management System, the study examined the actual leg lengths 
and city-pairs that part 135 aircraft fly. The study concluded that 
part 135 aircraft would incur a fuel consumption penalty of 
approximately 7.15 percent. The penalty imposes an average annual cost 
of $1,147 per airframe or $3.1 million for the part 135 aircraft 
population that has not already been upgraded. In addition the study 
concluded that approximately 92 percent of flights would not require a 
fuel stop when flown beneath FL 290. The study can be found in the 
public docket at http://dms.dot.gov and searching docket number 12261.
    [sbull] In the past 7 years of RVSM operations, maintenance costs 
have not been a significant factor in comparison to initial aircraft 
approval costs. RVSM required systems are already standard for most 
aircraft and maintenance is already a requirement for them. The FAA 
recognizes that RVSM requires additional maintenance measures for some 
aircraft. However, they have not been factored here because they have 
not been factors in previous RVSM implementations.
    [sbull] In the ``Costs'' section of the ``Discussion of Comments'', 
the FAA states that the residual value of aircraft was not a primary 
consideration in this rulemaking. The FAA believes that compliance with 
RVSM standards will actually increase the residual value of some 
aircraft. The FAA recognizes that aircraft that are not upgraded will 
decrease in residual value, however, RVSM is a global program that has 
been implemented in a large portion of global airspace and operators 
must plan accordingly.
    The analysis of the operators of large transport aircraft shows 
that of the 22 potential small entity operators identified in the 
traffic sample, none were determined to have upgrade costs resulting in 
their being significantly impacted by this rule. However, 380 Part 135 
operators are significantly impacted by this rule. Therefore, the FAA 
has determined that this rule will impact a substantial number of small 
entities.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    Under section 603(b) of the RFA (as amended), each regulatory 
flexibility analysis is required to address the following points: (1) 
Reasons why the FAA is considering the rule, (2) the objectives and 
legal basis for the rule, (3) the kind and number of small entities to 
which the rule would apply, (4) the projected reporting, record-
keeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, and (5) all 
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule.

Reasons Why the FAA Is Implementing This Rule

    This rulemaking action will increase the number of available flight 
levels, enhance airspace capacity, and permit operators to fly more 
fuel and time efficient tracks and altitudes. The rule will also 
enhance air traffic controller flexibility by increasing the number of 
available flight levels, while maintaining an equivalent level of 
safety.

The Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule

    The objective of this rule is to enhance operational efficiency and 
air traffic flexibility. Specifically, this rule aims to create 
flexibility and resultant benefits for operators and air traffic 
providers. The legal basis for this rule is found in 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, and articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation (61 stat. 1180).

The Kind and Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply

    This rule applies to 70 scheduled airlines operating large 
transport aircraft under Part 121 of which 22 are small

[[Page 61319]]

operators with 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, this rule also 
applies to 380 operators operating under Part 135 with all considered 
to be small entities. The FAA estimates that 1,900 corporations also 
operate non-approved turbojet aircraft under Part 91 that will be 
upgraded for this rule. These aircraft are primarily used for private 
non-revenue transportation and were considered in the Benefit/Cost 
analysis.

The Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements of the Rule

    Information collection requirements in the final rule have been 
previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)) and have been assigned OMB Control Number: 2120-0679.
    The following paperwork costs would be imposed on aircraft 
operators:
    Section 14 CFR part 91, Section 91.180 would require aircraft 
operators seeking operational approval to conduct RVSM operations 
within the 48 contiguous States of the United States (U.S.), Alaska, 
the portion of the Gulf of Mexico where the FAA provides air traffic 
services, the Miami-San Juan corridor and the San Juan flight 
information region (FIR), to submit their application to their CHDO. 
This submission by the estimated 2,275 respondents would require each 
organization to spend 30 hours on the paperwork at a cost of 
approximately $950 for each operator.

All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Rule

    We are unaware of any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with the rule.
    Other Considerations:

Affordability Analysis \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Small entity operators have the following options. They may 
elect to:
    [sbull] Modify their aircraft to RVSM standards,
    [sbull] Operate at and below FL 280 for a period of time until 
they either modify their aircraft or purchase RVSM compliant 
aircraft,
    [sbull] Operate at and below FL 280 indefinitely.
    In past RVSM implementation programs, some operators have 
modified their aircraft despite the costs involved. They have taken 
this decision because they do not wish to operate with a 
restriction. Instead, they wish to have access to all flight levels 
up to FL 410 in order to retain all available options to avoid 
weather, to be accommodated in prevailing traffic flows and to 
operate at the most fuel efficient FL's and on preferred routes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purpose of this analysis, the degree to which small 
entities can afford the cost of compliance is based on the availability 
of financial resources. Initial upgrade costs can be funded from 
company funds, lenders, or through the issuance of equity capital. 
These compliance costs can be accommodated by accepting reduced 
profits, increasing ticket prices or charter rates, or through other 
cost-savings measures to offset costs.
    The cost of compliance for the 380 impacted small entity operators 
is $211.4 million, or $556,000.00 per small entity for upgrade costs 
and $74.1 million in downtime costs. Small entity operators are 
expected to enjoy smaller benefits than large transport operators due 
to their disproportionate cost-benefit ratio of upgrade costs to 
forecasted benefits. FAA analysis has determined that the average 
operator will realize a 1.86% fuel saving. However, part 135 operators 
electing not to upgrade or delay their aircraft upgrade plans would 
incur on average a 7.15 percent fuel penalty from conducting operations 
beneath FL290. Although we recognize these upgrade costs have a 
significant impact on these operators, the operational penalties 
associated with not upgrading or delaying aircraft upgrade plans do not 
prevent the operators from continuing to operate.

Disproportionality Analysis \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The FAA examined alternatives for operators that do not 
elect to modify their aircraft to RVSM standards and reached the 
conclusions discussed below:
    Allowing Un-approved Aircraft to Operate Unconditionally in RVSM 
Airspace. The FAA concluded that it would not be feasible or safe to 
allow large numbers of un-approved aircraft to operate in RVSM 
airspace with RVSM approved aircraft. A mix of approved and un-
approved aircraft increases ATC complexity, controller work load and 
the potential for error.
    Delaying DRVSM Implementation. It is in the best interest of the 
majority of the operators and to the overall enhancement of NAS 
operations to proceed with DRVSM implementation in January 2005. 
Each year that implementation is delayed will result in the loss of 
$394 million dollars in operator benefits and delay enhancements to 
NAS operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On average, the 380 small entities will be disadvantaged relative 
to operators of large transport aircraft due to disproportionate cost 
impacts. Operators of large transport aircraft enjoy greater revenues 
than the small entities and typically operate larger fleets. Due to 
their fleet sizes, large transport aircraft operators enjoy more 
flexibility to rotate their fleet through the RVSM approval process 
without a disruption in service while many of the small entities 
operate only one aircraft. Further, operators of large transport 
aircraft enjoy having their own maintenance facilities.

Competitiveness Analysis

    The 380 small-entity operators do not compete with large transport 
operators but could experience significant costs through upgrading 
their aircraft for RVSM operations. However, FAA analysis has shown 
that aircraft operated under part 135 experience on average a 7.15% 
reduction in fuel efficiency if they were operated beneath the RVSM 
stratum. Further, FAA RVSM readiness projections for the January 2005 
DRVSM implementation timeframe indicate that the aircraft generating 
approximately 90% of the operations in the NAS will be approved for 
RVSM operations. The estimated annual increase in fuel-burn for the 
projected 10% of non-approved NAS traffic would result in $103.7 
million in total fuel penalties for these operators based on $18.2 
billion in annual fuel consumption for all operations.

Description of Alternatives

    We have considered a number of alternatives to the rule. We find 
that this rule achieves the desired airspace enhancements and delivers 
the maximum benefits to operators and air traffic providers while 
maintaining system safety.
    The following alternatives to the rule have been considered:

[sbull] Status Quo
[sbull] Not enforce the rule for small entities
[sbull] Delay the rule
[sbull] Phased RVSM implementation

Alternative One--Status Quo

    This alternative would maintain the current 2,000-foot vertical 
separation minimum above FL290 thereby avoiding the $869.2 million 
($764.9 million, discounted) in costs between 2002 and 2004 for the 
aviation industry and the FAA. However, maintaining the status quo does 
not provide the desired airspace enhancements for operators and air 
traffic providers. As noted earlier, the cost savings and NAS 
operational enhancements are estimated to be $5.3 billion ($3.0 
billion, discounted) over the 15-year period. Under this alternative, 
the foregone cost-savings would be more than seven times the cost of 
this rule. Therefore, we reject this alternative in favor of the rule.

Alternative Two--Not Enforce the Rule for Small Entities

    This alternative would permit small operators to operate in RVSM 
airspace without upgrading their aircraft for such operations. Under 
this scenario, small operators would avoid $285.5 million ($211.4 
million in upgrade costs and

[[Page 61320]]

$74.1 in downtime costs) or $751,316.00 per operator. However, this 
would compromise safety as it would result in some 2,400 non-approved 
aircraft operating in the RVSM stratum. Therefore, the FAA rejects this 
alternative in favor of the rule.

Alternative Three--Phased Implementation of RVSM

    This alternative would involve the implementation of RVSM for a 
smaller altitude band such as FL330-370 with eventual expansion to the 
full RVSM envelope of FL290-410. Although this alternative would create 
some flexibility for small operators to continue operating near their 
desired flight levels and delaying their implementation plans, airspace 
complexity would be increased. The simulations conducted at the FAA 
Technical Center showed that when RVSM was applied in any altitude band 
other than FL 290-410, system safety and airspace management were 
negatively impacted. Controller workload, potential for controller 
error and operational complexity all increased. Therefore, we reject 
this alternative in favor of the rule. The ``Final Report for Domestic 
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (DRVSM) Initial Simulation'' is in 
the docket and can be accessed at http://dms.dot.gov and searching for 
docket number 12261.

Alternative Four--The Final Rule

    This alternative represents the Final Rule. Under this alternative, 
airspace users and air traffic providers will receive $5.3 billion 
($3.0 billion, discounted) in cost-savings for the years 2005 to 2016. 
These benefits will be realized through the investment of $869.2 
million ($764.9 million discounted) in costs associated with this rule. 
We estimate that the costs for 380 small entities would be $211.4 
million, or $556,000.00 on average. This alternative is preferred, as 
we believe it provides the best balance of costs and benefits for 
airspace users and air traffic providers without a reduction in 
aviation safety.

International Trade Impact Statement

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards. We have assessed the potential effect of this rulemaking and 
have determined that it will impose the same costs on domestic and 
international entities and thus it has a neutral trade impact.

Federalism

    We have analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria 
of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We have determined that this 
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the 
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Therefore, we determined that this final rule does not have 
federalism implications.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Information collection requirements in the final rule have been 
previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)) and have been assigned OMB control number 2120-0679. This 
final rule adds the OMB control number to the table of OMB control 
numbers in 14 CFR 11.201(b).

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 rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the 
requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do 
not apply.

International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation 
Regulations

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on ICAO, it 
is FAA policy to comply with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
(SARP) to maximum extent practicable. The operator and aircraft 
approval process was developed jointly by the FAA and the JAA under the 
auspices of NATSPG. We have 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. We believe 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

    We have assessed the energy impact of this rule in accordance with 
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and Pub. L. 94-163, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 6362). We have determined that this rule is not a 
major regulatory action under the provisions of the EPCA.

Executive Order 13211--Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to submit a Statement of 
Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, for matters 
identified as significant energy actions. A significant energy action 
is an action that (1) is significant under Executive Order 12866 and is 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy or (2) is designated by the 
administrator of the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy 
action. We are not required to submit a Statement of Energy Effects for 
this proposed rule because we do not expect this rule to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy and the Administrator of OIRA has not identified it as a 
significant energy action.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 11

    Administrative practice and procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

14 CFR Part 91

    Air-traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

[[Page 61321]]

The Amendment

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends parts 11 and 91 of Title 14 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (14 CFR parts 11 and 91) as follows:

PART 11--GENERAL RULEMAKING PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40101, 40103, 40105, 40109, 40113, 
44110, 44502, 44701-44702, 44711, and 46102.

Subpart B--Paperwork Reduction Act Control Numbers

0
2. Amend the table in Sec.  11.201(b) by revising the entry for part 91 
to read as follows:


Sec.  11.201  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers 
assigned under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  14 CFR part or  section identified  and
                 described                    Current OMB  control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
Part 91...................................  2120-0005, 2120-0026,
                                            2120-0027, 2120-0573,
                                            2120-0606, 2120-0620,
                                            2120-0631, 2120-0651, 2120-
                                             0679
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
3. 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

0
4. 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.

0
5. 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) * * *
    (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).

0
6. Add Sec.  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 or the country 
of registry to conduct such operations.
    (b) The Administrator may authorize a deviation from the 
requirements of this section.

0
7. 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
* * * * *

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 October 22, 2003.
Marion Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-27028 Filed 10-22-03; 2:12 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P