[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 109 (Thursday, June 7, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31662-31685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10609]



[[Page 31661]]

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

Part II





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Parts 1, 91, 97 et al.



Area Navigation (RNAV) and Miscellaneous Amendments; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 109 / Thursday, June 7, 2007 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 31662]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1, 91, 97, 121, 125, 129, and 135

[Docket No. FAA-2002-14002; Amdt. Nos. 1-57, 91-296, 97-1336, 121-333, 
125-52, 129-42, 135-110]
RIN 2120-AH77


Area Navigation (RNAV) and Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending its regulations to reflect technological 
advances that support area navigation (RNAV); include provisions on the 
use of suitable RNAV systems for navigation; amend certain terms for 
consistency with those of the International Civil Aviation Organization 
(ICAO); remove reference to the middle marker in certain sections 
because a middle marker is no longer operationally required; clarify 
airspace terminology; and incorporate by reference obstacle departure 
procedures into Federal regulations. The changes will facilitate the 
use of new navigation reference sources, enable advancements in 
technology, and increase efficiency of the National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective date: August 6, 2007. The incorporation by reference 
of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director 
of the Federal Register as of August 6, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ernest Skiver, Flight Technologies and 
Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, AFS-400, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 
20591; telephone: (202) 385-4586.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's 
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General 
requirements.'' Under Section 44701, the FAA is charged with 
prescribing regulations and minimum standards for practices, methods, 
and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air 
commerce.
    This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it 
will facilitate air navigation from other than ground-based navigation 
aids, enable new technology and provide for consistency between FAA and 
ICAO terminology.

Guide to Terms and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document

AC--Advisory Circular
APV--Approach procedure with vertical guidance
ARAC--Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
ATC--Air Traffic Control
ATS--Air Traffic Service
DA--Decision altitude
DH--Decision height
DME--Distance measuring equipment
EFVS--Enhanced Flight Vision System
FL--Flight level
GPS--Global Positioning System
ICAO--International Civil Aviation Organization
IAP--Instrument approach procedure
IFR--Instrument flight rules
ILS--Instrument landing system
MDA--Minimum descent altitude
MEA--Minimum en route IFR altitude
MOCA--Minimum obstruction clearance altitude
MSL--Mean sea level
NAS--National Airspace System
ODP--Obstacle departure procedure
Over the top--Over the top of clouds
RNAV--Area navigation
RNP--Required navigation performance
RVR--Runway visual range
TAOARC--Terminal Area Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee
TERPS--U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures
VOR--Very high frequency omnidirectional range

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Previous Rulemaking Actions
    B. Terminal Area Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee 
(TAOARC)
    C. Concept of Performance-Based Criteria
II. Discussion of the Final Rule
    A. General
    B. Terminology and Definitions (Sec. Sec.  1.1, 1.2, and 97.3)
    1. Classification of instrument approach procedures (Sec.  1.1: 
APV, NPA, and PA)
    2. Category I, II, III, IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc operations (Sec.  
1.1)
    3. Decision altitude (DA) and decision height (DH) (Sec.  1.1)
    4. Final approach fix (FAF) (Sec.  1.1)
    5. HAT as acronym for ``height above threshold'' (Sec.  97.3)
    6. Helipoint (Sec.  97.3)
    7. Instrument approach procedure (IAP) (Sec.  1.1)
    8. Minimum descent altitude (MDA) (Sec.  1.1)
    9. MSA--Minimum safe altitude (Sec.  97.3)
    10. Night (Sec.  1.1)
    11. Use of the word ``pilot'' or ``person''
    12. Precision final approach fix (PFAF) (Sec.  1.1)
    13. RNAV (acronym) (Sec.  1.2)
    14. Visibility minimum (Sec.  97.3)
    II.C. Communication Requirements
    1. Communications facilities (Sec.  121.99)
    2. Aircraft communication equipment (Sec. Sec.  91.205, 91.511, 
91.711, 121.345, 121.347, 121.349, 121.351, 125.203, 129.16 (adopted 
as Sec.  129.22), 129.17, 135.161, and 135.165)
    3. Flight operations communications requirements (Sec. Sec.  
91.183, 91.185, 129.21, and 135.79)
    II.D. Navigation Equipment Requirements
    1. Aircraft navigation equipment requirements 1.a. Suitability 
of RNAV systems 1.b. Aircraft navigation equipment requirements 1.c. 
Navigation system configurations
    2. Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) or other satellite 
navigation aids, e.g., global positioning systems (GPS)
    3. En route navigation facilities (Sec. Sec.  121.103, 121.121, 
125.51)
    II.E. International Standards
    II.F. Elimination of Middle Markers (Sec. Sec.  91.129 and 
91.175)
    II.G. DME Requirements for Aircraft Operating At or Above FL 180 
Versus FL 240 (Sec. Sec.  91.205 and 91.711)
    II.H. Minimum Altitudes for Use of Autopilot (Sec. Sec.  121.579 
and 135.93)
III. Discussion of Comments on Specific Sections (Sec. Sec.  91.129, 
91.175, 91.177, 97.1, 97.3, 97.10, 97.20, 121.651, and 125.381)
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Economic Evaluation
    A. Paperwork Reduction Act
    B. International Compatibility
    C. Regulatory Evaluation summary
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
    E. International Trade Impact Assessment
    F. Unfunded Mandate Assessment
    G. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    H. Environmental Analysis
    I. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use
V. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
VI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

I. Background

I.A. Previous Rulemaking Actions

    On December 17, 2002, the FAA published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Area Navigation (RNAV) and Miscellaneous 
Amendments'' (67 FR 77326; Dec. 17, 2002). The comment period closed on 
January 31, 2003, and several commenters requested that the FAA extend 
the comment period. The comment period was reopened for an additional 
60 days until July 7, 2003 (68 FR 16992; April 8, 2003) to receive 
comments specifically on the proposed RNAV operations and equipment 
requirements. The FAA received approximately 30 comments from industry 
groups, aircraft manufacturers, navigation equipment manufacturers, 
communication service providers, and air carriers.
    On April 8, 2003 (68 FR 16943; April 8, 2003), the FAA issued a 
final rule with request for comments titled

[[Page 31663]]

``Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic 
Service Routes; and Reporting Points,'' which adopted certain proposed 
amendments to parts 1, 71, 95, and 97 from the RNAV NPRM. In that rule, 
the FAA adopted the following:
    Sec.  1.1 General definitions: Air Traffic Service (ATS) route 
revised as proposed; area navigation (RNAV) revised as proposed; area 
navigation high route removed as proposed; area navigation low route 
removed as proposed; area navigation (RNAV) route revised as proposed; 
RNAV waypoint removed as proposed; and route segment revised as 
proposed.
    Part 71: Subpart A heading transferred and revised (with wording 
modification) as proposed; Sec. Sec.  71.11, 71.13, and 71.15 added as 
proposed; Sec. Sec.  71.73, 71.75, 71.77, and 71.79 removed as 
proposed.
    Part 95: Sec.  95.1 revised as proposed.
    Part 97: Sec.  97.20 revised as proposed with minor modifications. 
(Note that this section is further amended in this final rule.)
    Except for Sec.  97.20 described above, the foregoing amendments 
are not addressed in this document. Comments received in response to 
the April 8, 2003 final rule are contained in docket number FAA-2003-
14698. (See ``V. Availability of Rulemaking Documents'' for information 
on how to access the docket.)
    Also, on January 9, 2004 (69 FR 1620; Jan. 9, 2004), the FAA issued 
the ``Enhanced Flight Vision Systems'' (EFVS) final rule. The EFVS rule 
did not incorporate any proposed RNAV terminology. Certain sections 
amended by the EFVS final rule are further amended in this rule to 
update the terminology as appropriate.

I.B. Terminal Area Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee (TAOARC)

    The Regional Airline Association (RAA), United Parcel Service 
(UPS), and the Airline Transport Association (ATA) all suggested that 
the FAA allow the Terminal Area Operations Aviation Rulemaking 
Committee (TAOARC) to review the comments and recommend action to the 
FAA. The TAOARC (now under a new charter as the Performance-Based 
Operations Aviation Rulemaking Committee (PARC)) is an FAA-chartered 
advisory committee composed of government and industry representatives 
which provides a forum for the United States aviation community to 
discuss and resolve issues, provide direction for United States flight 
operations criteria, and produce U.S. consensus positions for global 
harmonization. The FAA asked TAOARC to review the comments filed in the 
docket on the RNAV NPRM and provide recommendations.
    TAOARC held a public meeting on December 9, 2003, in Arlington, VA, 
to present its recommendations and request comments. Minutes from this 
meeting and the TAOARC recommendations are available in the docket. The 
recommendations are included with the discussion of comments below.

I.C. Concept of Performance-Based Criteria

    Many civil aviation authorities (CAAs), including the FAA, 
recognize the need to change the way airspace is managed due to 
increased demands for the use of certain airspace within a particular 
geographic area. Moving towards a performance-based National Airspace 
System (NAS) may necessitate, for example, the establishment of 
performance requirements for aircraft communication and navigation 
equipment needed to manage instrument flight rule (IFR) aircraft, which 
could ultimately increase capacity in certain airspace. For reasons 
discussed below, aircraft communication and navigation equipment 
performance criteria will be addressed in future rulemaking.
    In this rule, the FAA is updating its communication and navigation 
operating regulations to allow flexibility in accommodating 
technological advances. Part of the FAA's plan to implement a 
performance-based NAS is to update its regulations and remove 
prescriptive references to ground-based navigation systems in the 
operating regulations and to permit the use of non-ground based 
navigation systems. In a performance-based NAS, operational flexibility 
depends upon many factors including the performance capability of the 
aircraft communication and navigation equipment, the availability of 
the communication and navigation facilities along the route to be 
flown, and the performance capabilities of those (communication and 
navigation) facilities that are made available for use by air traffic 
management service providers.

II. Discussion of the Final Rule

II.A. General

    Northwest Airlines stated that, as the FAA is moving toward a 
required navigation performance (RNP)-based infrastructure, the RNAV 
system should be performance-based to allow operators to use both 
existing navigation aids and any future satellite-based systems as 
sensors to navigate using the concept of RNP. Continental, Boeing, and 
Airbus expressed concern that the NPRM did not address RNP.
    This rulemaking lays the groundwork for navigation equipment and 
other operational requirements for the RNP environment and is 
consistent with planned RNP implementation. The FAA already has 
established RNP criteria for RNAV systems used to conduct certain 
instrument approach procedures. The agency plans to establish RNP 
criteria for RNAV systems used in the en route environment in the near 
future.
    Rockwell Collins recommended that the rule clearly state whether 
there is any change to Wide-Area Augmentation System (WAAS) or LPV 
(localizer performance with vertical guidance) and their roles within 
the NAS.
    This rule allows for the use of WAAS or any other system where it 
satisfies the performance requirements and is suitable for the 
operation to be conducted. The rule also applies to all phases of 
flight, including LPV approaches.

II.B. Terminology and Definitions (Sec. Sec.  1.1, 1.2, and 97.3)

    To facilitate RNAV operations, the FAA proposed to change certain 
terminology for area navigation, en route operations, instrument 
approach procedures, and landings. These amendments were proposed in 
Sec. Sec.  1.1 General definitions, 1.2 Abbreviations and symbols, and 
97.3 Symbols and terms. Conforming changes to other sections in parts 
91, 95, 97, 121, 125, 129, and 135 were also proposed. The FAA proposed 
removing the words ``ground'' and ``radio'' in the regulations where 
using those words restricted the type of navigation and communication 
systems permitted in order for operators to take advantage of future 
technology and still meet NAS requirements.
    Airbus commented generally that several of the proposed amendments 
to Sec.  1.1 would have an undesirable ``ripple effect'' on other rules 
in parts 91, 97, 121, 125, 129, and 135.
    Rockwell Collins asked if the new terminology would be applied 
retroactively. While the FAA finds this question somewhat unclear, it 
confirms that the rule does not impose retrofit requirements for older 
RNAV equipment. If it becomes necessary, however, to impose future 
conditions and limitations on the use of RNAV equipment, the FAA will 
do so through future rulemaking.
    The following table sets forth the proposed terms, definitions and 
their dispositions in this final rule. (Note that terms and definitions 
adopted in the April 8, 2003 rule are not included in

[[Page 31664]]

the table.) A discussion of the comments on these terms and the FAA's 
responses follows the table.

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          FAA decision reflected in the
 Proposed definitions and abbreviations             final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approach procedure with vertical         Withdrawn and action deferred
 guidance (APV) (Sec.   1.1).             until reviewed by joint
                                          industry/government working
                                          groups.
Category I, II, & III, IIIa, IIIb, and   Withdrawn and action deferred
 IIIc approaches (Sec.   1.1).            until reviewed by joint
                                          industry/government working
                                          groups.
Decision altitude (DA) (Sec.   1.1)....  Adopted.
Decision height (DH) (Sec.   1.1)......  Adopted with modification.
Final approach fix (FAF) (Sec.   1.1)..  Adopted.
HAT (Height above threshold) (Sec.       Withdrawn.
 97.3).
Helipoint (Sec.   97.3)................  Adopted.
Instrument approach procedure (IAP)      Adopted with modification.
 (Sec.   1.1).
Minimum descent altitude (MDA) (Sec.     Adopted with modification.
 1.1).
MSA (minimum safe altitude) (Sec.        Adopted.
 97.3).
Night (Sec.   1.1).....................  Withdrawn.
Nonprecision approach procedure (NPA)    Withdrawn and action deferred
 (Sec.   1.1).                            until reviewed by joint
                                          industry/government working
                                          groups.
Person.................................  Adopted as appropriate to
                                          section.
Pilot..................................  Adopted as appropriate to
                                          section.
Precision approach procedure (PA) (Sec.  Withdrawn and action deferred
   1.1).                                  until reviewed by joint
                                          industry/government working
                                          groups.
Precision final approach fix (PFAF)      Withdrawn and action deferred
 (Sec.   1.1).                            until reviewed by joint
                                          industry/government working
                                          groups.
RNAV (abbreviation) (Sec.   1.2).......  Adopted.
Visibility minimum (Sec.   97.3).......  Adopted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II.B.1. Classification of Instrument Approach Procedures (Sec.  1.1: 
APV, NPA, PA)
    The FAA proposed to redefine ``nonprecision approach procedure 
(NPA)'' and ``precision approach procedure (PA).''
    For the term ``nonprecision approach procedure (NPA),'' the 
proposal eliminated reference to ``electronic glide slope'' and defined 
it as, ``* * * an instrument approach procedure based on a lateral path 
and no vertical glide path.''
    Similarly, the proposed definition of ``precision approach 
procedure (PA)'' deleted reference to ``electronic glide slope'' and 
``standard instrument procedure'' and defined that term as ``* * * an 
instrument approach procedure based on a lateral path and a vertical 
glide path.'' This definition would provide lateral course and track 
information with vertical glide path information.
    The term ``approach procedure with vertical guidance (APV)'' was 
proposed as ``* * * an instrument approach procedure based on lateral 
path and vertical glide path. These procedures may not conform to 
requirements for precision approaches.''
    ATA, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), American 
Airlines, Continental Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Airbus, Boeing, and 
American Trans Air all objected to the above three proposed 
definitions. They recommended withdrawing the definitions for 
reconsideration because the terms were either inconsistent with, or 
were in direct conflict with, the same terms defined in Advisory 
Circular (AC) 120-28D ``Criteria for Approval of Category III Weather 
Minima for Takeoff, Landing, and Rollout,'' and AC 120-29A ``Criteria 
for Approval of Category I and Category II Weather Minima for 
Approach.''
    In addition, RAA and Airbus contended that adopting the term 
``approach with vertical guidance (APV)'' would impose additional 
crewmember training requirements and require the updating of training 
materials.
    TAOARC commented that the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee's 
(ARAC's) All Weather Operations Working Group has already initiated a 
review of this terminology and that the FAA should defer final action 
until that group completes its review.
    Based on the above comments, and the fact that these terms are 
currently under review by ARAC, the FAA concludes that it is 
inappropriate to adopt these terms and definitions at this time. The 
FAA anticipates that working groups within the ARAC, PARC, and civil 
aviation authorities will review the terms and submit recommendations 
to the agency for future consideration. Therefore, all proposed 
amendments using these three proposed terms are withdrawn.
II.B.2. Category I, II, III, IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc Operations (Sec.  
1.1)
    The FAA proposed to add a definition of ``Category I;'' expand the 
definitions of ``Category II, and III, IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc 
operations'' to accommodate precision RNAV approaches; and replace the 
terms ``ILS [instrument landing system] approach'' and ``instrument 
approach'' with ``precision approach'' or ``precision instrument 
approach,'' respectively. The proposed definitions are as follows.
    ``Category I (CAT I) operation is a precision instrument approach 
and landing with a decision altitude that is not lower than 200 feet 
(60 meters) above the threshold and with either a visibility of not 
less than \1/2\ statute mile (800 meters), or a runway visual range of 
not less than 1,800 feet (550 meters).
    ``Category II (CAT II) operation is a precision instrument approach 
and landing with a decision height lower than 200 feet (60 meters), but 
not lower than 100 feet (30 meters), and with a runway visual range of 
not less than 1,200 feet (350 meters).
    ``Category III (CAT III) operation is a precision instrument 
approach and landing with a decision height lower than 100 feet (30 
meters) or no DH, and with a runway visual range less than 1200 feet 
(350 meters).
    ``Category IIIa (CAT IIIa) operation is a precision instrument 
approach and landing with a decision height lower than 100 feet (30 
meters), or no decision height, and with a runway visual range of not 
less than 700 feet (200 meters).

[[Page 31665]]

    ``Category IIIb (CAT IIIb) operation is a precision instrument 
approach and landing with a decision height lower than 50 feet (15 
meters), or no decision height, and with a runway visual range of less 
than 700 feet (200 meters), but not less than 150 feet (50 meters).
    ``Category IIIc (CAT IIIc) operation is a precision instrument 
approach and landing with no decision height and with a runway visual 
range less than 150 feet (50 meters).''
    ATA, Delta, Alaska Airlines, AOPA, Helicopter Association 
International (HAI), RAA, and American Trans Air objected to the 
proposed definitions because the terms would specify the approaches as 
``precision.'' As discussed previously, numerous commenters objected to 
the proposal with respect to redefining ``precision'' and 
``nonprecision.''
    In addition, HAI stated that the definition of ``Category I'' 
should take into account the capabilities of helicopters and better 
define the parameters for helicopter operations to execute Category I 
operations.
    TAOARC recommended withdrawing the above definitions until studies 
on precision/nonprecision procedures, decision altitude, decision 
height, and a concept for a new categorization of approach procedures 
to support the evolution of a performance-based NAS are completed.
    In view of the comments and because the FAA is not adopting the 
proposed definitions for precision approach (PA) and nonprecision 
approach (NPA), it is inappropriate to amend these terms as proposed 
until the joint industry/government working groups review the issues.
II.B.3. Decision Altitude (DA) and Decision Height (DH) (Sec.  1.1)
    The FAA proposed to redefine ``decision height (DH)'' as ``the 
specified height AGL [above ground level], at which a person must 
initiate a missed approach during a Category II or III approach if the 
person does not see the required visual reference.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Prior to this rule, the term decision height meant the 
height at which a decision must be made during an ILS or PAR 
instrument approach to either continue the approach or to execute a 
missed approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA proposed a new definition of ``decision altitude (DA)'' to 
describe the altitude in feet above mean sea level (MSL) at which a 
person must initiate a missed approach if he or she does not see the 
required visual reference.
    The FAA proposed these terms to be consistent with similar 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) terminology and, more 
importantly, to accurately identify the point where a pilot must decide 
to either continue the approach or execute a missed approach, depending 
on the instrument approach procedure.
    Airbus commented that because the proposed definition of ``decision 
height (DH)'' only applies to Category II and Category III procedures, 
this would preclude the use of decision height in any future Category I 
procedures. Airbus also points to several Category II procedures that 
currently use an inner marker or a DA as the decision point and that 
have been safely conducted for more than 40 years.
    TAOARC opposed adopting the term ``decision height (DH)'' because 
it may create charting, training, and performance-based systems 
implementation problems in the near term.
    These comments raised valid concerns with respect to the proposed 
definition of decision height. The type of altitude-or height-measuring 
device that is selected by instrument approach procedure developers to 
accurately determine the height or altitude for the missed approach 
decision point depends on the underlying topography associated with the 
instrument approach procedure (IAP). The term decision altitude 
currently is not codified in the regulations, but it has become a term 
of reference in instrument approach procedure construction and is used 
by the aviation community.
    In response to the comments, the FAA is modifying the term 
``decision height (DH)'' by striking the words ``during a Category II 
or III approach,'' which will permit the use of DH in Category I 
approaches, if appropriate, as well as continuing to allow the use of 
DA in Category II approaches, if appropriate. In addition, the FAA is 
clarifying in both definitions that, if ``DA'' or ``DH'' is specified 
in an instrument approach procedure, it is the altitude or height at 
which the pilot must decide whether to initiate an immediate missed 
approach or to continue the approach.
    Northwest Airlines expressed two concerns--(1) that the proposals 
to amend the flight data recorder requirements in part 121 (Sec.  
121.344 and appendix M) and part 135 (Sec.  135.152 and appendix M) to 
record DA would require a costly software modification to certain 
aircraft; and (2) that although it supports the distinction between 
decision height and decision altitude, this distinction could require a 
software modification to add a ``discrete'' code to the flight data 
recorder parameters to differentiate between DH and DA.
    The FAA did not intend for the NPRM to require modifications to the 
Flight Data Recorder requirements or software changes. The FAA agrees 
with Northwest that the proposals could result in these modifications 
and therefore, these proposals are withdrawn.
    DA/DH (combined acronyms): Even though Boeing and ATA agreed with 
the FAA's distinction between ``altitude'' and ``height,'' they did not 
agree with the combined acronym of ``DA/DH'' for these terms.
    Boeing, RAA, and Airbus stated that adopting this acronym would 
require them to change their charts, manuals, and training programs to 
conform to the FAA's acronyms.
    The FAA has used the term ``DA(H)'' for several years in its 
handbook guidance to refer to the terms decision height and decision 
altitude and adopting this acronym now is not a substantive change. 
Operators and aircraft manufacturers will need to revise these 
documents accordingly; however, these revisions can be accomplished 
during their normal revision cycles.
II.B.4. Final Approach Fix (FAF) (Sec.  1.1)
    The FAA proposed to add the term ``final approach fix (FAF)'' to 
provide that the final approach fix defines the beginning of the 
nonprecision final approach segment and the point where final segment 
descent may begin.
    Delta and Alaska Airlines commented that the agency only proposed 
``final approach fix'' relative to a nonprecision approach, but that AC 
120-29A applies final approach fix to both nonprecision and precision 
approaches with no distinction. TAOARC recommended withdrawing the 
definition, but did not provide adequate rationale for this comment.
    Because the term ``final approach fix'' is used in numerous 
operating rules and instrument approach procedures, the FAA finds it 
prudent to adopt this definition. However, the FAA agrees with the 
commenters that the proposal erroneously limited the term to 
nonprecision approach procedures instead of applying to both 
categories. Consequently, the FAA is adopting the term, but is removing 
the word ``nonprecision'' so that it applies to both precision and 
nonprecision procedures.
II.B.5. HAT as Acronym for ``Height Above Threshold'' (Sec.  97.3)
    The FAA proposed to change the acronym ``HAT'' from ``height above 
touchdown'' to ``height above threshold.''

[[Page 31666]]

    Boeing and Airbus commented that the ``height above touchdown'' is 
an important point in design of autoland systems and head-up displays, 
and said that the proposed change could have adverse consequences on 
aircraft design.
    AOPA commented that ``height above touchdown'' provides pilots with 
more information about the portion of the runway where a landing will 
take place. AOPA contended that ``height,'' when referring to the 
threshold only, is misleading because the threshold height may not be 
the highest part of the ``touchdown zone.'' Furthermore, AOPA stated, 
general aviation pilots are trained that ``touchdown zone'' is larger 
than the runway threshold, and that the highest point in that area 
provides information about runway slope characteristics.
    TAOARC supported this proposal.
    While the FAA does not find that Boeing's and Airbus's comments are 
convincing, the agency does agree with AOPA's comment, and consequently 
is not proceeding with the proposed change. The agency recognizes the 
long-standing use of the current acronym ``HAT'' to mean ``height above 
touchdown.''
II.B.6. Helipoint (Sec.  97.3)
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to add the term ``helipoint'' as ``* 
* * the aiming point for the final approach course for heliports. It is 
normally the center point of the touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF). 
The helipoint elevation is the highest point on the TLOF and is the 
same elevation as heliport elevation.'' In the NPRM, the FAA stated 
that the helipoint is usually the designated arrival and departure 
point located in the center of an obstacle-free area, 150-feet square 
overlying an approved landing area.
    The Helicopter Association International (HAI) stated that many 
heliports do not have a 150-foot square obstacle-free area that would 
meet the requirements of the proposed term. HAI suggested, and TAOARC 
agreed, that instead, the FAA should add the term ``heliport reference 
point (HRP),'' which would be consistent with AC 150/5390-2B, ``The 
Heliport Design Guide.'' (At the time, HAI based its comment on the 
draft version of AC 150/5390-2B. The FAA published the AC after the 
publication of the RNAV NPRM.) HRP is defined in the AC as ``the 
geographic position of the heliport expressed as the latitude and 
longitude at--(1) the center of the FATO [final approach and takeoff 
area], or the centroid of multiple FATOs for heliports having visual 
and nonprecision instrument approach procedures; or (2) the center of 
the Final Approach Reference Area (FARA) when the heliport has a 
precision instrument approach procedure.''
    Commenters are advised that a helipoint is the geographic point on 
the ground to which an approach is designed and it should not be 
confused with an HRP. The helipoint may or may not be coincident with 
the HRP, particularly where multiple landing areas are specified at a 
heliport. The helipoint and HRP are different terms serving different 
purposes. The AC defines both HRP (as stated by HAI) and helipoint. 
Under AC 150/5390-2B, a helipoint is ``the aiming point for the final 
approach course. It is normally the center point of the touchdown and 
lift-off area (TLOF).'' The proposed definition of ``helipoint'' and 
the term in the AC are substantively the same; therefore, the FAA 
adopts the term as proposed.
II.B.7. Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP) (Sec.  1.1)
    The FAA proposed to define ``instrument approach procedure'' as-- 
``A predetermined ground track and vertical profile that provides 
prescribed measures of obstruction clearance and assurance of 
navigation signal reception capability. An IAP enables a person to 
maneuver a properly equipped aircraft with reference to approved flight 
instruments from a specified position and altitude to--(1) a position 
and altitude from which a landing can be completed; or (2) a position 
and altitude at which holding or en route flight may begin.''
    ATA commented that the word ``approach'' should be removed, as the 
definition includes the phrase ``en route flight may begin,'' which is 
not necessarily restricted to being on an approach. ATA also said this 
could confuse future airspace enhancement strategies and technology 
applications.
    The FAA is not persuaded by ATA's comment and believes that 
removing the word ``approach'' is inappropriate. A pilot executing an 
instrument approach procedure is conducting a specific maneuver 
developed to permit a safe letdown to an airport. In this case, it is 
not appropriate to use general terminology that could be misunderstood 
as to the proper ground tracks and vertical profiles to be flown. 
TAOARC recommended that the FAA revise the definition to match the ICAO 
definition of IAP, which is, ``a series of predetermined maneuvers by 
reference to flight instruments with specified protection from 
obstacles from the initial approach fix, or where applicable, from the 
beginning of a defined arrival route to a point from which a landing 
can be completed and thereafter, if a landing is not completed, to a 
position at which holding or en route obstacle clearance criteria 
apply.''
    The FAA agrees to modify the definition to mirror the ICAO 
definition, but is retaining the clause ``and assurance of navigation 
signal reception capability'' from the NPRM. By including this clause, 
the FAA is requiring that the signal used by an aircraft's navigation 
equipment to position that aircraft on an IAP, with the required 
performance established for the procedure, is available and suitable 
for use on the route to be flown.
II.B.8. Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) (Sec.  1.1)
    The FAA proposed to define minimum descent altitude (MDA) as ``the 
lowest altitude to which a person may descend on a nonprecision final 
approach, or during a circle-to-land maneuver, until the visual 
reference requirements of Sec.  91.175(c) of this chapter are met. 
Minimum descent altitude is expressed in feet above mean sea level.''
    In the proposed definition, the MDA was limited to non-precision 
final approaches and references to ``standard instrument approach 
procedure'' and ``electronic glide slope'' were deleted. These changes 
were intended to clarify that an MDA is applicable only to a non-
precision instrument approach procedure.
    Alaska Airlines objected to using ``nonprecision'' in this 
definition because AC 120-29A applies to instrument procedures 
generally and does not distinguish precision and nonprecision. Boeing, 
Airbus, Continental, and TAOARC agreed that the definition should refer 
to instrument procedures generally until the joint industry/government 
working groups and the FAA review the categorization issues associated 
with precision and nonprecision approaches.
    The FAA is adopting the definition with several modifications. A 
precise definition of this term is critical to both the safe execution 
of the instrument approach procedure and the supporting design 
criteria. The FAA agrees with deleting reference to ``nonprecision,'' 
in view of the comments on this term and previously addressed in this 
document. In the final rule, the definition retains the current phrase 
``instrument approach procedure.''
    After further review, the FAA finds that this definition should be 
modified by replacing the words ``in execution of an instrument 
approach procedure, where no electronic glide slope is provided'' with 
the words ``specified in

[[Page 31667]]

an instrument approach procedure.'' This more general phrasing 
accommodates RNAV IAPs specific to the use of RNAV.
    Lastly, the proposed definition did not include visual reference 
requirements added to Sec.  91.175(l) by the Enhanced Flight Vision 
Systems rule (69 FR 1620; Jan. 9, 2004). Therefore, the words ``until 
the pilot sees the required visual references for the heliport or 
runway of intended landing'' are added for consistency with current 
Sec.  91.175(l) and to clarify that, when an MDA is specified in an 
instrument approach procedure, that altitude is the lowest altitude to 
which the pilot is authorized to descend until he or she sees the 
required visual references to continue the approach to an intended 
landing.
II.B.9. MSA--Minimum Safe Altitude (Sec.  97.3)
    The FAA proposed to revise the definition of ``minimum safe 
altitude (MSA)'' as ``expressed in feet above mean sea level, depicted 
on an approach chart that provides at least 1,000 feet of obstacle 
clearance for emergency use within a certain distance from the 
specified navigation facility or fix.'' TAOARC recommended that the FAA 
accept the definition as proposed.
    AOPA commented that, while it would appear that the use of any 
navigational aid (NAVAID) or fix to be the reference point for MSA is 
beneficial, poor or inconsistent application of selection criteria for 
fixes or NAVAIDs could raise safety issues. AOPA contended that the FAA 
should establish regulatory criteria for the consistent application of 
MSA.
    The FAA disagrees with AOPA and is adopting the definition as 
proposed. The FAA's ``Instrument Procedures Handbook'' (FAA-H-8261-1) 
and the ``Instrument Flying Handbook'' (FAA-H-8083-15) appropriately 
provide standardized guidance for the selection and depiction of the 
fix or NAVAID that forms the basis of the minimum safe altitude on the 
approach chart. AOPA did not cite any cases where this guidance has 
resulted in poor site selection or pilot confusion.
II.B.10. Night (Sec.  1.1)
    The FAA proposed to revise the definition of ``night'' either to be 
the period of time published in the American Air Almanac, converted to 
local time, or other period between sunset and sunrise, as prescribed 
by the FAA.
    Boeing, American, Delta, American Trans Air, AOPA, and ATA 
commented that the proposed definition could have operational impacts 
at particular locations, where terrain may cause sunset earlier than 
the American Air Almanac indicates. RAA asked where the local 
definition of ``night'' would be published.
    TAOARC recommended that the FAA withdraw the definition and explore 
alternate methods that might address the local determination of the 
hours of darkness and how to impose those limitations.
    In view of these comments, the FAA is withdrawing this proposal and 
will request that the term ``night'' be studied by joint industry/
government working groups.
II.B.11. Use of the Word ``Pilot'' or ``Person''
    The FAA proposed to change the word ``pilot'' to ``person'' in a 
number of sections depending on the context of the regulations. (See 
table below.) In certain regulations, the word ``person'' is 
appropriate if it applies to those individuals in an operator's 
organization, including pilots, who are authorized to develop the 
policies and procedures under which its aircraft are to be operated, 
and who are responsible for compliance with the requirements in the 
regulations.
    Boeing and Continental argued that this change would be 
inappropriate, because ``pilots'' fly aircraft. Boeing added that the 
current definitions are adequate and familiar to pilots. TAOARC also 
objected to the change.
    The FAA re-examined each proposed amendment in context to determine 
whether the requirement applies to an organization and its pilots or 
other persons used in its operations, or only to the pilots conducting 
the operation. Based on this re-examination, the term ``person'' or 
``pilot'' is adopted as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          FAA decision reflected in the
                Section                             final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   1.1 Decision altitude...........  The word ``pilot'' retained.
Sec.   1.1 Decision height.............  The word ``pilot'' retained.
Sec.   91.129 (e)......................  The word ``pilot'' retained.
Sec.   91.175 (e) and (j)..............  The word ``pilot'' retained.
Sec.   91.177..........................  The word ``person'' adopted.
Sec.   91.189..........................  The word ``pilot'' retained.
Sec.   121.347.........................  The word ``person'' adopted.
Sec.   125.381.........................  The word ``pilot'' retained (as
                                          adopted in the EFVS final rule
                                          of January 9, 2004).
Sec.   129.16 (renumbered as Sec.        The word ``person'' changed to
 129.22 in the final rule) (a) and (b).   ``foreign air carrier'' to be
                                          consistent with terminology in
                                          part 129.
Sec.   129.17 (b) and (d)..............  The word ``person'' changed to
                                          ``foreign air carrier'' to be
                                          consistent with terminology in
                                          part 129.
Sec.   135.161.........................  The word ``person'' adopted.
Sec.   135.165 (a), (b), (e), (f), and   The word ``pilot'' retained.
 (g).
Sec.   135.225.........................  The word ``pilot'' retained (as
                                          adopted in the EFVS final rule
                                          of January 9, 2004).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

II.B.12. Precision Final Approach Fix (PFAF) (Sec.  1.1)
    The FAA proposed to add the definition of ``precision final 
approach fix (PFAF)'' as a final approach fix for a precision approach 
or an approach procedure with vertical guidance (APV).
    ATA and Alaska Airlines commented that the use of ``precision'' and 
``nonprecision'' is inappropriate and inconsistent with AC 120-29A 
because the AC does not differentiate between precision and 
nonprecision.
    As previously discussed, the FAA is withdrawing the definition of 
``approach procedure with vertical guidance (APV)'' pending its review 
by joint industry/government working groups. Consequently, the term 
``precision final approach fix'' is withdrawn for the same reason.

[[Page 31668]]

II.B.13. RNAV (Acronym) (Sec.  1.2)
    The FAA proposed to include the acronym ``RNAV'' for the term 
``area navigation'' in Sec.  1.2.
    American Trans Air and Continental Airlines requested that the FAA 
withdraw the proposed acronym ``RNAV'' because, in their view, it needs 
industry input. Furthermore, American Trans Air said that ``RNAV'' 
appears to be a charting acronym and is not necessary for inclusion in 
Sec.  1.2. TAOARC, however, supported the acronym.
    ``RNAV'' is a long-standing acronym that the industry and the FAA 
have used to refer to area navigation for several decades. It is 
unclear what ``industry input'' would be necessary with respect to 
merely codifying a universally accepted acronym. Therefore, the FAA is 
adopting the acronym ``RNAV'' for ``area navigation.'' The definition 
of ``RNAV'' in Sec.  1.1 was adopted in the April 8, 2003 final rule, 
``Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic 
Service Routes; and Reporting Points.'' However, in that rule, the 
acronym ``RNAV'' was inadvertently left out of Sec.  1.2.
II.B.14. Visibility Minimum (Sec.  97.3)
    In the NPRM, the FAA did not propose any substantive amendments to 
the term ``visibility minimum.'' The term is defined as ``* * * the 
minimum visibility specified for approach, landing, or takeoff, 
expressed in statute miles, or in feet where RVR [runway visual range] 
is reported.''
    Boeing, however, recommended adding the words, ``Unless otherwise 
specified'' to the beginning of the definition of ``visibility 
minimum'' to allow for alternative units of measure, such as meters.
    TAOARC recommended adopting the definition as proposed.
    FAA regulations uniformly refer to miles (nautical and statute) or 
feet, and the agency does not intend to introduce new units of measure 
in the foreseeable future. It is also noted that certain operators are 
issued operations specifications containing a feet-to-meters conversion 
table. Consequently, having one regulation that includes an alternative 
unit of measure, when numerous other regulations do not, would generate 
additional questions.

II.C. Communications Requirements

II.C.1. Communications Facilities (Sec.  121.99)
    The FAA proposed the following amendment to Sec.  121.99, 
Communications facilities:
    (1) Change the requirement for a ``two-way radio communication 
system available over the entire route under normal operating 
conditions'' to a ``two-way communication system under normal operating 
conditions,'' which would permit the use of data link as opposed to 
just voice communication;
    (2) Change the words ``point-to-point circuits'' to ``communication 
links;''
    (3) Add the requirement for a communication system to have two-way 
voice communication capability for use between each airplane and the 
appropriate dispatch office, and between each airplane and the 
appropriate air traffic control (ATC) unit for non-normal and emergency 
conditions; and
    (4) Define the term ``rapid communications'' in this section to 
mean that the caller must be able to establish communications with the 
called party in less than 4 minutes.
    The Airline Dispatchers Federation commented that the new voice 
communications requirements would contribute to aviation safety and 
that the 4-minute time limit as used in the proposed definition of 
``rapid communications'' is reasonable and technologically achievable.
    The majority of other commenters, including airlines, industry 
associations, communication service providers, and aircraft 
manufacturers, objected to the proposed requirement for a communication 
system to have two-way voice communication capability for use between 
each airplane and the appropriate dispatch office for non-normal and 
emergency conditions. These commenters also did not support the 
proposed definition of ``rapid communications'' to mean that the caller 
must be able to establish communications with the called party in less 
than 4 minutes. The commenters cited the diminishing availability of 
communication service providers who use high frequency (HF) radio 
communications systems for long-range communications, e.g., oceanic and 
polar, the limitations of HF voice communications due to propagation 
characteristics, and the high costs of equipping their aircraft with 
satellite communication systems which would be one means of meeting 
these two proposed requirements. Several of these commenters stated 
that because of the limitations of HF communications and the costs of 
satellite communications they use only data link for dispatch office 
communications on certain routes and only maintain voice communication 
capability with ATC on those routes. Furthermore, nearly all of these 
commenters objected to the proposed definition of ``rapid 
communications'' stating that the proposed requirement is unrealistic 
especially in view of the limitations of HF voice communications 
systems and the lack of safety justification provided by the FAA.
    Delta further commented that paragraph (b) of this section should 
be amended to permit domestic and flag operators, in an emergency, to 
communicate with their dispatch offices using an ATC facility 
communication link between the airplane and the dispatch office.
    TAOARC recommended instead that ``rapid communication under normal 
operating conditions'' between the pertinent parties be established 
within 5-10 minutes, unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator. 
TAOARC also did not support requiring voice communication with dispatch 
in non-normal and emergency situations, but did not expand on the 
comment.
    Delta commented that the Sec.  121.99 proposals pertaining to two-
way voice communication capability for use between each airplane and 
the appropriate dispatch office, and the proposed definition of ``rapid 
communications'' would require equipping its aircraft with both data 
link and satellite voice communication equipment under Sec.  121.349.
    Upon further consideration, the FAA is making the following changes 
to proposed paragraph (a) in the final rule: (1) The words ``under 
normal operating conditions'' are struck from the first sentence 
because they are redundant, and the acronym ``FAA'' is replaced with 
the words ``certificate holding district office;'' (2) in the second 
sentence, the words ``except as specified in Sec.  121.351(c)'' are 
struck because they are no longer applicable to the rule as it has been 
modified. The FAA acknowledges the comments that opposed the proposal 
regarding ``rapid communication under normal operating conditions'' and 
proposed definition of ``rapid communications,'' and therefore, removes 
these statements from the rule text. Finally, the FAA is adopting 
Delta's recommendation to amend Sec.  121.99(b) to permit, in an 
emergency, domestic and flag operators the use of U.S. ATC 
communication facilities to communicate with their dispatch offices.
II.C.2. Aircraft Communication Equipment (Sec. Sec.  91.205, 91.511, 
91.711, 121.345, 121.347, 121.349, 121.351, 125.203, 129.16 (Adopted as 
Sec.  129.22), 129.17, 135.161, and 135.165)
    In conjunction with the Sec.  121.99(a) proposals for 
communications facilities described above, the FAA proposed to

[[Page 31669]]

amend the related aircraft communication equipment requirements in 
parts 91, 121, 125, 129, and 135 to make them less prescriptive. This 
would allow for the expanded use of different kinds of communication 
systems technology for aeronautical operational control and air traffic 
management as the NAS increasingly becomes more performance-based.
    Upon further consideration, the agency has determined that many of 
the aircraft communication equipment proposals are premature because 
the future communication infrastructure needs for air traffic 
management of the NAS have not yet been determined, nor has the 
international aviation community made decisions regarding its 
respective air traffic communications. Accordingly, the FAA is 
withdrawing many of the associated proposed aircraft communication 
equipment amendments so that joint industry/government working groups 
may study the issues and provide recommendations to the FAA for the NAS 
communications infrastructure and for compatible aircraft communication 
equipment.
    Specifically the agency has concluded that, where it had proposed 
to remove or omit reference to ``radio'' in order to refer generally to 
just ``communication,'' the existing language (use of the term 
``radio'') should be retained for NAS and foreign air traffic service 
provider communication infrastructures.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See proposed Sec. Sec.  91.205(d)(2), 91.511(a)(1), 
91.711(c)(1)(i), 121.345, 121.347, 125.203(a), and 135.161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing to add new Sec.  129.16 (adopted as Sec.  129.22), the 
FAA similarly proposed to require ``communication'' equipment; however, 
the word ``radio'' is added to this section for uniformity and 
consistency in the requirements for parts 121, 125, 129 and 135.
    The FAA did not receive comments on the following issues; however, 
upon review the agency finds that further modifications are necessary.
    This rule amends Sec. Sec.  121.347(a)(2), 129.22(a)(2) (proposed 
as Sec.  129.16), and 135.161(a)(2), as proposed, to clarify the 
communication requirement with appropriate air traffic control 
facilities within a Class E surface area and not in Class E airspace 
generally.
    The agency's proposal to modify the factors considered by the FAA 
to approve the installation and use of a single long-range 
communication system (LRCS) and a single long-range navigation system 
(LRNS) under Sec. Sec.  125.203(f)(2) and 135.165(g)(2) was incorrect 
and mistakenly makes these paragraphs inconsistent with the remainder 
of the section. Consequently, this proposed amendment is withdrawn and 
the factor considered by the FAA, among others, is for the length of 
the route.
    The FAA sought to permit operators under parts 121, 125, and 135 to 
use a single LRNS and a single LRCS, if among other considerations, the 
aircraft was equipped with only very high frequency (VHF) communication 
equipment.\3\ Upon review, the FAA has concluded that specifying VHF 
equipment unduly limits the communication gap exception requirement 
(found in Sec. Sec.  121.351(c)(3), 125.203(f)(3), and 135.165(g)(3)) 
to VHF and would not permit the use of other kinds of communication 
systems to be included in the exception. This result was not intended 
and therefore, this proposal is also withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See proposed Sec. Sec.  121.351(c)(3), 125.203(f)(3), and 
135.165(g)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA proposed to add a requirement in parts 121, 129, and 135 
\4\ that ``for non-normal and emergency operating conditions, at least 
one of the independent communication systems must have two-way voice 
communication capability.'' Although no comments were received 
regarding this proposal, the FAA has reconsidered and is removing the 
words ``Except as required in Sec.  121.99'' and ``non-normal and 
emergency operating conditions,'' wherever they appear in those 
sections which expands the applicability of those sections. The FAA 
believes that voice communication is necessary in other than non-normal 
or emergency conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See proposed Sec. Sec.  121.349, 129.17 and 135.165(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the FAA has concluded that it is necessary to modify the 
proposed communication equipment requirement language in Sec. Sec.  
121.349, 129.17, and 135.165 from ``For normal operating conditions'' 
to ``under normal operating conditions'' to be consistent with the 
FAA's legal interpretation issued on April 16, 1964.\5\ The legal 
interpretation makes it clear that, in conjunction with Sec. Sec.  
121.99 and 121.347 and the modifications to these proposals, a 
temporary interruption of communications capability of the aircraft 
communication systems by conditions other than ``normal operating 
conditions'' is not intended to preclude the suitability of such 
communication systems for the routes to be flown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The interpretation is included in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed caption of paragraph Sec.  121.349(e), which read 
``Additional communication system equipment requirements'' is 
misleading because it indicates that it applies to all part 121 
operators. In the final rule, the caption is clarified and reads 
``Additional communication system equipment requirements for operators 
subject to Sec.  121.2.'' There is no substantive change.
    There were no comments received on the following proposals and 
these proposals are adopted in this final rule. Proposed Sec.  129.16 
is adopted as Sec.  129.22. Shortly before the NPRM was issued, the FAA 
added another section numbered Sec.  129.16 (``Supplemental inspections 
for U.S.-registered aircraft'') via a separate rulemaking and the 
numbering adjustment inadvertently was not made in the RNAV NPRM. 
Therefore, the section is renumbered accordingly in this final rule.
    As proposed, references to ``ground facilities'' are removed in 
order to permit the use of non-ground based navigational facilities in 
certain sections of parts 91, 121, and 135.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See proposed Sec. Sec.  91.205(d)(2), 121.347, 135.161 and 
135.165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is adopting the following proposed amendments to Sec.  
125.203: (1) Change the requirement that an airplane must have two-way 
radio communication equipment, able to transmit to and receive from 
appropriate facilities from ``25 miles away'' to ``22 nautical miles 
away''; and (2) add the requirement for two independent communication 
systems, one of which must have two-way voice communication capability, 
capable of transmitting to, and receiving from, at least one 
appropriate facility from any place on the route to be flown.
II.C.3. Flight Operations Communications Requirements (Sec. Sec.  
91.183, 91.185, 129.21, and 135.79)
    The FAA did not receive any comments to its proposals to amend 
Sec. Sec.  91.183, 91.185, 129.21, and 135.79. The FAA therefore is 
adopting the following proposed amendments: (1) Removing the words ``by 
radio'' in Sec.  91.183(a); (2) removing the word ``radio'' from Sec.  
91.185 heading and paragraph (a); (3) removing the word ``ground'' from 
Sec.  129.21; and (4) replacing the words ``radio or telephone 
communications'' with the word ``communication'' in Sec.  135.79.
    These amendments provide operators with greater flexibility to take 
advantage of future technology and to determine the appropriate 
communication equipment based on the availability of compatible 
communication facilities on the route to be flown.
    Upon reconsideration, however, the FAA is further modifying Sec.  
91.183. The NPRM would have allowed for the use

[[Page 31670]]

of advanced communications, other than by voice, in meeting the 
reporting requirements in the rule. The NPRM also sought to require 
pilots in command to monitor the frequency. While the rule does not 
require voice communication to monitor frequencies, it does require 
that the pilot get permission from ATC to be off the frequency 
previously required to be monitored, as ATC is the appropriate entity 
to determine when the frequency does not need to be continuously 
monitored. Also, the FAA is clarifying the requirement to monitor the 
frequency by specifying that if there is a two-pilot crew, either pilot 
can monitor the frequency.

II.D. Navigation Equipment Requirements

II.D.1. Aircraft Navigation Equipment Requirements
    The FAA proposed to amend the aircraft navigation equipment 
requirements in parts 91, 121, 125, 129, and 135 to allow the use of 
navigation systems that use satellite navigation aids and to require 
that the navigation equipment must be suitable for the route to be 
flown. These proposals would allow for the use of future navigation 
system technology that does not rely on ground-based navigation aids 
(e.g., global positioning systems (GPS)). The proposals also sought to 
facilitate the use of RNAV equipment throughout all phases of flight 
(departure, en route, and approach).
    The NPRM contained several proposed amendments to the rules 
addressing IFR operation equipment requirements. Specifically, the FAA 
proposed to add the words ``suitable RNAV system'' in several 
sections.\7\ In other sections,\8\ however, the FAA proposed adding the 
words ``suitable IFR-approved RNAV system.'' (Note that the word 
``suitable'' was inadvertently omitted from the proposed text of Sec.  
91.711 (e).) Both phrases were intended to convey the same 
requirements, but only one phrase should have been proposed. The phrase 
``IFR-approved'' implies a higher standard than the phrase ``suitable 
RNAV system'' and is misleading, in that some IFR-approved RNAV systems 
may not be suitable for providing accurate distance information to or 
from distance measuring equipment (DME) facilities. The term ``suitable 
RNAV system'' means that the navigation system is designed and 
installed to perform its intended function. Therefore, ``suitable RNAV 
system'' is adopted in this rule. (See the discussion under ``II.D.1.a. 
Suitability of RNAV systems,'' for a description of the assessment 
strategies used to determine whether certain RNAV systems are 
``suitable'' substitutions for certain ground-based navigation 
facilities or fixes identified in a standard ILS instrument approach 
procedure.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed Sec. Sec.  91.131(c)(1), 91.175(k), and 91.205.
    \8\ See proposed Sec. Sec.  91.711(e), 121.349(d), 125.203(e), 
129.17(d) and 135.165(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In part 129, the FAA proposed that equipment used to receive 
signals en route also may be used to receive signals on approach, if it 
is capable of receiving both signals. (See proposed Sec.  129.17(a).) 
The proposed language is identical to current regulations in other 
parts governing U.S. operators.\9\ Upon review, the FAA has determined 
that it is no longer necessary to include this phrase in any of the 
cited regulations because it is redundant. Therefore, this proposal is 
not adopted and the phrase is removed from Sec. Sec.  121.349, 125.203 
and 135.165. There are legacy navigation systems capable of receiving 
both signals and operators may continue to use those systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Sec. Sec.  121.349, 125.203 and 135.165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule replaces, as proposed, the requirement under Sec.  
121.349(a) for two independent navigational receivers with the 
requirement for two independent navigation systems. These two systems 
are not required to be identical.
    The FAA proposed to amend Sec. Sec.  121.103 and 121.121 to make 
these sections performance-based by requiring that the navigation aids 
must be available over the route to navigate the airplane along the 
route ``with the required accuracy,'' so that any suitable navigation 
system could be used. The agency believed that the required accuracy 
would be defined by the route specifications (including route width) or 
by ATC if not operating on the route. The agency has reviewed the 
current regulatory text, which requires that the navigation aids used 
for the route must be used to navigate ``within the degree of accuracy 
required for ATC.'' This current language does permit the use of any 
suitable navigation system but also importantly continues the ATC 
expectation (and requirement under Sec.  91.181, Course to be flown) 
that, unless otherwise authorized by ATC, aircraft must fly the 
centerline of an airway. The FAA concludes that the current language is 
clear and permits the use of any suitable navigation system and 
consequently, it is not necessary to adopt this proposed amendment.
    Based on the above conclusion with respect to Sec. Sec.  121.103 
and 121.121, and supported by TAOARC's preference for consistency 
between the navigation equipment requirements of Sec.  121.349 and the 
route accuracy requirements of Sec. Sec.  121.103 and 121.121, the FAA 
has determined that it is necessary to further modify Sec.  121.349(a) 
and (c) to require that the airplane's independent navigation systems 
be suitable for navigating the airplane along the route to be flown 
``within the degree of accuracy required for ATC.'' Although the route 
accuracy requirement was not proposed for this particular section, the 
FAA finds that its inclusion here does not pose additional operating 
requirements but is clarifying the accuracy performance necessary for 
ATC purposes. (Further discussion on this proposal in relation to 
Sec. Sec.  121.349, 125.203, 129.17, and 135.165 are found in ``II.D.3. 
En route navigation facilities.'')
    Also in Sec. Sec.  121.349(a), the FAA proposed to include a 
statement that only one navigation system need be provided for 
precision approach and APV operations.'' \10\ Since this rule does not 
adopt the terms precision approach and APV operations, references to 
these terms are withdrawn. The current regulatory text provides that 
only one marker beacon receiver providing visual and aural signals and 
one ILS receiver is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Identical amendments were proposed in Sec. Sec.  
125.203(c)(5), 129.17(a), 135.165(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Sec. Sec.  121.349(a) and (c)(2),\11\ the FAA proposed a 
requirement that the navigation systems used to meet the navigation 
equipment requirements be authorized in the operations specifications 
issued to the operator. The FAA finds this proposal unnecessarily broad 
because the navigation capabilities of equipment such as very high 
frequency omnidirectional range (VOR) and ADF are well known. 
Therefore, the FAA is limiting the operations specifications navigation 
equipment authorization requirements to RNAV systems only in the 
sections referenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Identical amendments were proposed in Sec. Sec.  
125.203(c)(5) and (d)(2), 129.17(a) and (c)(2), and 135.165(a) and 
(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For part 121 operators,\12\ the FAA proposed to retain the 
requirement for two long-range navigation systems (LRNS) when VOR or 
ADF radio navigation equipment is unusable along a portion of the 
route. In the final rule, the FAA is adopting (in the introductory text 
of paragraph (a)) the requirement for two LRNSs; however, the words 
``when VOR or ADF radio navigation equipment requirement is unusable 
along a portion of the route'' are

[[Page 31671]]

removed. The references to VOR and ADF are removed because these 
navigation systems are rarely used in extended overwater operations. In 
addition, in the proposed rule, the FAA inadvertently did not include a 
reference to navigation systems in the introductory text of Sec.  
121.351(a). This reference is added in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See proposed Sec.  121.351(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA proposed to change one of the operational factors the 
Administrator may consider in authorizing the use of a single long-
range navigation system and a long-range communication system from 
``the ability of the flightcrew to reliably fix the position of the 
airplane within the degree of accuracy required by ATC'' to ``the 
ability of the flightcrew to navigate the airplane along the route with 
the required accuracy.'' \13\ This proposal is not adopted in this rule 
because the NPRM did not include the route navigation accuracy 
performance requirements. (See the discussions under ``II.D.1.a. 
Suitability of RNAV systems'' and ``II.D.3. En route navigation 
facilities.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See proposed Sec. Sec.  121.351(c), 125.203(f) and 
135.165(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II.D.1.a. Suitability of RNAV Systems
    Aircraft that use some of the older RNAV equipment cannot execute 
RNAV instrument approach procedures because that equipment cannot 
support the accuracy requirements necessary for those procedures. Also, 
some of the older RNAV systems are not capable of meeting the 
performance necessary for certain established departure procedures, in 
particular those RNAV systems that cannot process GPS and DME 
information.
    In the various proposed amendments to aircraft navigation equipment 
requirements, the FAA proposed to include a ``suitable RNAV'' system. 
The NPRM, however, did not explain the term suitable. In order to 
clarify for operators with RNAV systems that they must ensure that 
aircraft's RNAV system is suitable, the agency believes that it is 
necessary to adopt a definition of that term in Sec.  1.1. 
Consequently, a suitable RNAV system is defined as an RNAV system 
that--(1) meets the required performance established for a type of 
operations, e.g. IFR; and (2) is suitable for operation over the route 
to be flown in terms of any performance criteria (including accuracy) 
established by the air navigation service provider for certain routes , 
e.g. oceanic, ATS routes, and IAPs. An RNAV system's suitability is 
dependent upon the availability of ground and/or satellite navigation 
aids that are needed to meet any route performance criteria that may be 
prescribed in route specifications to navigate the aircraft along the 
route to be flown.
    The FAA has published numerous Advisory Circulars on RNAV system 
operations, which may be found at: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet.
II.D.1.b. Aircraft Navigation Requirements
    Airbus commented that in the case of a GPS-equipped aircraft 
operating within the operational service volume of ground-based 
navigation aids, operators would have to show at each point along these 
routes that the aircraft retains the capability to ``navigate the 
airplane along the route with the required degree of accuracy.'' Airbus 
argued that this means that the aircraft can never be outside the 
operational service volume of the existing NAVAID network, which would 
be unreasonable, unnecessary, and a costly constraint. Moreover, it 
would significantly impede implementation of a performance-based NAS 
and the achievement of the safety and efficiency benefits of RNAV 
systems that use GPS information.
    TAOARC contends that permitting the use of a single independent 
navigation system but mandating that the system must be able to 
``navigate safely to a suitable airport'' in the event of a signal loss 
would result in an unrealistic requirement for operations in the future 
NAS under the FAA's plan to decommission ground-based navigation aids 
such as VOR and TACAN. TAOARC therefore, recommended that the word 
``navigating'' be changed to ``proceeding'' because, under the GPS-
sensor-interference scenario described in the proposal for Sec.  
121.349, the FAA would require operators to use ground-based navigation 
aids and be limited to operating within the service volume established 
for those navigation aids.
    The FAA agrees with Airbus and TAOARC and replaces the words 
``navigat(ing) safely to a suitable airport'' with the words 
``proceed(ing) safely to a suitable airport'' in the final rule.\14\ 
Proceeding to another airport can be accomplished many ways, such as 
reverting to ground-based navigation aids or reverting to inertial-
referenced navigation systems. This exception does not require the 
alternative system to be capable of navigating within the degree of 
accuracy required for ATC, but rather to provide a safe means for the 
pilot to continue the flight to a suitable diversion airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See adopted Sec. Sec.  121.349(c)(1), 125.203, 129.17, and 
135.165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA realizes that in crafting the NPRM, a current equipment 
requirement in Sec.  121.349(a) was omitted inadvertently. While no 
party commented on the omission, the agency believes it is critical to 
flight safety to maintain the requirement that the airplane's 
navigation systems must be capable to ``receive navigation signals from 
all primary en route and approach navigational facilities to be used.'' 
The pertinent language is updated and clarified so as to require the en 
route navigation aids necessary for navigating the aircraft along the 
route (e.g. ATS routes, arrival and departure routes and instrument 
approach procedures, including missed approach procedures if a missed 
approach routing is specified in the procedure), are available and 
suitable for use.\15\ This clarifies that the route, for example, may 
be an ATS route (under part 71) or other ATS routing, or a part 97 
instrument approach procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Identical text is inserted in Sec. Sec.  125.203, 129.17 
and 135.165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AOPA requested that the FAA consider IFR-certified GPS equipment as 
a ``suitable RNAV system'' as an option to meet existing equipage 
requirements in lieu of the DME. (Note that currently DME is required 
to operate in certain airspace areas and at altitudes of flight level 
(FL) 240 and above.)
    The FAA agrees that an RNAV system used to navigate under IFR 
operations may constitute a ``suitable RNAV system'' that can be used 
to substitute for the DME currently required to operate in certain 
airspace areas and at altitudes of FL 240 and above if the RNAV system 
is suitable for performing that function. Not all RNAV systems may be 
suitable to substitute for DME. Suitable navigation aids, e.g., GPS, 
must be available along the route to be flown to permit the system to 
provide distance information analogous to the distance information 
provided by DME, subject to any operating limitations or provisions 
that may be specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight 
Manual, AFM supplement, or pilot's guide.
    Lastly, the FAA corrects Sec.  91.131 to require that a VOR ``or'' 
TACAN receiver must be operable if an RNAV system is not available.
    The FAA will issue an Advisory Circular containing guidance on what 
constitutes a suitable RNAV system that may be used to substitute for 
an ILS component or a ground-based navigation facility in the near 
future.

[[Page 31672]]

II.D.1.c. Navigation System Configurations
    Airbus and others commented that the NPRM was unclear on the 
combinations of navigation sensors and/or aircraft equipment that would 
satisfy the proposed navigation system requirements. Northwest Airlines 
requested examples of the permitted combinations.
    The FAA proposed to replace the requirement for two independent 
receivers with a requirement for two independent navigation systems to 
enable the use of new types of navigation systems such as autonomous 
inertial navigation systems (INS). A single VOR and a single suitable 
RNAV system may satisfy the requirement. The FAA also clarifies that 
this requirement can be met either by use of autonomous navigation 
systems or by use of ground and/or satellite navigation aids that are 
suitable and available for en route operations and for the intended 
instrument approach procedures.
    Aircraft navigation systems are considered independent if there is 
no probable failure or event that will affect both systems. This 
ensures that, before dispatch or flight release, there will be no 
potential single point of failure or event that could affect an 
aircraft's navigation systems and cause loss of the ability to navigate 
along the intended route or to proceed safely to a suitable diversion 
airport. Therefore, the FAA is providing an exception \16\ for 
operations on routes using only one navigation system suitable for 
navigating the aircraft along the route as discussed in the previous 
paragraph, provided that the aircraft is equipped with at least one 
other independent navigation system for purposes of proceeding to a 
suitable airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Sec. Sec.  121.349 (c), 125.203 (d), 129.17 (c) and 
135.165 (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although not proposed, the FAA finds it necessary to add a 
requirement under the exception that the certificate holder must show, 
by appropriate description in the certificate holder's operating 
manuals or by another means acceptable to the FAA, that the other 
independent navigation system is suitable, in the event of loss of the 
navigation capability of the single system at any point along the 
route, to enable the aircraft to proceed safely to a suitable airport 
and complete an instrument approach. For example, an operation that is 
currently permitted over routes on which navigation is based on low-
frequency radio range or automatic direction-finding (ADF) navigation 
aids may use an airplane equipped with two VOR receivers and only one 
low-frequency radio range or ADF receiver. In the case of failure of 
the single low-frequency radio range receiver, or ADF receiver, the 
flight must be able to proceed safely to a suitable airport by means of 
VOR navigation aids and complete an instrument approach by use of the 
remaining aircraft VOR equipment. The FAA is making this change in the 
final rule to ensure that aircraft avoid collision with obstacles on 
the ground and other aircraft during flight.
II.D.2. Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) or Other Satellite 
Navigation Aids, e.g., Global Positioning Systems (GPS)
    The FAA requires two independent navigation systems to ensure that 
there is no single point of failure or ``event'' that could result in 
losing the ability to navigate along the intended route or to navigate 
to a suitable diversion airport. This proposal addresses the 
vulnerability of GPS, which uses very weak signals that are susceptible 
to interference that may cause a loss of integrity, or total loss of 
usable signals, thus degrading the use of the GPS for IFR operations. 
Such single point of failure or an event is one that could lead to 
increased workload, the inability of the flight crew to cope, or 
prevent continued safe flight and landing.
    Airbus commented that there are no known industry or agency 
criteria for determining which GPS systems can be considered 
``independent.'' Furthermore, Airbus contended that the FAA did not 
define the probability of interference, nor state what the government 
might do to reduce or eliminate the generation of interfering signals.
    Although the risk of intentional jamming of GPS is low in the 
United States, the FAA routinely issues Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) 
indicating that GPS is unreliable in certain areas and during certain 
times due to planned testing. Unintentional interference is frequently 
encountered in some areas of the world, but historically is infrequent 
in the United States. Airbus states that interference in oceanic areas 
has not been experienced and can be expected to be very rare. The FAA 
agrees that the likelihood of interference varies by region, and the 
possibility of intentional interference could increase.
    On December 15, 2004, the President of the United States issued the 
``U.S. Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Policy'' 
acknowledging the vulnerability of GPS, and tasking the Department of 
Transportation, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland 
Security, to--

    * * * develop, acquire, operate, and maintain backup position, 
navigation, and timing capabilities that can support critical 
transportation, homeland security, and other critical civil and 
commercial infrastructure applications within the United States, in 
the event of a disruption of the Global Positioning System or other 
space-based positioning, navigation, and timing services, consistent 
with Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7, Critical 
Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization, and Protection, dated 
December 17, 2003;

    In keeping with this policy, the FAA will continue to maintain 
adequate ground-based navigation aids for navigation services. The FAA 
does not believe it is appropriate or necessary, however, to restrict 
all operations to the service volume of ground-based navigation aids. 
As technology is developed, tested and accepted, it is the FAA's 
intention to permit the use of that technology when its use can be done 
in a safe and appropriate manner.
    Under GPS interference scenarios, operations of aircraft that are 
not equipped for this contingency may be severely limited. Therefore, a 
DME infrastructure and a VOR network must remain in place for the 
foreseeable future. As the NAS evolves and navigation technology 
improves, however, a satellite-based system may become the core of the 
aviation navigation infrastructure.
II.D.3. En Route Navigation Facilities (Sec. Sec.  121.103, 121.121, 
and 125.51)
    The FAA proposed to use the term ``navigation systems'' in the 
headings of Sec. Sec.  121.103 and 121.121 and the term ``navigation 
aids'' in the heading of Sec.  125.51. Northwest Airlines pointed out 
that, while the FAA proposed to use the word ``systems'' in the 
headings of those sections, it addressed requirements for navigation 
aids in the text. American Trans Air recommended that the headings read 
``Enroute navigation'' because use of the words ``systems,'' ``aids,'' 
and ``facilities'' confuses the rule. TAOARC recommended removing the 
word ``systems'' from the proposed headings of Sec. Sec.  121.103 and 
121.121.
    After considering the comments, the FAA has concluded that 
``facilities'' is appropriate under the current infrastructure and is 
changing the headings of Sec. Sec.  121.103, 121.121, and 125.51 in the 
final rule to ``En route navigation facilities.''
    Currently, Sec. Sec.  121.103(a), 121.121(a), and 125.51(a) all 
provide that ``nonvisual ground aids'' must be available over the route 
for navigating an aircraft within the degree of accuracy required for 
ATC. The FAA proposed to replace reference to ``nonvisual ground

[[Page 31673]]

aids'' in these sections with ``navigation aids.'' No comments were 
received and this rule adopts that amendment.

II.E. International Standards

    An individual commenter objected to conforming FAA regulations to 
ICAO standards and argued that since the majority of aviation activity 
occurs within the United States, ICAO should conform to United States 
standards.
    AOPA commented that there are significant differences between the 
United States and European operating environments and that 
harmonization with ICAO is not necessarily a good model for future 
changes to the domestic system. Moreover, AOPA contended that the FAA 
should only harmonize with ICAO when there is an operational benefit to 
users of the NAS.
    The FAA recognizes that there are differences between the United 
States and European general aviation operating environments; however, 
harmonization of international standards remains a high priority for 
the FAA whenever it is in the public interest.
    In the NPRM, the FAA erroneously stated that there are no current 
ICAO standards that corresponded to the proposed rule. The requirements 
proposed in Sec. Sec.  121.349, 125.203, 129.17, and 135.165 are 
consistent with the current international standards in parts 1, 2, and 
3 of ICAO Annex 6, ``Aeroplane Communication and Navigation Equipment'' 
for air carrier and general aviation operations, and ``Helicopter 
Communication and Navigation Equipment'' for helicopter operations.
    American Trans Air asked whether the rule would apply to foreign 
operators in U.S. Gulf of Mexico airspace. Foreign operators are 
advised to review the regional procedures in the United States 
Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) to determine the 
applicability of certain portions of this rule.

II.F. Elimination of Middle Markers (Sec. Sec.  91.129 and 91.175)

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed deleting reference to the middle 
marker in Sec. Sec.  91.129(e) and 91.175(k) because a middle marker is 
no longer operationally required. There are some middle markers still 
in use, but there are no middle markers being installed at new ILS 
sites by the FAA.
    The FAA did not receive any comments on the Sec. Sec.  91.129(e) 
and 91.175(k) proposals to remove the middle marker as a required 
component of an ILS, and the amendments are adopted as proposed.

II.G. DME Requirements for Aircraft Operating At or Above FL 180 Versus 
FL 240 (Sec. Sec.  91.205 and 91.711)

    The FAA proposed to lower the altitude for which DME is required 
from flight level (FL) 240 to FL 180.\17\ This would make the altitude 
for which DME is required consistent with the floor of Class A 
airspace. The FAA believed that most aircraft operating in Class A 
airspace already have DME.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See proposed Sec. Sec.  91.205 and 91.711.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AOPA and Boeing objected to this proposal. AOPA argued that the 
justification is inadequate and that some operators must change or 
supplement their navigation systems, which would impose costs. AOPA 
estimated that approximately 30% of the aircraft capable of operating 
at or above FL 180 are equipped with DME. The number of aircraft 
equipped with a suitable RNAV system is unknown.
    Boeing contends that maintaining FL 240 is necessary to address 
lead turn radius at high true airspeed. Boeing also argues that RNAV 
should also be permitted in lieu of DME. In view of the comments and 
after further consideration, the FAA concludes that this amendment may 
inadvertently create additional airspace congestion below FL 180 by 
restricting non-DME-equipped aircraft to operate at or below 18,000 
feet. Consequently, the FAA withdraws this proposal.

II.H. Minimum Altitudes for Use of Autopilot (Sec. Sec.  121.579 and 
135.93)

    The FAA proposed to amend Sec. Sec.  121.579(b)(1) and (b)(2) and 
135.93(b) and (c) to change references from ILS to precision 
approaches.
    Boeing, ATA, and TAOARC suggested completely rewriting Sec. Sec.  
121.579 and 135.93 to reflect the previous input of ARAC's Flight 
Guidance System Harmonization Working Group. The FAA is currently 
reviewing the recommendations of this group. In the meantime, as the 
term ``precision approach'' is not being adopted in this rule, it is 
necessary to withdraw this proposal.

III. Discussion of Comments on Specific Sections

Section 91.129 Operations in Class D Airspace

    ATA recommended removing the word ``glide'' from any definitions. 
The FAA does not agree with the commenter because the word ``glide'' 
must be associated with either the word ``slope'' or ``path'' in the 
context of this section. However, the FAA is changing the reference to 
``glide slope'' proposed in paragraph (e)(4) to ``glide path'' because 
the term ``glide path'' is appropriate to all approaches with vertical 
guidance.

Section 91.175 Takeoff and Landing Under IFR

    Upon reconsideration, the FAA has concluded that in paragraph (b), 
the terminology in the regulation as currently published is accurate 
and that it is appropriate to retain the language ``when the approach 
procedure being used provides for and requires the use of a DA/DH or 
MDA.''
    In addition, the FAA is amending its proposal in paragraph (b)(3) 
from, ``The DA/DH or MDA for which the aircraft is equipped'' to ``The 
DA/DH or MDA appropriate for the aircraft equipment available and used 
during the approach.'' While this change is editorial, it is more 
precise and is consistent with the FAA's efforts to promote a 
performance-based NAS.
    In paragraph (c), the FAA is deleting the phrase ``at any airport'' 
as the words are not necessary.
    In paragraph (f), the FAA proposed to require that, if published 
civil takeoff weather minimums in part 97 are specified for a 
particular departure route, pilots must comply with these minimums and 
the published route unless an alternative route has been assigned by 
ATC. In order to ensure adequate obstacle clearance, the associated 
published weather minimums may only be applicable based upon a 
particular routing, i.e. departure procedure. For numerous airports, 
departure procedures are predicated upon obstacles located in the 
flight path(s) of the takeoff runway.
    Airbus, Boeing, and Continental argued that it would be 
unnecessary, unsafe and economically onerous to require air carrier 
pilots to adhere to published departure procedures if in determining 
compliance with the aircraft takeoff limitations of Sec.  121.189, air 
carriers have safely used a flight track significantly different from 
the flight track published in a part 97 procedure. In this case, Airbus 
argued that, in an engine-out situation, the pilot should fly the track 
that was determined to be compliant with Sec.  121.189 and, in that 
case, it would be unsafe for the pilot to continue flying the part 97 
departure procedure.
    American Airlines contended that many part 121 operators already 
have approved engine-out procedures in place that are negotiated with 
air traffic control and provide for the safe operation of aircraft in 
such situations. American Airlines also argued that part 97 departure 
procedures are not based on engine-inoperative obstacle clearance

[[Page 31674]]

requirements contained in the airplane performance operating limitation 
regulations in parts 121 and 135. It also argued that it is too costly 
to conduct obstacle assessments for each departure procedure specified 
in part 97 and that negotiated departure procedures provide carriers 
with the flexibility and safe operating procedures.
    TAOARC commented that the proposal does not contemplate the high 
standards for obstacle clearance in parts 121 and 135.
    The FAA agrees in part with the above comments. Where takeoff 
minimums clearly are specified for a particular departure route, as a 
matter of safety, pilots must follow that routing. However, an 
exception is permitted. An operator may use an alternate departure 
route (see definition of ``T'' for an alternate departure route under 
Sec.  97.3), if it is negotiated in advance with ATC and that 
alternative departure route allows part 121 and part 135 operators and 
certain part 129 operators to use a takeoff obstacle clearance or 
avoidance procedure that ensures compliance with the applicable 
airplane performance operating limitations requirements under part 121, 
subpart I or part 135, subpart I, or that ensures compliance with the 
airplane performance operating limitations for takeoff prescribed by 
the State of the operator, if applicable, at that airport. The 
provisions of subpart I in both part 121 and part 135 contain higher 
performance standards than that provided for in part 97 departure 
procedure. It is not the FAA's intention to disrupt or force operators 
to stop using established departure procedures that are safe and have 
been approved by the FAA. Therefore, these alternative routes may be 
used in lieu of the specified obstacle departure routes under Sec.  
97.1.
    The FAA proposed to delete the runway visual range (RVR) table in 
paragraph (h) of Sec.  91.175 and instead refer to the RVR table in FAA 
Order 8260.3, ``U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures 
(TERPs).'' At the time of the NPRM, FAA Order 8260.3 was incorporated 
by reference in Sec.  97.20.
    Alaska Airlines and AOPA recommend using advisory circulars to 
disseminate the RVR table. AOPA and American Trans Air suggested that 
the agency list all the publications that provide the RVR table, i.e. 
the Aeronautical Information Manual, etc. ATA and Boeing recommended 
that these conversions go into carrier operations specifications.
    Conversely, Delta maintained that the RVR table must have a 
regulatory source. American Trans Air also opposes incorporating the 
RVR table into an FAA order, and argues that the proposal would permit 
the FAA to change it without public input.
    TAOARC endorsed putting the RVR table into the FAA Order because 
that Order was previously incorporated by reference into part 97, which 
makes it a regulatory provision.
    On May 3, 2005, the FAA removed the incorporation by reference of 
FAA Order 8260.3. (See ``Revision of Incorporation by Reference 
Provisions'' final rule published on May 3, 2005 (70 FR 23002)). The 
agency concludes that the RVR table must have a regulatory basis and 
therefore, leaves the Comparable Values of RVR and Ground Visibility 
table in Sec.  91.175.
    The FAA proposed to amend paragraph (k) to allow certain locations 
on the ILS to be fixed by other than ground-based navigation aids.
    AOPA requested clarification as to whether RNAV equipment, 
including IFR-approved GPS, can be used to identify certain locations 
on the ILS. AOPA estimated that less than one-third of all general 
aviation aircraft have the equipment necessary to identify a database 
fix. AOPA objected to any ILS implementation where RNAV equipage is a 
required component for completion of the approach because this would, 
as argued by AOPA, mandate the use of GPS for general aviation aircraft 
to access ``non-GPS'' procedures.
    The FAA made an editorial error in paragraph (k) of Sec.  91.175 
that listed the means that may be used to substitute for the outer 
marker as ``requiring'' a suitable RNAV system instead of stating that 
a suitable RNAV systems was one of the many possible means of meeting 
this requirement.
    AOPA also suggested modifying paragraph (h) to permit a pilot to 
use the ILS glide slope interception and altitude crosscheck as an 
acceptable substitute for an outer marker. Boeing recommended that a 
compass locator or precision radar may be substituted for the outer or 
middle marker.
    AOPA's request to substitute an ILS glide slope interception and 
altitude crosscheck for an outer marker and Boeing's request to 
substitute a compass locator or precision radar for the outer or middle 
marker are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    Published FAA guidance material advises that if a required fix for 
a particular instrument approach procedure is not in the aircraft's 
navigation database, then the pilot should not fly the procedure, nor 
enter such fix manually. (See Aeronautical Information Manual, Chapter 
5, Air Traffic Procedures.) This reduces the risk of human error with 
respect to an incorrect manual fix entry and incorrect estimation of 
fix location while flying the instrument approach procedure. Pilot 
actions of this nature could result in controlled flight into terrain 
or manmade obstacles.
    Boeing and Continental suggested adding a paragraph to Sec.  91.175 
to explicitly facilitate the introduction of new technology for low 
visibility approach and landing, when it can be shown that the new 
technology is appropriate. The commenters went on to state that the use 
of new technology could then be authorized through Operations 
Specifications or other suitable means.
    The proposed recommendation is beyond the scope of the NPRM; 
however, the FAA already addressed the authorization of certain new 
technology in low-visibility approach and landing in the January 9, 
2004 EFVS final rule (69 FR 1620).

Section 91.177 Minimum Altitudes for IFR Operations

    The FAA proposed to clarify Sec.  91.177(a) by stating that the 
section applies to both minimum en route IFR altitudes (MEA) and 
minimum obstruction clearance altitudes (MOCA) for a particular route 
or route segment. This would permit operators using other than ground-
based navigation systems that meet navigation requirements to operate 
along the route at the MOCA.
    The commenter stated that many general aviation IFR operations are 
done outside of radar contact while en route, and that more approach 
and departure procedures are flown to and from airports in a non-radar 
environment. AOPA said that while en route, general aviation aircraft 
remain at lower altitudes and, with the approval to operate at the 
minimum obstruction clearance altitude (MOCA), use of minimum altitudes 
along airways will increase. AOPA recommended that the FAA make every 
effort to accommodate area navigation operations outside of radar 
coverage because the NPRM appeared to revoke these capabilities, not 
expand them.
    The FAA agrees that flights may be conducted at the MOCA if 
communication, navigation, and surveillance requirements are met, 
irrespective of whether the operation is in a radar environment. ATC 
may decide not to clear a flight to operate at the MOCA on a particular 
route if ATC is concerned that a flight may not be able to meet 
applicable separation standards. Additionally, ATC may require a flight 
requesting radar advisory services to operate at the MEA

[[Page 31675]]

as opposed to the MOCA because satisfactory communication can only be 
assured when operating at the MEA, not at the MOCA.
    American Airlines, Air Transport Association of America, Boeing 
Commercial Airplanes, and Continental Airlines all commented that, 
instead of establishing a prescriptive value of 4 nautical miles 
horizontal distance from the course to be flown as the basis for 
identifying the highest obstacle within that space and applying the 
altitude value above that obstacle as the minimum altitude, the rule 
should also allow the use of RNP values for determining the space 
having the highest obstacle therein when applicable navigation 
performance requirements for routes are established.
    The FAA did not propose to establish navigation performance 
requirements for certain routes. Therefore the commenters' 
recommendations are outside the scope of the rulemaking.
    American Trans Air recommended revising the language in proposed 
paragraph (a)(1) to remove the words ``provided the applicable 
navigation signals are available'' and add a new sentence to read, 
``Except when using VOR navigation, operations at MOCA beyond 22 
nautical miles of the VOR concerned (based on the pilot's reasonable 
estimate of that distance) is not permitted.'' This change would allow 
other navigation without further specifying types of avionics, RNAV, 
GPS, etc.
    The FAA does not agree with American Trans Air's suggestion. The 
suggestion appears to reverse the proposal and prohibit the use of 
navigation facilities other than VOR. The FAA believes that the 
suggested language could result in unsafe operations because it is 
essential that the applicable navigation signals for the navigation 
means used must be available over the route or route segment.
    TAOARC recommended adding the phrase ``or when otherwise authorized 
by the Administrator'' to the proposed language in paragraph (a) of the 
proposal, but did not provide rationale; therefore, the FAA declines 
further consideration of this recommendation.

Section 97.1 Applicability

    The FAA proposed to change Sec.  97.1 to describe the applicability 
of part 97 as follows:
    (1) Expand part 97 to include obstacle departure procedures;
    (2) Clarify that civil takeoff weather minimums at certain airports 
are based on a specified route, and that pilots must comply with that 
route unless an alternative route has been assigned by ATC; and
    (3) Minor editorial changes.
    In the NPRM, the FAA referred to departure procedures generally, 
which includes obstacle departure procedures (ODPs) as well as non-
regulatory departure procedures issued by ATC. The FAA's intention was 
only to include obstacle departure procedures in this rulemaking.
    In addition to the comments received on Sec.  91.175(f) (discussed 
above), Boeing, Airbus, and Continental Airlines stated that Sec.  
97.1(b) would not be the appropriate regulation in which to require 
compliance with obstacle departure procedures.
    The FAA agrees with the commenters and has amended Sec.  91.175(f) 
to require compliance with ODPs when applicable. (See discussion of 
Sec.  91.175(f).)

Section 97.3 Symbols and Terms Used in Procedures

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec.  97.3 to organize the terms 
alphabetically. In addition, the FAA proposed to revise several of the 
terms in the section, and to add others.
    The FAA received comments on the proposed definitions of ``height 
above touchdown (HAT),'' ``helipoint,'' ``minimum safe altitude 
(MSA),'' and ``visibility minimum.'' These comments, and the FAA's 
responses, are discussed under ``II.B. Terminology and Definitions.''
    The FAA included the term ``Aircraft approach category'' in the 
proposed revision of Sec.  97.3 so that the text of the section could 
be shown in its entirety for the convenience of the reader. The text of 
that definition was not different from that in the CFR at the time that 
the NPRM was drafted. However, in a separate rulemaking (unrelated to 
RNAV) on November 26, 2002 (67 FR 70828), the FAA amended the lead-in 
text of the definition, but inadvertently omitted the amended text from 
the NPRM. The FAA therefore is including the current text of ``Aircraft 
approach category'' in this final rule.

Section 97.10 General

    The FAA proposed to remove and reserve Sec.  97.10 because it 
prescribes standard instrument approach procedures ``other than those 
based on the criteria contained in FAA Order 8260.3, U.S. Standard for 
Terminal Instrument Approach Procedures (TERPS).'' The FAA proposed to 
remove Sec.  97.10 because these types of approach procedures no longer 
exist.
    American Trans Air, Continental Airlines, Boeing, ATA, and American 
Airlines recommended leaving the text in Sec.  97.10, as it is 
currently written to allow for the development of instrument approaches 
based on criteria other than that stated in the U.S. TERPS.
    The FAA disagrees. The sole purpose of Sec.  97.10 was to allow 
procedures developed pre-TERPS to remain in effect until they came into 
compliance with TERPS criteria; however, the section is no longer 
valid. All public instrument approach procedures published are in 
compliance with current FAA criteria. The FAA may authorize special 
procedures using non-standard criteria on a case-by-case basis. These 
special procedures are usually for private use only and are authorized 
under Sec.  91.175(a). Thus, the FAA is removing and reserving the text 
of Sec.  97.10, as proposed.

Section 97.20 General

    The NPRM proposed to incorporate FAA Orders 8260.3 and 8260.19 by 
reference into Sec.  97.20, as well as the terminal aeronautical 
charts. On April 8, 2003, the FAA adopted this amendment (68 FR 16948). 
The incorporation by reference (IBR) of the two above-referenced orders 
and the aeronautical charts was in error and resulted in the 
inappropriate designation of certain material as regulatory. The FAA 
subsequently corrected this error in a final rule adopted on May 3, 
2005 (70 FR 23002) that removed those FAA orders from Sec.  97.20. 
Also, in that final rule, the FAA instead incorporated by reference 
into part 97 the information documented on FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 
8260-5, and 8260-15A, which are the forms that depict instrument 
procedures and the associated weather takeoff minimums.
    As discussed in Sec.  91.175(f) and unless specifically excluded, 
this rule requires a pilot to use an ODP if such a procedure is 
prescribed under part 97. ODPs are depicted on form 8260-15A. This rule 
provides for the IBR of the ODPs on form 8260.15A in Sec.  97.20. The 
Director of the Federal Register approved the IBR of the material on 
August 6, 2007.

IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Economic Evaluation

IV.A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that 
there is no current or new requirement for information collection 
associated with these amendments.

[[Page 31676]]

IV.B. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
has identified no differences with these regulations.

IV.C. Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. 
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect, and the basis for it, be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this final rule.
    The final rule will impose minimal costs on aircraft operators 
because it does not require changes to current navigation systems. Cost 
savings may result because the rule will enable the use of advanced 
RNAV navigation routes the FAA has been developing. These routes are 
typically more direct and shorter than current Federal airways and jet 
routes and therefore may result in less fuel and time for aircraft to 
reach their destinations.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

IV.D. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA 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 rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. 
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so 
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    This rule is definitionally clarifying, incorporates existing 
orders, and provides cost saving as it enables more direct routes 
requiring less time and fuel. Therefore, as the FAA Administrator, I 
certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

IV.E. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in 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. The FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of this final rule and has determined that it will 
impose the same costs on domestic and international entities and thus 
has a neutral affect on international trade.

IV.F. Unfunded Mandate Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) 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 an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one 
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by 
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant 
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value 
of $128.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not 
contain such a mandate.

IV.G. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA has 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, and therefore does not have federalism 
implications.

IV.H. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

IV.I. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The

[[Page 31677]]

FAA has determined that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under 
the executive order because it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under Executive Order 12866, and it is not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy.

V. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket 
Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending 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. Be 
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this 
rulemaking.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

VI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question 
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or 
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at 
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on 
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 1

    Air transportation.

14 CFR Part 91

    Agriculture, Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, 
Aviation safety, Freight, Noise control, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by Reference, 
Navigation (air), Weather.

14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Charter flights, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

14 CFR Part 125

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

14 CFR Part 129

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Security.

14 CFR Part 135

    Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendments

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Administration Aviation 
amends chapter I of 14 CFR as follows:

PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.


0
2. Amend Sec.  1.1 as follows:
0
a. Remove the definitions of ``Decision height'' and ``Minimum descent 
altitude''.
0
b. Add definitions for ``Decision altitude (DA)'', ``Decision height 
(DH)'', ``Final approach fix (FAF)'', ``Instrument approach procedure 
(IAP)'', ``Minimum descent altitude (MDA)'', and ``Suitable RNAV 
system'' in alphabetical order to read as set forth below.


Sec.  1.1  General definitions.

* * * * *
    Decision altitude (DA) is a specified altitude in an instrument 
approach procedure at which the pilot must decide whether to initiate 
an immediate missed approach if the pilot does not see the required 
visual reference, or to continue the approach. Decision altitude is 
expressed in feet above mean sea level.
    Decision height (DH) is a specified height above the ground in an 
instrument approach procedure at which the pilot must decide whether to 
initiate an immediate missed approach if the pilot does not see the 
required visual reference, or to continue the approach. Decision height 
is expressed in feet above ground level.
    Final approach fix (FAF) defines the beginning of the final 
approach segment and the point where final segment descent may begin.
* * * * *
    Instrument approach procedure (IAP) is a series of predetermined 
maneuvers by reference to flight instruments with specified protection 
from obstacles and assurance of navigation signal reception capability. 
It begins from the initial approach fix, or where applicable, from the 
beginning of a defined arrival route to a point:
    (1) From which a landing can be completed; or
    (2) If a landing is not completed, to a position at which holding 
or en route obstacle clearance criteria apply.
* * * * *
    Minimum descent altitude (MDA) is the lowest altitude specified in 
an instrument approach procedure, expressed in feet above mean sea 
level, to which descent is authorized on final approach or during 
circle-to-land maneuvering until the pilot sees the required visual 
references for the heliport or runway of intended landing.
* * * * *
    Suitable RNAV system is an RNAV system that meets the required 
performance established for a type of operation, e.g. IFR; and is 
suitable for operation over the route to be flown in terms of any 
performance criteria (including accuracy) established by the air 
navigation service provider for certain routes (e.g. oceanic, ATS 
routes, and IAPs). An RNAV system's suitability is dependent upon the 
availability of ground and/or satellite navigation aids that are needed 
to meet any route performance criteria that may be prescribed in route 
specifications to navigate the aircraft along the route to be flown. 
Information on suitable RNAV systems is published in FAA guidance 
material.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  1.2 by adding the abbreviations ``NM'' and ``RNAV'' in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  1.2  Abbreviations and symbols.

* * * * *
    NM means nautical mile.
* * * * *
    RNAV means area navigation.
* * * * *

[[Page 31678]]

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
4. 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, 44704, 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).

0
5. Amend Sec.  91.129 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  91.129  Operations in Class D airspace.

* * * * *
    (e) Minimum altitudes when operating to an airport in Class D 
airspace. (1) Unless required by the applicable distance-from-cloud 
criteria, each pilot operating a large or turbine-powered airplane must 
enter the traffic pattern at an altitude of at least 1,500 feet above 
the elevation of the airport and maintain at least 1,500 feet until 
further descent is required for a safe landing.
    (2) Each pilot operating a large or turbine-powered airplane 
approaching to land on a runway served by an instrument approach 
procedure with vertical guidance, if the airplane is so equipped, must:
    (i) Operate that airplane at an altitude at or above the glide path 
between the published final approach fix and the decision altitude 
(DA), or decision height (DH), as applicable; or
    (ii) If compliance with the applicable distance-from-cloud criteria 
requires glide path interception closer in, operate that airplane at or 
above the glide path, between the point of interception of glide path 
and the DA or the DH.
    (3) Each pilot operating an airplane approaching to land on a 
runway served by a visual approach slope indicator must maintain an 
altitude at or above the glide path until a lower altitude is necessary 
for a safe landing.
    (4) Paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section do not prohibit 
normal bracketing maneuvers above or below the glide path that are 
conducted for the purpose of remaining on the glide path.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  91.131 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  91.131  Operations in Class B airspace.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) For IFR operation. An operable VOR or TACAN receiver or an 
operable and suitable RNAV system; and
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  91.175 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c) introductory 
text, (e)(1)(ii), (f), and (k) to read as follows:


Sec.  91.175  Takeoff and landing under IFR.

    (a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise 
authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument 
approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use 
a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this 
chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United 
States military aircraft.
    (b) Authorized DA/DH or MDA. For the purpose of this section, when 
the approach procedure being used provides for and requires the use of 
a DA/DH or MDA, the authorized DA/DH or MDA is the highest of the 
following:
    (1) The DA/DH or MDA prescribed by the approach procedure.
    (2) The DA/DH or MDA prescribed for the pilot in command.
    (3) The DA/DH or MDA appropriate for the aircraft equipment 
available and used during the approach.
    (c) Operation below DA/ DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph 
(l) of this section, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may 
operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, 
below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized 
DA/DH unless--
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Upon arrival at the missed approach point, including a DA/DH 
where a DA/DH is specified and its use is required, and at any time 
after that until touchdown.
* * * * *
    (f) Civil airport takeoff minimums. This paragraph applies to 
persons operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this 
chapter.
    (1) Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, no pilot may takeoff 
from a civil airport under IFR unless the weather conditions at time of 
takeoff are at or above the weather minimums for IFR takeoff prescribed 
for that airport under part 97 of this chapter.
    (2) If takeoff weather minimums are not prescribed under part 97 of 
this chapter for a particular airport, the following weather minimums 
apply to takeoffs under IFR:
    (i) For aircraft, other than helicopters, having two engines or 
less--1 statute mile visibility.
    (ii) For aircraft having more than two engines--\1/2\ statute mile 
visibility.
    (iii) For helicopters--\1/2\ statute mile visibility.
    (3) Except as provided in paragraph (f)(4) of this section, no 
pilot may takeoff under IFR from a civil airport having published 
obstacle departure procedures (ODPs) under part 97 of this chapter for 
the takeoff runway to be used, unless the pilot uses such ODPs.
    (4) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this 
section, no pilot may takeoff from an airport under IFR unless:
    (i) For part 121 and part 135 operators, the pilot uses a takeoff 
obstacle clearance or avoidance procedure that ensures compliance with 
the applicable airplane performance operating limitations requirements 
under part 121, subpart I or part 135, subpart I for takeoff at that 
airport; or
    (ii) For part 129 operators, the pilot uses a takeoff obstacle 
clearance or avoidance procedure that ensures compliance with the 
airplane performance operating limitations prescribed by the State of 
the operator for takeoff at that airport.
* * * * *
    (k) ILS components. The basic components of an ILS are the 
localizer, glide slope, and outer marker, and, when installed for use 
with Category II or Category III instrument approach procedures, an 
inner marker. The following means may be used to substitute for the 
outer marker: Compass locator; precision approach radar (PAR) or 
airport surveillance radar (ASR); DME, VOR, or nondirectional beacon 
fixes authorized in the standard instrument approach procedure; or a 
suitable RNAV system in conjunction with a fix identified in the 
standard instrument approach procedure. Applicability of, and 
substitution for, the inner marker for a Category II or III approach is 
determined by the appropriate 14 CFR part 97 approach procedure, letter 
of authorization, or operations specifications issued to an operator.
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  91.177 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  91.177  Minimum altitudes for IFR operations.

    (a) Operation of aircraft at minimum altitudes. Except when 
necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft 
under IFR below--
    (1) The applicable minimum altitudes prescribed in parts 95 and 97 
of this chapter. However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a 
particular route or route segment, a person may operate an aircraft 
below the MEA down to, but not below, the MOCA, provided the applicable 
navigation signals are available. For aircraft using VOR for 
navigation, this applies only when the aircraft is within 22 nautical 
miles of that VOR (based on the reasonable

[[Page 31679]]

estimate by the pilot operating the aircraft of that distance); or
    (2) If no applicable minimum altitude is prescribed in parts 95 and 
97 of this chapter, then--
    (i) In the case of operations over an area designated as a 
mountainous area in part 95 of this chapter, an altitude of 2,000 feet 
above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical 
miles from the course to be flown; or
    (ii) In any other case, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest 
obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the 
course to be flown.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  91.179 by adding introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  91.179  IFR cruising altitude or flight level.

    Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, the following rules apply--
* * * * *


Sec.  91.181  [Amended]

0
10. Amend Sec.  91.181 by removing the words ``a Federal airway'' and 
adding in their place the words ``an ATS route'' in paragraph (a).


0
11. Amend Sec.  91.183 by revising the heading and the introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  91.183  IFR communications.

    Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, the pilot in command of each 
aircraft operated under IFR in controlled airspace must ensure that a 
continuous watch is maintained on the appropriate frequency and must 
report the following as soon as possible--
* * * * *


Sec.  91.189  [Amended]

0
12. Amend Sec.  91.189 (c) and (d) by removing the term ``DH'' and 
adding in its place the term ``DA/DH'' wherever it appears.


0
13. Amend Sec.  91.205 by revising paragraphs (d)(2) and (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  91.205  Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. 
airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable 
for the route to be flown.
* * * * *
    (e) Flight at and above 24,000 feet MSL (FL 240). If VOR navigation 
equipment is required under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person 
may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft within the 50 states and 
the District of Columbia at or above FL 240 unless that aircraft is 
equipped with approved DME or a suitable RNAV system. When the DME or 
RNAV system required by this paragraph fails at and above FL 240, the 
pilot in command of the aircraft must notify ATC immediately, and then 
may continue operations at and above FL 240 to the next airport of 
intended landing where repairs or replacement of the equipment can be 
made.
* * * * *


Sec.  91.219  [Amended]

0
14. Amend Sec.  91.219 (b)(5) by removing the term ``DH'' and adding in 
its place the term ``DA/DH''.


0
15. Amend 91.511 by revising the heading and paragraph (a)(1) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  91.511  Communication and navigation equipment for overwater 
operations.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Radio communication equipment appropriate to the facilities to 
be used and able to transmit to, and receive from, at least one 
communication facility from any place along the route:
* * * * *

0
16. Amend Sec.  91.711 by revising paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (e) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  91.711  Special rules for foreign civil aircraft.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.
* * * * *
    (e) Flight at and above FL 240. If VOR navigation equipment is 
required under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, no person may 
operate a foreign civil aircraft within the 50 States and the District 
of Columbia at or above FL 240, unless the aircraft is equipped with 
approved DME or a suitable RNAV system. When the DME or RNAV system 
required by this paragraph fails at and above FL 240, the pilot in 
command of the aircraft must notify ATC immediately and may then 
continue operations at and above FL 240 to the next airport of intended 
landing where repairs or replacement of the equipment can be made. A 
foreign civil aircraft may be operated within the 50 States and the 
District of Columbia at or above FL 240 without DME or an RNAV system 
when operated for the following purposes, and ATC is notified before 
each takeoff:
* * * * *

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES

0
17. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, and 44721-44722.


0
18. Revise the heading for part 97 to read as set forth above.

0
19. Revise Sec.  97.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  97.1  Applicability.

    (a) This part prescribes standard instrument approach procedures to 
civil airports in the United States and the weather minimums that apply 
to landings under IFR at those airports.
    (b) This part also prescribes obstacle departure procedures (ODPs) 
for certain civil airports in the United States and the weather 
minimums that apply to takeoffs under IFR at civil airports in the 
United States.


0
20. Revise Sec.  97.3 to read as follows:


Sec.  97.3  Symbols and terms used in procedures.

    As used in the standard instrument procedures prescribed in this 
part--
    Aircraft approach category means a grouping of aircraft based on a 
speed of VREF, if specified, or if VREF is not specified, 1.3 
Vso at the maximum certificated landing weight. VREF, 
Vso, and the maximum certificated landing weight are those 
values as established for the aircraft by the certification authority 
of the country of registry. The categories are as follows--
    (1) Category A: Speed less than 91 knots.
    (2) Category B: Speed 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots.
    (3) Category C: Speed 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots.
    (4) Category D: Speed 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots.
    (5) Category E: Speed 166 knots or more.
    Approach procedure segments for which altitudes (minimum altitudes, 
unless otherwise specified) and paths are prescribed in procedures, are 
as follows--
    (1) Initial approach is the segment between the initial approach 
fix and the intermediate fix or the point where the aircraft is 
established on the intermediate course or final approach course.
    (2) Initial approach altitude is the altitude (or altitudes, in 
high altitude procedure) prescribed for the initial

[[Page 31680]]

approach segment of an instrument approach.
    (3) Intermediate approach is the segment between the intermediate 
fix or point and the final approach fix.
    (4) Final approach is the segment between the final approach fix or 
point and the runway, airport, or missed approach point.
    (5) Missed approach is the segment between the missed approach 
point, or point of arrival at decision altitude or decision height (DA/
DH), and the missed approach fix at the prescribed altitude.
    Ceiling means the minimum ceiling, expressed in feet above the 
airport elevation, required for takeoff or required for designating an 
airport as an alternate airport.
    Copter procedures means helicopter procedures, with applicable 
minimums as prescribed in Sec.  97.35. Helicopters may also use other 
procedures prescribed in subpart C of this part and may use the 
Category A minimum descent altitude (MDA), or decision altitude or 
decision height (DA/DH). For other than ``copter-only'' approaches, the 
required visibility minimum for Category I approaches may be reduced to 
one-half the published visibility minimum for Category A aircraft, but 
in no case may it be reduced to less than one-quarter mile prevailing 
visibility, or, if reported, 1,200 feet RVR. Reduction of visibility 
minima on Category II instrument approach procedures is prohibited.
    FAF means final approach fix.
    HAA means height above airport and is expressed in feet.
    HAL means height above landing and is the height of the DA/MDA 
above a designated helicopter landing area elevation used for 
helicopter instrument approach procedures and is expressed in feet.
    HAS means height above the surface and is the height of the DA/MDA 
above the highest terrain/surface within a 5,200-foot radius of the 
missed approach point used in helicopter instrument approach procedures 
and is expressed in feet above ground level (AGL).
    HAT means height above touchdown.
    HCH means helipoint crossing height and is the computed height of 
the vertical guidance path above the helipoint elevation at the 
helipoint expressed in feet.
    Helipoint means the aiming point for the final approach course. It 
is normally the center point of the touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF).
    Hold in lieu of PT means a holding pattern established under 
applicable FAA criteria, and used in lieu of a procedure turn to 
execute a course reversal.
    MAP means missed approach point.
    More than 65 knots means an aircraft that has a stalling speed of 
more than 65 knots (as established in an approved flight manual) at 
maximum certificated landing weight with full flaps, landing gear 
extended, and power off.
    MSA means minimum safe altitude, expressed in feet above mean sea 
level, depicted on an approach chart that provides at least 1,000 feet 
of obstacle clearance for emergency use within a certain distance from 
the specified navigation facility or fix.
    NA means not authorized.
    NOPT means no procedure turn required. Altitude prescribed applies 
only if procedure turn is not executed.
    Procedure turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary 
to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or 
final approach course. The outbound course, direction of turn, distance 
within which the turn must be completed, and minimum altitude are 
specified in the procedure. However, the point at which the turn may be 
begun, and the type and rate of turn, is left to the discretion of the 
pilot.
    RA means radio altimeter setting height.
    RVV means runway visibility value.
    SIAP means standard instrument approach procedure.
    65 knots or less means an aircraft that has a stalling speed of 65 
knots or less (as established in an approved flight manual) at maximum 
certificated landing weight with full flaps, landing gear extended, and 
power off.
    T means nonstandard takeoff minimums or specified departure routes/
procedures or both.
    TDZ means touchdown zone.
    Visibility minimum means the minimum visibility specified for 
approach, landing, or takeoff, expressed in statute miles, or in feet 
where RVR is reported.


0
21. Amend Sec.  97.5 by revising the heading and paragraph (a) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  97.5  Bearings, courses, tracks, headings, radials, miles.

    (a) All bearings, courses, tracks, headings, and radials in this 
part are magnetic, unless otherwise designated.
* * * * *


Sec.  97.10  [Removed and reserved]

0
22. Remove and reserve Sec.  97.10.


0
23. Revise Sec.  97.20 to read as follows:


Sec.  97.20  General.

    (a) This subpart prescribes standard instrument approach procedures 
and takeoff minimums and obstacle departure procedures (ODPs) based on 
the criteria contained in FAA Order 8260.3, U.S. Standard for Terminal 
Instrument Procedures (TERPs), and other related Orders in the 8260 
series that also address instrument procedure design criteria.
    (b) Standard instrument approach procedures and associated 
supporting data adopted by the FAA are documented on FAA Forms 8260-3, 
8260-4, 8260-5. Takeoff minimums and obstacle departure procedures 
(ODPs) are documented on FAA Form 8260-15A. These forms are 
incorporated by reference. The Director of the Federal Register 
approved this incorporation by reference pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) 
and 1 CFR part 51. The standard instrument approach procedures and 
takeoff minimums and obstacle departure procedures (ODPs) are available 
for examination at the FAA's Rules Docket (AGC-200) and at the National 
Flight Data Center, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20590, 
or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    (c) Standard instrument approach procedures and takeoff minimums 
and obstacle departure procedures (ODPs) are depicted on aeronautical 
charts published by the FAA National Aeronautical Charting Office. 
These charts are available for purchase from the FAA's National 
Aeronautical Charting Office, Distribution Division, 6303 Ivy Lane, 
Suite 400, Greenbelt, MD 20770.

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL 
OPERATIONS

0
24. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40102, 40103, 40113, 
41721, 44105, 44106, 44111, 44701-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903, 44904, 
44906, 44912, 44914, 44936, 44938, 46103, 46105.


0
25. Amend Sec.  121.99 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  121.99  Communications facilities--domestic and flag operations.

    (a) Each certificate holder conducting domestic or flag operations 
must show that a two-way communication system, or other means of 
communication approved by the FAA certificate holding

[[Page 31681]]

district office, is available over the entire route. The communications 
may be direct links or via an approved communication link that will 
provide reliable and rapid communications under normal operating 
conditions between each airplane and the appropriate dispatch office, 
and between each airplane and the appropriate air traffic control unit.
    (b) Except in an emergency, for all flag and domestic kinds of 
operations, the communications systems between each airplane and the 
dispatch office must be independent of any system operated by the 
United States.
* * * * *

0
26. Revise Sec.  121.103 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.103  En route navigation facilities.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each 
certificate holder conducting domestic or flag operations must show, 
for each proposed route (including to any regular, provisional, 
refueling or alternate airports), that suitable navigation aids are 
available to navigate the airplane along the route within the degree of 
accuracy required for ATC. Navigation aids required for approval of 
routes outside of controlled airspace are listed in the certificate 
holder's operations specifications except for those aids required for 
routes to alternate airports.
    (b) Navigation aids are not required for any of the following 
operations--
    (1) Day VFR operations that the certificate holder shows can be 
conducted safely by pilotage because of the characteristics of the 
terrain;
    (2) Night VFR operations on routes that the certificate holder 
shows have reliably lighted landmarks adequate for safe operation; and
    (3) Other operations approved by the certificate holding district 
office.


0
27. Revise Sec.  121.121 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.121  En route navigation facilities.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no 
certificate holder conducting supplemental operations may conduct any 
operation over a route (including to any destination, refueling or 
alternate airports) unless suitable navigation aids are available to 
navigate the airplane along the route within the degree of accuracy 
required for ATC. Navigation aids required for routes outside of 
controlled airspace are listed in the certificate holder's operations 
specifications except for those aids required for routes to alternate 
airports.
    (b) Navigation aids are not required for any of the following 
operations--
    (1) Day VFR operations that the certificate holder shows can be 
conducted safely by pilotage because of the characteristics of the 
terrain;
    (2) Night VFR operations on routes that the certificate holder 
shows have reliably lighted landmarks adequate for safe operation; and
    (3) Other operations approved by the certificate holding district 
office.


0
28. Amend Sec.  121.347 by revising the heading, paragraphs (a) 
introductory text, (a)(1), (a)(2), and (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  121.347  Communication and navigation equipment for operations 
under VFR over routes navigated by pilotage.

    (a) No person may operate an airplane under VFR over routes that 
can be navigated by pilotage unless the airplane is equipped with the 
radio communication equipment necessary under normal operating 
conditions to fulfill the following:
    (1) Communicate with at least one appropriate station from any 
point on the route;
    (2) Communicate with appropriate air traffic control facilities 
from any point within Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace, or within 
a Class E surface area designated for an airport in which flights are 
intended; and
* * * * *
    (b) No person may operate an airplane at night under VFR over 
routes that can be navigated by pilotage unless that airplane is 
equipped with--
    (1) Radio communication equipment necessary under normal operating 
conditions to fulfill the functions specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section; and
    (2) Navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.


0
29. Revise Sec.  121.349 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.349  Communication and navigation equipment for operations 
under VFR over routes not navigated by pilotage or for operations under 
IFR or over the top.

    (a) Navigation equipment requirements--General. No person may 
conduct operations under VFR over routes that cannot be navigated by 
pilotage, or operations conducted under IFR or over the top, unless--
    (1) The en route navigation aids necessary for navigating the 
airplane along the route (e.g., ATS routes, arrival and departure 
routes, and instrument approach procedures, including missed approach 
procedures if a missed approach routing is specified in the procedure) 
are available and suitable for use by the aircraft navigation systems 
required by this section;
    (2) The airplane used in those operations is equipped with at 
least--
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, two 
approved independent navigation systems suitable for navigating the 
airplane along the route to be flown within the degree of accuracy 
required for ATC;
    (ii) One marker beacon receiver providing visual and aural signals; 
and
    (iii) One ILS receiver; and
    (3) Any RNAV system used to meet the navigation equipment 
requirements of this section is authorized in the certificate holder's 
operations specifications.
    (b) Communication equipment requirements. No person may operate an 
airplane under VFR over routes that cannot be navigated by pilotage, 
and no person may operate an airplane under IFR or over the top, unless 
the airplane is equipped with--
    (1) At least two independent communication systems necessary under 
normal operating conditions to fulfill the functions specified in Sec.  
121.347 (a); and
    (2) At least one of the communication systems required by paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section must have two-way voice communication 
capability.
    (c) Use of a single independent navigation system for operations 
under VFR over routes that cannot be navigated by pilotage, or 
operations conducted under IFR or over the top. Notwithstanding the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, the airplane may 
be equipped with a single independent navigation system suitable for 
navigating the airplane along the route to be flown within the degree 
of accuracy required for ATC if:
    (1) It can be shown that the airplane is equipped with at least one 
other independent navigation system suitable, in the event of loss of 
the navigation capability of the single independent navigation system 
permitted by this paragraph at any point along the route, for 
proceeding safely to a suitable airport and completing an instrument 
approach; and
    (2) The airplane has sufficient fuel so that the flight may proceed 
safely to a suitable airport by use of the remaining navigation system, 
and complete an instrument approach and land.
    (d) Use of VOR navigation equipment. If VOR navigation equipment is 
used to comply with paragraph (a) or (c) of this section, no person may 
operate an airplane unless it is equipped with at least one approved 
DME or suitable RNAV system.

[[Page 31682]]

    (e) Additional communication system equipment requirements for 
operators subject to Sec.  121.2. In addition to the requirements in 
paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate an airplane having 
a passenger seat configuration of 10 to 30 seats, excluding each 
crewmember seat, and a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or 
less, under IFR, over the top, or in extended over-water operations 
unless it is equipped with at least--
    (1) Two microphones; and
    (2) Two headsets, or one headset and one speaker.


0
30. Amend Sec.  121.351 by revising the heading and paragraphs (a) and 
(c)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  121.351  Communication and navigation equipment for extended 
over-water operations and for certain other operations.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person 
may conduct an extended over-water operation unless the airplane is 
equipped with at least two independent long-range navigation systems 
and at least two independent long-range communication systems necessary 
under normal operating conditions to fulfill the following functions--
    (1) Communicate with at least one appropriate station from any 
point on the route;
    (2) Receive meteorological information from any point on the route 
by either of two independent communication systems. One of the 
communication systems used to comply with this paragraph may be used to 
comply with paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3) of this section; and
    (3) At least one of the communication systems must have two-way 
voice communication capability.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) The ability of the flightcrew to navigate the airplane along 
the route within the degree of accuracy required for ATC,
* * * * *


Sec.  121.419  [Amended]

0
31. Amend Sec.  121.419 (a)(1)(vii) by removing the term ``DH'' and 
adding in its place the term ``DA/DH''.

Sec.  121.559  [Amended]

0
32. Amend Sec.  121.559 (c) by removing the words ``ground radio 
station'' and adding in their place the words ``communication 
facility''.


0
33. Amend Sec.  121.561 by revising the heading as set forth below and 
by amending paragraph (a) by removing the words ``ground or 
navigational facility'' and adding in their place the words ``ground 
facility or navigation aid''.


Sec.  121.561  Reporting potentially hazardous meteorological 
conditions and irregularities of ground facilities or navigation aids.

* * * * *


Sec.  121.565  [Amended]

0
34. Amend Sec.  121.565 (c) by removing the words ``ground radio 
station'' and adding in their place the words ``communication 
facility'' and by removing the word ``station'' and adding in its place 
the word ``facility''.


Sec.  121.579  [Amended]

0
35. Amend Sec.  121.579 (b) introductory text by removing the words 
``decision height'' and adding in their place the term ``DA/DH''.


Sec.  121.651  [Amended]

0
36. Amend Sec.  121.651 by replacing the term ``DH'' with the term 
``DA/DH'' wherever it appears in paragraphs (c) and (d).


Sec.  121.652  [Amended]

0
37. Amend Sec.  121.652 (a) by removing the term ``DH'' and adding in 
its place the term ``DA/DH''.

PART 125--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING 
CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 
6,000 POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH 
AIRCRAFT

0
38. The authority citation for part 125 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44710-
44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722.


0
39. Revise Sec.  125.51 to read as follows:


Sec.  125.51  En route navigation facilities.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no 
certificate holder may conduct any operation over a route (including to 
any destination, refueling or alternate airports) unless suitable 
navigation aids are available over the route to navigate the airplane 
along the route within the degree of accuracy required for ATC. 
Navigation aids required for routes outside of controlled airspace are 
listed in the certificate holder's operations specifications except for 
those aids required for routes to alternate airports.
    (b) Navigation aids are not required for any of the following 
operations--
    (1) Day VFR operations that the certificate holder shows can be 
conducted safely by pilotage because of the characteristics of the 
terrain;
    (2) Night VFR operations on routes that the certificate holder 
shows have reliably lighted landmarks adequate for safe operations; and
    (3) Other operations approved by the certificate holding district 
office.


0
40. Revise Sec.  125.203 to read as follows:


Sec.  125.203  Communication and navigation equipment.

    (a) Communication equipment--general. No person may operate an 
airplane unless it has two-way radio communication equipment able, at 
least in flight, to transmit to, and receive from, appropriate 
facilities 22 nautical miles away.
    (b) Navigation equipment for operations over the top. No person may 
operate an airplane over the top unless it has navigation equipment 
suitable for the route to be flown.
    (c) Communication and navigation equipment for IFR or extended 
over-water operations--General. Except as provided in paragraph (f) of 
this section, no person may operate an airplane carrying passengers 
under IFR or in extended over-water operations unless--
    (1) The en route navigation aids necessary for navigating the 
airplane along the route (e.g., ATS routes, arrival and departure 
routes, and instrument approach procedures, including missed approach 
procedures if a missed approach routing is specified in the procedure) 
are available and suitable for use by the aircraft navigation systems 
required by this section;
    (2) The airplane used in those operations is equipped with at least 
the following equipment--
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, two 
approved independent navigation systems suitable for navigating the 
airplane along the route within the degree of accuracy required for 
ATC;
    (ii) One marker beacon receiver providing visual and aural signals;
    (iii) One ILS receiver;
    (iv) Two transmitters;
    (v) Two microphones;
    (vi) Two headsets or one headset and one speaker; and
    (vii) Two independent communication systems, one of which must have 
two-way voice communication capability, capable of transmitting to, and 
receiving from, at least one appropriate facility from any place on the 
route to be flown; and
    (3) Any RNAV system used to meet the navigation equipment 
requirements of this section is authorized in the certificate holder's 
operations specifications.

[[Page 31683]]

    (d) Use of a single independent navigation system for operations 
under IFR--not for extended overwater operations. Notwithstanding the 
requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, the airplane may 
be equipped with a single independent navigation system suitable for 
navigating the airplane along the route to be flown within the degree 
of accuracy required for ATC if--
    (1) It can be shown that the airplane is equipped with at least one 
other independent navigation system suitable, in the event of loss of 
the navigation capability of the single independent navigation system 
permitted by this paragraph at any point along the route, for 
proceeding safely to a suitable airport and completing an instrument 
approach; and
    (2) The airplane has sufficient fuel so that the flight may proceed 
safely to a suitable airport by use of the remaining navigation system, 
and complete an instrument approach and land.
    (e) Use of VOR navigation equipment. If VOR navigation equipment is 
required by paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, no person may operate 
an airplane unless it is equipped with at least one approved DME or a 
suitable RNAV system.
    (f) Extended over-water operations. Notwithstanding the 
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, installation and use of 
a single long-range navigation system and a single long-range 
communication system for extended over-water operations in certain 
geographic areas may be authorized by the Administrator and approved in 
the certificate holder's operations specifications. The following are 
among the operational factors the Administrator may consider in 
granting an authorization:
    (1) The ability of the flight crew to navigate the airplane along 
the route to be flown within the degree of accuracy required for ATC;
    (2) The length of the route being flown; and
    (3) The duration of the very high frequency communications gap.


0
41. Amend Sec.  125.321 by revising the heading to read as set forth 
below and by removing the words ``ground or navigational facility'' and 
adding in their place the words ``ground facility or navigation aid''.


Sec.  125.321  Reporting potentially hazardous meteorological 
conditions and irregularities of ground facilities or navigation aids.

* * * * *


Sec.  125.379  [Amended]

0
42. Amend Sec.  125.379 (a) by removing the term ``DH'' wherever it 
appears and adding in its place the term ``DA/DH''.


Sec.  125.381  [Amended]

0
43. Amend Sec.  125.381 (c)(2) by revising the reference to ``DH'' to 
read ``DA/DH''.

PART 129--OPERATIONS: FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN OPERATORS OF 
U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON CARRIAGE

0
44. The authority citation for part 129 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1372, 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702, 
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901-44904, 44906, 
44912, 46105, Pub. L. 107-71 sec.

0
45. Revise Sec.  129.17 to read as follows:


Sec.  129.17  Aircraft communication and navigation equipment for 
operations under IFR or over the top.

    (a) Aircraft navigation equipment requirements--General. No foreign 
air carrier may conduct operations under IFR or over the top unless--
    (1) The en route navigation aids necessary for navigating the 
aircraft along the route (e.g., ATS routes, arrival and departure 
routes, and instrument approach procedures, including missed approach 
procedures if a missed approach routing is specified in the procedure) 
are available and suitable for use by the aircraft navigation equipment 
required by this section;
    (2) The aircraft used in those operations is equipped with at least 
the following--
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, two 
approved independent navigation systems suitable for navigating the 
aircraft along the route to be flown within the degree of accuracy 
required for ATC;
    (ii) One marker beacon receiver providing visual and aural signals; 
and
    (iii) One ILS receiver; and
    (3) Any RNAV system used to meet the navigation equipment 
requirements of this section is authorized in the foreign air carrier's 
operations specifications.
    (b) Aircraft communication equipment requirements. No foreign air 
carrier may operate an aircraft under IFR or over the top, unless it is 
equipped with--
    (1) At least two independent communication systems necessary under 
normal operating conditions to fulfill the functions specified in Sec.  
121.347(a) of this chapter; and
    (2) At least one of the communication systems required by paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section must have two-way voice communication 
capability.
    (c) Use of a single independent navigation system for operations 
under IFR or over the top. Notwithstanding the requirements of 
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, the aircraft may be equipped with 
a single independent navigation system suitable for navigating the 
aircraft along the route to be flown within the degree of accuracy 
required for ATC if:
    (1) It can be shown that the aircraft is equipped with at least one 
other independent navigation system suitable, in the event of loss of 
the navigation capability of the single independent navigation system 
permitted by this paragraph at any point along the route, for 
proceeding safely to a suitable airport and completing an instrument 
approach; and
    (2) The aircraft has sufficient fuel so that the flight may proceed 
safely to a suitable airport by use of the remaining navigation system, 
and complete an instrument approach and land.
    (d) VOR navigation equipment. If VOR navigation equipment is 
required by paragraph (a) or (c) of this section, no foreign air 
carrier may operate an aircraft unless it is equipped with at least one 
approved DME or suitable RNAV system.


0
46. Revise Sec.  129.21 to read as follows:


Sec.  129.21  Control of traffic.

    (a) Subject to applicable immigration laws and regulations, each 
foreign air carrier must furnish sufficient personnel necessary to 
provide two-way voice communications between its aircraft and stations 
at places where the FAA finds that communication is necessary but 
cannot be maintained in a language with which station operators are 
familiar.
    (b) Each person furnished by a foreign air carrier under paragraph 
(a) of this section must be able to speak English and the language 
necessary to maintain communications with its aircraft and must assist 
station operators in directing traffic.


0
47. Add Sec.  129.22 to read as follows:


Sec.  129.22  Communication and navigation equipment for rotorcraft 
operations under VFR over routes navigated by pilotage.

    (a) No foreign air carrier may operate a rotorcraft under VFR over 
routes that can be navigated by pilotage unless the rotorcraft is 
equipped with the radio communication equipment necessary under normal 
operating conditions to fulfill the following:
    (1) Communicate with at least one appropriate station from any 
point on the route;

[[Page 31684]]

    (2) Communicate with appropriate air traffic control facilities 
from any point within Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace, or within 
a Class E surface area designated for an airport in which flights are 
intended; and
    (3) Receive meteorological information from any point en route.
    (b) No foreign air carrier may operate a rotorcraft at night under 
VFR over routes that can be navigated by pilotage unless that 
rotorcraft is equipped with--
    (1) Radio communication equipment necessary under normal operating 
conditions to fulfill the functions specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section; and
    (2) Navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.


0
48. Amend Appendix A to part 129 by revising paragraph (b), Section IV, 
to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 129--Application for Operations Specifications by 
Foreign Air Carriers

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Sec. IV. Communications facilities. List all communication 
facilities to be used by the applicant in the conduct of the 
proposed operations within the United States and over that portion 
of the route between the last point of foreign departure and the 
United States.
* * * * *

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS 
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

0
49. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 44113, 44701-44702, 44705, 
44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 45101-45105.


0
50. Amend Sec.  135.67 by revising the heading to read as set forth 
below and by removing the words ``ground communications or navigational 
facility'' and adding in their place the words ``ground facility or 
navigation aid''.


Sec.  135.67  Reporting potentially hazardous meteorological conditions 
and irregularities of ground facilities or navigation aids.

* * * * *

0
51. Add Sec.  135.78 to read as follows:


Sec.  135.78  Instrument approach procedures and IFR landing minimums.

    No person may make an instrument approach at an airport except in 
accordance with IFR weather minimums and instrument approach procedures 
set forth in the certificate holder's operations specifications.


Sec.  135.79  [Amended]

0
52. Amend Sec.  135.79 (a)(3) by removing the words ``radio or 
telephone communications'' and adding in their place the word 
``communications''.


0
53. Revise Sec.  135.161 to read as follows:


Sec.  135.161  Communication and navigation equipment for aircraft 
operations under VFR over routes navigated by pilotage.

    (a) No person may operate an aircraft under VFR over routes that 
can be navigated by pilotage unless the aircraft is equipped with the 
two-way radio communication equipment necessary under normal operating 
conditions to fulfill the following:
    (1) Communicate with at least one appropriate station from any 
point on the route;
    (2) Communicate with appropriate air traffic control facilities 
from any point within Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace, or within 
a Class E surface area designated for an airport in which flights are 
intended; and
    (3) Receive meteorological information from any point en route.
    (b) No person may operate an aircraft at night under VFR over 
routes that can be navigated by pilotage unless that aircraft is 
equipped with--
    (1) Two-way radio communication equipment necessary under normal 
operating conditions to fulfill the functions specified in paragraph 
(a) of this section; and
    (2) Navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.


0
54. Revise Sec.  135.165 to read as follows:


Sec.  135.165  Communication and navigation equipment: Extended over-
water or IFR operations.

    (a) Aircraft navigation equipment requirements--General. Except as 
provided in paragraph (g) of this section, no person may conduct 
operations under IFR or extended over-water unless--
    (1) The en route navigation aids necessary for navigating the 
aircraft along the route (e.g., ATS routes, arrival and departure 
routes, and instrument approach procedures, including missed approach 
procedures if a missed approach routing is specified in the procedure) 
are available and suitable for use by the navigation systems required 
by this section:
    (2) The aircraft used in extended over-water operations is equipped 
with at least two-approved independent navigation systems suitable for 
navigating the aircraft along the route to be flown within the degree 
of accuracy required for ATC.
    (3) The aircraft used for IFR operations is equipped with at 
least--
    (i) One marker beacon receiver providing visual and aural signals; 
and
    (ii) One ILS receiver.
    (4) Any RNAV system used to meet the navigation equipment 
requirements of this section is authorized in the certificate holder's 
operations specifications.
    (b) Use of a single independent navigation system for IFR 
operations. The aircraft may be equipped with a single independent 
navigation system suitable for navigating the aircraft along the route 
to be flown within the degree of accuracy required for ATC if:
    (1) It can be shown that the aircraft is equipped with at least one 
other independent navigation system suitable, in the event of loss of 
the navigation capability of the single independent navigation system 
permitted by this paragraph at any point along the route, for 
proceeding safely to a suitable airport and completing an instrument 
approach; and
    (2) The aircraft has sufficient fuel so that the flight may proceed 
safely to a suitable airport by use of the remaining navigation system, 
and complete an instrument approach and land.
    (c) VOR navigation equipment. Whenever VOR navigation equipment is 
required by paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, no person may operate 
an aircraft unless it is equipped with at least one approved DME or 
suitable RNAV system.
    (d) Airplane communication equipment requirements. Except as 
permitted in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may operate a 
turbojet airplane having a passenger seat configuration, excluding any 
pilot seat, of 10 seats or more, or a multiengine airplane in a 
commuter operation, as defined in part 119 of this chapter, under IFR 
or in extended over-water operations unless the airplane is equipped 
with--
    (1) At least two independent communication systems necessary under 
normal operating conditions to fulfill the functions specified in Sec.  
121.347(a) of this chapter; and
    (2) At least one of the communication systems required by paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section must have two-way voice communication 
capability.
    (e) IFR or extended over-water communications equipment 
requirements. A person may operate an aircraft other than that 
specified in paragraph (d) of this section under IFR or in extended 
over-water operations if it meets all of the requirements of this 
section, with the exception that only one communication system 
transmitter

[[Page 31685]]

is required for operations other than extended over-water operations.
    (f) Additional aircraft communication equipment requirements. In 
addition to the requirements in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, 
no person may operate an aircraft under IFR or in extended over-water 
operations unless it is equipped with at least:
    (1) Two microphones; and
    (2) Two headsets or one headset and one speaker.
    (g) Extended over-water exceptions. Notwithstanding the 
requirements of paragraphs (a), (d), and (e) of this section, 
installation and use of a single long-range navigation system and a 
single long-range communication system for extended over-water 
operations in certain geographic areas may be authorized by the 
Administrator and approved in the certificate holder's operations 
specifications. The following are among the operational factors the 
Administrator may consider in granting an authorization:
    (1) The ability of the flight crew to navigate the airplane along 
the route within the degree of accuracy required for ATC;
    (2) The length of the route being flown; and
    (3) The duration of the very high frequency communications gap.


Sec.  135.225  [Amended]

0
55. Amend Sec.  135.225(c)(2) and (e) by revising the reference ``DH'' 
to read ``DA/DH''.


Sec.  135.345  [Amended]

0
56. Amend Sec.  135.345(a)(7) by removing the term ``DH'' and adding in 
its place the term ``DA/DH''.


Sec.  135.371  [Amended]

0
57. Amend Sec.  135.371(c)(2) by removing the word ``radio''.


Sec.  135.381  [Amended]

0
58. Amend Sec.  135.381(b)(2) by removing the word ``radio''.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 24, 2007.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E7-10609 Filed 6-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P