[Federal Register: March 21, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 55)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14071-14078]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21mr03-18]
[[Page 14071]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 71, 91, et al.
Special Operating Rules for the Conduct of Instrument Flight Rules
(IFR) Area Navigation (RNAV) Operations Using Global Positioning
Systems (GPS) in Alaska; Final Rule
[[Page 14072]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 71, 91, 95, 121, 125, 129, 135
[Docket No. FAA-2003-14305; Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 97]
RIN 2120-AH93
Special Operating Rules for the Conduct of Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) Area Navigation (RNAV) Operations Using Global Positioning
Systems (GPS) in Alaska
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 97, the
FAA allows the use of Global Positioning System/Wide Area Augmentation
Systems for the en route portion of flights on routes in Alaska outside
the operational service volume of ground based navigation aids. The use
of aircraft navigation equipment other than area navigation systems,
that only permit navigation to or from ground-based navigation
stations, often results in less than optimal routes or instrument
procedures and an inefficient use of airspace. SFAR 97 optimizes routes
and instrument procedures and provides for a more efficient use of
airspace. Further, the FAA anticipates that it will result in an
associated increase in flight safety.
DATES: This final rule is effective March 13, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald W. Streeter, Flight
Technologies and Procedures Division (AFS-400), Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone: (202) 385-4567; e-mail: donald.w.streeter@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Final Rules
You can get an electronic copy of this final rule through 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 Office of Rulemaking's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm
; or
www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm; or
(3) Accessing the Federal Register's Web page at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
You also can get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the docket number or amendment number of this
rulemaking.
Background
Aviation is critical to Alaska for routine travel and commerce, and
for nearly any kind of emergency. Only 10% of Alaska is accessible by
road, and waterways are impassable most of each year. Alaska also is
very large and crisscrossed by mountains that block radio and radar
transmissions so that aviation services and infrastructure that are
available in the 48 contiguous states are not available in many areas
of Alaska. Aviation is essential to Alaska, but there also is a safety
consequence of operating in this environment. The aviation accident
rate for rural Alaska is 2.5 times the average for the rest of the
United States. The Capstone Program is one initiative by the FAA to
reduce this accident rate.
The Capstone Program is a joint initiative by the FAA Alaskan
Region and the aviation industry to improve safety and efficiency in
Alaska by using new technologies. Derived from the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and industry recommendations,
Capstone Phase I focuses on southwest Alaska (the Yukon and Kuskokwim
River Delta--YK Delta), which is isolated, has limited infrastructure,
and has the same high rate of aviation accidents experienced in the
rest of the state. Under Capstone, installation of advanced avionics in
the YK Delta aircraft began in November 1999 and expansion of ground
infrastructure and data collection will continue through December 2004.
Relying on lessons learned during Phase I, Capstone Phase II is
beginning in southeast Alaska. A more robust set of avionics, that
include Global Positioning Systems/Wide Area Augmentation Systems (GPS/
WAAS), is being deployed that aims at further reduction of controlled
flight into terrain and mid-air collision accidents. In addition,
instrument flight rules (IFR) area navigation (RNAV) procedures are
being introduced that enable participants to conduct IFR operations on
published routes, improving overall safety and capacity.
The current operating rules under the Federal Aviation Regulations
in title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) do not
accommodate the use of GPS/WAAS technology for IFR RNAV outside the
operational service volume of ground-based navigation aids. SFAR 97
allows the timely approval of approximately 200 aircraft that are being
equipped under Capstone Phase II to conduct IFR RNAV operations using
GPS/WAAS navigation systems. Additionally, SFAR 97 provides the
opportunity for air carrier and general aviation operators, other than
those participating in the Capstone Program, to voluntarily equip
aircraft with advanced GPS/WAAS avionics that are manufactured,
certified, and approved for IFR RNAV operations. This SFAR serves two
purposes: (1) It allows persons to conduct IFR en route RNAV operations
in the State of Alaska and its airspace on published air traffic routes
using TSO C145a/C146a navigation systems as the only means of IFR
navigation; and (2) it allows persons to conduct IFR en route RNAV
operations in the State of Alaska and its airspace at Special MEA that
are outside the operational service volume of ground-based navigation
aids.
The FAA proposed SFAR 97 on January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3778). The
comment period closed on February 24, 2003. The FAA received four
comments on the proposed SFAR.
Discussion of Comments
Three comments received on the proposed SFAR supported the
proposal. A pilot commented that this is a positive move toward
improved safety and efficiency of operations in Alaska. The Alaska
Airmen's Association commented that the SFAR provides more reliable
navigation. The Association noted that by allowing safer minimum
altitudes, the rule allows aircraft to fly below freezing/icing levels.
It also noted greater operational capability. The Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association (AOPA) stated that SFAR 97 would also facilitate
further development of the AOPA-supported Capstone Program, which uses
current-day technology to increase capacity while improving safety.
Allowing the use of Global Positioning System/Wide Area Augmentation
Systems (GPS/WAAS) for the en route portion of flights on routes in
Alaska will further reduce the chances for controlled flight into
terrain and midair collisions while at the same time improving
capacity.
The Boeing Commercial Airplane Group agreed with the intent and
goal of proposed SFAR 97 but noted the following:
``1. The NPRMs provisions are inconsistent with movement towards a
Performance based International Airspace System (INAS), and are
inconsistent with applications of RNP (e.g., it addresses only specific
limited technologies; does not credit other more capable technologies,
and has underlying angular criteria implications that are inappropriate
in an inherently
[[Page 14073]]
linear future RNAV and RNP criteria world).''
FAA Response: SFAR 97 addresses specific safety issues existing in
Alaska. Further, the SFAR only addresses the enroute lateral navigation
capability of GPS and is not intended as a model for future rulemaking
on RNP in the International Airspace System. Nothing in SFAR 97
precludes development of more capable technologies and systems.
``2. The NPRM sets precedents with regard to inappropriate
definitions and concepts that are inconsistent with and adversely
interfere with necessary ``Global'' navigation systems evolution (e.g.,
Special MEA: 4000G).''
FAA Response: SFAR 97 addresses a specific safety need, is limited
in geographic application, and is not proposed as a model for the
future. As stated in Section 2 of SFAR 97, the definitions of this rule
apply only to this SFAR. It is anticipated that this SFAR may be
terminated when the national RNAV rule is in place. Therefore, FAA
finds this SFAR does not ``adversely interfere with necessary `Global'
navigation systems evolution.''
``3. By its issuance, the NPRM could inappropriately set a
precedent, inferring that this type SFAR is needed when it is not, and
thus imply that other better and more capable (e.g., RNP-based or GNSS
based) systems may not be useable or eligible for MEA, route, or
procedure credit, or that even some current operations (e.g., Alaska
Airlines RNP operations) may be addressed by such an SFAR which in fact
is not necessary.''
FAA Response: As stated in the NPRM for SFAR 97, the current
regulatory structure does not accommodate the use of GPS/WAAS
technology for IFR RNAV outside the operational service volume of
ground-based navigation aids. The FAA does not agree that the
operations envisioned by SFAR 97 are appropriately conducted without
this regulatory action. Nothing herein is intended to preclude or
otherwise address certification, use, or operational approval of
``other better and more capable'' systems.
``4. The intended Capstone related capability can more easily and
readily be achieved other ways (e.g., by FAA approval or specific means
via Op Spec, FSDO LOA, or various FAA Orders and associated AIM
changes). Even if an SFAR was desired (and it should not be necessary),
it could be done via a very simple SFAR issuance that essentially says
that `Other routes, procedures, navigation systems, or operations may
be authorized in Alaskan airspace, as determined by the
Administrator'.''
FAA Response: As noted, the current regulatory structure does not
accommodate the use of GPS/WAAS technology for IFR RNAV outside the
operational service volume of ground-based navigation aids. Operations
envisioned under SFAR 97 include Parts 91, 121, 129, and 135. The FAA
finds that due to the disparity in type of operations, no single
administrative remedy could address all operators, and such an approach
would be overly and unnecessarily burdensome for both the FAA and
operators alike. The FAA finds that regulatory action is appropriate in
resolving the existing regulatory deficiency for use of GPS systems in
Alaska for IFR RNAV outside the operational service volume of ground-
based navigational aids.
``5. The currently proposed SFAR appears to set criteria that may
actually be harmful to expeditious and beneficial Alaska airspace
management and evolution by implicitly invoking airspace standards that
are overly restrictive and constraining (e.g., not recognizing the
credit of linear criteria capable systems, or better systems related to
RNP and networks of LAAS, or limiting airspace planning to very
narrowly defined specific systems such as for special GPS MEAs [4000G],
when other combinations of navigation systems could provide equal or
better airspace performance.''
FAA Response: SFAR 97 relaxes current existing regulatory
requirements for surface based navigation capability only for aircraft
equipped with appropriate TSO C145a/C146a GPS equipment. This
rulemaking is not intended to address current or future capabilities
attainable with appropriately installed and approved RNP capable
systems. The FAA finds that permitting operations beyond service volume
of ground based navigation aids adds previously unattainable and
beneficial flexibility to management of and safe navigation through
Alaskan airspace. The FAA anticipates that that experience gained
through these Alaskan operations may provide a more precise and
accurate basis for the formulation of future policies on airspace
design that are now a work in progress.
``6. Language of the NPRM is technically flawed in that it make
assertions like` * * * (GNSS) encompasses all satellite ranging
technologies', when in fact the performance of some satellite-based
systems may or may not alone meet specific RNP provisions (e.g., some
international systems), particularly in some regions of Alaska
airspace.''
FAA Response: SFAR 97 makes no attempt to address or compare RNP
performance to performance of existing satellite systems and only
addresses operations with TSO C145a/C146a equipment in Alaska.
``7. The NPRM appears to exclusively attempt to credit systems
meeting criteria only of TSO C145a/C146a. This is not appropriate
technically because of certain characteristics of those systems which
can be contrary to the general direction navigation needs to evolve in
an RNP-based global system (e.g., aspects of inappropriate angular
criteria of C146 versus the more appropriate linear criteria of RNP;
and system pilot interface issues). While these C145a/C146a systems may
be beneficially purchased and operationally used, their inappropriate
(e.g., angular) characteristics should not be the basis (and certainly
not exclusive basis) for future INAS procedure or airspace design, even
in a limited region, in limited circumstances.''
FAA Response: As previously noted, the FAA intends SFAR 97 to
address specific safety issues existing in Alaska, limits applicability
to operations based on GPS within Alaska, addresses lateral navigation
capabilities only, and is not proposed as a model for future rulemaking
on RNP in the International Airspace System. The purpose of this SFAR
is to address en route operations and is not intended to address
approach procedures. FAA further finds nothing in SFAR 97 that
precludes continued development of more capable technologies or
eventual evolution of global RNP systems as eventually determined
appropriate.
``8. Application of any of this SFAR to FAR 129 Operators is most
inappropriate (e.g., international operators flying in U.S. airspace).
International Operations and international operators should be planning
and equipping exclusively based on RNP-based criteria, ILS, LAAS, and
GLS. Even if WAAS is used as a sensor in RNAV systems, international
navigation criteria should be principally focused on RNP capability,
not be defined as sensor specific.''
FAA Response: SFAR 97 neither precludes or requires international
operators to equip with navigation systems other than as currently
provided in existing regulations and operations specifications.
Additionally, nothing in SFAR 97 addresses operations other than within
Alaskan airspace. The rule gives part 129 operators the ability to
operate in areas (including lower altitudes) that are outside the
service volume of ground-based navigational rules.
[[Page 14074]]
``9. This NPRM is not currently consistent with some key FAA
criteria (AC120-29A) and the direction key large aircraft manufacturers
and operators are evolving future navigation systems or operational
capability. If adopted without significant change, any final rule based
significantly on this NPRM could unnecessarily restrict and inhibit
beneficial and necessary evolution of RNP related systems and
applications.''
FAA Response: While stating the NPRM is not consistent with some
key FAA criteria per AC120-29A, the commenter does not provide
sufficient information to identify the inconsistency. Advisory
circulars provide advice on methods to comply with regulatory
requirements; therefore, there is no requirement that an SFAR conform
to an Advisory Circular. SFAR 97 provides the appropriate and intended
regulatory structure for operations in Alaskan airspace that are
outside the service volume of ground-based navigational aids.
Additionally, as already noted, SFAR 97 does not preclude appropriate
evolution and broad inclusion of other appropriately certificated and
approved systems, including RNP systems, into the Global NAS.
``10. Numerous areas of analysis or comment in the NPRM preamble
are also inappropriate, incorrect, or misleading. Significant revision
of the preamble is also needed, before any final rule is issued (e.g.,
incorrect suppositions about the applicability or flexibility of
current rules).''
FAA Response: Insufficient specificity is provided to locate any
such unintended anomalies. Specific comments addressing issues of
applicability and/or flexibility of current rules have already been
addressed above.
As a general comment, Boeing also recommended that this SFAR not be
issued independently, but rather that the editing of this SFAR be
delegated to the AWO and TAOARC groups. While no reason for such
additional editing by specific named groups is offered, providing such
an additional period would be unfair to those who commented during the
prescribed period. The FAA does not agree with this recommendation and
finds the rulemaking provisions of 14 CFR part 11 are applicable to
this SFAR and have been followed.
In a separate comment, American Trans Air stated, ``The proposed
rule uses language, terms and definitions found only in other OPEN
proposed rulemaking actions (FAA-2002-14002 and FAA-2003-14449).
Request this action be delayed/postponed until public comments
regarding critical language contained in FAA-2002-14002 are resolved.
This delay is necessary to allow the Proposed Rule to be reviewed in
it's proper context and ensure common understanding and terminology
with RNAV operations.''
FAA Response: FAA recognizes that language, terms, and definitions
used in SFAR 97 also are found in other open rulemaking proposals.
Definitions of language and terms used in SFAR 97 are applicable only
to this SFAR, as stated in Section 2.
Based on its analysis of comments, the FAA adopts SFAR 97 as
proposed.
Reference Material Relevant to SFAR 97
(1) Technical Standard Order (TSO) C145a, Airborne Navigation
Sensors Using the Global Positioning System (GPS) Augmented by the Wide
Area Augmentation System (WAAS); and (2) TSO C146a, Stand-Alone
Airborne Navigation Equipment Using the Global Positioning System (GPS)
Augmented by the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). Copies of these
TSOs may be obtained from the FAA Internet Web site at http://
www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/TSOA.htm.
www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/TSOA.htm.
Related Activity
The FAA is conducting a thorough review of its rules to ensure
consistency between the operating rules of 14 CFR and future RNAV
operations for the NAS. This review may result in rulemaking that could
enable the use of space-based navigation aid sensors for aircraft RNAV
systems through all phases of flight (departure, en route, arrival, and
approach) to enhance the safety and efficiency of the NAS. The changes
anticipated could result in greater flexibility in air traffic routing,
instrument approach procedure design, and airspace use than is now
possible with a ground-based navigation aid system structure. The
improved navigation accuracy and flexibility could enhance both system
capacity and overall flight safety, and could promote the ``free
flight'' concept in the NAS by enabling the NAS to move away from
reliance on ground-based NAVAIDs. SFAR 97 supports this activity as an
early implementation effort. The FAA anticipates that that experience
gained through these Alaskan operations may provide a more precise and
accurate basis for future policies on airspace design which are now a
work in progress.
Contrary Provisions of the Current Regulations
People who conduct operations in Alaska in accordance with SFAR 97
are excepted from certain provisions of the FAA's regulations. For
instance:
14 CFR 71.75. Extent of Federal airways. The extent of Federal
airways is currently referenced as a center line that extends from one
navigational aid or intersection to another navigational aid or
intersection specified for that airway. SFAR 97 allows the Federal
airway and other routes published by the FAA to be referenced and
defined by one or more fixes that are contained in an RNAV system's
electronic database that is derived from GPS satellites and used by the
pilot to accurately fly the Federal airway or other published routes
without reference to the ground based navigational aids that define
those routes.
14 CFR 91.181. Course to be flown. Section 91.181 defines courses
to be flown along Federal airways that are only referenced to station
referenced navigational aids or fixes defining that route. SFAR 97
allows courses to be flown on Federal airways and other published
routes that are defined by waypoints or fixes contained in a GPS WAAS
navigation system that is certified for IFR navigation.
14 CFR 91.205(d)(2). Powered civil aircraft with standard category
U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.
Section 91.205(d)(2) states that navigational equipment appropriate to
the ground facilities to be used is required for IFR operations and
does not include RNAV equipment. Under SFAR 97, operations can be
conducted using navigation equipment that is not dependent on
navigating only to and from ground-based radio navigation stations.
14 CFR 91.711(c)(1)(ii) and 91.711(e). Special rules for foreign
civil aircraft. Section 91.711(c)(1)(ii) requires foreign civil
aircraft operating within the United States and conducting IFR
operations to be equipped with radio navigational equipment appropriate
to the navigational signals to be used and does not accommodate the use
of RNAV systems for instrument flight rules operations. Section
91.711(e) states that no person may operate a foreign civil aircraft
within the 50 states and the District of Columbia at or above flight
level (FL) 240 unless the aircraft is equipped with distance measuring
equipment (DME) capable of receiving and indicating distance
information from the VORTAC facilities to be used. Although an IFR
approved RNAV system provides distance information,
[[Page 14075]]
this section does not allow the use of an RNAV system in lieu of DME.
14 CFR 95.1. Applicability. Part 95 prescribes altitudes governing
the operation of aircraft under IFR on Federal airways, jet routes,
area navigation low or high routes, or other direct routes for which a
minimum enroute altitude (MEA) is designated. In addition, it
designates mountainous areas and changeover points. In general, the IFR
altitudes prescribed in this section are determined by a route analysis
based on the following factors: (1) An obstacle clearance assessment;
(2) the lowest altitude at which the aircraft radio navigation
receivers are able to receive the ground-based radio navigation fixes
defining the airway, segment or route; and (3) the lowest altitude at
which two-way voice communication between the aircraft and the air
traffic control unit can be maintained. No accommodation is made for
IFR altitudes determined by the above route analysis factors over
routes that may be defined by fixes other than ground-based navigation
aid fixes. Under SFAR 97, operators using IFR certified GPS/WAAS RNAV
systems are permitted to conduct operations over routes in Alaska at
the lowest minimum en route altitude based only on route obstacle
assessments and ATC two-way voice communication capability. This MEA is
defined as the ``special MEA'' for purposes of SFAR 97 to distinguish
it from MEAs established under part 95.
14 CFR 121.349(a). Radio equipment for operations under VFR over
routes not navigated by pilotage or for operations under IFR or over-
the-top. Section 121.349(a) requires airplanes to be equipped with two
independent radio navigation systems that are able to receive radio
navigational signals from all primary en route and approach
navigational facilities intended to be used. This section does not
allow, nor does any other section of part 121, allow the use of RNAV
GNSS for IFR navigation on Federal airways and other routes. SFAR 97
allows the use of IFR-certified RNAV GPS/WAAS systems for IFR
navigation.
14 CFR 125.203(b) and (c). Radio and navigational equipment. These
sections state that no person may operate an airplane over-the-top or
under IFR unless it has two independent receivers for navigation that
are able to receive radio signals from the ground facilities to be used
and which are capable of transmitting to, and receiving from, at any
place on the route to be flown, at least one ground facility. These
sections do not allow the use of RNAV GNSS for IFR navigation for any
airplanes conducting IFR operations under part 125 in the NAS. SFAR 97
allows for the use of IFR-certified RNAV GPS/WAAS systems for IFR
navigation.
14 CFR 129.17(a) and (b). Radio Equipment. Sections 129.17(a) and
(b) state that subject to the applicable laws and regulations governing
ownership and operation of radio equipment, each foreign air carrier
shall equip its aircraft with such radio equipment as is necessary to
properly use the air navigation facilities. This section does not
include or allow IFR RNAV GNSS to be used for air navigation on Federal
airways or other published routes. SFAR 97 allows the use of IFR-
certified RNAV GPS/WAAS systems for air navigation on Federal airways
or other published routes.
14 CFR 135.165. Radio and navigational equipment: Extended
overwater or IFR operations. Section 135.165 excludes turbojet
airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats, multiengine airplanes in a
commuter operations, as defined under 14 CFR part 119, and other
aircraft from conducting IFR or extended overwater operations unless
they have a minimum of two independent receivers for navigation
appropriate to the facilities to be used that are capable of
transmitting to, and receiving from, at any place on the route to be
flown, at least one ground facility. Since IFR-certified RNAV GPS/WAAS
systems do not receive navigation position information from ground
facilities, they would not be acceptable for navigation based on this
section. SFAR 97 allows the use of IFR-certified RNAV GPS/WAAS systems
in lieu of aircraft navigation equipment that uses ground-based
navigation facilities to navigate.
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 are no new information collection requirements associated with
this final rule.
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
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to SFAR 97.
Economic Evaluation
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency to
propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that
the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from
setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade
Agreements Act also requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, use them as the basis for U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law
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).
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this rule:
(1) Will generate benefits and not impose any costs, 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; (2) will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (3) will not
constitute a barrier to international trade; and does not impose an
unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the
private sector.
The Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes
policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of
regulations. If it is determined that the expected impact is so minimal
that the rule does not warrant a full evaluation, a statement to that
effect and the basis for it is included in the regulation. No comments
were received that conflicted with the economic assessment of minimal
impact published in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this action.
Given the reasons presented below, and the fact that no comments were
received to the contrary, the FAA has determined that the expected
impact of this rule is minimal and that the final rule does not warrant
a full evaluation.
This rule establishes a minimum equipment and operational approval
[[Page 14076]]
requirement that operators have to comply with to operate at lower
minimum en route altitudes (MEAs) that are outside the service volume
of ground-based navigation aids. It is anticipated that most of the
participants who volunteer to participate in Capstone Phase II will not
incur any costs to equip their aircraft or conduct required training.
Operators are not required to operate at these lower MEAs. Those who
voluntarily decide to incur the costs to equip their aircraft and
conduct the required training under this SFAR will have made their own
business decisions that the costs associated with this SFAR's equipment
and other requirements are worth the benefits of lower MEAs. For
example, some operators will have concluded that flying at lower
altitudes opens up markets that they could not previously have served
because currently they do not have aircraft that can fly at certain
altitudes on some routes and maintain reception with ground-based
navigation aids. Other operators will conclude that having the ability
to operate at lower MEAs will result in fewer flight cancellations or
delays due to adverse weather (e.g., icing at higher altitudes).
Regarding benefits, this rule implements the National
Transportation Board's recommendation ``to demonstrate a low altitude
instrument flight rules (IFR) system that better fulfills the needs of
Alaska's air transportation system.'' \1\ An interim assessment of the
safety impact of Capstone Phase 1 test program found that ``while the
rates of accidents for specific causes have not changed in a way that
is statistically significant yet, the over-all accident counts for the
equipped and non-equipped groups were different: 12 accidents for non-
equipped versus 7 for equipped even though each had nearly identical
operations counts.'' \2\ Operators having RNAV-equipped aircraft and
flightcrews trained under this SFAR will realize safety benefits when
such flights encounter adverse weather conditions en route at higher
altitudes and they have the ability to seek clearance to the lower MEAs
en route. In addition to the anticipated safety benefits, the rule
might result in cost savings. The use of IFR RNAV equipment permits the
use of more direct and therefore shorter routes and aircraft using RNAV
equipment may require less fuel and time to reach their destinations.
The FAA has established a number of test routes throughout the United
States and some airlines have estimated annual cost savings in excess
of $30 million dollars due to flying these advanced RNAV routes.\3\ The
FAA finds that the potential safety benefits and cost savings justify
the adoption of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Aviation Safety In Alaska (NTSB/SS-95/03) November 1995,
page 77.
\2\ The Safety Impact of Capstone Phase 1 (W. Worth Kirkman,
Mitre) August 2002, page 15.
\3\ 2001 ACE Plan, Building Capacity Today for the Skies of
Tomorrow, FAA Office of System Capacity, prepared jointly by FAA and
ARP Consulting, L.L.C., December 2001, pages 50-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes,
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions. 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 proposed or
final 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 proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 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 establishes the minimum equipment and operational
approval requirements that operators comply with to participate in the
Alaska Capstone Phase II test and evaluation program. Most of the
participants who volunteer to participate in this test program will not
incur any costs to equip their aircraft or conduct required training
since the Capstone Program was congressionally funded. No comments were
received that differed with the assessment given in this section of the
proposed rulemaking. The FAA therefore certifies that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
operators.
Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 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.
This rule imposes requirements on foreign air carriers operating in
the SFAR area if they elect to participate in the test program. These
requirements mirror the communication and navigation equipment
requirements placed on domestic carriers that participate in the test
program. No comments were received objecting to these provisions. The
FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and has
determined that it will have a neutral impact on foreign trade and,
therefore, create no obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) is intended,
among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act
requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing
the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule
that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted
annually for inflation) 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.''
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements
of Title II do not apply.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed SFAR 97 under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will
not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
and therefore would not have federalism implications.
Regulations Affecting Interstate Aviation in Alaska
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations under
title 14 of
[[Page 14077]]
the CFR that affect interstate aviation in Alaska, to consider the
extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than
aviation, and to establish such regulatory distinctions as he or she
considers appropriate. The FAA considers that this rule will be
beneficial to operations in Alaska.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,
appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), SFAR 97 qualifies for a categorical
exclusion.
Energy Impact
The energy impact of the notice has been assessed in accordance
with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Public Law 94-163,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. We have determined
that SFAR 97 is not a major regulatory action under the provisions of
the EPCA.
Justification for Immediate Adoption
Because this final rule is optional, that is, operators in Alaska
may choose to meet the equipment and operational requirements of SFAR
97 or comply with the current regulations, the FAA finds that this SFAR
may be adopted without meeting the required minimum 30-day notice
period. The effective date for SFAR 97, March 13, 2003, is based, in
part, on route charting dates for southeast Alaska and delay beyond
that date would incur additional expense to the Government and be
detrimental to operators.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Navigation (air).
14 CFR Part 91
Agriculture, Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports,
Aviation safety, Canada, Freight, Mexico, Noise control, Political
candidates, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
14 CFR Part 95
Air traffic control, Airspace, Alaska, Navigation (air), Puerto
Rico.
14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Charter flights,
Drug testing, 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, Smoking.
14 CFR Part 135
Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
2. The authority citation for Part 91 Continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101,
44111, 44701, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722,
46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531,
articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation
(61 stat. 1180).
3. Amend parts 71, 91, 95, 121, 125, 129, and 135 by adding SFAR
No. 97. The full text will appear in part 91.
Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 97--Special Operating Rules for
the Conduct of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Area Navigation (RNAV)
Operations using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in Alaska
Those persons identified in Section 1 may conduct IFR en route RNAV
operations in the State of Alaska and its airspace on published air
traffic routes using TSO C145a/C146a navigation systems as the only
means of IFR navigation. Despite contrary provisions of parts 71, 91,
95, 121, 125, and 135 of this chapter, a person may operate aircraft in
accordance with this SFAR if the following requirements are met.
Section 1. Purpose, use, and limitations
a. This SFAR permits TSO C145a/C146a GPS (RNAV) systems to be used
for IFR en route operations in the United States airspace over and near
Alaska (as set forth in paragraph c of this section) at Special Minimum
En Route Altitudes (MEA) that are outside the operational service
volume of ground-based navigation aids, if the aircraft operation also
meets the requirements of sections 3 and 4 of this SFAR.
b. Certificate holders and part 91 operators may operate aircraft
under this SFAR provided that they comply with the requirements of this
SFAR.
c. Operations conducted under this SFAR are limited to United
States Airspace within and near the State of Alaska as defined in the
following area description:
From 62[deg]00'00.000''N, Long. 141[deg]00'00.00''W.; to Lat.
59[deg]47'54.11''N., Long. 135[deg]28'38.34''W.; to Lat.
56[deg]00'04.11''N., Long. 130[deg]00'07.80''W.; to Lat.
54[deg]43'00.00''N., Long. 130[deg]37'00.00''W.; to Lat.
51[deg]24'00.00''N., Long. 167[deg]49'00.00''W.; to Lat.
50[deg]08'00.00''N., Long. 176[deg]34'00.00''W.; to Lat.
45[deg]42'00.00''N., Long. -162[deg]55'00.00''E.; to Lat.
50[deg]05'00.00''N., Long. -159[deg]00'00.00''E.; to Lat.
54[deg]00'00.00''N., Long. -169[deg]00'00.00''E.; to Lat. 60[deg]00
00.00''N., Long. -180[deg]00' 00.00''E; to Lat. 65[deg]00'00.00''N.,
Long. 168[deg]58'23.00''W.; to Lat. 90[deg]00'00.00''N., Long.
00[deg]00'0.00''W.; to Lat. 62[deg]00'00.000''N, Long.
141[deg]00'00.00''W.
(d) No person may operate an aircraft under IFR during the en route
portion of flight below the standard MEA or at the special MEA unless
the operation is conducted in accordance with sections 3 and 4 of this
SFAR.
Section 2. Definitions and abbreviations
For the purposes of this SFAR, the following definitions and
abbreviations apply.
Area navigation (RNAV). RNAV is a method of navigation that permits
aircraft operations on any desired flight path.
Area navigation (RNAV) route. RNAV route is a published route based
on RNAV that can be used by suitably equipped aircraft.
Certificate holder. A certificate holder means a person holding a
certificate issued under part 119 or part 125 of this chapter or
holding operations specifications issued under part 129 of this
chapter.
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). GNSS is a world-wide
position and time determination system that uses satellite ranging
signals to determine user location. It encompasses all satellite
ranging technologies, including
[[Page 14078]]
GPS and additional satellites. Components of the GNSS include GPS, the
Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite System, and WAAS satellites.
Global Positioning System (GPS). GPS is a satellite-based radio
navigational, positioning, and time transfer system. The system
provides highly accurate position and velocity information and precise
time on a continuous global basis to properly equipped users.
Minimum crossing altitude (MCA). The minimum crossing altitude
(MCA) applies to the operation of an aircraft proceeding to a higher
minimum en route altitude when crossing specified fixes.
Required navigation system. Required navigation system means
navigation equipment that meets the performance requirements of TSO
C145a/C146a navigation systems certified for IFR en route operations.
Route segment. Route segment is a portion of a route bounded on
each end by a fix or NAVAID.
Special MEA. Special MEA refers to the minimum en route altitudes,
using required navigation systems, on published routes outside the
operational service volume of ground-based navigation aids and are
depicted on the published Low Altitude and High Altitude En Route
Charts using the color blue and with the suffix ``G.'' For example, a
GPS MEA of 4000 feet MSL would be depicted using the color blue, as
4000G.
Standard MEA. Standard MEA refers to the minimum en route IFR
altitude on published routes that uses ground-based navigation aids and
are depicted on the published Low Altitude and High Altitude En Route
Charts using the color black.
Station referenced. Station referenced refers to radio navigational
aids or fixes that are referenced by ground based navigation facilities
such as VOR facilities.
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). WAAS is an augmentation to
GPS that calculates GPS integrity and correction data on the ground and
uses geo-stationary satellites to broadcast GPS integrity and
correction data to GPS/WAAS users and to provide ranging signals. It is
a safety critical system consisting of a ground network of reference
and integrity monitor data processing sites to assess current GPS
performance, as well as a space segment that broadcasts that assessment
to GNSS users to support en route through precision approach
navigation. Users of the system include all aircraft applying the WAAS
data and ranging signal.
Section 3. Operational Requirements
To operate an aircraft under this SFAR, the following requirements
must be met:
a. Training and qualification for operations and maintenance
personnel on required navigation equipment used under this SFAR.
b. Use authorized procedures for normal, abnormal, and emergency
situations unique to these operations, including degraded navigation
capabilities, and satellite system outages.
c. For certificate holders, training of flight crewmembers and
other personnel authorized to exercise operational control on the use
of those procedures specified in paragraph b of this section.
d. Part 129 operators must have approval from the State of the
operator to conduct operations in accordance with this SFAR.
e. In order to operate under this SFAR, a certificate holder must
be authorized in operations specifications.
Section 4. Equipment Requirements
a. The certificate holder must have properly installed,
certificated, and functional dual required navigation systems as
defined in section 2 of this SFAR for the en route operations covered
under this SFAR.
b. When the aircraft is being operated under part 91, the aircraft
must be equipped with at least one properly installed, certificated,
and functional required navigation system as defined in section 2 of
this SFAR for the en route operations covered under this SFAR.
Section 5. Expiration date
This Special Federal Aviation Regulation will remain in effect
until rescinded.
PART 95--IFR ALTITUDES
4. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, and 14 CFR 11.49
(b)(2).
PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS
5. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904,
44912, 46105.
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
6. 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.
PART 129--OPERATIONS: FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN OPERATORS OF
U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON CARRIAGE
7. The authority citation for part 129 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40104-40105, 40113, 40119, 41706,
44701-44702, 44712, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901-44904, 44906.
PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT
8. 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.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 13, 2003.
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-6749 Filed 3-20-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P