81 FR 47009 Appendix G Removed

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
By order of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, July 13, 2016.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Secretary of the Board.

Billing Code: 6210–01–P
[FR Doc. 2016–16969 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91

I. Overview of Final Rule
This action amends Appendix G of
part 91 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) by removing the
requirement that any applicant for a
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum
(RVSM) authorization must submit an
RVSM maintenance program to the FAA
for approval.

[Docket No.: FAA–2015–1746; Amdt. No.
91–342]
RIN 2120–AK54

Changes to the Application
Requirements for Authorization To
Operate in Reduced Vertical
Separation Minimum Airspace
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

This action revises the FAA’s
requirements for an application to
operate in Reduced Vertical Separation
Minimum (RVSM) airspace and
eliminates the burden and expense of
developing, processing, and approving
RVSM maintenance programs. As a
result of this revision, an applicant to
operate in RVSM airspace will no longer
be required to develop and submit an
RVSM maintenance program solely for
the purpose of obtaining an RVSM
authorization. Because of other,
independent FAA airworthiness
regulations, all aircraft operators remain
required to maintain RVSM equipment
in an airworthy condition.
DATES: Effective August 19, 2016.
ADDRESSES: For information on where to
obtain copies of rulemaking documents
and other information related to this
final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain
Additional Information’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical questions concerning this
action, contact Charles Fellows,
Aviation Safety Inspector, Avionics
Branch, Aircraft Maintenance Division,
Flight Standards Services, AFS–360,
Federal Aviation Administration, 950
L’Enfant Plaza North SW., Washington,
DC 20024; telephone (202) 267–1706;
email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES

SUMMARY:

Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:53 Jul 19, 2016

Jkt 238001

Title 49 of the United States Code.
Sections 106(f), 40113, and 44701
authorize the Administrator to prescribe
regulations necessary for aviation safety.
Section 40103 authorizes the
Administrator to prescribe regulations
to enhance the efficiency of the national
airspace. This rulemaking is within the
scope of these authorities because it
removes an existing safety and airspacerelated regulation that the FAA no
longer finds necessary for aviation
safety.

II. Background
The FAA’s vertical separation
standards establish the vertical distance
that must separate aircraft routes in the
national airspace system. In the early
1970’s, rising air-traffic volume and fuel
costs sparked an interest in reducing
vertical separation standards for aircraft
operating above flight level (FL) 290
(above 18,000 ft., flight levels are
assigned in 500-ft. increments; FL290
represents an pressure altitude of 29,000
ft. referenced to a barometric pressure of
29.92 inches at sea level). At the time,
the FAA required aircraft operating
above FL290 to maintain a minimum of
2,000 ft. of vertical separation. Use of
high-altitude routes was desirable,
however, because the diminished
atmospheric drag at these altitudes
results in enhanced aircraft efficiency
and a corresponding decrease in fuel
consumption. Operators, therefore,
sought and continue to seek not only the
most direct routes, but also the most
efficient altitudes for operation of their
aircraft. Higher demand for these highaltitude routes has resulted in greater
congestion.
In 1981, the FAA initiated the Vertical
Studies Program. This program, in
conjunction with the RTCA (formerly
Radio Technical Commission for
Aeronautics) Special Committee (SC)–
150 and the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) Review of General
Concept of Separation Panel (RGCSP),
determined:
• RVSM is ‘‘technically feasible
without imposing unreasonably
demanding technical requirements on
the equipment;’’
• RVSM could provide ‘‘significant
benefits in terms of economy and enroute airspace capacity;’’ and

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

47009

• Implementation of RVSM would
require ‘‘sound operational judgment
supported by an assessment of system
performance based on: Aircraft altitudekeeping capability, operational
considerations, system performance
monitoring, and risk assessment.’’
In response to the findings made by
the Vertical Separation Program, the
FAA began a two-phase implementation
of RVSM operations for aircraft
registered in the United States (U.S.). In
1997, and as the first phase, the FAA
published two amendments to part 91 of
Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR). The first
amendment established § 91.706
(Operations within airspace designed as
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum
Airspace), which, among other things,
allows operators of U.S.-registered
aircraft to fly in RVSM airspace outside
of the U.S. Appendix G (Operations in
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum
(RVSM) Airspace), was added which
contained a set of operational, aircraft
design, and other standards applicable
to those seeking to operate in RVSM
airspace. See Reduced Vertical
Separation Minimum Operations, (62
FR 17480; Apr. 9, 1997). Appendix G
includes the requirement that all
applicants for RVSM authorization must
submit an approved RVSM maintenance
program to the FAA.
The second phase of RVSM
implementation occurred in October
2003, with the publication of a second
RVSM-related FAA rulemaking.
Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum
in Domestic Airspace, (68 FR 61304;
Oct. 27, 2003 and 68 FR 70132; Dec. 17,
2003). The 2003 rule introduced RVSM
airspace over the U.S. and, like the 1997
rulemaking, required all U.S.-registered
RVSM operators to comply with the
application, operations, and aircraft
design requirements of part 91,
appendix G. The FAA’s RVSM program
allows for 1,000 ft. of vertical separation
for aircraft between FL290 and FL410 in
U.S. airspace. Before the 2003 rule, air
traffic controllers could only assign
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft
flying at FL290 and above to FL290,
310, 330, 350, 370, 390, and 410 since
the existing vertical separation standard
was 2,000 ft. After the rule changes, IFR
aircraft could also fly at FL300, 320,
340, 360, 380, and 400—nearly doubling
capacity within this particular segment
of airspace, mitigating the fuel penalties
attributed to flying at sub-optimum
altitudes, and increasing the flexibility
of air traffic control.
In 2008, the FAA reviewed its RVSM
authorizations, which applied to more
than 15,000 U.S.-registered aircraft. The
FAA’s evaluation found that the existing

E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM

20JYR1

47010

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES

processes ensured compliance with
RVSM operating requirements. At the
same time, FAA representatives began
meeting with the National Business
Aviation Association (NBAA) to
develop ways to streamline the RVSM
application process to lower the burden
for operators obtaining authorizations
and reduce the FAA’s workload
associated with processing and granting
these authorizations. The parties formed
the RVSM Process Enhancement Team
(PET) to focus on changes that could be
accomplished without rulemaking. The
PET completed its tasks in 2013. Among
other things, it revised existing policies
and guidance to facilitate more efficient
processing of operator requests to
change existing authorizations, and
created a job aid to assist inspectors and
standardize their review of operator
applications. In a separate initiative, the
FAA with input from industry
determined that eliminating the
redundant maintenance program
component of the RVSM application
would improve efficiency and reduce
costs for both the agency and operators
while maintaining the same high level
of safety.
The requirement for an applicant to
submit a maintenance program with the
application for an RVSM authorization
was promulgated in 1997 when most
aircraft required significant design
changes or inspections to qualify for
RVSM operation. RVSM operations have
become much more common since then.
RVSM systems are now incorporated
into aircraft type designs or have been
incorporated through modifications
performed using supplemental type
designs or amended type designs.
Operators must properly maintain those
systems as part of their airworthiness
obligations, making a separate RVSM
maintenance program redundant and
unnecessary.
A. Summary of the NPRM
In May 2015, the FAA issued an
NPRM, (15 FR 30394; May 28, 2015)
that proposed to amend the
requirements for an application to
operate in RVSM airspace. The FAA
proposed to remove and reserve
paragraph (b)(1), of section 3 of
Appendix G of part 91, to eliminate the
requirement that any operator seeking
RVSM authorization under § 91.180 and
§ 91.706 had to develop and submit an
RVSM maintenance program for FAA
approval.
B. General Overview of Comments
The comment period for the NPRM
closed on July 27, 2015. The FAA
received 38 comments. The commenters
included the National Air

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:53 Jul 19, 2016

Jkt 238001

Transportation Association (NATA) and
the National Business Aviation
Association (NBAA). Twenty
commenters supported the rule change
in its entirety, twelve commenters
provisionally supported the change
while supplying additional comments,
and eight commenters opposed the rule
change. The FAA divided the issues
raised in the comments into three
categories addressing: (1) Safety
concerns; (2) further enhancements to
the RVSM authorization process; and (3)
miscellaneous comments or
recommendations.
III. Discussion of Public Comments and
Final Rule
Safety Concerns
Although there were slight variations,
many of the comments submitted in
opposition to the proposal claimed that
reducing the regulatory requirements for
an RVSM authorization would reduce
aviation safety.
The FAA reiterates that this final rule
eliminates an application requirement,
and leaves intact FAA requirements to
maintain RVSM equipment and operate
RVSM authorized aircraft in an
airworthy condition. As described in the
NPRM, the requirement to submit a
maintenance program as part of an
RVSM application was promulgated in
an environment where RVSM
technology was not firmly established
and RVSM maintenance procedures
were unproven. As RVSM equipment
was installed on more aircraft, and
confidence in established maintenance
procedures increased, the requirement
for each applicant to develop its own
RVSM-specific maintenance procedures
ceased to produce any appreciable
safety benefit.
Sections 91.180 and 91.706 will
continue to require operators to meet
the equipment and performance
standards specified in Appendix G to
part 91. These performance standards
were developed by the RTCA SC–150
and the ICAO RGCSP as the minimum
performance standard for aircraft to
conduct RVSM operation, and adopted
by the FAA. In addition, §§ 91.405 and
91.407 continue to require operators to
have their aircraft inspected and
approved for return to service by
authorized persons and otherwise
maintained in accordance with part 43.
Moreover, each person performing
maintenance and preventive
maintenance is required to do so using
the methods, techniques, and practices
prescribed in the manufacturer’s
maintenance manual, Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness (ICA), or other
means acceptable to the Administrator.

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

The primary effect of this final rule is
to remove the requirement for an
applicant to submit an RVSM-specific
maintenance program to the FAA as part
of its application for an RVSM
authorization.
One commenter stated that the
requirement to maintain an aircraft in a
condition for safe flight, as codified in
§ 91.7, applies only to a pilot, as
opposed to an operator. The commenter
stated that an operator is only required
to maintain RVSM equipment because
of its maintenance program obligations.
The FAA disagrees. As previously
described, although this final rule
eliminates an operator’s obligation to
submit a maintenance program as part
of an RVSM application, operators will
nevertheless continue to be required to
maintain their RVSM equipment in
accordance with applicable
airworthiness standards. In particular,
§§ 43.13, 91.405, and 91.407 continue to
require aircraft to be inspected and
approved for return to service in
accordance with manufacturers’
maintenance information or other
material acceptable to the
Administrator. Operators with
maintenance programs, such as air
carriers conducting operations under
part 121, will continue to be required to
maintain RVSM equipment in
accordance with those programs.
Two commenters raised the issue of
identifying required maintenance
information. One commenter stated that
most RVSM applicants do not have the
latest RVSM maintenance information
until they acquire that information in
the course of preparing to apply for an
RVSM authorization. Another
commenter stated that ICA may not be
available for all RVSM designs. As an
example, the commenter referred to
aircraft modified to meet RVSM
performance standards under a
supplemental type certificate (STC),
rather than with equipment installed
under a type certificate (TC), and also to
aircraft modifications classified as
minor changes to type design.
To the extent that these commenters
assert that the requirement to submit a
maintenance program as part of an
RVSM application is necessary for
operators to access or determine the
appropriate maintenance instructions,
the FAA disagrees. For many newer
aircraft, RVSM capability is
incorporated into the original type
design. For other aircraft, incorporating
alterations to meet RVSM performance
requirements is classified as a major
change to type design, and as such must
be incorporated through an STC or an
amended type certificate. In either case,
§ 21.50(b) requires, among other things,

E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM

20JYR1

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
a TC or STC holder to make ICA
available to any person required to
comply with those ICA, including
owners and operators. Each owner or
operator should, therefore, have access
to all required maintenance and
preventive maintenance information.
One commenter stated that he
services aircraft that have been
upgraded to RVSM capability by way of
STCs, and removing the RVSM
maintenance program requirement
would remove the information from the
aircraft records that identifies which
STC is installed. The FAA disagrees.
When STCs are incorporated into
aircraft they constitute major changes to
the aircraft type design. Identification of
the design change and associated ICA
are recorded in the appropriate aircraft
records. Section 21.50 requires design
approval holders to make ICA available
to any owner, operator, or other person
required to comply with their terms.
Another commenter stated that
submission of an RVSM maintenance
program is necessary to identify
necessary repairs to RVSM and other
aviation data equipment and that the
FAA has a statutory obligation, under 49
U.S.C. 44701, to promote the safe flight
of civil aircraft. The FAA disagrees that
submission of an RVSM maintenance
program with an RVSM application for
authorization is necessary to identify
repairs for the reasons previously stated.
Removal of the requirement will not
negatively impact the safe flight of civil
aircraft or conflict with the FAA’s
obligations under 49 U.S.C. 44701.
Among the commenters who raised
safety concerns, several recommended
alternatives. One commenter
recommended that the FAA require
operators to ‘‘identify practices’’ for the
maintenance of RVSM equipment
(alternative 2 considered in the
proposal), but without requiring that
these practices be submitted as part of
an application. The same commenter
also recommended that the FAA modify
the alternative to specifically require
each operator to identify the TC or STC
holder’s ICA and ensure each is listed
in the operator’s maintenance tracking
system.
The FAA believes that adopting the
proposed alternative would provide no
greater safety benefit and would do less
to reduce the unnecessary burden on
industry than eliminating the
requirement to submit an RVSM
maintenance program for approval. The
commenter’s recommendation would
continue to require operators to provide
redundant paperwork as part of each
RVSM application. The FAA also
believes that requiring an applicant to
identify maintenance practices, in

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:53 Jul 19, 2016

Jkt 238001

addition to the existing requirements to
follow those practices, would not
meaningfully contribute to aviation
safety. As stated previously, § 21.50
requires design approval holders to
make ICA available to any owner,
operator, or other person required to
comply with the terms of those ICA.
With respect to the recommendation
to require operators to track RVSMspecific information in a maintenance
tracking system, the FAA agrees that
any operator using a maintenance
tracking system should use that system
to track the maintenance of RVSM
equipment as identified in the
appropriate ICA. However, some
operators—such as part 91 operators—
are not required to develop maintenance
tracking systems. To the extent that the
commenter is recommending that the
FAA require part 91 operators to
implement maintenance tracking
systems, the recommendation is outside
the scope of this rulemaking.
One commenter observed that the
FAA often rejects, for various reasons,
maintenance programs that accompany
operators’ applications for RVSM
authorizations. The commenter stated
that the existence of these rejections is
evidence that continued FAA oversight
is necessary to maintain safety. The
FAA disagrees. The FAA often rejects a
program submission or requests that
additional revisions be made to an
application for reasons related to an
operator’s lack of familiarity with the
process for developing a program and
submitting an application. These issues
may be unrelated to the adequacy of a
particular maintenance program.
Moreover, many part 91 operators
applying for RVSM authorizations do
not perform maintenance themselves—
RVSM or otherwise—and are
reproducing plans developed by an
original equipment manufacturer.
Regardless of who performs the
maintenance, §§ 91.405 and 91.407
require each aircraft owner or operator
to have the aircraft inspected and
approved for return to service by an
individual or entity authorized by
§ 43.7.
One commenter stated that the
expense and effort required to create an
RVSM maintenance program helps to
ensure each operator’s commitment to
safety. Another commenter stated that
the requirement to develop and submit
a maintenance program encourages
operators to adhere to the appropriate
maintenance information. The FAA
believes that imposing a requirement on
operators to submit a maintenance
program for approval imposes a
significant cost on operators that is not
an effective or appropriate means of

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

47011

obtaining an operators’ commitment to
safety. As previously described,
operators will continue to be required to
maintain their aircraft in an airworthy
condition in accordance with existing
regulations.
Further Enhancements to the RVSM
Authorization Process
Three comments were received that
the proposal ‘‘did not go far enough,’’
and recommended that the FAA
eliminate RVSM approvals entirely. For
example, one commenter stated that the
industry’s experience in safely
installing, maintaining, and operating
RVSM equipment demonstrates that
there is no longer a need for RVSM
approvals. The FAA proposed only to
remove the requirement to submit a
maintenance program from the
application for RVSM approval. The
FAA did not propose to eliminate
RVSM approvals entirely. The
commenter’s recommendation is outside
the scope of this rulemaking.
One individual commenter
recommended that, in cases where an
operator was applying to operate an
aircraft which was previously listed on
an authorization, the FAA should issue
a temporary, interim RVSM approval.
The commenter stated that the NPRM
underestimated the costs of compliance
with the FAA’s RVSM approval
program, because an operator awaiting
RVSM authorization consumes
significant additional funds flying
below optimal altitudes. Operators are
required to apply for a new
authorization whenever an aircraft
changes ownership or registration,
regardless of whether the underlying
aircraft is modified. The FAA did not
propose to introduce interim RVSM
authorizations. The commenters’
recommendation is, therefore, outside
the scope of this rulemaking.
Miscellaneous Comments or
Recommendations
One commenter stated that a
reduction to the FAA’s workload is not
a legitimate rationale for FAA
rulemaking and that the FAA’s goal and
statutory obligation is to promote safe
flight of civil aircraft. The FAA notes
that this final rule eliminates a
requirement that is no longer necessary
to provide the level of safety required
for these operations. The FAA is
required by numerous statutes and
executive orders to consider both the
costs and benefits of its regulations and
to adopt proposals that are cost justified.
Costs incurred by the FAA are a
legitimate factor to be considered in
accomplishing this analysis. See, e.g., 5
U.S.C. 601–612 (Regulatory Flexibility

E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM

20JYR1

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES

47012

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Act); Executive Order 13563; Executive
Order 12866.
One individual commenter stated that
the industry assumes this rule change
would allow an operator to obtain
RVSM approval by submitting no more
than a letter to the FAA. The FAA
disagrees. The requirement to submit an
RVSM maintenance program, a
requirement eliminated by this rule, was
only one of three components of an
RVSM application. Under §§ 91.180,
91.706, and Appendix G to part 91, the
FAA continues to require an applicant
to submit documentation establishing
that its aircraft is RVSM compliant, and
that the applicant’s crew has adequate
knowledge of RVSM requirements,
policies, and procedures as set forth in
§ 3(c)(2) of Appendix G. For part 121
and part 135 operators, this requires
initial and recurring pilot training as
specified in § 3(b)(2) of Appendix G.
One individual commenter
recommended that the FAA eliminate
the requirement for maintenance
program approval only with respect to
aircraft that are RVSM capable ‘‘under a
TC.’’ The commenter recommended that
the FAA continue to require
maintenance program approval for any
aircraft that is RVSM capable as a result
of an alteration performed in accordance
with an STC because an STC indicates
a major deviation from the aircraft’s
original type design and maintenance
procedures would not be listed in the
manufacturer’s recommended
procedures.
The FAA disagrees that aircraft with
RVSM equipment installed pursuant to
an STC should be treated differently
from aircraft with RVSM equipment
installed as part of an original or
amended type design. Both TC and STC
holders must develop ICA, and § 43.13
continues to require maintenance and
preventive maintenance to be performed
in accordance with the current
manufacturer’s maintenance manual,
ICA, or other methods, techniques, and
practices acceptable to the
Administrator. Because ICA are
available regardless of whether RVSM
equipment is installed under a TC or an
STC, and because all operators are
equally obligated to maintain their
equipment in accordance with this
maintenance information, the FAA finds
no reason to differentiate between these
two kinds of operators.
One individual commenter stated that
avionics technology has undergone a
major transformation in the last 15
years, moving away from discrete
components and towards more fully
integrated systems. The commenter
recommended that authorizations
should similarly be analyzed and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:53 Jul 19, 2016

Jkt 238001

approved in a more unified manner, to
reduce the number of individual
performance-based approvals. The
commenter’s recommendation that the
FAA review all performance-based
approvals in a single application is
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Several individual commenters, both
supporting and opposing the proposal,
stated that the burden on operators to
obtain approval of an RVSM
maintenance program could be reduced
substantially by standardizing what is
required by FAA inspectors in an RVSM
application. The FAA has published
and continues to provide guidance to its
inspectors on the requirements for the
issuance of an RVSM authorization. In
addition to the guidance, the FAA has
developed job aids to assist in the
development of an RVSM program
manual. The agency believes these
ongoing efforts will continue to increase
standardization in the application
process.
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
Changes to Federal regulations must
undergo several economic analyses.
First, Executive Order 12866 and
Executive Order 13563 direct 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. Because this
rulemaking is a retrospective regulatory

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

review, the expected outcome would be
a cost savings with positive net benefits.
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.
Such a determination has been made for
this final rule. The reasoning for this
determination follows:
This rulemaking responds to requests
from industry and FAA program offices.
The rule removes the requirement that
operators seeking RVSM authorization
must submit an RVSM maintenance
program for FAA approval. It eliminates
the considerable burden and expense to
operators and FAA safety inspectors of
developing, processing, and approving
RVSM maintenance programs.
When the former requirement was
established, RVSM systems were yet to
be incorporated into initial aircraft type
designs. This is no longer the case.
RVSM systems are now incorporated
into initial aircraft type designs, and
operators must properly maintain these
systems as part of their airworthiness
obligation. In light of these
developments, the requirement for
RVSM applicants to submit specialized
maintenance programs is redundant.
Removing this redundancy has no effect
on aviation safety.
One commenter stated the NPRM
underestimated the cost of compliance,
because an operator awaiting RVSM
authorization incurs cost flying below
optimal altitudes. As the operators are
already required to incur this cost, this
rule does not change this cost. The FAA
did not propose to introduce interim
RVSM authorization, therefore no new
cost are required. The FAA notes that no
other comments were received on our
NPRM cost-savings determination or
methodology. While the same
methodology is used here, the FAA has
updated the number of maintenance
programs expected to be submitted and
the wage for the safety inspector to 2015
dollars.
The relief to part 91 operators and
FAA safety inspectors from the
streamlining of regulations equals the
number of RVSM maintenance programs
approved (including growth) multiplied
by the costs per operator of submitting
an RVSM maintenance program for FAA
approval. To that result, the FAA added
the number of RVSM maintenance
programs approved multiplied by the
cost of an FAA safety inspector to
review and approve an RVSM
maintenance program multiplied by the
average number of hours FAA safety
inspectors expend reviewing and
approving each RVSM maintenance

E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM

20JYR1

47013

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES

program. The value for these variables is
shown below.

CY 2015—Number of maintenance programs submitted to FAA for approval 1

Average annual
growth
(2010–2015) in the
number of
maintenance
programs
submitted to FAA
for approval
(used as forecast
of 2016–2020
growth)

Operator cost for
submitting a
maintenance
program to the
FAA for approval 2

Hours expended by
FAA safety
inspectors
reviewing
maintenance
programs for
approval 3

2,437 ....................................................................................................................

4.46%

4 $5,000

12

Applying these estimates, the FAA
anticipates that operators would
experience cost savings of approximate
$12.7 million in year one of
implementation. The FAA calculated
this figure by multiplying the estimated
number of maintenance programs
expected to be submitted to the FAA for
approval during CY 2016 (2,546
approvals) by each operator’s cost for
submitting a RVSM maintenance
program to the FAA for approval
($5,000).

In addition to the cost savings
realized by operators, eliminating the
requirement would free 30,552 hours for
FAA safety inspectors to perform
alternative tasks during year one of
implementation. The hours are
calculated by multiplying the average
number of hours FAA safety inspectors
expend reviewing and approving each
RVSM maintenance program submitted
(12 hours) by the number of RVSM
maintenance program approvals
estimated for CY 2016 (2,546 approvals).
The annual cost savings of $1.4 million

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

1 FAA National Program Tracking and Reporting
Subsystem (NPTRS).
2 National Business Aviation Association—Part
91 Operator Cost for Submitting an RVSM
Approval.
3 FAA Safety Inspectors involved in RVSM
authorization processing at FAA Flight Standards
District Offices (FSDO).
4 This amount consists of $3,123 in operator costs
for submitting an application form and supporting

documentation to a RVSM manual preparation
service, and then reading, understanding, signing,
and submitting the completed RVSM maintenance
program manual to the FAA for approval. The
remaining $1,977 is an approximation of the
amount paid by an operator for RVSM manual
preparation services. The estimate of $1,977 is an
average of quotes provided on the Internet by seven
companies providing this service. These seven
quotes ranged from $795 to $3,850.

5 Source: 2015 General Schedule Salary Table as
published by the U. S. Office of Personnel
Management. The salary used for calculating costs
savings is the fully-burdened hourly wage for a GS
12 Step 5, which is the mid-range salary for this
position.
6 Office of the Secretary of Transportation
Memorandum, ‘‘Revised Departmental Guidance on
Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis’’,
July 2014.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:53 Jul 19, 2016

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

to the FAA equals the 30,552 hours
multiplied by the FAA fully-burdened
wage of $45.96.5 As per Department of
Transportation (DOT) guidance, the
FAA assumes that there will be a 1.2
percent projected annual increase in
real wages.6
Based on these calculations, the cost
savings to operators and the FAA during
the first five years of the rule’s
implementation will be approximately
$77.5 million ($67.6 million present
value). The results are presented below:

E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM

20JYR1

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES

47014

VerDate Sep<11>2014

Jkt 238001

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM

20JYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

14:53 Jul 19, 2016

ER20JY16.002

Entries may not exactly add to totals due to rounding.

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4910–13–C

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES

B. 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-forprofit 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.
Under the RFA, the FAA must
determine whether a rule significantly
affects a substantial number of small
entities. This determination is typically
based on small entity size and revenue
thresholds that vary depending on the
affected industry.7 In most cases, the
FAA cannot determine the size of part
91 operators because financial and
employment data for privately held
entities is sparse. Nevertheless, the FAA
believes the number of small business
entities is substantial. The FAA
estimates that this rulemaking will save
each affected small entity $5,000 per
RVSM authorization.
Based on the criteria used in the
initial regulatory flexibility analysis and
used again here, this rule will impact a
substantial number of part 91 operators.
Accordingly, the FAA prepared a final
7 Thresholds are based on the North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS). The NAICS
is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies
in classifying business establishments for the
purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing
statistical data related to the U.S. business
economy.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:53 Jul 19, 2016

Jkt 238001

47015

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

All Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Rule
This final rule eliminates an
application requirement for submission
of an RVSM maintenance program and
leaves intact current requirements to
maintain RVSM equipment and operate
RVSM authorized aircraft in an
airworthy condition. Sections 43.13,
91.405, and 91.407 continue to require
aircraft to be inspected and approved for
return to service in accordance with
manufacturers’ maintenance
information or other material acceptable
to the Administrator. Operators with
approved maintenance programs will
continue to be required to maintain
RVSM equipment in accordance with
their approved programs.

Reasons the FAA Considered the Rule

Other Considerations

All part 91 operator RVSM-related
obligations are required by FAA
airworthiness regulations to maintain
RVSM equipment in an airworthy
condition. Thus, the requirement that
operators seeking RVSM authorization
to develop and submit an RVSM
maintenance program for FAA approval,
is redundant.

Alternatives
Alternative 1: Retain the current
requirement for submission of an RVSM
maintenance program for approval.
Analysis: Without changes to
Appendix G of part 91, any operator
seeking RVSM authorization would
continue to be required to submit an
RVSM maintenance program. A noncommercial operator with no
requirement to hold a maintenance
program for any other performancebased authorization would nevertheless
be required to submit an RVSM
maintenance program for approval—
despite the fact that the operator is
already required by FAA regulations to
maintain RVSM equipment in
accordance with its type design and in
a condition for safe operation.
Furthermore, the review and approval of
this information would continue to
consume FAA resources.
Alternative 2: Replace the current
Appendix G requirement that operators
include an ‘‘approved RVSM
maintenance program’’ with a
requirement that operators ‘‘identify
practices’’ for the maintenance of RVSM
equipment.
Analysis: Relaxing Appendix G
application requirements to allow
operators to ‘‘identify practices’’ for the
maintenance of RVSM equipment
would allow a non-commercial operator
to cite the applicable manufacturer’s
maintenance manual or ICA. This
alternative would likely reduce the time
and resources spent by operators and
the FAA in compiling and reviewing
RVSM applications. This alternative is
undesirable, however, because it fails to
address the absence of any safety
benefits associated with continuing to
require an RVSM maintenance program
as a component of an RVSM
application.

regulatory flexibility analysis for part 91
operators, as described in the next
section. The FAA received no comments
to the initial regulatory flexibility
analysis for this rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Objectives and Legal Basis for the
Rule
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in
§§ 106, 40113, and 44701 of 49 U.S.C.,
which authorize the FAA Administrator
to prescribe regulations necessary for
aviation safety. Section 40103
authorizes the Administrator to
prescribe regulations to enhance the
efficiency of the national airspace. This
rulemaking is within the scope of these
authorities because it removes existing
safety and airspace-related regulations
that the FAA no longer finds necessary
to protect aviation safety.
The Kind and Number of Small Entities
to Which the Rule Will Apply
This final rule will affect a substantial
number of part 91 operators. The FAA
estimates that this proposed rulemaking
would save each affected small entity
$5,000 per RVSM authorization.
The Reporting, Recordkeeping, and
Other Compliance Requirements of the
Rule
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
new requirement for information
collection associated with this final
rule.

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM

20JYR1

47016

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

The FAA expects this rule will save
each affected small entity $5,000 per
RVSM authorization. Over a 5-year
period, the number exceeds $10,000 per
RVSM authorization. While the rule
may not have a significant economic
impact, it would have a positive impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
C. International Trade Impact
Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub.
L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies
from establishing standards or engaging
in related activities that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States.
Pursuant to these Acts, the
establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to
the foreign commerce of the United
States, so long as the standard has a
legitimate domestic objective, such as
the protection of safety, and does not
operate in a manner that excludes
imports that meet this objective. 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
determined that it will have only a
domestic impact and, therefore, no
effect on international trade.
D. Unfunded Mandates 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 (in
1995 dollars) 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 $155
million in lieu of $100 million. This
final rule does not contain such a
mandate; therefore, the requirements of
Title II of the Act do not apply.

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES

E. 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
new requirement for information
collection associated with this final
rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:53 Jul 19, 2016

Jkt 238001

F. International Compatibility and
Cooperation
In keeping with U.S. obligations
under the Convention on International
Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to
conform to 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 these proposed
regulations.
G. Environmental Analysis

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and
Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
3. Access the Government Printing
Office’s Web page at http://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
Copies may also be obtained by
sending a request (identified by notice,
amendment, or docket number of this
rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling (202) 267–9680.
B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

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 in the
absence of extraordinary circumstances.
The FAA has determined this
rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in
paragraph 312d (regulatory documents
covering administrative or procedural
requirements) and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.

Comments received may be viewed by
going to http://www.regulations.gov and
following the online instructions to
search the docket number for this
action. Anyone is able to search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of the FAA’s 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.).

V. Executive Order Determinations

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

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule
under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The
agency determined that this action will
not have a substantial direct effect on
the States, or the relationship between
the Federal 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.
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this final rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The
agency has determined that it is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ under the
executive order and it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
VI. How To Obtain Additional
Information
A. Rulemaking Documents
An electronic copy of a rulemaking
document may be obtained by using the
Internet—
1. Search the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

C. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91
Air traffic control, Aircraft, Aviation
safety.
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
amends chapter I of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND
FLIGHT RULES
1. The authority citation for part 91
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 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,
47534, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention
on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat.
1180), (126 Stat. 11).

E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM

20JYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 20, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
■

2. Amend Appendix G, Section 3 by
removing and reserving paragraph
(b)(1).

telephone (202) 267–7538; email
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Issued under authority provided by 49
U.S.C. 106(f), 40103, 40113, and 44701(a) in
Washington, DC, on July 12, 2016.
Michael Huerta,
Administrator.

Authority for This Rulemaking
The Commercial Space Launch Act of
1984, as amended and codified at 51
United States Code (U.S.C.) Subtitle V—
Commercial Space Transportation, Ch.
509, Commercial Space Launch
Activities, 51 U.S.C. 50901–50923 (the
Act), authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation and thus the FAA,
through delegations, to oversee, license,
and regulate commercial launch and
reentry, and the operation of launch and
reentry sites as carried out by U.S.
citizens or within the United States. 51
U.S.C. 50904, 50905. The Act directs the
FAA to exercise this responsibility
consistent with public health and safety,
safety of property, and the national
security and foreign policy interests of
the United States. 51 U.S.C. 50905.
Section 50901(a)(7), in relevant part,
directs the FAA to regulate private
sector launches, reentries, and
associated services only to the extent
necessary to protect the public health
and safety and safety of property. The
FAA is also responsible for encouraging,
facilitating, and promoting commercial
space launches and reentries by the
private sector. 51 U.S.C. 50903.

[FR Doc. 2016–17155 Filed 7–19–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 417, 420, 431, and 435
[Docket No.: FAA–2014–0418; Amdt. Nos.
417–4, 420–7, 431–4 and 435–3]
RIN 2120–AK06

Changing the Collective Risk Limits for
Launches and Reentries and Clarifying
the Risk Limit Used To Establish
Hazard Areas for Ships and Aircraft
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

The FAA is amending its
regulations concerning the collective
risk limits for commercial launches and
reentries. These changes include:
Separating the risk limits for
commercial launches and reentries;
aggregating the risk posed by impacting
inert and explosive debris, toxic release,
and far field blast overpressure; limiting
the aggregate risk for these three hazards
to 1 × 10¥4; reducing the number of
significant digits used in launch and
reentry risk analysis; and various nonsubstantive clarifying revisions. These
changes update FAA regulations to
reflect the United States Government’s
greater experience with commercial
launch and reentry and to align more
closely the FAA’s risk standards with
those of other United States Federal
agencies, while continuing to protect
public safety.
DATES: Effective September 19, 2016.
ADDRESSES: For information on where to
obtain copies of rulemaking documents
and other information related to this
final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain
Additional Information’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical questions concerning this
action, contact Rene Rey, AST–300,
Office of Commercial Space
Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;

rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

14:53 Jul 19, 2016

Jkt 238001

I. Overview of Final Rule
The FAA is adopting this final rule to
revise certain regulations related to the
collective risk limits for commercial
launches and reentries in part 417
(Launch Safety), part 420 (License to
Operate a Launch Site), part 431
(Launch and Reentry of a Reusable
Launch Vehicle (RLV)), and part 435
(Reentry of a Reentry Vehicle Other
Than a Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV))
of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR).
This final rule divides the risk
analysis for launch and reentry,
providing a separate risk budget for
each. For all launches, regardless of
vehicle type, this final rule requires a
single expected number of casualties
(Ec) be calculated by aggregating the risk
posed to the collective members of the
public from three hazards: Impacting
and inert explosive debris, toxic release,
and far field blast overpressure. This
final rule also revises the acceptable risk
threshold for launch from an Ec of 30 ×
10¥6 for each hazard to an Ec of 1 ×
10¥4 for all three hazards combined.
Furthermore, this final rule expresses
the revised Ec limit using the correct
number of significant digits to properly
represent the uncertainty in Ec
calculations. This final rule changes the
FAA’s collective risk limits for launch

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

47017

and reentry to more closely match the
Ec standard currently used by the
United States (U.S.) Air Force and the
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) for government
missions, and to account for the level of
uncertainty that exists in the Ec
calculations.
This final rule also makes two
revisions to § 417.107 to clarify the
launch and reentry regulations. The first
revision removes the phrase ‘‘including
each planned impact’’ from
§ 417.107(b)(1) to clarify that public risk
is assessed from lift-off through orbital
insertion for orbital launches and from
lift-off to final impact for suborbital
launches. The second revision modifies
§ 417.107(b)(3) and (b)(4) to make
transparent the criteria for establishing
hazard areas by replacing the references
to equivalent levels of safety for water
borne and aircraft hazard areas required
for launch from a federal launch range
with the actual levels of safety provided
by hazard areas for launches from a
federal range in 2006, the year the FAA
promulgated § 417.107. Under
§ 417.107(b)(3), a hazard area for water
borne vessels satisfies part 417 if the
probability of impact with debris
capable of causing a casualty on any
potential water borne vessel within the
hazard area does not exceed 0.00001 (1
× 10¥5). Under § 417.107(b)(4), a hazard
area for aircraft will satisfy part 417 if
the probability of impact with debris
capable of causing a casualty on any
potential aircraft within that hazard area
does not exceed 0.000001 (1 × 10¥6).
These clarifying edits do not change the
risk requirement for launch licensees or
launch license applicants.
Summary of the Costs and Benefits of
the Final Rule
The final rule will result in net
benefits for both the commercial space
transportation industry (industry) and
government by reducing the number of
waivers that must be prepared by the
industry and processed by the
government for launches with an
aggregate Ec between 90 × 10¥6 and 149
× 10¥6, and by averting unnecessary
mission delays and scrubs. The
resulting savings for both the industry
and the FAA from reducing the number
of waivers range from a low estimate of
approximately $8.3 million to a high
estimate of $16.7 million ($5.8 million
and $11.7 million present value at a 7%
discount rate, respectively).
II. Background
An operator conducts a launch using
an expendable launch vehicle (ELV) or
a reusable launch vehicle (RLV). An
ELV is a launch vehicle whose

E:\FR\FM\20JYR1.SGM

20JYR1