[Federal Register: December 17, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 242)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 77325-77348]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17de02-20]
[[Page 77325]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 1, et al.
Area Navigation (RNAV) and Miscellaneous Amendments; Proposed Rule
[[Page 77326]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 1, 71, 91, 95, 97, 121, 125, 129, and 135
[Docket No. FAA-2002-14002; Notice No. 02-20]
RIN 2120-AH77
Area Navigation (RNAV) and Miscellaneous Amendments
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to amend its regulations to reflect
technological advances that support area navigation (RNAV); make
certain terms consistent with those of the International Civil Aviation
Organization; remove the middle marker as a required component of
instrument landing systems; and clarify airspace terminology. The
proposed changes are intended to facilitate the transition from ground-
based navigation to new reference sources, enable advancements in
technology, and increase efficiency of the National Airspace System.
DATES: Send your comments on or before January 31, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Address your comments to the Docket Management System, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Room PL 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. You must identify the Docket number FAA-2002-
14002 at the beginning of your comments, and you should submit two
copies. If you wish to receive confirmation that FAA has received your
comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
Docket number appears.
You may also submit comments through the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov.
You may review the public docket containing comments to
these proposed regulations in person in the Dockets Office between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Dockets Office is on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the
Department of Transportation at the above address. Also, you may review
public dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lawrence Buehler, Flight Technologies
and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, AFS-400, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone: (202) 385-4586.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The FAA also
invites comments on the environmental, energy, federalism, or economic
impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document.
The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. The FAA asks that you send two copies of written comments.
The FAA will file all comments received, as well as a report
summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel in the
docket. The docket for this rulemaking is available for public
inspection before and after the comment closing date. You can review
the docket in person or using the Internet (see Addresses above).
Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments
it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will
consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light
of comments.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy of this document by taking the
following steps:
(1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's
electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web Page (http://dms.dot.gov/search
).
(2) On the search page, type in the last digits of the docket
number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on ``search.''
(3) On the next page, which contains the docket summary information
for the docket you selected, click on the document number of the item
you wish to review.
You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the
Office of Rulemaking's Web Page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm
or the Government Printing Office's Web Page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html
.
You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling 202-267-9680. Be sure
to identify the docket number, or notice number with amendment number,
of this rulemaking.
Guide to Terms and Acronyms Used in This Document
AGL--Above ground level
APV--Approach procedures with vertical guidance
ASR--Airport surveillance radar
ATS--Air Traffic Service
DA--Decision altitude
DH--Decision height
DME--Distance measuring equipment
FL--Flight level
GPS--Global Positioning System
ICAO--International Civil Aviation Organization
IAP--Instrument approach procedure
IFR--Instrument flight rules
ILS--Instrument landing system
MAA--Maximum authorized IFR altitude
MCA--Minimum crossing altitude
MDA--Minimum descent altitude
MEA--Minimum en route IFR altitude
MOCA--Minimum obstruction clearance altitude
MSL--Mean sea level
NAS--National Airspace System
NAVAID--Navigational aid
NDB--Nondirectional beacon
NM--Nautical mile
OEP--Operational Evolution Plan
Over the top--Over the top of clouds
PANS--Procedures for Air Navigation Services
PAR--Precision approach radar
RNAV--Area navigation
RVR--Runway visual range
SARPs--International Standards and Recommended Practices
SIAP--Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
TLOF--Touchdown and lift-off area
VOR--Very high frequency omnidirectional range
VORTAC--VOR omnidirectional range/tactical air navigation
Outline of the Preamble
I. Background
I.A. Area Navigation (RNAV)
I.B. Recent Technological Improvements
I.C. International Standardization
I.D. Middle Markers and Outer Markers
I.D.1. Elimination of Middle Markers
I.D.2. Substitutes for Outer Markers
I.E. Operational Evolution Plan (OEP)
II. General Discussion of the Proposals
II.A. RNAV
II.B. ICAO
II.C. Middle and Outer Markers
II.D. Changes in Terminology
II.D.1. Decision Height (DH) and Decision Altitude (DA)
II.D.2. RNAV
II.D.3. En Route
II.D.4. Approach and Landing Using Instrument Approach
Procedures
III. Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposed Changes
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
V. International Compatibility
[[Page 77327]]
VI. Economic Evaluation
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
VIII. International Trade Impact Analysis
IX. Unfunded Mandate Assessment
X. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
XI. Environmental Analysis
XII. Energy Impact
I. Background
I.A. Area Navigation (RNAV)
Historically, the principal means of air navigation for instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations in the United States National Airspace
System (NAS) has been a system of ground-based navigation aids
(NAVAIDs), including nondirectional beacon (NDB), very high frequency
omnidirectional range (VOR), and distance measuring equipment (DME).
Airways and instrument procedures were developed using these NAVAIDs;
however, this has required pilots to fly directly toward, or away from,
the NAVAID. This limitation has resulted in less-than-optimal routes
and instrument procedures, and contributed to an inefficient use of
airspace.
The advent of area navigation (RNAV) in the 1960's provided
enhanced navigation capabilities to the pilot. Early RNAV allowed
properly equipped aircraft to navigate via a user-defined track without
the need to fly directly toward or away from a ground-based navigation
aid. Early RNAV systems still relied, however, on signals from a
ground-based NAVAID for source information to calculate navigational
position information. To take advantage of this improved navigation
capability, in the 1970's, the FAA began to publish a series of
instrument approach procedures (IAPs) and routes for use by RNAV-
equipped aircraft. A nationwide system of high-altitude RNAV routes was
established consisting of approximately 156 route segments.
These fixed routes still depended on reference to ground-based
NAVAIDs. The FAA later determined that most aircraft using RNAV in the
en route system were doing so on a random basis using inertial
navigation systems (INS) with little use being made of the fixed high
altitude RNAV route structure. Operators were using RNAV by going from
point to point. They were not using the high-altitude RNAV route
structure that was designed and published by the FAA. This minimal use
of the charted RNAV routes proved insufficient to justify their
retention on a cost-benefit basis. As a result, in January 1983, the
FAA revoked all high altitude RNAV routes in the coterminous United
States. The RNAV routes in the State of Alaska were retained and remain
in use today because of the scarcity of ground-based navigational aids
there.
I.B. Recent Technological Improvements
The technology that evolved over the past 40 years gave avionics
systems increased positional accuracy, which provided users with a
greater ability to fly direct routes between any two points. In recent
years, satellite navigation using the Global Positioning System (GPS)
has provided even greater flexibility in defining routes, establishing
instrument procedures, and designing airspace. When GPS is combined
with existing RNAV system capabilities, continuous course guidance is
available over longer routes than are possible with ground-based
NAVAIDs, which have limited coverage due to terrain or signal reception
restrictions. Augmented GPS also introduces the ability to provide
vertical guidance information for nonprecision instrument approaches.
This has the potential to significantly reduce the risk of accidents
caused by controlled flight into terrain (CFIT).
As a result of these technological advances, the FAA has
implemented a number of RNAV routes for use by air carriers operating
suitably equipped aircraft in the northeast, southeast, and southwest
regions of the United States. The results so far have demonstrated the
potential of RNAV, when used with new navigation reference sources,
such as GPS. The entire NAS can be realigned by using more direct and
user-preferred routes, thus achieving greater system flexibility,
efficiency, and capacity.
Air navigation is expected to become increasingly dependent on RNAV
systems that navigate with reference to geographic positions specified
in latitude and longitude coordinates rather than to or from a ground-
based navigation aid. Reliance on RNAV in the NAS will expand as
enhancements to GPS are developed and deployed, increasing its accuracy
and reliability.
The changes proposed in this NPRM would facilitate the use of RNAV
throughout all phases of flight (departure, en route, and approach),
which is a goal of the Free Flight program. The Free Flight program is
designed to enhance the safety and efficiency of the NAS. It moves the
NAS from a centralized command-and-control system between pilots and
air traffic controllers to a system that allows pilots, whenever
practical, to choose their own routes and file flight plans that follow
the most efficient and economical routes. The changes proposed in this
NPRM would result in greater flexibility in air traffic routing,
instrument approach procedure design, and airspace use than is now
possible under a ground-based system structure. The improved navigation
accuracy and flexibility would enhance both system capacity and overall
flight safety, and would promote the Free Flight concept in the NAS by
enabling the NAS to move from reliance on ground-based NAVAIDs.
I.C. International Standardization
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is an agency
of the United Nations that promotes the development of uniform world-
wide procedures and standardization to ensure the safety and efficiency
of international civil aviation operations. ICAO's standards are found
in the 18 Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. To
achieve this standardization, ICAO publishes various International
Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and Procedures for Air
Navigation Services (PANS). This proposal is part of a continuing
effort to recognize the advent of new technologies and international
efforts to create a seamless air traffic system by making the terms
used in FAA's regulations consistent with ICAO terminology.
I.D. Middle Markers and Outer Markers
Middle and outer markers are beacons that define points along the
glide path on an instrument landing system (ILS) approach. An outer
marker is usually located at or near the glide path intercept point of
an ILS approach, normally 4 to 7 miles from the runway threshold. A
middle marker indicates a position approximately 3,500 feet from the
landing threshold. This is normally located near the point where an
aircraft on the glide path will be at an altitude of approximately 200
feet above the elevation of the runway touchdown zone. For a Category I
ILS approach, this coincides with the decision height, or the height at
which a pilot must decide whether to continue the approach to landing
or execute a missed approach procedure. This proposal would eliminate
the middle marker as a required ILS component and would enable the use
of other navigation means to substitute for the outer marker beacon.
I.D.1. Elimination of Middle Markers
According to instrument procedure design criteria, all required
components must be operational in order for the pilot to fly the ILS to
the lowest authorized approach minimums. Originally, the middle marker
was a required component of an ILS. Terminal instrument procedure
design criteria
[[Page 77328]]
required that, when the middle marker was inoperative, a penalty was
applied to increase the published landing minimums to compensate. The
higher minimums imposed by these penalties could result in the pilot
being unable to land at that destination.
In January 1988, through Operations Specifications, the FAA
eliminated the landing penalties of increased landing minimums for 14
CFR part 121 and part 135 operators conducting ILS approaches with
inoperative middle markers. The justification for this change was the
long-term operational success experienced by European air carriers and
the U.S. Department of Defense when not using middle markers and when
not applying penalties for inoperative middle markers. On December 4,
1990, therefore, the FAA removed the inoperative middle marker landing
minimum penalties for all operators through change 10 to the Terminal
Instrument Procedures (TERPS).
In June 1992, the FAA completed an evaluation of the operational
effectiveness and safety benefits of middle markers during ILS
operations and issued a document entitled ``Middle Marker Evaluation
Project.'' A copy of the evaluation has been placed in the docket for
this rulemaking. That evaluation studied 165 missed approaches--83 with
the middle marker operative, and 82 with the middle marker inoperative.
The approaches were conducted by 18 pilots. Two pilots worked for the
FAA, and 16 worked, or had worked, in corporate aviation. None of the
pilots was told the objective of the flight test until after the flight
test. The result of the evaluation was that there was no significant
difference in pilot performance while conducting an ILS approach with
or without a middle marker. Consequently, on October 15, 1992, the
landing minima penalties for conducting an ILS approach with an
inoperative middle marker were removed for the Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs). This action was taken because the FAA has
determined that middle markers are redundant and are no longer needed
for safety. The FAA is therefore proposing that the requirement for
middle markers be removed from its regulations.
I.D.2. Substitutes for Outer Markers
The outer marker is another required component of the ILS. In lieu
of a marker beacon, a compass locator transmitter, DME, or airport
surveillance radar (ASR) may be used to identify the outer marker
position. This proposal would allow the use of waypoints for outer
markers, resulting in additional flexibility in airspace utilization
and procedure design.
I.E. Operational Evolution Plan (OEP)
This proposal would address a portion of the FAA's Operational
Evolution Plan (OEP), which is the FAA's overall plan to modernize the
NAS. The OEP has several components, including ones to alleviate en
route congestion, increase arrival and departure rates at airports,
improve response to en route severe weather, and improve operational
procedures and tools for operations in poor airport weather conditions.
Task 3.2 of the OEP states that arrival and departure routes should be
constructed independent of navigation aids. A subordinate task is to
review and update the Code of Federal Regulations to allow for routing
independent of ground-based navigation aids.
II. General Discussion of the Proposals
II.A. RNAV
The expanded use of RNAV and GPS navigation would fully support the
FAA's Free Flight concept. RTCA's Task Force 3 issued a report in 1995
in which it defined the implementation of a concept to move from
today's largely ground-based system by applying current technologies.
(See ``Final Report of RTCA Task Force 3, Free Flight Implementation,''
October 26, 1995/November 1995. Copies are available for purchase from
RTCA, 1828 L St. NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036 (telephone 202-
833-9339).) Although the immediate effect of the proposed amendments
would be to allow increased use of GPS, the proposed terminology
changes would also be broad enough to allow for new technologies as
they become available and are approved for use.
II.B. ICAO
As an ICAO Contracting State, the United States strives to adhere
to the rules and procedures set forth in the ICAO SARPs and PANS as
much as possible. For example, in 1993, the United States reclassified
its domestic airspace to adopt, in part, the ICAO airspace
classifications (i.e., Class A, Class B, etc.) outlined in Annex 11 to
the Convention. In formulating this NPRM, the FAA has an opportunity to
make additional terminology in its regulations consistent with ICAO.
The current U.S. terminology for naming routes differs from that used
by ICAO. Through this proposal, the United States would adopt the ICAO
term ``Air Traffic Service (ATS) Route'' to describe the U.S. en route
structure. Other examples of how this proposal would promote
compatibility with ICAO include the proposed addition of the term
``decision altitude (DA),'' and the proposed change of the abbreviation
of HAT from ``height above touchdown'' to ``height above threshold.''
The proposed changes would be a step in bringing U.S. terminology
closer to fulfilling the United States' responsibilities as an ICAO
member.
II.C. Middle and Outer Markers
In addition to the proposed amendments regarding RNAV, the FAA is
proposing to update its regulations to eliminate the middle marker as a
required basic ground component of an ILS, and to increase the number
of acceptable substitutes for the outer marker component of an ILS.
These amendments would facilitate flexibility in the development of new
instrument approach procedures.
II.D. Changes in Terminology
The following are subject areas in which the FAA is proposing to
change the terminology in its regulations. For specific sections that
are amended, see ``III. Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposed
Changes'' in this preamble.
II.D.1. Decision Height (DH) and Decision Altitude (DA)
References to ``decision height'' and ``DH'' are being replaced
with references to ``decision altitude'' and ``DA,'' respectively,
where minimums are based upon barometric altitude, which is expressed
in feet above mean sea level (MSL). In contrast, where minimums are
based upon height above ground level (AGL), the term decision height
(DH) is used. These changes are being proposed to make the FAA's
regulations consistent with ICAO terminology and to more accurately
describe when the decision to continue the approach below the
authorized minima or make a missed approach is made.
II.D.2. RNAV
The FAA is proposing to revise the definition of ``area navigation
(RNAV).'' The FAA is also proposing to remove references to the words
``ground'' and ``radio'' where using these words restricts the type of
navigation and communication systems persons can use. The amendments
would either replace those words with less restrictive language or
remove them entirely, which would allow the expanded use of RNAV
systems and permit persons to take advantage of future changes in
technology.
[[Page 77329]]
II.D.3. En Route
The FAA is proposing new terms, ``Air Traffic Service (ATS) route''
and ``area navigation (RNAV) route.''
``Air Traffic Service (ATS) route'' would be used to describe the
U.S. en route structure. The term ``ATS route'' would include Federal
airways, jet routes, and area navigation routes in the United States.
``Area navigation (RNAV) route'' would refer to ATS routes
established for the use of aircraft capable of using area navigation.
Note that not all RNAV-capable aircraft are suitably equipped to
operate on all RNAV routes. The FAA would determine the means to
qualify aircraft for various RNAV operations and the method for
promulgating the requirements to operate on RNAV routes. These
requirements would be promulgated similarly to the way part 71 routes
and part 97 procedures are currently promulgated.
In addition, the FAA is proposing to change the current definition
of ``route segment'' to facilitate RNAV operations.
II.D.4. Approach and Landing Using Instrument Approach Procedures
The FAA is proposing to amend the following definitions--
[sbull] Nonprecision approach procedure.
[sbull] Precision approach procedure.
The FAA is proposing to add the following terms--
[sbull] Approach procedure with vertical guidance (APV).
[sbull] Area navigation route.
[sbull] Category I operations.
[sbull] Decision altitude (DA).
[sbull] Instrument approach procedure (IAP).
The FAA is proposing to revise the following definitions--
[sbull] Category II, III, IIIa, IIIb, and IIIc operations
[sbull] Decision height (DH).
[sbull] Minimum descent altitude (MDA).
III. Section-By-Section Discussion of the Proposed Changes
Section 1.1 General definitions
Air Traffic Service (ATS) route: The FAA is proposing to adopt the
term ``Air Traffic Service (ATS) route'' to describe the U.S. route
structure. The term ATS route would include jet routes, area navigation
(RNAV) routes, and arrival and departure routes. An ATS route would be
defined by route specifications. These route specifications may include
an ATS route designator, the path to or from fixes, distance between
fixes, reporting requirements, and the lowest safe altitude determined
by the appropriate authority.
Approach procedure with vertical guidance (APV): This new term
would mean an instrument approach procedure based on lateral path and
glide path. These approach procedures are flown to a decision altitude
(DA). Although these procedures include glide path information, they
may not meet the requirements currently established for precision
approach and landing operations. This includes the vertical navigation
performance and airport infrastructure requirements (i.e., ICAO Annex
14 and FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-16). Safety for these
procedures is maintained by increasing the required obstacle clearance
height or required visibility. An example of an APV approach is the
LNAV/VNAV (lateral navigation/vertical navigation) approach minima
currently published on RNAV approach plates.
Area navigation low route and Area navigation high route: These
terms would be removed and replaced with the term ``area navigation
(RNAV) route.'' See discussion of ``area navigation (RNAV) route''
below.
Area navigation (RNAV): The definition of ``area navigation
(RNAV)'' would be broadened by removing the words ``station-referenced
navigation signals,'' which refer to ground-based signals, and adding
the words ``flight path'' to cover operations in both the lateral and
vertical planes (i.e. lateral navigation (LNAV) and vertical navigation
(VNAV)).
Area navigation (RNAV) route: The new term ``area navigation (RNAV)
route'' would refer to those ATS routes established for aircraft
capable of using area navigation equipment suitable for those routes.
Category I (CAT I) operation: The term ``Category I operation''
commonly has been used in the aviation industry and in the preambles of
FAA regulatory documents for years, but it has never been defined in
the CFR. The FAA is therefore proposing to add a definition of this
term. The proposed definition of ``Category I (CAT I) operation'' is
``a precision approach with a decision altitude that is not lower than
200 feet (60 meters) above the threshold and with either a visibility
of not less than one half statute mile (800 meters) or a runway visual
range (RVR) of not less than 1,800 feet (550 meters).''
Category II (CAT II) operation, Category III (CAT III) operation,
Category IIIa (CAT IIIa) operation, Category IIIb (CAT IIIb) operation,
and Category IIIc (CAT IIIc) operation: These definitions would be
revised to incorporate the concept of precision RNAV. In each of these
definitions, the terms ``ILS approach'' or ``ILS instrument approach''
would be replaced with the terms ``precision approach'' and ``precision
instrument approach,'' respectively. The definitions would also be
updated to be compatible with the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA)
terminology.
Decision altitude (DA): The FAA proposes to add the definition for
``decision altitude (DA)'' to describe the mean sea level altitude at
which the decision to continue the approach below the authorized minima
or make a missed approach is made. This term would be consistent with
ICAO terminology.
Decision height (DH): The definition of ``decision height'' would
be revised to specify that it applies only to Category II and III
approaches rather than Category I approaches, which would refer to
decision altitude. See discussion under ``II.D.1. Decision Height (DH)
and Decision Altitude (DA).''
Final approach fix (FAF): This term would be added to indicate that
a final approach fix is associated with a nonprecision approach.
Instrument approach procedure (IAP): This term would be added. It
is a general term that applies to all types of approach procedures.
Minimum descent altitude (MDA): The definition of ``minimum descent
altitude'' would be revised to change the words ``final approach'' to
``nonprecision final approach,'' and to remove the references to
``standard instrument approach procedure'' and ``electronic glide
slope.'' This change would clarify the definition, as an MDA is
applicable to a SIAP without electronic glide slope.
Night: The FAA is proposing to revise the definition of the term
``night'' to reflect that local night may differ from the times
published in the American Air Almanac. This concept of local night
could limit operations at a particular location when the FAA determines
it to be necessary for the safety of operations, for example, when
terrain causes sunset significantly earlier than the Almanac indicates.
Nonprecision approach procedure (NPA): The FAA is proposing to
revise the definition of this term so that there would be no reference
to ``electronic glide slope.'' The term would apply to navigation
systems that provide lateral (but not vertical) path deviation
guidance.
Precision approach procedure (PA): The FAA is proposing to revise
the definition so that there would be no references to ``standard
instrument approach procedure'' and ``electronic glide slope.'' The
revised term, however,
[[Page 77330]]
would still be based on lateral course and track information with
vertical glide path information. Currently, ILS, microwave landing
systems (MLS), Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) landing
systems (GLS) and precision approach radar (PAR) are recognized
precision approach systems.
Precision final approach fix (PFAF): This term would be added to
indicate that a precision final approach fix is associated with a
precision or APV approach procedure.
RNAV waypoint: The FAA proposes to remove the definition of ``RNAV
way point (W/P)'' because it is overly restrictive.
Route segment: The definition of ``route segment'' would be revised
to mean a portion of a route bounded on each end by a fix or NAVAID.
The proposed change would facilitate the development of RNAV routes.
Section 1.2 Abbreviations and Symbols
The FAA proposes to add the following acronyms to the list of
abbreviations and symbols in Sec. 1.2:
APV means approach procedure with vertical guidance.
NM means nautical mile.
NPA means nonprecision approach.
PA means precision approach.
RNAV means area navigation.
Part 71 Amended
The current part 71 is limited to ground-based navigation systems,
includes extraneous information, and is not organized clearly. Although
the amendments would not be related directly to the RNAV proposals, the
FAA proposes to take this opportunity to improve the readability of
part 71 by separating the sections that provide general information
about part 71 (Sec. Sec. 71.1 through 71.15) from the sections that
apply only to Class A airspace, and by combining or realigning the
sections in part 71 in a more efficient way. These changes are
discussed in further detail below.
Part 71 Heading Revised
The FAA proposes to revise the heading of part 71. The current
title, ``Designation Of Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, And Class E
Airspace Areas; Airways; Routes; And Reporting Points,'' would be
revised to read ``Designation of Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D,
and Class E Airspace Areas: Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting
Points.'' In the new heading, the words ``Airways; Routes'' would be
replaced with the words ``Air Traffic Service Routes,'' which would
cover jet routes, VOR Federal airways, Colored Federal airways, and
area navigation routes. This would be consistent with ICAO's use of the
term ``air traffic service routes.''
Subpart A--Class A Airspace
The FAA proposes to move the heading of subpart A so that it
appears directly before Sec. 71.31 and revise it to read, ``Class A
Airspace.'' As a result, sections appearing at the beginning of part 71
would provide general information on multiple sections in part 71, and
sections in the newly designated subpart A (Sec. Sec. 71.31 and 71.33)
would contain regulations pertinent only to Class A airspace. This
would make subpart A consistent with the rest of part 71, where subpart
designations correspond to the airspace classes covered. For example,
subpart A would cover class A airspace; subpart B would cover class B
airspace, and so forth.
Section 71.11 Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes
The FAA proposes to add Sec. 71.11, Air Traffic Service (ATS)
routes. The text for the new section would come from the current Sec.
71.75, Extent of Federal airways, paragraphs (a), (b)(1), and (d). This
text would be revised to apply to ATS routes in general. The FAA is
proposing this change to include ATS route terminology and to improve
the organization of part 71.
Paragraph (a) of Sec. 71.11 would differ from the text of Sec.
71.75 in that the words ``navigational aid or intersection'' that are
currently in Sec. 71.75, would read, ``navigation aid, fix, or
intersection'' for defining route segments. These changes would
accommodate the development of ATS routes that are not linked to
ground-based navigation aids.
Paragraph (b) of Sec. 71.11 would differ from the text of Sec.
71.75 by referencing FAA Order 8260.3, ``U.S. Standard for Terminal
Instrument Procedures (TERPS),'' as the source for criteria regarding
ATS route dimensions and protected airspace.
Paragraph (c) would differ from the text of Sec. 71.75 by stating
that all ATS routes exclude the airspace of prohibited areas, rather
than just Federal airways. This would mean that if the route passed
through a prohibited area (i.e., a type of special use airspace
designated under 14 CFR part 73), the FAA would write an exclusion into
the legal description of the route that stated that the prohibited area
airspace was excluded from the route.
Section 71.13 Classification of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes
The FAA proposes to use the current text of Sec. 71.73,
Classification of Federal airways, as a basis for proposed new Sec.
71.13, Classification of Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes, and expand
the scope of it to classify the Federal airway, jet route, and area
navigation route components of the U.S. route structure as ATS routes.
The FAA is proposing this change to improve the organization of part 71
and to facilitate the development of RNAV routes that are not linked to
ground-based navigation aids.
Section 71.15 Designation of Jet Routes and VOR Federal Airways
The text of proposed Sec. 71.15 would come from current Sec.
71.79, with information added to ensure that the stated place name
criteria apply to jet routes as well as VOR Federal airways. This
change is proposed to consolidate similar information and to reorganize
part 71 for clarity.
Section 71.73 Classification of Federal Airways
Section 71.73 would be removed and used as a basis for new Sec.
71.13. This change would result in classifying the various types of ATS
routes in one section for clarity and would improve the organization of
part 71. See discussion of Sec. 71.13 above.
Section 71.75 Extent of Federal Airways
Section 71.75 would be removed and parts of it used as a basis for
new Sec. 71.11. This change would consolidate related information,
remove information that is not needed, and improve the organization of
part 71. See discussion of Sec. 71.11 above.
Section 71.79 Designation of VOR Federal Airways
The FAA proposes to remove Sec. 71.79 and move the information to
the proposed new Sec. 71.15, Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal
airways. This change improves the organization of part 71 by
consolidating related information. See discussion of Sec. 71.15 above.
Section 91.129 Operations in Class D Airspace
The FAA is proposing to revise Sec. 91.129(e) in clearer language.
Although substantive changes would be made only in paragraph (e)(2)
(discussed below), the FAA is taking this opportunity to propose
clearer language for the rest of (e).
Currently, Sec. 91.129(e)(2) requires that when a pilot of a large
or turbine-powered airplane is approaching to land on a runway served
by an ILS and within Class D airspace, the pilot must
[[Page 77331]]
fly at an altitude at or above the glide slope between the outer marker
(or the point of interception with the glide slope, if compliance with
the applicable distance-from-cloud-criteria requires interception
closer in) and the middle marker. The proposed rule would require that
a person operate at or above the glide path between the precision final
approach fix (or point of interception with the glide slope, if
compliance with the applicable distance-from-cloud criteria requires
interception closer in) and the published decision altitude or decision
height. Specifically, changes to (e)(2) would be as follows--
(1) The phrase ``served by an instrument landing system (ILS)''
would read ``served by an APV or precision approach procedure.'' The
reason for the change is that ILS is not the only type of approach with
a glide path.
(2) The term ``glide slope'' would read ``glide path'' because the
term ``glide slope'' is generally used with respect to ILS, whereas the
term ``glide path'' includes both ILS and APV.
(3) The reference to ``outer marker'' would be replaced with
``precision final approach fix.'' This would facilitate determining
aircraft position as appropriate (e.g., DME, RNAV, or radar) and would
make the paragraph consistent with proposed Sec. 91.175(k). The term
``middle marker'' would be replaced by ``decision altitude or decision
height.''
Section 91.131 Operations in Class B Airspace
The FAA is proposing to revise Sec. 91.131(c)(1) by adding the
words ``suitable RNAV system'' to provide another option for meeting
the communications and navigation equipment requirement. This change
would be consistent with the proposed definition of RNAV.
Section 91.175 Takeoff and Landing Under IFR
The FAA is proposing to revise Sec. 91.175(a) by replacing the
term ``instrument letdown'' with the term ``instrument approach''
because ``letdown'' is outdated terminology.
The FAA is proposing to revise paragraph (b) to change the term
``DH'' to ``DA/DH.'' See discussion ``II.D.1. Decision Height (DH) and
Decision Altitude (DA)'' above.
Paragraph (c) would be amended to change the term ``DH'' to ``DA/
DH.'' See discussion ``II.D.1. Decision Height (DH) and Decision
Altitude (DA)'' above.
The FAA is proposing to amend the introductory text of paragraph
(e) by changing the word ``pilot'' to ``person'' to make the regulation
consistent with the definition of ``person'' currently in Sec. 1.1. In
addition, paragraph (e)(1)(ii) would be revised to replace the term
``DH'' with ``DA/DH.'' See discussion ``II.D.1. Decision Height (DH)
and Decision Altitude (DA)'' above.
The FAA is proposing to revise paragraph (f) to clarify that
published takeoff minimums are associated with a particular departure
procedure. Takeoff minimums are determined from the analysis of a
particular runway environment. Thus, the departure procedure must be
followed for a particular runway to ensure adequate obstacle clearance.
Paragraph (h) would be amended by removing the RVR table from
paragraph (h)(2) and replacing it with a reference to FAA Order 8260.3,
``U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS),'' which
contains the RVR table. This would eliminate duplication, and ensure
that the public has information based on on-going changes in
technology. In addition to appearing in FAA Order 8260.3, the RVR table
also appears in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), the
Instrument Flying Handbook, and in the Flight Information Publications.
Paragraph (j) would be amended by changing the word ``pilot'' to
``person'' to make the regulation consistent with the definition of
``person'' currently in Sec. 1.1.
Paragraph (k) would be amended to allow certain locations on the
ILS to be fixed by other-than-ground-based navigation aids. As
technology develops, these points could be indicated by fix instead of
actual markers. Finally, middle markers would be deleted from this
paragraph as they are no longer a basic component of an ILS. Although
some middle markers are still in use, no additional middle markers are
being installed at new ILS sites.
Section 91.177 Minimum Altitudes for IFR Operations
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 91.177 (a) by adding language
to clarify that the section would apply when both a minimum en route
IFR altitude (MEA) and a minimum obstruction clearance altitude (MOCA)
are prescribed for a particular route or route segment. The sentence
that currently appears as concluding text of paragraph (a)(2) would be
moved to paragraph (a)(1) and amended by adding the phrase, ``using VOR
for navigation.'' This proposed change would clarify that a person
could travel at the MOCA for the full route segment if the person is
using another navigation system that meets navigation requirements and
is available, e.g. GPS-based RNAV. If, however, a person were using VOR
for navigation then the person would have to operate at the MEA except
within 22 NM of the VOR facilities. If a person were using a navigation
system other than VOR or GPS, the person would have to take positive
action to ensure that he or she was receiving a suitable navigation
signal along the full route. This change would allow operations at the
MOCA, provided the applicable navigation signals were available.
Although the change would be permissive, it would not change the
requirements for communication and surveillance along the route.
Therefore, the FAA may require a higher altitude to meet all the
requirements of communication, navigation, and surveillance.
Section 91.179 IFR Cruising Altitude or Flight Level
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 91.179 by adding introductory
text to read, ``Unless otherwise authorized by the ATC, the following
rules apply.'' While the FAA recognizes that there will be an ATC
clearance associated with an IFR operation, adding this clause would
facilitate the future implementation of new technology by giving the
FAA the flexibility to allow alternatives to current altitude
assignment procedures.
Section 91.181 Course To Be Flown
The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 91.181(a) by removing the words ``a
Federal airway'' and adding in their place ``an ATS route,'' since the
proposed changes in Sec. 71.13 define an ATS route to include Federal
airways and the new RNAV routes.
Section 91.183 IFR Communications
The FAA would amend Sec. 91.183 by removing the word ``radio''
from the heading and from the introductory text of paragraph (a).
Paragraph (a) introductory text would also be changed by adding at the
beginning the phrase, ``Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, * * *''
This phrase would facilitate the use of advanced communications by
means other than voice.
Section 91.185 IFR Operations: Two-Way Communications Failure
Section 91.185 would be amended by removing the word ``radio'' from
the heading and from paragraph (a). This would eliminate reliance on
radio technology.
[[Page 77332]]
Section 91.189 Category II and III Operations: General Operating Rules
The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 91.189 (c) by replacing the term
``DH'' and adding the term ``DA/DH.'' See discussion under ``II.D.1.
Decision Height (DH) and Decision Altitude (DA)'' above.
The FAA would also amend paragraph (d) by changing the word
``pilot'' to ``person'' to make the regulation consistent with the
definition of ``person'' currently in Sec. 1.1.
Section 91.205 Powered Civil Aircraft with Standard Category U.S.
Airworthiness Certificates: Instrument and Equipment Requirements
Currently, Sec. 91.205 (d)(2) states that, for IFR flight, ``two-
way radio communications system and navigation equipment appropriate to
the ground facilities to be used'' are required. The FAA is proposing
to amend (d)(2) by removing references to radio and ground facilities
to facilitate future developments in communications. As amended, the
paragraph would prescribe for IFR flight, ``two-way communication and
navigation systems suitable for the route to be flown.''
Paragraph (e) would be revised to require that aircraft operating
at and above 18,000 feet (flight level (FL) 180) would have to be
equipped with DME. The current rule sets the limit at 24,000 feet MSL
(FL 240). On October 14, 1971, the FAA completed the lowering of the
base of the positive control area (now called Class A airspace) from
24,000 feet to 18,000 feet MSL over the entire 48 contiguous States.
(See 36 FR 15743; Aug. 18, 1971.) This proposed change would make this
section consistent with the current floor of Class A airspace. While
this proposed rule change would extend the equipment requirements for
civil aircraft to FL 180, most affected aircraft already meet these
standards. The FAA specifically seeks comments on this proposed change.
In addition, paragraph (e) would be amended to include suitable
RNAV system as an alternative to DME. Modern RNAV systems provide
distance from the active waypoint as an integral function. This
distance readout can serve any purpose that DME serves.
Section 91.219 Altitude Alerting System or Device: Turbojet-Powered
Civil Airplanes
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 91.219 (b)(5) by replacing the
term ``DH'' with the term ``DA/DH.'' See discussion under ``II.D.1.
Decision Height (DH) and Decision Altitude (DA)'' above.
Section 91.511 Communication and Navigation Equipment for Over-Water
Operations
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 91.511 by changing the heading
from ``Radio equipment for over-water operations'' to ``Communication
and navigation equipment for over-water operations.'' Paragraph (a)(1)
would be amended by changing the term ``radio communication equipment''
to ``communication equipment.'' This change would facilitate future
developments in technology. Also, in this paragraph the term ``surface
facility'' would be changed to ``communication facility'' because, in
the future, communication facilities may not be on the surface.
Section 91.711 Special Rules for Foreign Civil Aircraft
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 91.711 (c)(1)(ii) by changing
the term ``radio navigational equipment appropriate to the navigational
facilities to be used'' to ``navigation equipment suitable for the
route to be flown.'' This change would facilitate future developments
in navigation technology.
Paragraph (e) would be amended by changing the specified flight
level and by adding reference to ``an IFR-approved RNAV system.'' As
amended, the paragraph would state that foreign aircraft operating at
and above 18,000 feet (FL 180) must be equipped with DME or an IFR-
approved RNAV system. The current rule sets the limit at 24,000 feet
MSL (FL 240); however, the altitude defining the base of Class A
airspace (formerly the positive control area) was lowered from 24,000
feet (FL 240) to 18,000 feet (FL 180) in October 1971. While this rule
change would increase the requirements for foreign civil aircraft, the
FAA believes that the affected aircraft already meet these standards.
The FAA specifically seeks comments on this proposed change. In
addition, the provision for a suitable RNAV system is being added
because modern RNAV systems provide distance from the active waypoint
as an integral function in lieu of DME. This distance readout from a
RNAV system can serve any purpose that DME serves.
Section 95.1 Applicability
The FAA is proposing to revise Sec. 95.1. In paragraphs (a), (b),
and (d), references to ``Federal airway(s), jet route(s), area
navigation low or high route(s)'' would be changed to ``ATS route(s).''
The use of the term ``ATS route'' would make the FAA's regulations
consistent with ICAO.
Paragraph (d) would be further amended in the second sentence by
adding the phrase, ``Unless otherwise specified,'' to the beginning,
and by changing the term ``radio fixes'' to ``navigation fixes.'' These
changes would increase the flexibility of the FAA to allow the use of
other-than-ground-based navigation systems.)
Current paragraph (e) uses 25 miles as the distance for reception
of navigation signals. The FAA proposes to revise the paragraph to
allow air navigation along the entire route (subject to air traffic
restrictions) at the MOCA when using suitable navigation systems (e.g.,
GPS). Also, because nautical miles are the standard unit of measurement
in air navigation, the reference to ``25 miles'' would be converted to
``22 nautical miles.''
Paragraph (f) would be revised to specify that an MRA is applicable
only to intersections defined by ground-based navigation aids.
In paragraph (g), the term ``facility or way point'' would be
changed to ``ground-based navigation aid.'' Current paragraph (g)(1),
which addresses reception requirements, would be retained in proposed
paragraph (g), and the term ``facilities'' would be changed to
``signals.'' Finally, the text of current paragraph (g)(2) would be
removed. These changes would increase the flexibility of the rule to
allow the use of other-than-ground-based navigation systems.
Part 97--Heading Revised
The heading for part 97, now reading ``Standard Instrument Approach
Procedures'' would be revised to read ``Standard Instrument
Procedures'' because the part is not limited to approach procedures.
Section 97.1 Applicability
The FAA is proposing to revise Sec. 97.1 to provide a more
accurate and complete description of the applicability of part 97. The
words ``standard instrument approach procedures'' would be changed to
``standard instrument procedures'' to reflect the fact that part 97
refers to takeoffs and approaches. The proposed rules also would expand
the scope of part 97 to include departure procedures, since those
departure procedures are used as the basis for takeoff weather
minimums. Proposed Sec. 97.1 would clarify that published civil
takeoff weather minimums are based on a specified route, and that
pilots must comply with that route unless an alternative route has been
assigned by ATC. The section would be further amended by deleting the
words ``for instrument letdown,'' which is obsolete terminology.
[[Page 77333]]
Section 97.3 Symbols and Terms Used in Procedures
The FAA is proposing to revise Sec. 97.3 by to remove the
paragraph designations and to organize the terms alphabetically. In
addition, the following terms would be revised:
The terms ``A'' (alternate airport weather minimum) in paragraph
(a), ``C'' (circling landing minimum) in paragraph (d), and ``S''
(straight in minimum) in paragraph (s), would be removed in the
proposed revision of Sec. 97.3. These items are more appropriately
spelled in full in the legend of the approach charts.
The term ``approach procedure segments'' would be modified to
include specification of a path to accommodate RNAV approaches, and
``DH'' would be replaced with ``DA/DH.''
The term ``ceiling minimum'' in paragraph (e) would be changed to
``ceiling'' and clarified to refer to airport elevation rather than the
current general term ``surface of the airport.''
The term ``D'' (day) in paragraph (f) would be removed, as the term
is no longer used.
The term ``decision height'' that appears in the definition of
``missed approach'' in paragraph (c)(5), and in the definition of
``copter procedures'' in paragraph (d)(1), would be changed to
``decision altitude or decision height (DA/DH).'' See discussion
``II.D.1. Decision Height (DH) and Decision Altitude (DA)'' above.
The term ``copter procedures'' would further be revised to clarify
the circumstances under which the reduction of the charted visibility
is authorized. It is also important to highlight that the one-quarter
mile prevailing visibility and the 1200-foot RVR mentioned in the
proposed definition are minimum limits. Although both are specified to
permit the application of reduced visibility minimums if either
visibility or RVR is reported, no equivalency between one-quarter mile
and the 1200-foot RVR is intended. For equivalency, see the RVR tables
in Flight Information Publications.
The term ``HAA'' (height above airport) in paragraph (h) would be
revised to add the words, ``expressed in feet.''
The term ``HAL'' (height above landing) in paragraph (h)(1) would
be revised to read, ``height of the DA/MDA above a designated
helicopter landing area elevation used for helicopter instrument
approach procedures.'' This proposed definition would include
references to decision altitude (see II.D.1. above) and MDA (see
discussion of Sec. 1.1 above), and would facilitate future Wide-Area
Augmentation Systems (WAAS) operations.
The term ``HAS'' would be added to read, ``height of the DA/MDA
above the highest terrain/surface within a 5,200-foot radius of the
missed approach point used in helicopter instrument approach procedures
and is expressed in feet AGL.'' This definition would support point-in-
space operations and provide additional information for maneuvering in
the vicinity of a heliport.
The term ``HAT'' (height above touchdown), which currently appears
in paragraph (i), would be revised to read, ``height above threshold
expressed in feet.'' This would be a nomenclature change to make the
FAA's regulations consistent with ICAO and is not considered
operationally significant. Changes to approach charts and affected FAA
documents will be made during regular review process.
The term ``HCH'' would be added to read, ``helipoint crossing
height and is the computed height of the vertical guidance path above
the helipoint elevation at the helipoint expressed in feet.'' This is a
new technical term used in the construction of helicopter instrument
approach procedures. The HCH affects the size of the obstacle
evaluation area for the copter instrument approach and is another means
of providing a margin of safety to the operator.
This proposal would also add the term ``helipoint,'' which is
normally the center point of the touchdown and lift-off area (TLOF). It
is usually a designated arrival and departure point located in the
center of an obstacle-free area, 150-feet square, overlying an approved
landing area, where the approach may be terminated in a hover or
touchdown. The helipad of intended landing may not be located at the
helipoint, however.
The term ``MSA'' (minimum safe altitude) would be revised in more
general wording. The proposed wording allows for any navigation aid or
fix to be the reference point, which would provide greater flexibility
in procedure construction. The distance is specified on the approach
chart.
The term ``N'' (night) in paragraph (m) would be removed from Sec.
97.3 because the abbreviation is no longer in use.
The term ``point in space approach'' in paragraph (o)(1) would be
removed because the definition is out of date. The term is accurately
defined in FAA Order 8260.3 ``U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Procedures (TERPS)'' (incorporated by reference in proposed Sec.
97.20), and, therefore, would not need to be duplicated in Sec. 97.3.
The term ``shuttle'' in current paragraph (t), would be removed
because it is obsolete. It would be replaced with the term ``hold in
lieu of PT,'' meaning a holding pattern established under applicable
FAA criteria, and used in lieu of a procedure turn (PT) to execute a
course reversal. By adding this new term, the FAA intends to codify
current procedures for using a holding pattern in lieu of a procedure
turn for course reversal.
The term ``SIAP'' (standard instrument approach procedure) would be
added to the section because it is a commonly used acronym.
The term ``T'' (takeoff minimum) would be revised for clarity and
accuracy to mean nonstandard takeoff minimums or specified departure
routes/procedures, or both.
Section 97.5 Bearings, Courses, Headings, Radials, Miles
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 97.5 by adding the word
``tracks'' to the heading and to paragraph (a). The word ``tracks'' is
used to describe the type of information provided by GPS and RNAV
systems. Also, paragraph (a) would be amended by adding the phrase
``unless otherwise designated'' to the end of the paragraph. This
change would allow for future changes in technology and flexibility in
route construction and assignment.
Section 97.10 General
The FAA is proposing to remove Sec. 97.10, General. This section
prescribes standard instrument procedures ``other than those based on
the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument
Approach Procedures (TERPS).'' These types of approach procedures no
longer exist.
Section 97.20 General
The FAA is proposing to revise Sec. 97.20 to incorporate FAA Order
8260.3, ``U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS),''
and FAA Order 8260.19, ``Flight Procedures and Airspace'' into the Code
of Federal Regulations. These orders would be added to include the
requirements for the developing and processing of instrument
procedures. The proposed text is shown in the regulation, and the FAA
would get approval from the Director of the Federal Register if it is
adopted as final.
Section 121.99 Communications Facilities
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 121.99(a) by changing the term
``two-
[[Page 77334]]
way radio communication system'' to ``two-way communication system.''
In addition, the term ``point-to-point circuits'' would be changed to
``communication links.'' These changes would make the regulation more
flexible for modern means of communication and would allow for future
changes in technology. In addition, the FAA is proposing to add a
requirement for a communication system that would have two-way voice
communication capability for use between each airplane and the
appropriate dispatch office, and between each airplane and the
appropriate ATC unit, for non-normal and emergency conditions. The FAA
believes it would be necessary from the pilot workload and flight
safety standpoints to retain two-way voice communication capability for
non-normal and emergency conditions. Data link communication systems
currently require a pilot to use a keyboard to communicate between the
airplane and the stations described above. Reliance on data link
communications alone during an emergency could cause an unsafe
condition.
Additionally, with respect to communications between the airplane
and the dispatch office, the FAA is proposing to add a definition of
``rapid communications'' that is based on a legal interpretation issued
by the Regional Counsel of the FAA's southern region on May 26, 1977. A
copy of this interpretation can be found in the public docket for this
rulemaking. Generally speaking, rapid communication means that the
calling party must be able to establish communication with the called
party in less than 4 minutes.
Section 121.103 En Route Navigation Systems
The FAA is proposing to revise Sec. 121.103 by changing the
heading from ``En route navigational facilities'' to ``En route
navigation systems.'' In addition, the term ``nonvisual ground aids''
would be changed to ``navigation aids'' in paragraphs (a) and (b). The
wording would be changed to make the regulation performance-based by
requiring that the navigation aids are available over the route to
navigate the airplane along the route with the required accuracy, so
that any suitable navigation system could be used. Demonstration of
compliance to this requirement would be specific to the operator, the
aircraft navigation system (e.g., GPS, DME/DME, DME/DME/INS), the
available navigation aids, and the route (including planned
contingencies such as alternates). The required accuracy is defined by
the route specifications (including route width) or as defined by ATC
if not operating on a route.
Finally, the section would be revised to permit ``other operations
approved by the FAA'' to be conducted without navigation aids. These
revisions would allow for changes in technology.
Section 121.121 En Route Navigation Facilities
The FAA is proposing to revise Sec. 121.121 by changing the title
from ``En route navigational facilities'' to ``En route navigation
systems,'' and the section would be formatted to be consistent with
Sec. 121.103. In addition, the term ``nonvisual ground aids'' would be
changed to ``navigation aids'' in paragraphs (a) and (b). The wording
would be changed to make the regulation performance-based by requiring
that adequate navigation aids are available to navigate the airplane
along the route with the required accuracy, so that any suitable
navigation system could be used. ``Lighted airways'' also would be
removed because it is an obsolete term. Finally, paragraph (b)(3) would
be revised, consistent with the proposed change to Sec. 121.103(b)(3),
to permit ``other operations approved by the FAA.'' This revision would
allow for future changes in technology.
Section 121.344 Digital Flight Data Recorders for Transport Category
Airplanes
The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 121.344 (a)(54) by replacing the
term ``decision height'' with the term ``decision altitude/decision
height.'' See discussion ``II.D.1. Decision Height (DH) and Decision
Altitude (DA)'' above.
Section 121.345 Communication Equipment
Section 121.345 would be revised by replacing the word ``radio'' in
the heading and in paragraphs (a) and (b), with the word
``communication.'' This would eliminate the reliance on voice
technology and allow for future developments in technology.
Section 121.347 Communication and Navigation Equipment for Operations
Under VFR Over Routes Navigated by Pilotage
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 121.347 by changing the term
``radio equipment'' to ``communication and navigation equipment'' in
the heading. In addition, the FAA would amend paragraph (a) to change
``radio equipment'' to ``communication equipment,'' remove the word
``ground'' from (a)(1), and clarify (a)(2) by removing words ``lateral
boundaries of the surface areas of.''
Paragraph (b) would be revised to separate the communication and
navigation equipment requirements, and the requirement for navigation
equipment would be made more generic to accommodate RNAV systems. A
marker beacon receiver or ILS receiver would not be required under the
proposed rule since precision approaches are not appropriate to VFR
operations, so the last phrase of this paragraph would be deleted.
These changes would allow for communications that are not ``voice''
communications, would make the regulation more flexible for modern
means of communication, and would allow for future changes in
technology.
Section 121.349 Communication and Navigation Equipment for Operations
Under VFR Over Routes Not Navigated by Pilotage or for Operations Under
IFR or Over the Top
The FAA is proposing to revise Sec. 121.349 to recodify and
clarify existing requirements. The proposed paragraph (a) would replace
the requirement for two independent receivers with a requirement for
two independent navigation systems. The two independent navigation
systems must be suitable for the route to be flown, so that they both
support compliance with the requirements proposed in Sec. 121.103(a)
or Sec. 121.121(a). There would be no requirement for the two systems
to be identical, so that a single VOR and a single suitable RNAV system
would satisfy this requirement on a Victor airway. The intent of this
rule is to ensure that there is no single point of failure or event
affecting aircraft navigation systems that causes loss of the ability
to navigate along the intended route or to navigate to a suitable
diversion airport. The change is also intended to address the
vulnerability of GPS, which uses very weak signals that are susceptible
to interference. For example, two minimum GPS (or other satellite
navigation) receivers may not be considered ``independent,'' since both
are so vulnerable to interference. However, the proposed rule would be
performance-based rather than prescriptive; thus, it is possible that
two GPS receivers with an anti-jam capability could be considered
independent, since they would not be so vulnerable to interference.
Systems are considered independent if there is no probable failure or
event that could affect both systems. In addition, the allowance for a
single ILS and marker
[[Page 77335]]
beacon would be extended to any precision approach or APV system.
The paragraph would also be revised to broaden the exception for
two independent navigation systems in paragraph (b) to allow for the
use of any single navigation system consistent with the provisions in
proposed Sec. 121.349(c). In addition, for non-normal and emergency
operating conditions, the FAA proposes to add a requirement for at
least one of the independent communication systems to have two-way
voice communication capability. The requirement to report DME failures
has been removed since it is required in current Sec. 91.187. These
changes would make the regulation more flexible for modern means of
communication and navigation and would allow for future changes in
technology.
The proposed changes to Sec. 121.349 are intended to be broad in
scope. The proposed wording would allow for the future evolution of
navigation system technology. Presently the FAA sees a need for a full
DME infrastructure and a minimal VOR network to remain for the
foreseeable future. However, as the NAS evolves and navigation
technology improves, a satellite-based system may become the core of
the aviation navigation system.
The proposed rule language is designed to provide the most
flexibility for the operator rather than being prescriptive. It would
be through the operations specification process that the operator would
indicate the suitability of its equipage. The FAA sees a benefit to the
use of a performance-based rule for both the operator and the
regulator, as this would be a way to address the variety of navigation
equipment installed in the various fleets. The FAA seeks comments on
whether to adopt a broad, performance-based rule language or a narrow,
prescriptive language requiring specific systems.
Section 121.351 Communication and Navigation Equipment for Extended
Over-Water Operations and for Certain Other Operations
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 121.351 by changing the words
``radio equipment'' to ``communication and navigation equipment'' in
the heading, and the words ``radio communication'' to ``communication
and navigation'' in paragraph (a). This would permit the use of data
link communications systems for normal operating conditions. Also,
paragraph (a) would be revised to require at least one of the
independent communication systems to have two-way voice communication
capability for non-normal and emergency operating conditions. In
addition, references would be changed to be consistent with other
proposed changes and requirements would be explained in full instead of
referring the reader to another section of the CFR.
Also, paragraph (c)(1) would be revised to use terminology
consistent with the proposed changes to Sec. Sec. 121.103 and 121.121,
and paragraph (c)(3) would be revised to apply to aircraft equipped
with only VHF communications equipment.
Section 121.419 Pilots and Flight Engineers: Initial, Transition, and
Upgrade Ground Training
The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 121.419(a)(1)(vii) by replacing the
term ``DH'' with the term ``DA/DH.'' See discussion ``II.D.1. Decision
Height (DH) and Decision Altitude (DA)'' above.
Section 121.559 Emergencies: Supplemental Operations
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 121.559(c) by replacing the
term ``ground radio station'' with the term ``communication facility.
The term ``communications facility'' is more accurate than the term
``ground radio station.'' See discussion for Sec. 121.565 below.
Section 121.561 Reporting Potentially Hazardous Meteorological
Conditions and Irregularities of Ground and Navigation Facilities
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 121.561 by revising the heading
to replace the words ``ground and navigation facilities'' with ``ground
facilities and navigation aids.'' The same change is proposed for
paragraph (a). The term ``navigation aids'' is used throughout this
proposal.
Section 121.565 Engine Inoperative: Landing; Reporting
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 121.565(c) by replacing the
term ``ground radio station'' with the term ``communication facility''
and the term ``station'' with ``facility.'' The term ``communication
facility'' is more accurate than ``ground radio station'' since the
communication facility could be other than ATC. For example, if a pilot
sent a report to dispatch or to the Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC)
service provider, then dispatch or the ARINC service provider would
forward the report to ATC.
Section 121.579 Minimum Altitudes for Use of Autopilot
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 121.579(b) by replacing the
term ``decision height'' with the term ``DA/DH.'' See discussion
``II.D.1. Decision Height (DH) and Decision Altitude (DA)'' above. In
addition, the FAA is proposing to replace the term ``ILS'' with the
word ``precision'' in (b)(1) and (b)(2). This would be consistent with
the proposed definition of ``precision approach procedure'' in Sec.
1.1.
Section 121.651 Takeoff and Landing Weather Minimums: IFR: All
Certificate Holders
The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 121.651 by replacing the term
``DH'' with ``DA/DH'' in paragraph (c). See discussion ``II.D.1.
Decision Height (DH) and Decision Altitude (DA)'' above.
Current paragraph (d) sets forth requirements for a final approach
segment of an instrument approach procedure (other than a Category II
or Category III procedure) at an airport with less-than-certain
visibility minimums where the ILS and an operative PAR are collocated
and coincident. The FAA is proposing to amend the paragraph to expand
it from only ILS to include an operative PAR and any other precision
instrument approach system.
Section 121.652 Landing Weather Minimums: IFR: All Certificate Holders
The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 121.652 by replacing the term
``DH'' with ``DA/DH'' in paragraph (a). See discussion ``II.D.1.
Decision Height (DH) and Decision Altitude (DA)'' above.
Appendix M to Part 121
The FAA proposes to amend Appendix M to part 121 by replacing the
words, ``Selected decision height'' with the words ``Selected decision
altitude/decision height'' in Parameter Number 54. See discussion
``II.D.1. Decision Height (DH) and Decision Altitude (DA)'' above.
Section 125.51 En Route Navigational Facilities
The FAA proposes to revise the heading to read ``En route
navigation aids'' and to amend paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec. 125.51
by replacing the words ``nonvisual ground aids'' with ``navigation
aids'' to allow for navigation by other-than-ground-based navigation
aids, and to change the heading from ``en route navigational
facilities'' to ``en route navigation systems.''
Section 125.203 Radio and Navigational Equipment
Section 125.203 would be revised. In the heading, the words ``Radio
and navigational'' would be replaced with the words ``Communication and
navigation.'' Throughout the rest of the
[[Page 77336]]
section, proposed changes would mirror proposed Sec. Sec. 121.349,
129.17 and 135.165 requirements. These are described in the discussion
of proposed Sec. 121.349. In addition, because nautical miles are the
standard unit of measurement in air navigation, the words ``25 miles''
in paragraph (a) would be replaced with the words ``22 nautical
miles.''
For the purposes of Sec. 125.203, a system that provides both
communication and navigation may be used in place of separate
communications and navigation systems. However, existing Sec.
125.203(d) would be removed because it does not contain a requirement
and is merely guidance.
Section 125.321 Reporting Potentially Hazardous Meteorological
Conditions and Irregularities of Ground and Navigation Facilities
The FAA is proposing to revise Sec. 125.321 so that it would be
identical to proposed Sec. 121.561.
Section 125.379 Landing Weather Minimums: IFR
The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 125.379(a) by replacing the term
``DH'' with ``DA/DH'' in paragraph (a). See discussion ``II.D.1.
Decision Height (DH) and Decision Altitude (DA)'' above.
Section 125.381 Takeoff and Landing Weather Minimums: IFR
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 125.381(a) and (b) by changing
the word ``pilot'' to ``person'' to make the regulation consistent with
the definition of ``person'' currently in Sec. 1.1.
The FAA is also proposing to revise Sec. 125.381(c) to update the
terminology and to reorganize the paragraph to improve its clarity. As
proposed, the term ``outer marker'' would be replaced with the more
accurate term ``precision final approach fix'' in paragraph (c)(1). In
addition, the FAA is proposing to change the term ``DH'' to ``DA/DH.''
See discussion under ``II.D.1. Decision Height (DH) and Decision
Altitude (DA)'' above.
Section 129.16 Communication and Navigation Equipment for Rotorcraft
Operations Under VFR Over Routes Navigated by Pilotage
The FAA is proposing to add new Sec. 129.16 to mirror the
requirements of Sec. 121.347 for part 129 rotorcraft VFR operations.
This would impose no burden on operators of those rotorcraft because
they are already equipped with the communication equipment, and the
communication and navigation equipment needed for night VFR operations,
that would meet the proposed requirements. These changes would make the
regulation more flexible for modern means of communication and
navigation and would allow for future changes in technology.
Section 129.17 Radio Equipment
The FAA is proposing to revise the heading of Sec. 129.17 to
replace ``radio equipment'' with ``aircraft communication and
navigation equipment for operations under IFR or over the top.''
Throughout the rest of the section, proposed changes would mirror
proposed Sec. Sec. 121.347, 121.349, and 135.165 requirements. These
are described in the explanation of changes to Sec. 121.349. The
change would impose no burden on operators of those aircraft because
they are already equipped with the communication and navigation
equipment that would meet the proposed requirements. These changes
would make the regulation more flexible for modern means of
communication and navigation and would allow for future changes in
technology.
Section 129.21 Control of Traffic
The FAA is proposing to revise Sec. 129.21 to remove references to
``ground'' and ``voice.'' This revision would enable air carriers to
take advantage of advances in technology.
Appendix A to Part 129
The FAA is proposing to revise paragraph (b), Section IV, of part
129, Appendix A, to replace the words ``Radio Facilities:
Communications'' with ``Communications Facilities'' in the paragraph
heading, and by replacing the words ``ground radio communication
facilities'' with ``communication facilities'' in the text. This would
allow those facilities to be located wherever appropriate.
Section 135.67 Reporting Potentially Hazardous Meteorological
Conditions and Irregularities of Communications or Navigation
Facilities
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 135.67 so that the section
would be identical to proposed Sec. 121.561.
Section 135.78 Instrument Approach Procedures and IFR Landing Minimums
The FAA is proposing to add new Sec. 135.78 to be consistent with
the requirements in Sec. Sec. 121.567 and 125.325. This would give the
FAA a regulatory basis for authorizing in the certificate holder's
operations specifications for new kinds of approaches and revising
weather minimums for certain conditions.
Section 135.79 Flight Locating Requirements
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 135.79(a)(3) by replacing the
term ``radio or telephone communications'' with the term
``communications.'' By using less specific language, certificate
holders would have greater flexibility in determining what type of
communication equipment to use, and thus be able to take advantage of
changes in technology.
Section 135.93 Autopilot: Minimum Altitudes for Use
The FAA is proposing to replace the words ``When using an
instrument approach facility other than ILS,'' at the beginning of
Sec. 135.93(b) with the words ``For other than precision approaches, *
* *'' This would eliminate the use of the word ``facility.'' Under the
existing language, paragraph (b) already allows for approach and
landing operations with vertical guidance (APV) by using the phrase
``other than ILS.'' The term ``facility'' is not necessary and would be
removed to improve clarity.
Paragraph (c) would be amended to facilitate future technology by
replacing the words ``For ILS approaches'' in the beginning of the
paragraph with ``For precision approaches.''
Section 135.152 Flight Recorders
The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 135.152 (h)(54) by replacing the
words ``decision height'' with the words ``decision altitude/decision
height'' in paragraph (a). See discussion ``II.D.1. Decision Height
(DH) and Decision Altitude (DA)'' above.
Section 135.161 Communication and Navigation Equipment for Aircraft
Operations Under VFR Over Routes Navigated by Pilotage
The FAA is proposing to revise Sec. 135.161 to mirror the
requirements of Sec. 121.347 (a) and (b) for operations conducted
under VFR over routes navigated by pilotage. This would not result in a
substantive change to the existing requirements in the section. These
changes would make the regulation more flexible for modern means of
communication and would allow for future changes in technology. In
addition, the FAA is proposing to remove the words ``carrying
passengers'' to make the section applicable to all VFR operations,
including all-cargo.
Section 135.165 Radio and Navigational Equipment: Extended Over-Water
or IFR Operations
The FAA is proposing to revise the heading of Sec. 135.165 and to
amend the section by removing the words ``radio
[[Page 77337]]
communication and navigational equipment appropriate to the facilities
to be used'' and using the words ``communication systems,''
``navigation systems'' and ``suitable for the route to be flown.''
Throughout the rest of the section, proposed changes would mirror
proposed Sec. Sec. 121.349, 125.203, and 129.17 requirements. These
are described in the discussion of proposed Sec. 121.349. Also, for
non-normal and emergency conditions, the FAA would add a requirement
that aircraft used in extended over-water or IFR operations be equipped
with at least one independent communication system having two-way voice
communication capability. These changes would make the regulation more
flexible for modern means of communication and navigation and would
allow for future changes in technology. For the purposes of Sec.
135.165, a system that provides both communication and navigation may
be used in place of separate communications and navigation systems.
However, existing Sec. 135.165(c) would be removed because it does not
contain a requirement and is merely guidance.
Section 135.225 IFR: Takeoff, Approach and Landing Minimums
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 135.225 (a), (b), (e), (f), and
(g) by changing the word ``pilot'' to ``person'' to make the regulation
consistent with the definition of ``person'' currently in Sec. 1.1.
The FAA is also proposing to amend paragraph (c)(1) by changing the
term ``an ILS final approach'' to the term ``a precision or APV
approach.'' This would broaden the term to address any precision
approach and the new APV approaches, not only ILS.
In the introductory text of paragraph (c)(3), the words ``on a
final approach using a VOR, NDB, or comparable approach procedure''
would be changed to ``on a nonprecision final approach.''
In paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) and (d), the term ``DH'' would be changed
to ``DA/DH.'' See discussion ``II.D.1. Decision Height (DH) and
Decision Altitude (DA)'' above.
Section 135.345 Pilots: Initial, Transition, and Upgrade Ground
Training
The FAA proposes to amend Sec. 135.345(a)(7) by replacing the term
``DH'' with ``DA/DH'' in paragraph (a). See discussion ``II.D.1.
Decision Height (DH) and Decision Altitude (DA)'' above.
Section 135.371 Large Transport Category Airplanes: Reciprocating
Engine Powered: En Route Limitations: One Engine Inoperative
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 135.371(c)(2) by removing the
word ``radio.'' This would eliminate the reliance on ground-based
navigational aid fixes and permit the use of other means such as RNAV
waypoints to identify such fixes.
Section 135.381 Large Transport Category Airplanes: Turbine Engine
Powered: En Route Limitations: One Engine Inoperative
The FAA is proposing to amend Sec. 135.381(b)(2) by removing the
word ``radio.'' This would eliminate the reliance on voice technology.
Appendix F to Part 135
The FAA proposes to amend Appendix F to part 135 by replacing the
words, ``Selected decision height'' with the words ``Selected decision
altitude/decision height'' in Parameter Number 54. See discussion
``II.D.1.Decision Height (DH) and Decision Altitude (DA)'' above.
IV. 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. We have determined that there
are no new information collection requirements associated with this
proposed rule.
V. International Compatibility
In keeping with United States obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is the FAA's 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 corresponded to these proposed regulations.
VI. Economic Evaluation
Proposed and final rule changes to federal regulations must undergo
several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that
each Federal agency 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 through 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
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
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, the FAA has determined that this
NPRM: (1) Would not be ``a significant regulatory action'' as defined
in the Executive Order, and would not be ``significant'' as defined in
the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures;
(2) would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities; (3) would not impose barriers to international trade;
and (4) would not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector. These analyses are available in
the docket, and are summarized below.
Benefits and Costs
The proposed rule expands the use of area navigation systems to
allow for technological advances that support RNAV, such as GPS, while
retaining the current ground-based systems. The proposed rule would not
impose an obligation to change current navigation systems, and
therefore, the proposed rule would mandate no costs on aircraft
operators. The proposed rule would also add language that would codify
current practice and, therefore, would not impose costs. To enhance
safety, the proposed rule would revise the definition of ``night,''
which would allow the FAA to limit operations at locations where
terrain might result in an earlier nightfall than published in the
American Air Almanac. This could affect a very small number of airports
in the United States, and, while the FAA does not expect any cost
impact, the agency asks for comments.
Cost savings might result because the proposed rule would enable
the use of advanced RNAV navigation routes that the FAA has been
developing. These routes are typically more direct, and therefore,
shorter than the current Federal Airways and jet routes and in
following these advanced RNAV routes aircraft may require less fuel and
time to reach their destinations. Advanced
[[Page 77338]]
area navigation routes have not been planned, so cost savings cannot be
reliably estimated at this time. However, estimates of cost savings
from flying advanced RNAV test routes that the FAA has established are
in excess of $30 million annually.
In addition, the proposed rule would amend the current regulation
and eliminate the middle marker as a required ILS component, as
indicated in Sec. 91.175 (k) of the proposed amendments. In 1992, the
FAA completed an evaluation of the operational effectiveness and safety
benefits provided by a middle marker during ILS operations. The
evaluation concluded that a middle marker makes no significant
difference in pilot performance while conducting an ILS approach.
Elimination of the middle marker as a required ILS component would
result in net cost savings to owners of middle marker facilities who
choose to decommission their middle marker facilities. Owners of middle
marker facilities would save a total of $2.3 million per year if all
the 672 middle marker facilities are decommissioned. The total
operating cost savings over 15 years would be $34 million
(approximately $20 million discounted). However, there are costs to
decommission the facilities and these costs range from $10,000 to
$30,000 per facility. The FAA assumes that half the middle markers
would be decommissioned at the end of 2003 and the other half at the
end of 2004. The total cost to decommission all the middle marker
facilities would range from a total of $6.7 million ($6.0 million
discounted) to approximately $20.2 million ($18.2 million discounted).
The net cost savings would be $27.2 million ($13.5 million discounted)
over the 15 year period given the low estimate of decommissioning costs
to $13.8 million ($1.3 million discounted) given the high estimate.
In addition, the proposed amendments would expand the number of
acceptable substitutes for the outer marker. This would allow more
flexibility in the design of future instrument approaches.
VII. 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 determination is 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 1980 Act 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 proposed rule may effect those privately owned small airports
that would be allowed to decommission their middle marker facilities.
There are an estimated 38 non-Federal middle marker facilities. For the
purposes of this regulatory flexibility determination, the FAA assumes
that all 38 middle marker facilities are at airports operated by small
entities. The estimated cost to decommission a middle marker facility
ranges from $10,000 to $30,000 per facility. On the other hand, the
non-Federal navigation facilities would save operating costs by no
longer having to maintain and operate these middle marker facilities.
These savings would be about $3,400 annually per facility. Over a
period of 15 years, each facility would save $51,000 in operating costs
if it decommissioned its middle markers. However, the proposed rule
would not mandate that the middle marker facilities be decommissioned.
The private facility owners would not be required to decommission their
facilities; therefore they would only do so if they believed it to be
cost-beneficial. Consequently, the FAA certifies that the proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The FAA solicits comments from the public regarding
this finding.
VIII. International Trade Impact Analysis
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards.
This action proposes to impose requirements on foreign air carriers
operating in the United States that would mirror the communication and
navigation equipment requirements placed on domestic air carriers
operating in the United States. This would mean that the requirements
imposed on foreign air carriers operating in the United States would be
consistent with those that are imposed on U.S. commercial operators and
air carriers operating domestically. For example, proposed Sec. Sec.
121.349, 125.203, and 135.165 would impose substantially the same
communication and navigation system requirements for operations in the
United States under IFR or over the top as proposed in Sec. 129.17 for
foreign air carriers that conduct IFR or over the top operations in the
United States. Therefore the FAA has determined that the proposed rule
would have a neutral impact on foreign trade and would create no
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.
IX. Unfunded Mandate Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as Pub.
L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995 is intended, among other things, to curb the
practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and
tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to
prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal
mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100
million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any
one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant
regulatory action.'' This proposed rule would not contain such a
mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.
X. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA has determined
that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore,
[[Page 77339]]
we determined that this proposal would not have federalism
implications.
XI. 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), this proposed rulemaking action qualifies
for a categorical exclusion.
XII. Energy Impact
The energy impact of this proposed rule has been assessed in
accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (Pub. L.
94-163, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. The FAA has
determined that the proposed rule is not a major regulatory action
under the provisions of the EPCA.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 1
Air transportation.
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 97
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (air), Weather.
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 Proposed Amendments
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Administration
Aviation proposes to amend chapter I of 14 CFR as follows:
PART 1--DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Amend Sec. 1.1 as follows:
a. Remove the definitions of Area navigation high route, Area
navigation low route, Category II operations, Category III operations,
Category IIIa operations, Category IIIb operations, Category IIIc
operations, Decision height, Minimum descent altitude, Nonprecision
approach procedure, Precision approach procedure, and RNAV way point.
b. Add definitions for Air Traffic Service (ATS) route, Approach
procedure with vertical guidance (APV), Area navigation (RNAV) route,
Category I (CAT I) operation, Category II (CAT II) operation, Category
III (CAT III) operation, Category IIIa (CAT IIIa) operation, Category
IIIb (CAT IIIb) operation, Category IIIc (CAT IIIc) operation, Decision
altitude (DA), Decision height (DH), Final approach fix (FAF),
Instrument approach procedure (IAP), Minimum descent altitude (MDA),
Nonprecision approach procedure (NPA), Precision approach procedure
(PA), and Precision final approach fix (PFAF) in alphabetical order to
read as set forth below.
c. Revise the definitions of Area navigation (RNAV), Night, and
Route segment to read as set forth below.
Sec. 1.1 General definitions.
* * * * *
Air Traffic Service (ATS) route is a specified route designated for
channeling the flow of traffic as necessary for the provision of air
traffic services. The term ``ATS route'' refers to a variety of
airways, including jet routes, area navigation (RNAV) routes, and
arrival and departure routes. An ATS route is defined by route
specifications, which may include:
(1) An ATS route designator;
(2) The path to or from significant points;
(3) Distance between significant points;
(4) Reporting requirements; and
(5) The lowest safe altitude determined by the appropriate
authority.
* * * * *
Approach procedure with vertical guidance (APV) is an instrument
approach procedure based on lateral path and vertical glide path. These
procedures may not conform to requirements for precision approaches.
* * * * *
Area navigation (RNAV) is a method of navigation that permits
aircraft operations on any desired flight path.
Area navigation (RNAV) route is an ATS route based on RNAV that can
be used by suitably equipped aircraft.
* * * * *
Category I (CAT I) operation is a precision instrument approach and
landing with a decision altitude that is not lower than 200 feet (60
meters) above the threshold and with either a visibility of not less
than \1/2\ statute mile (800 meters), or a runway visual range of not
less than 1,800 feet (550 meters).
Category II (CAT II) operation is a precision instrument approach
and landing with a decision height lower than 200 feet (60 meters), but
not lower than 100 feet (30 meters), and with a runway visual range of
not less than 1,200 feet (350 meters).
Category III (CAT III) operation is a precision instrument approach
and landing with a decision height lower than 100 feet (30 meters) or
no DH, and with a runway visual range less than 1,200 feet (350
meters).
Category IIIa (CAT IIIa) operation is a precision instrument
approach and landing with a decision height lower than 100 feet (30
meters), or no decision height, and with a runway visual range of not
less than 700 feet (200 meters).
Category IIIb (CAT IIIb) operation is a precision instrument
approach and landing with a decision height lower than 50 feet (15
meters), or no decision height, and with a runway visual range of less
than 700 feet (200 meters), but not less than 150 feet (50 meters).
Category IIIc (CAT IIIc) operation is a precision instrument
approach and landing with no decision height and with a runway visual
range less than 150 feet (50 meters).
* * * * *
Decision altitude (DA) is a specified altitude at which a person
must initiate a missed approach if the person does not see the required
visual reference. Decision altitude is expressed in feet above mean sea
level.
Decision height (DH) is a specified height above the ground level
at which a person must initiate a missed approach during a Category II
or III approach if the person does not see the required visual
reference.
Final approach fix (FAF) defines the beginning of the nonprecision
final
[[Page 77340]]
approach segment and the point where final segment descent may begin.
* * * * *
Instrument approach procedure (IAP) is a predetermined ground track
and vertical profile that provides prescribed measures of obstruction
clearance and assurance of navigation signal reception capability. An
IAP enables a person to maneuver a properly equipped aircraft with
reference to approved flight instruments from a specified position and
altitude to--
(1) A position and altitude from which a landing can be completed;
or
(2) A position and altitude at which holding or en route flight may
begin.
* * * * *
Minimum descent altitude (MDA) is the lowest altitude to which a
person may descend on a nonprecision final approach, or during a
circle-to-land maneuver, until the visual reference requirements of
Sec. 91.175(c) of this chapter are met. Minimum descent altitude is
expressed in feet above mean sea level.
* * * * *
Night is the time between the end of evening civil twilight and the
beginning of morning civil twilight, as published in the American Air
Almanac, converted to local time or such other period between sunset
and sunrise, as may be prescribed by the FAA.
* * * * *
Nonprecision approach procedure (NPA) is an instrument approach
procedure based on a lateral path and no vertical glide path.
* * * * *
Precision approach procedure (PA) is an instrument approach
procedure based on a lateral path and a vertical glide path.
Precision final approach fix (PFAF) defines the beginning of the
precision or APV final approach segment, and denotes the location where
the glide path intersects the intermediate segment altitude; i.e.,
where final segment descent on glide path may begin.
* * * * *
Route segment is a portion of a route bounded on each end by a fix
or navigation aid (NAVAID).
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 1.2 by adding the following abbreviations in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 1.2 Abbreviations and symbols.
* * * * *
APV means approach procedure with vertical guidance.
* * * * *
NM means nautical mile.
NPA means nonprecision approach procedure.
* * * * *
PA means precision approach procedure.
* * * * *
RNAV means area navigation.
* * * * *
PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING
POINTS
4. 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.
5. Revise the heading of part 71 to read as set forth above.
Subpart A--Class A Airspace
6. Transfer the heading ``Subpart A--General; Class A Airspace''
from where it appears preceding Sec. 71.1 to preceding Sec. 71.31 and
revise it to read as set forth above.
7. Add Sec. 71.11 to read as follows:
Sec. 71.11 Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes.
Unless otherwise specified, the following apply:
(a) An Air Traffic Service (ATS) route is based on a centerline
that extends from one navigation aid, fix, or intersection, to another
navigation aid, fix, or intersection (or through several navigation
aids, fixes, or intersections) specified for that route.
(b) ATS routes include the primary protected airspace dimensions
defined in FAA Order 8260.3, ``United States Standard For Terminal
Instrument Procedures (TERPS).'' Order 8260.3 is incorporated by
reference in Sec. 97.20 of this chapter.
(c) An ATS route does not include the airspace of a prohibited
area.
8. Add Sec. 71.13 to read as follows:
Sec. 71.13 Classification of Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes.
Unless otherwise specified, ATS routes are classified as follows:
(a) In subpart A of this part:
(1) Jet routes.
(2) Area navigation (RNAV) routes.
(b) In subpart E of this part:
(1) VOR Federal airways.
(2) Colored Federal airways.
(i) Green Federal airways.
(ii) Amber Federal airways.
(iii) Red Federal airways.
(iv) Blue Federal airways.
(3) Area navigation (RNAV) routes.
9. Add Sec. 71.15 to read as follows:
Sec. 71.15 Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways.
Unless otherwise specified, the place names appearing in the
descriptions of airspace areas designated as jet routes in subpart A of
FAA Order 7400.9, and as VOR Federal airways in subpart E of FAA Order
7400.9, are the names of VOR or VORTAC navigation aids. FAA Order
7400.9 is incorporated by reference in Sec. 71.1.
Sec. 71.73 [Removed]
10. Remove Sec. 71.73.
Sec. 71.75 [Removed]
11. Remove Sec. 71.75.
Sec. 71.77 [Removed]
12. Remove Sec. 71.77.
Sec. 71.79 [Removed]
13. Remove Sec. 71.79.
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
14. 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).
15. Amend Sec. 91.129 by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
* * * * *
(e) Minimum altitudes when operating to an airport in Class D
airspace. (1) Unless required by the applicable distance-from-cloud
criteria, each person operating a large or turbine-powered airplane
must enter the traffic pattern at an altitude of at least 1,500 feet
above the elevation of the airport and maintain at least 1,500 feet
until further descent is required for a safe landing.
(2) Each person operating a large or turbine-powered airplane that
is performing approach and landing operations with vertical guidance
(APV) or a precision approach procedure must:
(i) Operate at an altitude at or above the glide path between the
published precision final approach fix and the decision altitude (DA),
or decision height (DH), as applicable; or
(ii) If compliance with the applicable distance-from-cloud criteria
requires interception closer in, operate at or above the glide path,
between the point of interception of glide path and the DA or the DH.
(3) Each person operating an airplane approaching to land on a
runway served
[[Page 77341]]
by a visual approach slope indicator must maintain an altitude at or
above the glide path until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe
landing.
(4) Paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section do not prohibit
normal bracketing maneuvers above or below the glide slope that are
conducted for the purpose of remaining on the glide path.
* * * * *
16. Amend Sec. 91.131 by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 91.131 Operations in Class B airspace.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) For IFR operation. An operable and suitable RNAV system, or VOR
or TACAN receiver; and
* * * * *
17. Amend Sec. 91.175 by amending paragraphs (e) introductory text
and (j) by removing the word ``pilot'' and adding in its place the word
``person,'' by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c) introductory text,
(e)(1)(ii), (f) introductory text, (h), and (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.
(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise
authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument
approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use
a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this
chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United
States military aircraft.
(b) Authorized DA/DH or MDA. For the purpose of this section, when
an approach procedure requires the use of DA/DH or MDA, the authorized
DA/DH or MDA is the highest of the following--
(1) The DA/DH or MDA prescribed by the approach procedure.
(2) The DA/DH or MDA prescribed for the pilot in command.
(3) The DA/DH or MDA for which the aircraft is equipped.
(c) Operation below DA/DH or MDA. Where a DA/DH or MDA is
applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military
aircraft of the United States, at any airport below the authorized MDA
or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless--
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Upon arrival at the missed approach point, including a DA/DH
where a DA/DH is specified and its use is required, and at any time
after that until touchdown.
* * * * *
(f) Civil airport takeoff minimums. Unless otherwise authorized by
the FAA, no person operating an aircraft under part 121, 125, 129, or
135 of this chapter may takeoff from a civil airport under IFR unless
weather conditions are at or above the weather minimums for IFR takeoff
prescribed for that airport under part 97 of this chapter. Where
published civil takeoff minimums are based on a specified route,
persons operating that aircraft must comply with that route unless an
alternative route has been assigned by ATC. If takeoff minimums are not
prescribed under part 97 of this chapter for a particular airport, the
following minimums apply to takeoffs under IFR for aircraft operating
under part 121, 125, 129, or 135 of this chapter:
* * * * *
(h) Comparable values of RVR and ground visibility. Except for
Category II or Category III minimums, if RVR minimums for takeoff or
landing are prescribed in an instrument approach procedure, but RVR is
not reported for the runway of intended operation, the RVR minimum must
be converted to ground visibility in accordance with the Comparable
Values of RVR and Ground Visibility table in FAA Order 8260.3, ``United
States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)''
(incorporated by reference in Sec. 97.20 of this chapter). This
visibility is the minimum for takeoff or landing on that runway.
* * * * *
(k) ILS components. The basic components of an ILS are the
localizer, glide slope, and outer marker, and, when installed for use
with Category II or Category III instrument approach procedures, an
inner marker. The following means may be used to substitute for the
outer marker: compass locator; precision approach radar (PAR) or
airport surveillance radar (ASR); DME, VOR, or nondirectional beacon
fixes authorized in the standard instrument approach procedure; and a
suitable RNAV system in conjunction with a fix identified in the
standard instrument approach procedure. Applicability of, and
substitution for, the inner marker for a Category II or III approach is
determined by the appropriate 14 CFR part 97 approach procedure, letter
of authorization, or operations specification pertinent to the
operation.
18. Amend Sec. 91.177 by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 91.177 Minimum altitudes for IFR operations.
(a) Operation of aircraft at minimum altitudes. Except when
necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft
under IFR below--
(1) The applicable minimum altitudes prescribed in parts 95 and 97
of this chapter. However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a
particular route or route segment, a person may operate an aircraft
below the MEA down to, but not below, the MOCA, provided the applicable
navigation signals are available. For aircraft using VOR for
navigation, this applies only when the aircraft is within 22 nautical
miles of that VOR (based on the reasonable estimate by the pilot
operating the aircraft of that distance); or
(2) If no applicable minimum altitude is prescribed in parts 95 and
97 of this chapter, then--
(i) In the case of operations over an area designated as a
mountainous area in part 95 of this chapter, an altitude of 2,000 feet
above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical
miles from the course to be flown; or
(ii) In any other case, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest
obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the
course to be flown.
* * * * *
19. Amend Sec. 91.179 by adding introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 91.179 IFR cruising altitude or flight level.
Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, the following rules apply--
* * * * *
Sec. 91.181 [Amended]
20. Amend Sec. 91.181 by removing the words ``a Federal airway''
and adding in their place the words ``an ATS route'' in paragraph (a).
21. Amend Sec. 91.183 by revising the heading and the introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 91.183 IFR communications.
Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, the pilot in command of
each aircraft operated under IFR in controlled airspace must monitor
the appropriate frequency and must report the following as soon as
possible--
* * * * *
Sec. 91.185 [Amended]
22. Amend Sec. 91.185 heading and paragraph (a) by removing the
word ``radio.''
Sec. 91.189 [Amended]
23. Amend Sec. 91.189 (c) by removing the term ``DH'' and adding
in its place the term ``DA/DH'' wherever it appears, and amend
paragraph (d) by removing
[[Page 77342]]
the word ``pilot'' and inserting the word ``person.''
24. Amend Sec. 91.205 by revising paragraphs (d)(2) and (e) to
read as follows:
Sec. 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S.
airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Two-way communication and navigation equipment suitable for the
route to be flown.
* * * * *
(e) Flight at and above 18,000 feet MSL (FL 180). If VOR navigation
equipment is required under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person
may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft within the 50 states and
the District of Columbia at or above FL 180 unless that aircraft is
equipped with approved DME or a suitable RNAV system. When the DME or
RNAV system required by this paragraph fails at and above FL 180, the
pilot in command of the aircraft must notify ATC immediately, and then
may continue operations at and above FL 180 to the next airport of
intended landing where repairs or replacement of the equipment can be
made.
* * * * *
Sec. 91.219 [Amended]
25. Amend Sec. 91.219(b)(5) by removing the term ``DH'' and adding
in its place the term ``DA/DH.''
26. Amend Sec. 91.511 by revising the heading and paragraph (a)(1)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 91.511 Communication and navigation equipment for over-water
operations.
(a) * * *
(1) Communication equipment appropriate to the facilities to be
used that can transmit to, and receive from, at least one communication
facility from any place along the route:
* * * * *
27. Amend Sec. 91.711 by revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i),
(c)(1)(ii), and (e) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 91.711 Special rules for foreign civil aircraft.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Communication equipment.
(ii) Navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.
* * * * *
(e) Flight at and above FL 180. If VOR navigation equipment is
required under paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, no person may
operate a foreign civil aircraft within the 50 States and the District
of Columbia at or above FL 180, unless the aircraft is equipped with
DME or an IFR-approved RNAV system. When the DME or RNAV system
required by this paragraph fails at and above FL 180, the pilot in
command of the aircraft must notify ATC immediately and may then
continue operations at and above FL 180 to the next airport of intended
landing where repairs or replacement of the equipment can be made. A
foreign civil aircraft may be operated within the 50 States and the
District of Columbia at or above FL 180 without DME or an IFR-approved
RNAV system when operated for the following purposes, and ATC is
notified before each takeoff:
* * * * *
PART 95--IFR ALTITUDES
28. 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).
29. Revise Sec. 95.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 95.1 Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes altitudes governing the operation of
aircraft under IFR on ATS routes, or other direct routes for which an
MEA is designated in this part. In addition, it designates mountainous
areas and changeover points.
(b) The MAA is the highest altitude on an ATS route, or other
direct route for which an MEA is designated, at which adequate
reception of VOR signals is assured.
(c) The MCA applies to the operation of an aircraft proceeding to a
higher minimum en route altitude when crossing specified fixes.
(d) The MEA is the minimum en route IFR altitude on an ATS route,
ATS route segment, or other direct route. The MEA applies to the entire
width of the ATS route, ATS route segment, or other direct route
between fixes defining that route. Unless otherwise specified, an MEA
prescribed for an off airway route or route segment applies to the
airspace 4 nautical miles on each side of a direct course between the
navigation fixes defining that route or route segment.
(e) The MOCA assures obstruction clearance on an ATS route, ATS
route segment, or other direct route, and adequate reception of VOR
navigation signals within 22 nautical miles of a VOR station used to
define the route.
(f) The MRA applies to the operation of an aircraft over an
intersection defined by ground-based navigation aids. The MRA is the
lowest altitude at which the intersection can be determined using the
ground-based navigation aids.
(g) The changeover point (COP) applies to operation of an aircraft
along a Federal airway, jet route, or other direct route; for which
an MEA is designated in this part. It is the point for transfer of the
airborne navigation reference from the ground-based navigation aid
behind the aircraft to the next appropriate ground-based navigation aid
to ensure continuous reception of signals.
PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES
30. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, 44701; and 14
CFR 11.49(b)(2).
31. Revise the heading for part 97 to read as set forth above.
32. Revise Sec. 97.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 97.1 Applicability.
(a) General. This part prescribes standard instrument procedures to
airports in the United States and the weather minimums that apply to
takeoffs and landings under IFR at those airports.
(b) Departure procedures. This part also prescribes departure
procedures (DPs) developed for aircraft operating under parts 121, 125,
129, and 135 of this chapter to avoid obstacles, and establishes
weather minimums that apply for takeoff under IFR at civil airports.
Where published civil takeoff weather minimums are based on a specified
route, persons operating that aircraft must comply with that route
unless an alternative route has been assigned by ATC.
33. Revise Sec. 97.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 97.3 Symbols and terms used in procedures.
As used in the standard instrument procedures prescribed in this
part--
Aircraft approach category means a grouping of aircraft based on a
speed of 1.3 Vso (at maximum certificated landing weight).
Vso and the maximum certificated landing weight are those
values established for the aircraft by the certificating authority of
the country of registry. The categories are as follows--
(1) Category A: Speed less than 91 knots.
(2) Category B: Speed 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots.
(3) Category C: Speed 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots.
(4) Category D: Speed 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots.
(5) Category E: Speed 166 knots or more.
[[Page 77343]]
Approach procedure segments for which altitudes (minimum altitudes,
unless otherwise specified) and paths are prescribed in procedures, are
as follows--
(1) Initial approach is the segment between the initial approach
fix and the intermediate fix or the point where the aircraft is
established on the intermediate course or final approach course.
(2) Initial approach altitude is the altitude (or altitudes, in
high altitude procedure) prescribed for the initial approach segment of
an instrument approach.
(3) Intermediate approach is the segment between the intermediate
fix or point and the final approach fix.
(4) Final approach is the segment between the final approach fix or
point and the runway, airport, or missed approach point.
(5) Missed approach is the segment between the missed approach
point, or point of arrival at decision altitude or decision height (DA/
DH), and the missed approach fix at the prescribed altitude.
Ceiling means the minimum ceiling, expressed in feet above the
airport elevation, required for takeoff or required for designating an
airport as an alternate airport.
Copter procedures means helicopter procedures, with applicable
minimums as prescribed in Sec. 97.35. Helicopters may also use other
procedures prescribed in subpart C of this part and may use the
Category A minimum descent altitude (MDA), or decision altitude or
decision height (DA/DH). For other than ``copter-only'' approaches, the
required visibility minimum for Category I approaches may be reduced to
one-half the published visibility minimum for Category A aircraft, but
in no case may it be reduced to less than one-quarter mile prevailing
visibility, or, if reported, 1,200 feet RVR. Reduction of visibility
minima on Category II instrument approach procedures is prohibited.
FAF means final approach fix.
HAA means height above airport and is expressed in feet.
HAL means height above landing and is the height of the DA/MDA
above a designated helicopter landing area elevation used for
helicopter instrument approach procedures and is expressed in feet.
HAS means height above the surface and is the height of the DA/MDA
above the highest terrain/surface within a 5,200-foot radius of the
missed approach point used in helicopter instrument approach procedures
and is expressed in feet AGL.
HAT means height above threshold expressed in feet.
HCH means helipoint crossing height and is the computed height of
the vertical guidance path above the helipoint elevation at the
helipoint expressed in feet.
Helipoint means the aiming point for the final approach course for
heliports. It is normally the center point of the touchdown and lift-
off area (TLOF). The helipoint elevation is the highest point on the
TLOF and is the same elevation as heliport elevation.
Hold in lieu of PT means a holding pattern established under
applicable FAA criteria, and used in lieu of a procedure turn to
execute a course reversal.
MAP means missed approach point.
More than 65 knots means an aircraft that has a stalling speed of
more than 65 knots (as established in an approved flight manual) at
maximum certificated landing weight with full flaps, landing gear
extended, and power off.
MSA means minimum safe altitude, expressed in feet above mean sea
level, depicted on an approach chart that provides at least 1,000 feet
of obstacle clearance for emergency use within a certain distance from
the specified navigation facility or fix.
NA means not authorized.
NOPT means no procedure turn required. Altitude prescribed applies
only if procedure turn is not executed.
Procedure turn means the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary
to reverse direction to establish the aircraft on an intermediate or
final approach course. The outbound course, direction of turn, distance
within which the turn must be completed, and minimum altitude are
specified in the procedure. However, the point at which the turn may be
begun, and the type and rate of turn, is left to the discretion of the
pilot.
RA means radio altimeter setting height.
RVV means runway visibility value.
SIAP means standard instrument approach procedure.
65 knots or less means an aircraft that has a stalling speed of 65
knots or less (as established in an approved flight manual) at maximum
certificated landing weight with full flaps, landing gear extended, and
power off.
T means nonstandard takeoff minimums or specified departure routes/
procedures or both.
TDZ means touchdown zone.
Visibility minimum means the minimum visibility specified for
approach, landing, or takeoff, expressed in statute miles, or in feet
where RVR is reported.
34. Amend Sec. 97.5 by revising the heading and paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
Sec. 97.5 Bearings, courses, tracks, headings, radials, miles.
(a) All bearings, courses, tracks, headings, and radials in this
part are magnetic, unless otherwise designated.
* * * * *
Sec. 97.10 [Removed and reserved]
35. Remove and reserve Sec. 97.10.
36. Revise Sec. 97.20 to read as follows:
Sec. 97.20 General.
(a) This subpart prescribes standard instrument procedures based on
the criteria contained in FAA Order 8260.3, ``U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS)'' and FAA Order 8260.19,
``Flight Procedures and Airspace.'' These standard instrument
procedures and FAA Orders were approved for incorporation by reference
by the Director of the Federal Register pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and
1 CFR part 51. They may be examined at the following locations:
(1) FAA Orders 8260.3 and 8260.19 may be examined at the Federal
Aviation Administration, Flight Standards Service, Flight Technologies
and Procedures Division (AFS-420), 6500 S. MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK, and at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol
Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC. These Orders are available for
purchase from the U.S. Government Printing Office, 710 N. Capitol
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20401.
(2) Standard instrument procedures may be examined at the Federal
Aviation Administration, National Flight Data Center (ATA-110), 800
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC, and at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington,
DC.
(b) Standard instrument procedures and associated supporting data
are documented on specific forms under FAA Order 8260.19 and are
promulgated by the FAA through the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)
as the source for aeronautical charts and avionics databases. These
procedures are then portrayed on aeronautical charts and included in
avionics databases prepared by the National Aeronautical Charting
Office (AVN-500) and other publishers of aeronautical data for use by
pilots using the NFDC source data. The terminal aeronautical charts
published by the U.S. Government were approved for incorporation by
reference by the Director of the Federal Register pursuant
[[Page 77344]]
to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. They may be examined at the
Federal Aviation Administration, National Flight Data Center (ATA-110),
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, and at the Office of the
Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington,
DC. These charts are available for purchase from the FAA National