[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 12, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46797-46804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18619]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 12, 2008 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 46797]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. FAA-2006-25250; Amdt. No. 91-302]
RIN 2120-AI63
Special Awareness Training for the Washington, DC Metropolitan
Area
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA is requiring ``special awareness'' training for any
pilot who flies under visual flight rules (VFR) within a 60-nautical-
mile (NM) radius of the Washington, DC VHF omni-directional range/
distance measuring equipment (DCA VOR/DME). This training has been
developed and provided by the FAA on its www.FAASafety.gov Web site and
focuses primarily on training pilots on the procedures for flying in
and around the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Defense Identification
Zone (ADIZ) and the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted
Zone (FRZ). The rule will reduce the number of unauthorized flights
into the airspace of the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area ADIZ and FRZ
through education of the pilot community.
DATES: This final rule is effective on February 9, 2009. Affected
parties, however, do not have to comply with the information collection
requirement in Sec. 91.161 until the FAA publishes in the Federal
Register the control number assigned by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for this information collection requirement. Publication
of the control number notifies the public that OMB has approved this
information collection requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this final rule contact: John D. Lynch, Certification and General
Aviation Operations Branch, AFS-810, General Aviation and Commercial
Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202)
267-3844.
For legal questions concerning this final rule contact: Michael
Chase, Air Traffic and Airman/Airport Certification Law Branch, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The Administrator of the FAA has broad authority to regulate the
safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace (49 U.S.C. 40103). The
Administrator also is authorized to issue air traffic rules and
regulations to govern the flight of aircraft, the navigation,
protection and identification of aircraft for the protection of persons
and property on the ground, and for the efficient use of navigable
airspace. Additionally, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3) the
Administrator has the authority, in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense, to ``establish security provisions that will encourage and
allow maximum use of the navigable airspace by civil aircraft
consistent with national security.''
List of Abbreviations and Terms Frequently Used in This Document
ADIZ--Air Defense Identification Zone
AOPA--Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
ATC--Air Traffic Control
DCA VOR/DME--Washington, DC very high frequency omni-directional
range/distance measuring equipment
FDC--Flight Data Center
FRZ--Flight Restricted Zone
HAI--Helicopter Association International
IFR--Instrument flight rules
NATA--National Air Transportation Association
NM--Nautical mile
NOTAM--Notice to Airmen
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
VFR--Visual flight rules
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Establishment of the Washington, DC ADIZ
B. Summary of the Special Awareness Training NPRM
C. Other Washington, DC ADIZ-Related Rulemaking Activity
II. Discussion of Comments
A. Application of the Training Program
1. Applicability to Pilots
2. Size of the ``Training Zone''
3. Frequency of Training
B. Washington, DC ADIZ Operating Requirements
C. Air Traffic Control
D. The FAA's Enforcement Policy
E. Charting the Training Area
F. Educational Outreach
G. Impact on General Aviation Pilots
H. Certificate of Training Completion
I. The FAA's Web site
J. Adopting a Training Requirement Based on a NOTAM
III. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
V. International Compatibility
VI. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates
Assessment
VII. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
VIII. Environmental Analysis
IX. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
X. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
XI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
I. Background
A. Establishment of the Washington, DC ADIZ
In February 2003, the FAA, in consultation with the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Defense (DOD), and other
Federal agencies, issued Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) implementing an
outer Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) and an inner Flight
Restricted Zone (FRZ) around the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. At
that time, the ADIZ closely resembled the Washington tri-area Class B
airspace area. The FRZ, requiring more stringent access procedures than
the ADIZ, was established within an approximately 15-nautical-mile (NM)
radius from the Washington, DC very high frequency omni-directional
range/distance measuring equipment (DCA VOR/DME). The NOTAMs also
established radio communication, transponder, and flight plan
requirements for pilots to follow. Some types of operations, such as
U.S. military, law enforcement, and approved aeromedical flights, are
[[Page 46798]]
excluded from the requirements. The ADIZ and the FRZ, along with other
security measures, enable the law enforcement and security communities
to identify pilots and their intentions and to track aircraft operating
in the vicinity of the nation's capital.
On August 30, 2007, the airspace restrictions in the Washington, DC
area were modified by Flight Data Center (FDC) NOTAMs 07/0206 and 07/
0211. While the specifications for the FRZ remain essentially the same
(except that the western boundary has been moved slightly eastward),
the radius of the ADIZ has been reduced to a 30-NM radius from the DCA
VOR/DME, thereby reducing the number of airports affected by the
airspace restrictions and making more navigable airspace available to
pilots conducting operations in the area. In addition, the requirements
to obtain appropriate authorization, establish two-way communication
with Air Traffic Control (ATC), be equipped with an operating
transponder with altitude-reporting capability, and file a flight plan
remain the same. However, the revised NOTAM also added a ``maneuvering
area'' for Leesburg Airport, and imposed an airspeed restriction of 180
knots or less (if capable) within the ADIZ/FRZ. For VFR aircraft
operations conducted between 30 and 60 NM of the DCA VOR/DME, aircraft
are restricted to an indicated airspeed of 230 knots or less, unless
otherwise authorized.
Since the creation of the ADIZ, there have been over 3,000
incursions into the Washington, DC ADIZ. Between February 12, 2003 and
April 30, 2008, there were approximately 3,200 reported observed
incursions into the Washington, DC ADIZ. A few of these flights came so
close to the Capitol and the White House that they caused mass
evacuations of these buildings and other Federal office buildings. In
other incidents, civilian aircraft have been intercepted by U.S. Coast
Guard helicopters and U.S. Air Force fighter airplanes. Although all of
the incursions were eventually determined to be non-criminal in nature,
each incursion places an unnecessary burden on Federal, state, and
local law enforcement resources. For instance, when an unauthorized
aircraft penetrates restricted airspace, the FAA's air traffic
controllers must divert necessary resources to monitor the aircraft's
flight, alert security operations, and communicate information about
the aircraft to appropriate military and law enforcement agencies.
Several branches of the Federal government, the military, and local law
enforcement are forced to respond to the situation and to execute a
potentially hazardous intercept under circumstances that typically
prove not to have been a threat to our national security.
B. Summary of the Special Awareness Training NPRM
On July 5, 2006, the FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled, ``Special Awareness Training for the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area'' (71 FR 38118). The FAA proposed that pilots flying
VFR within a radius of 100 nautical miles (NM) of the DCA VOR/DME
complete free online Special Awareness Training for operating in the
Washington, DC metropolitan area and other Temporary Flight Restriction
(TFR) areas. Pilots would be required to complete the training one
time. Upon completion of the online training, a pilot would download a
copy of his or her certificate of training completion. A copy of the
certificate would have to be presented upon request of an authorized
representative of the FAA, an authorized representative of National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), any Federal, State, or local law
enforcement officer, or an authorized representative of the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
The comment period for the NPRM closed on September 5, 2006. The
FAA is issuing this rule essentially as proposed, except that the
proposed requirement that training must be completed by pilots flying
within a 100-NM radius from the DCA VOR/DME has been modified in the
final rule to require training for pilots flying within a 60-NM radius
of the DCA VOR/DME. The FAA will place a note on the Washington
Sectional, Baltimore-Washington Terminal Area Sectional, Baltimore-
Washington Helicopter Route Sectional, and the CG-21 World Aeronautical
Chart about the training requirement for the Washington, DC ADIZ and
FRZ airspace.
In addition, the heading of Sec. 91.161 has been modified to
better describe the content of the section, and a paragraph entitled
``Special Awareness Training'' has been added to describe the training
required by Sec. 91.161 and where it is located.
C. Other Washington, DC ADIZ-Related Rulemaking Activity
On August 4, 2005, the FAA issued an NPRM entitled, ``Washington,
DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area'' (70 FR 45250) that
proposed to codify current flight restrictions for certain aircraft
operations in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. That rule remains
in development, and this final rule is not directly related to the
issues addressed in that rulemaking action.
II. Discussion of Comments
The FAA received 65 comments on the NPRM, primarily from
individuals but also from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
(AOPA), the National Air Transportation Association (NATA), and
Helicopter Association International (HAI). The FAA also received
comments related to the August 4, 2005, ``Washington, DC Metropolitan
Area Special Flight Rules Area'' proposed rule. Those comments are
outside the scope of this rulemaking and will not be addressed here.
Commenters generally expressed opposition to the NPRM. While many
agreed that training could be helpful, they did not believe that the
FAA's training program would be effective. A discussion of the comments
follows.
A. Application of the Training Program
Commenters had varying opinions on the FAA's proposed audience,
curriculum, and testing criteria for the Special Awareness Training.
After considering all these comments, the FAA has decided not to change
the proposed requirements for the training program, its target audience
or its frequency. The agency believes that due to the potential impact
of an incursion on the pilot, Federal resources, and the public,
mandatory training is necessary, even if the incursion was inadvertent.
The FAA believes the training curriculum is well designed and focuses
on how to fly safely in the Washington, DC ADIZ and FRZ. The training
is designed to cover the correct procedures for operating near or
inside the DC ADIZ. While at least one commenter would have the
training also address normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures
resulting from transponder failure, navigation errors, dyslexia, or
accidentally hitting the wrong button on annunciator or radio panel,
the FAA did not feel this was appropriate, as there are other training
programs that cover this material.
1. Applicability to Pilots
With regard to whom the training requirement applied, a few
commenters believed that training should be required of all pilots, not
just those who anticipated flying within 100 NM of the DCA VOR/DME
under IFR. In fact, one commenter felt that completion of training
should be a prerequisite for any pilot's license renewal. Others, on
the other hand, asked that the agency carve out exclusions for certain
types of pilots
[[Page 46799]]
and operations or the training should be voluntary.
The FAA believes it is important that any pilot, whether acting as
pilot in command or second in command, receive Special Awareness
Training if the pilot has any intention of operating an aircraft under
VFR within 60 NM of the DCA VOR/DME. Thus, Sec. 91.161 applies when
conducting operations under 14 CFR parts 91, 121, 125, 129, 133, 135
and 137. And, regardless of the type of pilot certificate held (e.g.,
sport, recreational, student, private, commercial, airline transport
pilot (ATP), or foreign), or where the flight originated (e.g.,
Virginia, California, or even Canada), a pilot is subject to this
Special Awareness Training requirement as a prerequisite for flying
under VFR within a 60-NM radius of the DCA VOR/DME.
One commenter argued for a sport pilot exclusion because these
pilots do not routinely fly in controlled airspace. He also suggested
that pilots of gliders, balloons, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-
control aircraft be excluded because these aircraft are limited in
range. The FAA acknowledges that holders of sport pilot certificates
are not permitted to operate in Class A, B, C, or D airspace, at an
airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, or at an airport having
an operational control tower. However, sport pilots who hold the
necessary endorsements and whose aircraft are appropriately equipped
may perform those operations and hence could make unauthorized flights
into the Washington, DC airspace. Therefore the FAA has determined that
it is necessary to require this training of sport pilots as part of the
agency's efforts to educate the pilot community and reduce the number
of unauthorized flights into the Washington, DC airspace. In addition,
the FAA does not agree that an aircraft's range limitations would
necessarily prevent a pilot from making an unauthorized flight into the
Washington, DC airspace. The FAA maintains that no matter what the
pilot certificate or aircraft, if a pilot is flying under VFR in the
identified area, then training should be required.
AOPA recommended exclusion for pilots who have been vetted for
operations into the FRZ since they already receive special security
training. The FAA is familiar with the security training requirements
and finds significant differences in its curriculum versus the training
required by Sec. 91.161. The Special Awareness Training focuses on
safe operating practices in the Washington, DC airspace while the
security training for operating in the FRZ focuses on pre-flight and
flight procedure requirements for all flight-restricted zones.
2. Size of the ``Training Zone''
As proposed, the FAA would have required pilots flying VFR within a
100-NM radius of the DCA VOR/DME to certify that they had completed the
training program that is the subject of this rule.
Several commenters believed that requiring the larger training zone
had the effect of extending the Washington, DC ADIZ and its operating
requirements to a 100-NM radius of the DCA VOR/DME. Since publication
of the NPRM, the size of the DC ADIZ itself has been reduced to 30 NM
from the DCA VOR/DME by the August 30, 2007 NOTAM. Also by NOTAM (FDC
NOTAM 7/0204), the FAA has implemented an additional speed restriction
for VFR operations between 30 NM and 60 NM of the DCA VOR/DME. The FAA
has therefore decided to reduce the size of the ``training zone'' to 60
NM from the DCA VOR/DME, which matches the 60-NM speed restriction
area. While this action maintains a buffer zone, i.e., an area for
which the training requirements apply that is larger than the DC ADIZ
itself, establishing a training area larger than the Washington, DC
ADIZ does not imply that the procedures for operating in the
Washington, DC ADIZ have been expanded to cover the larger airspace.
In addition, many commenters asserted that requiring training
within a 100-NM radius of the DCA VOR/DME was too prescriptive. As
discussed above, the FAA has reduced the training zone to a 60-NM
radius from the DCA VOR/DME under this final rule. The FAA has decided
that a 30-NM distance from the outer edges of the Washington, DC ADIZ
is a sufficient buffer of airspace. The agency has determined that the
majority of pilots who inadvertently entered the Washington, DC ADIZ
airspace departed from an airport within a 60-NM radius of the DCA VOR/
DME. Therefore, reducing the training zone any further would not be
prudent.
3. Frequency of Training
A minority of commenters expressed concern that the training will
not be effective because it is a one-time obligation rather than a
recurrent requirement. There was fear that a pilot would take the
course, file his or her training certificate away, and forget the
training unless the pilot flies in the Washington, DC area routinely.
In contrast, one commenter urged the FAA to ensure that pilots who took
the Special Awareness Training prior to the issuance of this final rule
get credit for complying with the requirement.
A pilot who completed the online training prior to issuance of this
final rule is not required to retake the training. The FAA is only
requiring that the training obligation be met once. However, a pilot
has an on-going responsibility to be competent and proficient. The FAA
encourages airmen to review periodically the Special Awareness Training
program. Furthermore, the procedures for operating in the Washington,
DC ADIZ and FRZ are issued by NOTAM, and a pilot is already required to
be familiar with any NOTAM issued in the pilot's flying area prior to
any departure. (See Sec. 91.103.) The training also will be emphasized
during flight reviews and the FAA-sponsored pilot proficiency awards
program (WINGS Program).
B. Washington, DC ADIZ Operating Requirements
Many commenters, including AOPA and HAI, said the operating
procedures in the Washington, DC ADIZ are overly complex or are
obscure. These commenters believed that if the FAA would fix the
difficulties of operating in the ADIZ, rather than require training,
incursions would decrease.
The FAA recognizes there have been difficulties with operating in
the ADIZ. Since the issuance of the Special Awareness Training NPRM,
the procedures for operating in the Washington, DC ADIZ have been
modified through an amended NOTAM. The FAA believes that operating in
the area is now less difficult. Regardless, the FAA believes that pilot
education remains critical.
The FAA is issuing this final rule to establish Special Awareness
Training for pilots who fly within the restricted and special-use
airspace of the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area under visual flight
rules. The training, which is currently available online on the http://www.FAASafety.gov Web site, focuses on how to avoid and operate safely
within the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area ADIZ and FRZ. The FAA
believes that ``pilot error'' is the biggest contributor to violations
of the restricted/special-use airspaces in the Washington, DC area, and
through training, the number of inadvertent incursions into this
airspace will be reduced.
C. Air Traffic Control
Approximately a dozen commenters felt that pilot training would not
work to reduce incursions because the training does not address
inadvertent errors made by air traffic controllers.
[[Page 46800]]
The purpose of this rule is to ensure that pilots operating in the
Washington, DC area are familiar and trained in the operating
requirements. The FAA has already conducted separate education for air
traffic controllers at the Potomac Terminal Radar Approach Control
Facility (TRACON). Additionally, the FAA is working to standardize
procedures for ATC. For example, air traffic controllers are now
directing pilots not to change their transponder codes until after
landing at the airport.
D. The FAA's Enforcement Policy
Many commenters, including AOPA and HAI, said that the FAA's zero-
tolerance enforcement policy is not appropriate for essentially
technical errors by pilots who are otherwise following ADIZ procedures.
AOPA and HAI, among others, suggested that the FAA is creating
``another hook,'' to get pilots for inadvertent violations. Another
commenter said that the FAA's enforcement policies do not take into
account normal human error. In addition, there was concern that the
training rule will ``serve to criminalize general aviation.''
The FAA is requiring this training to educate the pilot community
on how to avoid making inadvertent incursions into the Washington, DC
ADIZ out of concern for the pilot community and a desire to alleviate
the burden on FAA and other governmental resources. Anything less than
mandating the training program undermines the importance the agency
places on this education. Any requirement, if not complied with, has
the potential for an associated enforcement action. However, since the
intent of this requirement is to reduce the number of incursions, there
should be fewer enforcement proceedings related to inadvertent
incursions.
Some commenters seemed to support the FAA in its endeavor and even
recommended that the FAA perform ramp checks to ensure that pilots took
the Special Awareness Training course. The FAA does not consider ramp
checks the most efficient way to ensure that pilots have taken the
Special Awareness Training or to enhance the education of pilots about
flying in the Washington, DC ADIZ. The agency will emphasize safe
operating practices for flying in the Washington, DC area during flight
reviews, practical tests, and the FAA-sponsored pilot proficiency
awards program (WINGS Program), which will cover all active pilots. The
FAA will continue to review the violation history trends and modify the
training where and when necessary.
NATA expressed concern about potential violations when a pilot
cancels instrument-flight-rule (IFR) operation in non-emergency
situations and proceeds under VFR for landing. NATA said that this
benefits both the pilot and over-burdened air traffic controllers. NATA
suggested that the FAA create an exception for this type of situation.
The FAA recognizes that some pilots cancel their IFR clearances and
proceed under VFR for landing. However, pilots who wish to do so in the
airspace covered by this rule are required to take the Special
Awareness Training.
As discussed in the preamble of the NPRM, the flight restrictions
for the Washington, DC ADIZ and FRZ specifically exempt U.S. Department
of Defense/U.S. military, law enforcement, and approved aeromedical
operations from certain requirements otherwise applicable to aircraft
entering the ADIZ and FRZ. (See FDC NOTAM 07/0206.) These operations
must be handled differently because of their importance to national
security and safety and for the public interest. These exceptions,
proposed under Sec. 91.161 (d), have been retained in the final rule
under Sec. 91.161 (e) ``Exceptions.'' The paragraph, however, has been
modified by changing the term ``aeromedical'' to ``air ambulance'' to
mirror current terminology. An air ambulance is a part 135 operator
that has been issued operations specifications that authorize the
operator to perform air ambulance operations in either an airplane or a
helicopter. (See FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 5, Chapter 5.) The exception
for air ambulance operators does not extend to other medically related
flights, even if they are operated under a lifeguard call sign. In
addition, paragraph (e) has been reworded to associate the exceptions
with the types of flights being performed rather than the persons
conducting the operations. The paragraph now states that if a flight is
conducted in an aircraft of an air ambulance operator, the U.S. Armed
Forces, or a law enforcement agency, the requirements of Sec. 91.161
do not apply. The exception includes all operations, including
repositioning aircraft and training flights.
E. Charting the Training Area
Many commenters, including NATA, AOPA, and HAI, argued that the
Special Awareness Training zone be shown on applicable FAA aeronautical
charts. Commenters felt that it was unreasonable for the FAA to put a
regulation in place without physical representation on a chart. One
individual even commented that the FAA's actions amounted to the
creation of a new class of VFR airspace that is uncharted. In whole,
these commenters did not believe that the FAA's reliance on graphics in
the training curriculum would be sufficient for the pilot community.
They felt that the graphics and information provided by the FAA in the
NPRM and other material were of poor quality or were too vague. These
deficiencies, argued some, made it difficult for pilots to plot the
``training zone'' on their own. Additionally, some commenters said,
general aviation aircraft do not have distance-measuring equipment
(DME) capable of receiving a VORTAC signal 100 NM away from the DCA
VOR/DME.
In response to these comments, the FAA will add to the note on the
Washington Sectional, Baltimore-Washington Terminal Area Sectional,
Baltimore-Washington Helicopter Route Sectional, and the CG-21 World
Aeronautical Chart about the training requirement for the Washington,
DC ADIZ and FRZ airspace, and will depict the airspace within 60 NM of
the DC VOR/DME to notify pilots about the training requirements for
pilots who operate under VFR in this airspace. The FAA acknowledges
that reducing the distance to 60 NM does not necessarily resolve the
commenters' concern that general aviation aircraft are not able to
receive the DCA VOR/DME signal while still some distance from the DCA
VOR/DME. However, the agency believes that depicting the airspace on
the Washington Sectional, Baltimore-Washington Terminal Area Sectional,
Baltimore-Washington Helicopter Route Sectional, and the CG-21 World
Aeronautical Chart will assist pilots in identifying the training area.
F. Educational Outreach
Several commenters questioned whether the pilots who really need
this training will be aware of the requirement. They fear that only
knowledgable, conscientious pilots who already know about the ADIZ and
either avoid it or make an effort to comply will take the training, but
others who are ignorant of the Washington, DC ADIZ will be unaware of
the requirement to be trained. AOPA said that the FAA should have a
plan for conducting aggressive educational outreach targeted at
addressing the most common types of violations.
The FAA publishes its regulations in the Federal Register, which is
official notification to the public. The FAA realizes, however, that
many individuals do not monitor the Federal Register. The agency
therefore maintains communication with aviation organizations who
publicize FAA
[[Page 46801]]
actions to their members through their magazines, newsletters, and
online Web sites. In fact, the FAA heard from one commenter that he
became aware of the proposed rule through AOPA and the Experimental
Aircraft Association. For this particular final rule, the FAA also can
rely on the NOTAM reporting system to be a regular reminder to pilots
that there is a training requirement attached to operating in the
Washington, DC area. FDC NOTAMs 07/0206 and 07/0211 specifically
reference the online training. It is a pilot's responsibility to be
familiar with all pertinent NOTAMs, so pilots, by meeting the
requirement to check NOTAMs, will be aware that training is required.
G. Impact on General Aviation Pilots
Many commenters, including AOPA, believed that the training
requirement would add an unnecessary burden on the general aviation
(GA) community.
The FAA recognizes the impact the training requirement has on the
GA community, but the agency has minimized the burden. The course
requires little time and is offered free of cost. The FAA believes the
online training is the most economical means for pilots to receive
training because, for most pilots, it can be performed in their own
homes on their personal computers. Furthermore, in response to concerns
that the proposed training zone was too large, the FAA reduced the size
of the airspace from 100 NM to 60 NM from the DCA VOR/DME.
As already discussed, the FAA has reviewed the history of
Washington, DC ADIZ violations, and finds that it is GA pilots who
continue to make mistakes. It is only proper that the training be
focused on these pilots in order to make them more aware that
heightened security procedures exist in the Washington, DC metropolitan
area.
H. Certificate of Training Completion
Under this final rule, each pilot who is required to complete the
training course should print and maintain a certificate of training
completion (the certificate can be downloaded from the http://www.FAASafety.gov Web site). Upon request from an authorized
representative of the FAA, an authorized representative of the National
Transportation Safety Board, any Federal, State, or local law
enforcement officer, or an authorized representative of the
Transportation Security Administration, the pilot must present the
certificate of training completion. The FAA further proposed that a
pilot did not have to necessarily carry the certificate of completion
document in his or her personal possession, but would be required to
provide it to a requesting official in a reasonable time period. This
latter provision raised concerns with at least one commenter. That
commenter believed that if he were asked to present the certificate but
he did not have it in his personal possession that a follow-up
investigation would immediately follow.
The FAA notes that, because the agency's database identifies pilots
(by pilot number) who complete the training, the agency would check the
FAA Safety Database to verify a pilot's claim that he or she completed
the course.
I. The FAA's Web Site
One commenter pointed out that Windows software is not free and
suggested that the FAA make its Web site accessible to other free and
open-source browsers. He said this will enable Linux and Macintosh
(Mac) users to access the training regardless of model and operating
systems. The FAA has designed the accessibility for taking this online
training via the most accessible system that is being used throughout
the world. Most PC- and Mac-based browsers will be able to access the
site using Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5 or above. Internet Explorer
6.0 or above is preferred. Internet Explorer browsers can be downloaded
for free at: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads/critical/ie6sp1/default.asp.
Another commenter said that not everyone has computers and that the
FAA is 10 to 20 years ahead of itself. The FAA considered that not
everyone owns a personal computer, although the number of pilots who
may not have access to their own personal computers and Internet is
small. In addition, public libraries provide access to computers and
the Internet. Thus, the FAA believes that establishing this training
online is the most economical and efficient means to provide this
training to the pilot community.
J. Adopting a Training Requirement Based On a NOTAM
AOPA expressed concern that adopting the training rule while the
``Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area''
rulemaking action is pending suggests that the codification of the
NOTAM is preordained despite overwhelming objections. The FAA disagrees
that adopting the training rule suggests that codification of the
Washington, DC NOTAMs is preordained. Whether the airspace restrictions
around Washington, DC exist via NOTAM or via codified regulation in 14
CFR, the FAA has determined that training is required to safely fly in
the Washington, DC area.
III. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule
The provisions proposed as new Sec. 91.161 are adopted with the
following modifications.
All references in Sec. 91.161 to ``100 nautical miles of
the DCA VOR/DME'' have been changed to ``60 nautical miles of the DCA
VOR/DME;''
Captions have been added to each lettered paragraph;
Proposed paragraphs (b) through (d) have been redesignated
as (c) through (e);
New paragraph (b) has been added to describe the content
of the Special Awareness Training and information about where the
training can be obtained;
Paragraph (e) (proposed as (d)) has been reworded as
discussed in ``II.D'' above.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the FAA submitted a copy of the new (or amended) information
collection requirement(s) in this final rule to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for its review. Affected parties do not
have to comply with the information collection requirements until the
FAA publishes in the Federal Register the control number assigned by
OMB for these information requirements. Publication of the control
number notifies the public that OMB has approved these information
collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
A description of the annual burden is shown below.
Description of Respondents: The FAA estimates that approximately
87,000 persons that fly under VFR within 60 NM of the DCA VOR/DME will
be affected by the rule, and that the population of affected persons
will grow by approximately 0.14 percent per year.
Estimated Burden: The FAA assumes that each person will spend a
total of 1 hour (40 minutes taking the online training and 20 minutes
taking the test), at a cost of time of $31.50 per hour.
Based on that assumption, the first-year cost will be $2,740,500
((87,000 persons x $31.50) x 1 hour), and time spent during the first
year would be 87,000 hours (87,000 persons x 1 hour). The FAA estimates
that in subsequent years (2009-2017), the per-year costs will be $3,843
(122 persons x $31.50 per 1 hour), and time spent during
[[Page 46802]]
subsequent years would be 122 hours (122 persons x 1 hour).
The total cost over 10 years is expected to be $2,775,087
($2,740,500 + (9 x $3,843)), with an average cost per year of $277,509
(($2,740,500 + (9 x $3,843)) / 10).
The total number of hours over 10 years is expected to be 88,098
hours (87,000 + (9 x 122)), with an average number of hours per year of
8,809.80 hours ((87,000 + (9 x 122)) / 10).
An agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information,
nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it
displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number.
V. International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these regulations.
VI. Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule. We suggest readers seeking
greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we
have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified above.
Total Costs and Benefits of this Rule
The FAA has determined that from 2008 to 2017, the total cost of
the rule will be approximately $2.78 million ($2.77 million,
discounted). The total derives from the cost of requiring pilots who
fly under VFR within a 60-NM radius from the DCA VOR/DME to take the
training. If the rule were 100% effective in reducing the number of
unauthorized flights into the Washington DC, Metropolitan Area ADIZ,
the potential benefits of the rule over 10 years would be approximately
$35.7 million ($26.8 million, discounted). The FAA recognizes that a
100% rate is unrealistic because there is no way to predict the
effectiveness of the rule. However, the FAA needs only a 10% success
rate in reducing the number of incursions, resulting in benefits of
approximately $2.7 million, for this rule to be cost-beneficial.
The FAA notes the aviation community would receive training at no
direct monetary cost. Also, this analysis does not calculate the
benefit of avoiding the use of force against aircraft that improperly
enter the Washington, DC, ADIZ or FRZ.
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
businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and
small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the Act.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 RFA provides that
the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement
providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning
should be clear.
For the most part, this rule will impact only individual persons,
who are not considered as entities under RFA, flying VFR within 60 NM
of the DCA VOR/DME. However, for the few small entities that could be
impacted by this rule, the additional costs are negligible. The FAA
estimates that the training requires only an hour of a pilot's time
(estimated at a cost of time of about $32) and there is no charge for
the training. Therefore, as the Acting FAA Administrator, I certify
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Statement
The Trade Agreements 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. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule
and has determined that it primarily will have an impact on domestic
operations, although it could affect some international pilots. For
example, there could be some Canadian pilots affected when they fly
between Canada and the Southern United States. However, this rulemaking
will have negligible impact on foreign firms that provide goods or
services in the United States.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) is intended,
among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal
mandates
[[Page 46803]]
on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires
each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the
effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that
may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually
for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to
be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an
inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
This final rule does not contain such a mandate. The requirements
of Title II do not apply.
VII. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA has determined
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, or the relationship between the national Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have federalism
implications.
VIII. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.
IX. Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution,
or Use
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The FAA has determined that it is
not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because
it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866, and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
X. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this
rulemaking.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
XI. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at the
beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on the
Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91
Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety,
Noise control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Amendment
0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
0
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1155, 40103, 40113, 40120, 44101,
44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717,
44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-
47531, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil
Aviation (61 Stat. 1180).
0
2. Add Sec. 91.161 to read as follows:
Sec. 91.161 Special awareness training required for pilots flying
under visual flight rules within a 60-nautical mile radius of the
Washington, DC VOR/DME.
(a) Operations within a 60-nautical mile radius of the Washington,
DC VOR/DME under visual flight rules (VFR). Except as provided under
paragraph (e) of this section, no person may serve as a pilot in
command or as second in command of an aircraft while flying within a
60-nautical mile radius of the DCA VOR/DME, under VFR, unless that
pilot has completed Special Awareness Training and holds a certificate
of training completion.
(b) Special Awareness Training. The Special Awareness Training
consists of information to educate pilots about the procedures for
flying in the Washington, DC area and, more generally, in other types
of special use airspace. This free training is available on the FAA's
Web site. Upon completion of the training, each person will need to
print out a copy of the certificate of training completion.
(c) Inspection of certificate of training completion. Each person
who holds a certificate for completing the Special Awareness Training
must present it for inspection upon request from:
(1) An authorized representative of the FAA;
(2) An authorized representative of the National Transportation
Safety Board;
(3) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or
(4) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security
Administration.
(d) Emergency declared. The failure to complete the Special
Awareness Training course on flying in and around the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area is not a violation of this section if an emergency is
declared by the pilot, as described under Sec. 91.3(b), or there was a
failure of two-way radio communications when operating under IFR as
described under Sec. 91.185.
(e) Exceptions. The requirements of this section do not apply if
the flight is being performed in an aircraft of an air ambulance
operator certificated to conduct part 135 operations under this
chapter, the U.S. Armed Forces, or a law enforcement agency.
[[Page 46804]]
Issued in Washington, DC on August 5, 2008.
Robert A. Sturgell,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8-18619 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P