
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 58 (Thursday, March 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15887-15890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06895]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No.: FAA-2015-0190; Amdt. No. 91-337]
RIN 2120-AK69


Prohibition of Fixed-Wing Special Visual Flight Rules Operations 
at Washington-Dulles International Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action prohibits fixed-wing special visual flight rules 
operations at Washington-Dulles International Airport. This action is 
necessary to support aviation safety and the efficient use of the 
navigable airspace by managing operations in the busy and complex 
airspace around the airport.

DATES: This action becomes effective May 26, 2015.
    Submit comments on or before April 27, 2015. If the FAA receives an 
adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse comment, the FAA 
will publish a document in the Federal Register before the effective 
date of the direct final rule that may withdraw it in whole, or in 
part.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-
0190 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room 
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket 
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments 
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts 
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system 
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at 
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions 
for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the 
West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this action, contact David Maddox, Airspace Policy and Regulation 
Group, AJV-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8783; email 
david.maddox@faa.gov.
    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Robert Hawks, 
Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3073; email rob.hawks@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes 
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation 
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of 
airspace, and Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements. Under 
section 40103, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to 
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of the navigable 
airspace. Under section 44701, the FAA is charged with prescribing 
regulations to ensure safety in air commerce.
    This regulation is within the scope of sections 40103 and 44701 
because prohibiting fixed-wing SVFR operations in busy and complex 
airspace supports aviation safety and the efficient use of navigable 
airspace.

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA is adopting this direct final rule without prior notice and 
public comment because it formalizes current FAA practice at 
Washington-Dulles International Airport (IAD). Given the volume and 
complexity of instrument flight rules (IFR) traffic, a request to 
operate special visual flight rules (SVFR) would be denied. However, no 
such clearances have been requested for at least several years. 
Therefore, the FAA does not anticipate any negative comments to this 
direct final rule.
    The Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11034; Feb. 26, 1979) provide that to the 
maximum extent possible, operating administrations for DOT should 
provide an opportunity for public comment on regulations issued without 
prior notice. Accordingly, the FAA invites interested persons to 
participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or 
views. The Agency also invites comments relating to the economic, 
environmental, energy, or federalism

[[Page 15888]]

impacts that might result from adopting this direct final rule.
    A direct final rule will take effect on a specified date unless the 
FAA receives an adverse comment or notice of intent to file an adverse 
comment within the comment period. An adverse comment explains why a 
rule would be inappropriate, or would be ineffective or unacceptable 
without a change. It may challenge the rule's underlying premise or 
approach. Under the direct final rule process, the FAA does not 
consider the following types of comments to be adverse:
    (1) A comment recommending another rule change, in addition to the 
change in the direct final rule at issue. The comment is adverse, 
however, if the commenter states why the direct final rule would be 
ineffective without the change.
    (2) A frivolous or insubstantial comment.
    If the FAA receives an adverse comment or notice of intent to file 
an adverse comment, it will publish a document in the Federal Register 
before the effective date of the direct final rule that may withdraw it 
in whole, or in part. If the FAA withdraws a direct final rule because 
of an adverse comment, the commenter's recommendation may be 
incorporated into another direct final rule, or the FAA may publish a 
notice of proposed rulemaking.
    If the FAA receives no adverse comments or notices of intent to 
file an adverse comment, it will publish a confirmation document in the 
Federal Register, generally within 15 days after the comment period 
closes. The confirmation document tells the public the effective date 
of the direct final rule.
    See the ``Additional Information'' section for information on how 
to comment on this direct final rule and how the FAA will handle 
comments received. The ``Additional Information'' section also contains 
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of 
proprietary or confidential business information. In addition, there is 
information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.

I. Overview of the Direct Final Rule

    This direct final rule prohibits fixed-wing SVFR operations at IAD, 
one of the busiest airports in the United States. The FAA has 
determined this action is necessary due to the volume and complexity of 
IFR traffic in the IAD surface area of the Washington Tri-Area Class B 
airspace.

II. Background

    SVFR operations are defined in the Aeronautical Information Manual 
(AIM) as aircraft operating in accordance with air traffic control 
(ATC) clearances in Class B, C, D, and E surface areas in conditions 
less than the basic VFR weather minimums of three miles and 1,000 feet. 
Such operations are requested by pilots and approved by ATC. Pilots 
operating under SVFR must have at least one mile of flight visibility 
and remain clear of clouds. ATC predicate separation of aircraft on 
known performance and expected routes of flight. Since controllers do 
not know the exact weather conditions where an SVFR pilot is operating, 
they generally do not issue control instructions to the SVFR pilot so 
that the aircraft is not inadvertently placed in clouds. ATC often will 
increase standard separation distances for other aircraft operating in 
proximity, which can result in a loss of efficiency and capacity at 
airports.
    The FAA previously has prohibited fixed-wing SVFR operations at 
airports with high traffic volumes. Section 3 of part 91, Appendix D, 
lists the locations where these operations are prohibited. The FAA 
first prohibited the operation of fixed-wing aircraft under SVFR 
weather minimums within specifically designated control zones (now 
designated as surface areas) in 1968. See 33 FR 4096 (Mar. 2, 1968). 
The FAA determined that increased aircraft operations in the vicinity 
of airports serving large population centers created conditions that 
required imposition of restrictions and priorities with respect to 
airspace and services associated with those operations, including the 
establishment of procedures giving priority to IFR traffic. Thirty-
three major airports were specified as locations where the SVFR 
minimums would not apply to fixed-wing aircraft operations. The FAA 
stated that ``based upon changing conditions involving safety 
considerations additional airports may be designated in the future.'' 
Id.
    The volume and complexity of IFR operations at IAD now indicate 
that use of SVFR operations can potentially affect the safe and 
efficient movement of traffic in the IAD Class B surface area. IAD is 
located within the Washington Tri-Area Class B airspace. In that same 
airspace, Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport 
(BWI), Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), and Andrews Air 
Force Base (ADW) are included in section 3 of Appendix D. From January 
1 to December 31, 2013, there were 329,910 IFR operations at IAD, which 
included: 162,730 air carrier; 128,636 air taxi; and 38,236 general 
aviation operations.\1\ This volume of instrument operations and 
instrument approaches justifies elimination of SVFR operations. In 
addition to meeting the criteria for elimination, the bulk of 
instrument operations are air carrier and corporate turbojet aircraft 
flights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FAA Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS) traffic count, 
OPSNET (extracted Jan. 23, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aircraft intending to enter the IAD surface area under SVFR would 
sometimes be operating at altitudes used by IFR arrivals to and 
departures from IAD. This interference can cause delays for IFR 
operations.
    In addition to its location in the Class B airspace, IAD is also 
located within the Washington Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) and is 
adjacent to the Washington Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ), both of which 
were established after September 11, 2001, and severely limit 
flexibility for VFR and SVFR operations to the east of IAD.
    Although IAD has experienced increasing volume and complexity of 
IFR operations since opening, and has been acknowledged on numerous 
occasions as qualifying for inclusion in section 3, no rulemaking 
action has been completed prior to this direct final rule. The FAA 
believes that the volume and complexity of IFR traffic, along with the 
safety implications of these situations, require the prohibition of 
SVFR operations in the IAD Class B Surface Area.

III. Discussion of the Direct Final Rule

    The FAA is amending part 91, Appendix D, section 3, to add 
Washington-Dulles International Airport to an existing list of airports 
for which fixed-wing SVFR operations are prohibited. Currently, air 
traffic controllers at IAD deny requests for SVFR transitions through 
Class B airspace due to the volume and complexity of IFR traffic around 
IAD. This direct final rule formalizes the current practice.
    The FAA has determined this action is necessary because of the 
increasing volume and complexity of IFR operations at IAD. Fixed-wing 
SVFR operations may interfere with the safe, orderly, and expeditious 
flow of aircraft operating under IFR in the IAD surface area. This 
prohibition also improves efficient use of airspace by reducing 
workload for air traffic controllers during IFR conditions and reducing 
delays for IFR operations.

[[Page 15889]]

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon 
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 
(Public Law 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of 
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act 
(Public Law 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that 
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies 
to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they 
be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written 
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or 
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the 
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted 
for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble 
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this direct 
final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this direct final rule. The 
reasoning for this determination follows:
    This direct final rule formalizes and codifies current FAA practice 
at IAD. Since this direct final rule merely clarifies and codifies 
existing FAA procedures, the expected outcome will be a minimal impact 
with positive net benefits, and a full regulatory evaluation was not 
prepared. Any comments concerning the FAA determination should include 
supporting justification.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    This direct final rule merely formalizes and codifies existing FAA 
procedures; the expected outcome will have only a minimal impact on any 
small entity affected by this final rule.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. 
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies 
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-39), as amended by 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465), prohibits 
Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related 
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of 
standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign 
commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate 
domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not 
operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The 
statute also requires consideration of international standards and, 
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA 
has assessed the potential effect of this direct final rule and 
determined that it will have only a domestic operational impact and 
therefore will not affect international trade.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 
104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151 million in lieu of $100 
million. This direct final rule does not contain such a mandate; 
therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to this regulation.

G. 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

[[Page 15890]]

rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in 
paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined 
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism 
implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it 
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it 
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international 
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, 
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and reduce, 
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory 
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and 
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609 and has determined 
that this action would have no effect on international regulatory 
cooperation.

VI. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency 
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, 
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the rulemaking 
action in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific 
portion of the rulemaking action, explain the reason for any 
recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket 
does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one 
copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, 
commenters should submit only one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well 
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA 
personnel concerning this rulemaking. The FAA will consider all 
comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The 
FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if 
it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
    As stated earlier, if the FAA receives an adverse comment or notice 
of intent to file an adverse comment, it will publish a document in the 
Federal Register before the effective date of the final rule. If the 
FAA receives no adverse comments or notices of intent to file an 
adverse comment, it will publish a confirmation document in the Federal 
Register, generally within 15 days after the comment period closes. The 
confirmation document tells the public the effective date of the rule.
    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Do not file 
proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such 
information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified 
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document, and 
marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting information on a 
disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM, and identify 
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that 
is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary 
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the 
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have 
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received 
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information, 
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act 
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of 
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from 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.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained 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. 
Commenters must identify the docket or amendment number of this 
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this rulemaking 
action, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be 
accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
referenced in item (1) above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

    Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety.

 The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 
40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 
44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 
47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the 
Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 
Stat. 11).


0
2. Amend section 3 of Appendix D to Part 91 by adding in alphabetical 
order ``Chantilly, VA (Washington-Dulles International Airport)'' to 
read as follows:

Appendix D to Part 91--Airports/Locations: Special Operating 
Restrictions

* * * * *
    Section 3. * * *
    Chantilly, VA (Washington-Dulles International Airport)
* * * * *


    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40103(b), 
and 44701(a) in Washington, DC, on March 17, 2015.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-06895 Filed 3-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


