
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 102 (Thursday, May 28, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30394-30399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12816]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No.: FAA-2015-1746; Notice No. 15-05]
RIN 2120-AK54


Changes to the Application Requirements for Authorization to 
Operate in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action would revise the FAA's requirements for an 
application to operate in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) 
airspace. This proposal would eliminate the burden and expense of 
developing, processing, and approving RVSM maintenance programs. As a 
result of this proposed revision, an applicant to operate in RVSM 
airspace would no longer be required to develop and submit an RVSM 
maintenance program solely for the purpose of an RVSM authorization. 
Because of other, independent FAA airworthiness regulations, all 
aircraft operators would nevertheless continue to be required to 
maintain RVSM equipment in an airworthy condition.

DATES: Send comments on or before July 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-1746 
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 go 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this action, contact Charles Fellows, Aviation Safety Inspector, 
Avionics Branch, Aircraft Maintenance Division, Flight Standards 
Services, AFS-360, Federal Aviation Administration, 950 L'Enfant Plaza 
North SW., Washington, DC 20024; telephone (202) 267-1706; email 
Charles.Fellows@faa.gov.
    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Benjamin 
Jacobs, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 
20591; telephone (202) 267-7240; email Benjamin.Jacobs@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Sections 106(f), 40113, 
and 44701 authorize the FAA Administrator to prescribe regulations 
necessary for aviation safety. Section 40103 authorizes the 
Administrator to prescribe regulations to enhance the efficiency of the 
national airspace. This rulemaking is within the scope of these 
authorities because it would remove existing safety and airspace-
related regulations that the FAA no longer finds necessary to protect 
aviation safety.

I. Executive Summary

A. Summary of Proposed Rule

    This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to remove the 
requirement in Appendix G of part 91 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR) that any operator seeking Reduced Vertical 
Separation Minimum (RVSM) authorization must

[[Page 30395]]

develop and submit an RVSM maintenance program for FAA approval. 
Currently, any applicant for RVSM authorization must include such a 
program as part of the application. This requirement was first 
promulgated in 1997, when most aircraft required significant design 
changes or inspections to qualify for RVSM operation. The FAA, 
therefore, required operators to submit for FAA approval a detailed 
plan for the maintenance of RVSM systems and equipment. Since then, 
RVSM operations have become much more common. RVSM systems are now 
incorporated into aircraft type designs or supplemental type designs, 
and operators must properly maintain those systems as part of their 
airworthiness obligations.
    In light of these developments, the requirement that RVSM 
applicants submit specialized maintenance plans to the FAA is no longer 
necessary. Eliminating this requirement would reduce both operators' 
costs and FAA workload, while maintaining the existing high level of 
safety.

B. Summary of Costs and Benefits

    This proposed rulemaking is a retrospective regulatory review. 
Because the RVSM maintenance plan requirement is no longer necessary, 
this proposed rulemaking would eliminate the considerable burden and 
expense of developing, processing, and approving RVSM maintenance 
programs. The proposed rulemaking, therefore, promotes cost savings for 
both part 91 operators and the FAA. The total cost savings are 
estimated to be $76.1 million over a five-year period ($66.8 million 
present value).

II. Background

A. Scope of the Problem

    As RVSM technology has become integral to the design of aircraft 
capable of flying in RVSM airspace, the current requirement that any 
aircraft operator seeking RVSM authorization must submit an RVSM 
maintenance plan to the FAA is no longer necessary. More specifically, 
now that RVSM technology is incorporated into aircraft type designs, 
the FAA's airworthiness and maintenance regulations require any 
operator of an aircraft incorporating that technology to maintain the 
RVSM equipment in a condition for safe operation. The FAA, with input 
from industry, has determined that eliminating the redundant 
maintenance plan component of RVSM authorization will improve 
efficiency and reduce costs for both the agency and operators.

B. History of Vertical Separation Standards

    Vertical separation standards establish the vertical distance that 
must separate aircraft routes in the national airspace system. In the 
early 1970's, rising air-traffic volume and fuel costs sparked an 
interest in reducing vertical separation standards for aircraft 
operating above flight level (FL) 290. Above 18,000 feet, flight levels 
are a measure of altitude assigned in 500-feet increments; FL290 
represents an altitude of 29,000 feet. At the time, the FAA required 
aircraft operating above FL290 to maintain a minimum of 2000 ft. of 
vertical separation between routes. These high-altitude routes were 
desirable, because the diminished atmospheric drag at high altitudes 
results in a corresponding decrease in fuel consumption. Operators, 
therefore, sought and continue to seek not only the most direct routes, 
but also the most efficient altitudes for their aircraft. Higher demand 
for these high-altitude routes resulted in greater congestion.
    In 1973, the Air Transport Association of American petitioned the 
FAA to reduce the vertical separation of high altitude routes to 1000 
feet. The FAA denied the petition in 1977, in part, because of 
insufficient standards and technology, including aircraft altitude-
keeping standards, maintenance and operational standards, and altitude 
correction technology. In mid-1981, however, the FAA initiated the 
Vertical Studies Program. This program, in conjunction with the RTCA 
(formerly the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) Special 
Committee (SC)-150 and the International Civil Aviation Organization 
(ICAO) Review of General Concept of Separation Panel (RGCSP), 
determined:
     RVSM was ``technically feasible without imposing 
unreasonably demanding technical requirements on the equipment'';
     RVSM could provide ``significant benefits in terms of 
economy and en-route airspace capacity''; and
     Implementation of RVSM would require ``sound operational 
judgment supported by an assessment of system performance based on: 
aircraft altitude-keeping capability, operational considerations, 
system performance monitoring, and risk assessment.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Operations, 62 FR 17480, 
17481 (Apr. 9, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following these determinations, the FAA began a two-phase 
implementation of RVSM operations for aircraft registered in the United 
States (U.S.). In 1997, in the first phase, the FAA published two 
amendments to part 91 of 14 CFR. The first amendment added appendix G 
(Operations in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) Airspace), 
containing a set of operational, aircraft design, and other standards 
applicable to operators and those seeking to operate in RVSM airspace. 
Among other things, appendix G requires all applicants for RVSM 
authorization to submit to the FAA an approved RVSM maintenance plan. 
In addition, the FAA promulgated Sec.  91.706 (Operations within 
airspace designed as Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum Airspace), 
which, among other things, allows operators of U.S.-registered aircraft 
to fly in RVSM airspace outside of the U.S., in accordance with the 
requirements of appendix G.
    The second phase of RVSM implementation occurred in October 2003, 
with a second RVSM-related FAA rulemaking. The 2003 rule introduced 
RVSM airspace over the U.S. and, like the 1997 rulemaking, requires all 
U.S.-registered RVSM operators to comply with the application, 
operations, and aircraft design requirements of part 91, appendix G.\2\ 
The FAA's RVSM program allows for 1000 feet of vertical separation for 
aircraft between FL290 and FL410. Before the 2003 rule, air traffic 
controllers could only assign Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft 
flying at FL290 and above to FL290, 310, 330, 350, 370, 390, and 410 
because the existing vertical separation standard was 2000 feet. After 
the rule changes, IFR aircraft could also fly at FL300, 320, 340, 360, 
380, and 400--nearly doubling capacity within this particular segment 
of airspace. The changes both mitigated the fuel penalties attributed 
to flying at sub-optimum altitudes, and increased the flexibility of 
air traffic control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum in Domestic Airspace, 68 
FR 61304 (Oct. 27, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, the FAA reviewed its RVSM program and operator 
authorization policies. At the time, the FAA database contained more 
than 7,000 active RVSM authorizations, covering in excess of 15,000 
U.S.-registered aircraft. The FAA's evaluation found the existing 
processes ensured compliance with the RVSM operating requirements.
    At the same time, FAA representatives began meeting with the 
National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) to develop ways to 
streamline the RVSM application process to lower operators' burden to 
obtain authorization and reduce the FAA's workload associated with 
processing and granting authorizations. The parties formed the RVSM 
Process Enhancement Team (PET), tasking it to focus on changes that 
could be accomplished

[[Page 30396]]

without rulemaking. The PET completed its tasks in 2013. Among other 
things, it revised existing policies and guidance to facilitate more 
efficient processing of operators' requests to change existing 
authorizations, and created a job aid to assist inspectors and 
standardize their review of operator applications.

III. Discussion of the Proposal

    This proposed rulemaking would address another element identified 
by the PET: reducing the burden on part 91 operators to create and 
obtain approval of an RVSM-specific maintenance program. The PET could 
not address this issue because the workgroup's charter limited the PET 
to changes that could be made through guidance and without rulemaking 
action. However, both the FAA and the NBAA agreed that RVSM-related 
airworthiness standards, applicable to all part 91 operators, should be 
treated more like other, substantially similar aircraft maintenance 
requirements, while maintaining an equivalent level of safety.
    Under current requirements, section 3 (Operator Authorization) of 
appendix G contains application requirements for an operator seeking 
RVSM authorization. As described above, this section requires any RVSM 
applicant to develop and submit for FAA approval an RVSM maintenance 
program. The program must outline service and maintenance procedures 
and include acceptable maintenance practices, a quality assurance 
program for test equipment, and procedures for return to service.
    During the early implementation of RVSM, most aircraft required 
upgrades, modifications, or the application of service bulletins to 
meet the FAA's RVSM system safety standards. In 1997, requiring 
operators to create RVSM maintenance programs was essential to ensure 
that operators satisfied these standards and, by extension, the 
continued airworthiness of their aircraft. Today, however, nearly 17 
years since first implementation, RVSM systems are the standard among 
aircraft capable of operating between FL290 and FL410. Additionally, 
most RVSM-capable aircraft are either newly built or have been 
modified, under a supplemental type certificate, to meet RVSM 
performance requirements by original design. All of these aircraft 
designs have Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA)--
maintenance instructions to which aircraft operators must adhere--
providing operators with detailed instructions for maintaining any RVSM 
equipment. And, most importantly, the continued airworthiness of RVSM-
capable aircraft is also ensured by the FAA's airworthiness 
regulations, which require operators to maintain each aircraft in 
accordance with its type design and in a condition for safe operation.
    The specific terms of the FAA's maintenance requirements vary 
according to the type of operator involved. Commercial operators are 
required to use a structured, organizational approach to maintenance 
that may include named oversight personnel, manuals, and an FAA-
approved maintenance program. Both currently and under this proposal, 
these maintenance programs must account for the maintenance of RVSM 
equipment. On the other hand, non-commercial operators--such as those 
operating privately--are not required to create an organizational 
maintenance structure, but are instead required (both currently and if 
this proposal goes into effect) to have their aircraft inspected in 
accordance with part 91, and to have repairs executed in accordance 
with part 43. Ultimately, all operators' RVSM-related obligations under 
these airworthiness regulations are substantially identical to the 
independent maintenance requirements of section 3 of appendix G. The 
FAA has determined, therefore, that an independent requirement to 
develop and submit RVSM-specific maintenance programs for FAA approval 
is no longer necessary or justified.
    In light of the foregoing, the FAA proposes to revise section 3 of 
appendix G by removing the requirement that an applicant submit an 
approved RVSM maintenance program, currently codified as Sec.  3(b)(1)-
(3). The FAA proposal would reserve Sec.  3(b)(1) and leave in place 
the other application-related requirements and paragraphs. The FAA does 
not intend for this proposal to affect the other elements of an 
application for RVSM authorization.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon 
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. 
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of 
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act 
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create 
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In 
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of 
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with 
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's 
analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for 
simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. Because this 
proposed rulemaking is a retrospective regulatory review, the expected 
outcome would be a cost savings with positive net benefits. The FAA 
has, therefore, determined that this proposed 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. The FAA requests comments with 
supporting justification about the FAA determination of the proposed 
rule providing a cost savings. The reasoning for this determination 
follows:
    This proposed rulemaking would remove the requirement in Appendix G 
of part 91 that operators seeking RVSM authorization must develop and 
submit an RVSM maintenance plan for FAA approval. It would eliminate 
the considerable burden and expense to operators and FAA safety 
inspectors of developing, processing, and approving RVSM maintenance 
plans.
    When the current requirement was established, RVSM systems were yet 
to be incorporated into aircraft type design. This is no longer the 
case. RVSM systems are now incorporated into aircraft type designs and 
supplemental type designs, and operators must properly maintain these 
systems as part of their airworthiness obligation. In light of these 
developments, the requirement in Appendix G of part 91 for RVSM 
applicants to submit specialized maintenance plans is redundant.
    To quantify the relief to part 91 operators and FAA safety 
inspectors from the streamlining of regulations, the FAA has estimated 
three variables, which are: (1) The number of RVSM maintenance programs 
approved for calendar year (CY) 2014, (2) the costs

[[Page 30397]]

per operator of submitting an RVSM maintenance program for FAA 
approval, and (3) the average number of hours expended by an FAA safety 
inspector to review and approve an RVSM maintenance program. The value 
for each of these variables is shown below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Hours expended
                                         Operator cost    by FAA safety
    CY 2014--Number of maintenance       for submitting     inspectors
programs submitted to FAA for approval   a maintenance      reviewing
                  \3\                    program to the    maintenance
                                            FAA for        programs for
                                          approval \4\     approval \5\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,821.................................      $5,000 \6\               12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applying these estimates, the FAA anticipates that operators would 
experience cost savings of approximate $14.1 million in year one of 
implementation. We calculated this figure by multiplying the estimated 
number of maintenance approvals submitted to the FAA during CY 2014 
(2,821 approvals) by each operator's cost for submitting a RVSM 
maintenance program to the FAA for approval ($5,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FAA National Program Tracking and Reporting Subsystem 
(NPTRS). Actual data was available through October. Estimates were 
made for November and December.
    \4\ National Business Aviation Association--Part 91 Operator 
Cost for Submitting an RVSM Approval.
    \5\ FAA Safety Inspectors involved in RVSM authorization 
processing at FAA Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO).
    \6\ This amount consists of $3,123 in operator costs for 
submitting an application form and supporting documentation to a 
RVSM manual preparation service, and then reading, understanding, 
signing, and submitting the completed RVSM maintenance program 
manual to the FAA for approval. The remaining $1,977 is an 
approximation of the amount paid by an operator for RVSM manual 
preparation services. The estimate of $1,977 is an average of quotes 
provided on the Internet by seven companies providing this service. 
These seven quotes ranged from $795 to $3,850.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the cost savings realized by operators, eliminating 
the requirement would free 33,852 hours for FAA safety inspectors to 
perform alternative tasks during year one of implementation. The hours 
are calculated by multiplying the average number of hours FAA safety 
inspectors expend reviewing and approving each RVSM maintenance program 
submitted (12 hours) by the number of RVSM maintenance program 
approvals estimated for CY 2014 (2,821 approvals). The annual cost 
savings of $1.1 million to the FAA equals the 33,852 hours multiplied 
by the FAA fully-burdened wage of $33.06.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 2014 General Schedule Salary Table as published by the U. S. 
Office of Personnel Management. The salary used for calculating 
costs savings is the fully-burdened hourly wage for a GS 12 Step 5, 
which is the mid-range salary for this position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these calculations, the cost savings to operators during 
the first five years of the rule's implementation would be 
approximately $70.5 million ($61.9 million present value), and the FAA 
cost savings would total $5.6 million ($4.9 million present value). The 
results are presented below.

                                Cost Savings Due to Proposed Rule--Millions of $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2014       2015       2016       2017       2018      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operator Cost Savings.........................      $14.1      $14.1      $14.1      $14.1      $14.1      $70.5
Present Value 7%--(Millions of $).............       14.1       13.2       12.3       11.5       10.8       61.9
FAA Cost Savings..............................        1.1        1.1        1.1        1.1        1.1        5.6
Present Value 7%--(Millions of $).............        1.1        1.0        1.0        0.9        0.9        4.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add due to rounding.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation.'' To achieve this principle, agencies are 
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to 
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals 
are given serious consideration.''
    The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small 
businesses, not-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 an agency anticipates such an impact, the agency 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. 
Section 603 of the RFA requires agencies to prepare and make available 
for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) 
describing the impact of proposed rule on small entities. This rule is 
relieving. The FAA is issuing this rule to eliminate duplicative 
requirements. The FAA estimates that this rule would reduce firm's 
costs by $5,000 to develop and submit an RVSM maintenance plan. Under 
Section 603(b), this initial analysis must account for the following 
issues, which are addressed below:
 Description of Reasons the Agency Is Considering the Action
    All part 91 operator RVSM-related obligations are required by FAA 
airworthiness regulations to maintain RVSM equipment in an airworthy 
condition. Thus, the requirement in section 3 of Appendix G, that 
operators seeking RVSM authorization to develop and submit an RVSM 
maintenance plan for FAA approval342 is redundant. The FAA estimates 
that the removal of this redundant requirement will save each affected 
small entity $5,000 per RVSM authorization.

[[Page 30398]]

 Statement of the Legal Basis and Objectives for the Proposed 
Rule
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 
found in 49 U.S.C. Sections 106, 40113, and 44701 therein authorize the 
FAA Administrator to prescribe regulations necessary for aviation 
safety. Section 40103 authorizes the Administrator to prescribe 
regulations to enhance the efficiency of the national airspace. This 
rulemaking is within the scope of these authorities because it removes 
existing safety and airspace-related regulations that the FAA no longer 
finds necessary to protect aviation safety.
 Description of the Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 
Requirements of the Proposed Rule
    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that 
there would be no new requirement for information collection associated 
with this proposed rule.
 All Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict 
With the Proposed Rule
    The FAA is not aware of any Federal rules that would duplicate, 
overlap or conflict with this proposed change. This rule would reduce 
duplicative requirements saving firms about $5,000.
 Description and an Estimated Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rule Would Apply
    Under the RFA, the FAA must determine whether a proposed rule 
significantly affects a substantial number of small entities. This 
determination is typically based on small entity size and revenue 
thresholds that vary depending on the affected industry.\8\ In most 
cases, the FAA cannot determine the size of part 91 operators because 
financial and employment data for privately held entities is sparse. 
Nevertheless, we believe the number of small business entities is 
substantial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Thresholds are based on the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS). The NAICS is the standard used by 
Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments 
for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical 
data related to the U.S. business economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Alternatives Considered
    Alternative 1: Do Nothing.
    Analysis: Without changes to Appendix G of part 91, any operator 
seeking RVSM authorization would continue to be required to develop and 
submit an RVSM maintenance program. A non-commercial operator with no 
requirement to hold a maintenance program for any other performance-
based authorization would nevertheless be required to develop and 
obtain FAA approval of an RVSM maintenance program--despite the fact 
that the operator is already required by FAA regulations to maintain 
RVSM equipment in accordance with its type designation and in a 
condition for safe operation. Furthermore, the review and approval of 
this information would continue to consume FAA resources.
    Alternative 2: Replace the current Appendix G requirement that 
operators include an ``approved RVSM maintenance program'' with a 
requirement that operators ``identify practices'' for the maintenance 
of RVSM equipment
    Analysis: Relaxing Appendix G application requirements to allow 
operators to ``identify practices'' for the maintenance of RVSM 
equipment would allow a non-commercial operator to cite the applicable 
manufacturer's maintenance manual or instructions for continued 
airworthiness. This alternative would likely reduce the time and 
resources spent by operators and the FAA in compiling and reviewing 
RVSM applications. This alternative is undesirable, however, because it 
fails to address the absence of any safety benefits associated with 
continuing to require RVSM maintenance programs as a component of an 
RVSM application.
    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. 
This rule would eliminate an existing duplicative requirement. In doing 
so, this rule would, reduce a firm's costs by $5,000; hence the rule 
reduces costs. 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 because this 
rule is cost relieving.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such 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 proposed rule and determined that 
it would have the same impact on domestic and international entities 
and thus has a neutral trade impact.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151.0 million in lieu of $100 
million. This proposed 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 (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) 
requires the FAA to consider the impact of paperwork and other 
information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has 
determined no PRA requirement for information collection associated 
with this proposed rule. Specifically, the cost of preparing and 
obtaining approval of a maintenance program was never evaluated as a 
paperwork burden in the original PRA Supporting Statement of RVSM (OMB 
Control no. 2120-0679).

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    (1) 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 
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.
    (2) Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory

[[Page 30399]]

cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, 
security, environmental, and other issues, and to 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.

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 rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 312d (regulatory documents covering 
administrative or procedural requirements) and involves no 
extraordinary circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has 
determined that this action would 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, would not have 
Federalism implications.

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

    The FAA analyzed this proposed 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 
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order 
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

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 proposals in 
this NPRM. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of 
the proposal, 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 proposed rulemaking. 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 
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without 
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in 
light of the comments it receives.
    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should 
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 DOT 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 notice number of this 
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, 
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, Aviation safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend 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, 40103, 40113, 40120, 
44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 
44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 
47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).

0
2. Amend Appendix G, Section 3 by removing and reserving paragraph 
(b)(1).

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113 and 
44701 in Washington, DC, on May 20, 2015.
John S. Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-12816 Filed 5-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


