[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30317-30322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13875]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No.: FAA-2017-0879]
RIN 2120-AA65


Criteria and Process for the Cancellation of Standard Instrument 
Approach Procedures as Part of the National Procedures Assessment (NPA)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Statement of policy.

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

[[Page 30318]]

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is finalizing 
specific criteria to guide the identification and selection of 
appropriate circling procedures that can be considered for 
cancellation. These procedures include certain circling procedures (to 
include circling-only instrument approach procedures (IAPs) and 
circling minima charted on straight-in IAPs). The circling procedures 
associated with this cancellation initiative will be selected based on 
the criteria outlined in this statement of policy. This document is not 
a part of the FAA's VOR minimum operating network (MON) initiative.

DATES: This statement of policy is effective July 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking 
documents and other information related to this statement of policy, 
see ``How To Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lonnie Everhart, Aeronautical 
Information Services, AJV-5, Federal Aviation Administration, Air 
Traffic Organization, 6500 S. MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169; 
Telephone (405) 954-4576; Email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority for This Rulemaking

    Under 49 U.S.C. 40103(a), the Administrator has broad authority to 
regulate the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. The 
Administrator is also authorized to issue air traffic rules and 
regulations to govern the flight, navigation, protection, and 
identification of aircraft for the protections of persons and property 
on the ground and for the efficient use of the navigable airspace. 49 
U.S.C. 40103(b). Under section 44701(a)(5), the Administrator promotes 
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing 
regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and 
procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. 
This action is within the scope of that authority.
    SIAPs are promulgated by rulemaking procedures and are incorporated 
by reference pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 into Title 
14 of the Code of Federal Regulations; Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), 
Subpart C--TERPS Procedures.

II. Background

    The National Airspace System (NAS) is currently in transition to a 
``NextGen NAS.'' During this transition, the FAA is managing the 
technology and procedures to support both the legacy (NavAid-based) NAS 
as well as the NextGen (satellite-based) NAS. As new technology has 
facilitated the introduction of area navigation (RNAV) instrument 
approach procedures over the past decade, the number of procedures 
available in the NAS has nearly doubled. The complexity and cost to the 
FAA of maintaining the instrument flight procedures inventory while 
expanding the new RNAV capability is not sustainable. Managing two 
versions of the NAS requires excess manpower, infrastructure, and 
information management which is costly and unsupportable in the long-
term. To mitigate these costs, the FAA has a number of efforts underway 
to effectively transition from the legacy to the NextGen NAS. One area 
of focus for this transition is instrument flight procedures (IFPs). 
The FAA seeks to ensure an effective transition from ground-based IFPs 
to greater availability and use of satellite-based IFPs while 
maintaining NAS safety.
    In early 2015, the FAA requested the RTCA's Tactical Operations 
Committee (TOC) \1\ with providing recommendations on criteria and 
processes for cancelling instrument flight procedures. Among the many 
recommendations provided by the TOC were criteria to identify circling 
procedures that would qualify as candidates for cancellation. As of 
March 29, 2018, there are 12,068 IAPs in publication, consisting of 
33,825 lines of minima, 11,701 of which are circling lines of minima. 
This represents a nearly 9 percent increase in IAP lines of minima from 
September 18, 2014. Circling procedures account for approximately one-
third of all lines of minima for IAPs in the NAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The TOC is a subcommittee comprised of FAA and industry 
representatives established under the RTCA advisory committee in 
accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(FACA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the unsustainable growth in the number of IFPs, the 
FAA requested feedback and recommendations from the RTCA TOC related to 
removing underutilized or unneeded IFPs to facilitate a transition to 
NextGen and reduce FAA maintenance costs related to IFPs. The task 
group assigned to study IFP reduction adopted the following guiding 
principles when considering their recommendations:
     Utilization was determined not to be a valid stand-alone 
criterion, as usage data can be inaccurate or unavailable in some cases 
and does not necessarily reflect the operational value of an IFP.
     Effort was focused on a NAS-level examination of public 
procedures maintained by the FAA. Additionally, specific criteria for 
special operating conditions, such as those in Alaska, where additional 
considerations may be required, should be developed apart from this 
effort.
     The FAA procedure reduction program is highly dependent 
upon and interwoven with other efforts such as VOR Minimum Operating 
Network (MON), the Performance Based Navigation (PBN) NAS Navigation 
Strategy effort and the ongoing rewrite of the Regional Airspace 
Procedures Team (RAPT) Order, and these efforts need to be synchronized 
as each effort progresses.
     Airways were deemed to be beyond the focus of this group's 
effort.
     When evaluating any procedure, air traffic personnel and 
operators should be involved.

Proposed Criteria

    In its continued effort to right-size the NAS through optimization 
and elimination of redundant and unnecessary IAPs, on October 6, 2017, 
the FAA published a proposed policy and request for comment that 
identified the following criteria to guide the identification and 
selection of appropriate circling procedures to be considered for 
cancellation. 82 FR 46738.
    The FAA proposed that all circling procedures will continue to be 
reviewed through the established IAP periodic review process.\2\ As 
part of that review process, the FAA proposed that each circling 
procedure be evaluated against the following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 2-8 of FAA Order 8260.19 (Flight Procedures and 
Airspace) sets forth the minimum frequency of review of instrument 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Is this procedure a designated MON airport procedure?
     If multiple IAPs serve a single runway end, is this the 
lowest circling minima for that runway?

    Note:  If the RNAV circling minima is not the lowest, but is 
within 50' of the lowest, the FAA would give the RNAV preference.

     Would cancellation result in removal of circling minima 
from all conventional NAVAID procedures at an airport?

    Note:  If circling minima exists for multiple Conventional 
NAVAID procedures, preference would be to retain ILS circling 
minima.

     Would cancellation result in all circling minima being 
removed from all airports within 20 NM?

[[Page 30319]]

     Will removal eliminate lowest landing minima to an 
individual runway?
    The following questions are applicable only to circling-only 
procedures:
     Does this circling-only procedure exist because of high 
terrain or an obstacle that makes a straight-in procedure unfeasible or 
which would result in the straight-in minimums being higher than the 
circling minima?
     Is this circling-only procedure (1) at an airport where 
not all runway ends have a straight-in IAP, and (2) does it have a 
Final Approach Course not aligned within 45 degrees of a runway which 
has a straight-in IAP?
    The FAA proposed that further consideration for cancellation under 
this policy would be terminated if any of the aforementioned questions 
are answered in the affirmative. If all questions are answered in the 
negative, the procedure would be processed as described in the 
following paragraph.
    When a candidate has been identified, Aeronautical Information 
Services would send a notification of procedure cancellation memorandum 
and completed checklist to the appropriate Regional Service Area, 
Operations Support Group.\3\ The Regional Service Area, Operations 
Support Group would follow the same notification process used for 
standard IFP requests.\4\ Consistent with FAA procedures outlined in 
the procedure cancellation memorandum, comments regarding the 
aforementioned circling procedure would need to be submitted within 30 
days of the timestamp on the communication media through which it was 
delivered. Comments would be directed to the Regional Service Area, 
Operations Support Group for dissemination to Aeronautical Information 
Services. Comments would be adjudicated by Aeronautical Information 
Services within 30 days of the timestamp on the communication media 
through which it was received. A final decision would be forwarded to 
Regional Service Area, Operations Support Group to disseminate to 
commenter(s). The cancellation of the part 97 instrument procedure will 
be published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The FAA has placed sample copies of the memorandum and 
checklist into the docket for this document.
    \4\ FAA Order 8260.43 (Flight Procedures Management Program) and 
FAA Order 8260.26 (Establishing Submission Cutoff Dates for Civil 
Instrument Procedures) contain additional information on this 
process. These orders are available on the FAA website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its proposed policy, the FAA noted that National Procedures 
Assessment (NPA) Instrument Flight Procedure (IFP) cancellation 
activities and associated criteria do not supersede similar activities 
being performed under the FAA's VOR MON Program. See 81 FR 48694 (July 
26, 2016). However, NPA IFP cancellation activities have been 
coordinated with the FAA office responsible for the VOR MON 
implementation program, and its input has been thoroughly considered.

III. Discussion of Comments Received

    The FAA received 11 comments pertaining to the proposed statement 
of policy. Commenters included the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
Association (AOPA), National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), and 
nine individuals.
    AOPA suggested adding language to the proposed policy to point out 
the cancellation criteria's consideration of circling procedures being 
required for pilot training and testing. AOPA expressed concern that 
flight procedures critical to part 142 training centers could be 
cancelled without the awareness of these training centers, and 
requested coordination with the National Simulator Program (and 
simulator operators) before any IFPs are cancelled to prevent adversely 
hindering simulator training and testing. AOPA also requested the FAA 
implement outreach recommendations made in the March 2016 RTCA NPA 
Report ``Process and Criteria for Cancellation of Instrument Flight 
Procedures'' \5\ to ensure users and air traffic control are able to 
provide input prior to IFP cancellation decisions being made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A copy of this report has been placed in the docket for this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Language has been added to one of the questions used to evaluate 
each circling procedure expressing awareness of the need to retain 
sufficient circling procedures to allow for instrument flight 
proficiency and training. That criterion now states, ``Would 
cancellation result in all circling minima being removed from all 
airports within 20 NM?'' This particular criteria recognizes the 
circling-related content of the Instrument Rating--Airplane Airman 
Certification Standards (ACS). Once a circling procedure is proposed 
for cancellation, it will be posted on the Instrument Flight Procedures 
Information Gateway (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/). This information will be provided to the National 
Simulator Program, Air Traffic Services, and the Operations Support 
Groups. This notification will enable them to maintain awareness of 
IFP-related actions, including proposed cancellations for circling 
procedures, and communicate this site's availability to their 
stakeholders for their awareness. Additionally, language has been added 
to the statement of policy that informs users how to access the FAA's 
Instrument Flight Procedures Information Gateway (IFP Gateway), through 
which they can be notified when there are proposed actions to 
instrument flight procedures at airports of their choosing. Users will 
be able to submit comments pertaining to proposed circling flight 
procedure cancellations, and each comment will be taken into 
consideration before a final determination is made.
    NBAA requested the proposed policy be temporarily suspended while 
Flight Management Systems (FMS) issues that resulted in a number of 
IFPs being inadvertently eliminated from FMS IFP databases could be 
evaluated and considered with respect to the proposed policy.
    The inadvertent removal of IFPs from certain FMS was unrelated to 
any action by the FAA with regard to IFP process. The NBAA's suggestion 
that the effective date of this policy be temporarily suspended or 
delayed while these FMS issues are addressed is not practical 
considering these criteria have been discussed, vetted via the RTCA 
TOC, in which NBAA has been a participant, and finally published in the 
2016 RTCA Final NPA Report. Additionally, any circling procedure 
cancellations that result from implementation of this policy should not 
impact the probability of future FMS issues as mentioned in the NBAA's 
comment.
    One commenter expressed approval of the cancellation of a circling 
procedure only if all runways accessible by the procedure have a 
straight-in IAP with lower minimums than those associated with the 
cancelled procedure. The individual also expressed the need for some 
circling procedures to remain in the NAS given the tasks and maneuvers 
of the Instrument Rating--Airplane Airman Certification Standards 
(ACS).
    The FAA's policy is not intended to ensure straight-in IAPs for 
every runway end, but rather minimizing IFP redundancy in the NAS. The 
FAA acknowledges that with the cancellation of some circling 
procedures, there may be reduced airport accessibility, but no 
reduction in runway availability. To the extent that the commenter 
expressed concern over the ACS, the criteria the FAA is finalizing 
takes into account circling procedures in the ACS. The fourth criteria, 
which asks whether

[[Page 30320]]

cancellation will result in all circling minima being removed from all 
airports within 20 NMs, should ensure that there are sufficient 
circling procedures for pilot training and testing.
    One individual expressed concern that economic, environmental and 
air traffic management impacts of removing the circling approaches 
needs to be considered in this policy. The individual also recommended 
that IFR use over the last several years be evaluated and included as 
part of the policy.
    The FAA has invested significant resources in the infrastructure of 
the NAS pertaining to IFPs, and a significant portion of those 
resources have resulted in an increased number of NextGen IFPs. Because 
of this, the IFP inventory is at an unsustainable level given the 
current and projected resources needed to maintain IFPs. Also, the 
criteria outlined in the proposed policy is a result of a collaborative 
effort between the FAA and aviation industry stakeholders to accomplish 
a reduction in the number of circling procedures while considering the 
very concerns expressed by the individual. One of the guiding 
principles adopted by the TOC Task Group in considering their 
recommendations for this effort was that IFP utilization was determined 
not to be a valid stand-alone criterion, as usage data can be 
inaccurate or unavailable in some cases and does not necessarily 
reflect the operational value of an IFP. The proposed criteria are only 
a foundation for identifying procedures for cancellation and is not 
sole justification for any IFP being cancelled. Once a procedure is 
identified and proposed for cancellation, and that proposal is posted 
on the IFP Gateway, stakeholders will have the opportunity to present 
their justification for retaining that procedure, and each 
justification will be considered and adjudicated before a determination 
is made to either retain or cancel that procedure.
    One individual stated that the proposed policy does not account for 
convenience and efficiency, and provided an example of the VOR-A at 
MOTON FIELD MUNI (K06A). The individual also asked the FAA to add the 
following to the criteria:
     Does circling allow the pilot to access runways not served 
by other IAPs?
     Does the existing approach allow the pilot to approach the 
field and/or access the runway more directly than the alternative 
straight in approaches?
     Are sufficient alternatives available so that the removal 
of this circling approach will not force pilots to fly significantly 
further to access each runway when considering all possible arrival 
sectors and winds?
     Would removing this circling approach cause harm by 
forcing pilots to fly further to access straight in approaches?
    As stated previously, the proposed policy could minimally impact 
accessibility to some airports, but the current inventory of IFPs is 
not sustainable. The proposed policy is intended to minimize IFP 
redundancy currently present in the NAS, and convenience and efficiency 
could be impacted at some airports. However, convenience and efficiency 
have also been significantly enhanced at numerous airports with the 
implementation of NextGen IFPs, so the commenter's assertion would need 
to be considered for each specific IFP and each airport with 
consideration given to the IFP enhancements made at that airport over 
the last several years. As noted, the public will have an opportunity 
to provide comment on a proposed cancellation of a specific IFP prior 
to its cancellation.
    The K06A VOR-A is a good example of the IFP redundancy that 
currently exists within the NAS, as it highlights the investment of 
resources in NextGen IFPs. At this particular airport, K06A, two RNAV 
(GPS) IAPs have been installed--one for each runway end. Both of the 
NextGen approaches have circling minima as good as or better than the 
minima offered by the VOR-A. Additionally, both of the NextGen IAPs 
have straight-in minima substantially better than the circling minima 
offered by the VOR-A, and yet the commenter points out that the VOR-A 
is useful because the NextGen IAPs add significant distance (time and 
fuel) to ``shoot those approaches from the north or south.'' The FAA 
notes that NextGen IAPs can also be used to approach from a particular 
direction, east in the commenter's comment, then circle to land on the 
appropriate runway if needed. Additionally, straight-in approaches with 
circling minima are viable IAPs for circling to other runways at that 
airport in accordance with any circling restrictions noted on the 
associated IAP.
    Regarding the additional questions the commenter recommended adding 
to the criteria, the first criterion request is unnecessary as the 
FAA's proposed criteria prevents the cancellation of all circling 
procedures at an airport, so runways currently accessible via circling 
will remain accessible. For the other 3 criteria recommendations from 
the commenter, all users will be able to provide justification for 
objecting to the cancellation of specific circling procedures once a 
particular circling procedure has been proposed for cancellation and 
publicized on the IFP Gateway, and those objections will be adjudicated 
on their own merits. Additionally, the commenter's terms ``more 
directly'', ``significantly further'', and ``cause harm'' are both 
subjective and ambiguous, and do not provide measurable elements with 
which to determine a specific procedure's necessity and/or value.
    One individual expressed their approval of the proposed policy and 
expressed their opinion, based upon their stated aviation experience, 
that circle-to-land maneuvers are dangerous as they can lead to task 
saturation. The commenter also supported the proposed criteria that 
ensures at least one circling procedure remains at airports that 
currently have a circling procedure.
    The FAA appreciates the commenter's support of this initiative, but 
also recognizes the need and purpose for circling procedures in the 
NAS. While circling maneuvers may involve unique requirement for 
aviators and air traffic control specialists, it is something that is 
accounted for in training requirements and, as such, is not considered 
dangerous. The FAA recognizes that unique situations and conditions 
could warrant a circling approach, and the design criteria for circling 
approaches reflects that.
    One individual expressed concern regarding their inability to 
utilize RNAV (GPS) IFPs due to their lack of ADS-B equipage at this 
time, and the only non-NextGen IAP at their home airport, CLARENCE E. 
PAGE MUNI (KRCE), is the VOR-B.
    The FAA notes that this particular approach would not be considered 
for cancellation as part of this policy due to it not meeting the 
criteria that states, ``Would cancellation result in removal of 
circling minima from all conventional NAVAID procedures at an 
airport?'' Because the cancellation of the KRCE VOR-B would result in 
the cancellation of circling minima from all conventional NAVAID 
procedures at KRCE, it would not be considered for cancellation as part 
of this policy.
    One individual expressed concerns pertaining to the safety critical 
nature of circling minima for piston aircraft due to the ability to 
remain in closer proximity to an airport than when using ``direct RNAV 
approaches,'' and cited ``deteriorating weather, possible icing, and 
thunder storm conditions'' as justification for retention of circling 
minima. The individual's assertions lack sufficient details and 
specifics for

[[Page 30321]]

the FAA to provide an informed response. Accounting for every possible 
situation and condition of flight with flight procedures is not 
practical. Both circling maneuvers and straight-in maneuvers are 
evaluated using the same criteria and one is not safer than the other 
is. Access to airports is a separate issue and should be raised to the 
airport owner/operator and Air Traffic Control through comments 
submitted after notification of a candidate procedure for cancellation 
under this program.
    One individual requested the following criteria to assure that the 
FAA maintains or improves the access to the airport, stating that 
access to a candidate location should never be reduced in the interest 
of process efficiency:

 Availability of SBAS approach procedure to the intended 
landing runway in lieu of the circle approach to provide direct access 
to that runway
 If SBAS and ground based navigation is available at that 
facility the circling minima for the ground based approach should be 
retained to allow facility access in the event that GPS availability is 
degraded or not available

    As previously stated, this IFP reduction effort could impact access 
at some airports, but the criteria in this policy are in agreement with 
the PBN NAS Navigation Strategy effort. The addition of NextGen IFPs at 
airports across the country has substantially improved access at 
numerous airports, which significantly offsets and frequently outweighs 
claims of circling procedure cancellations resulting in reduced access 
to airports. The transition to a predominantly NextGen NAS requires a 
reduction in ground-based IFPs and infrastructure as outlined in the 
VOR MON Final Policy Statement published in the Federal Register July 
26, 2016. VOR MON policy specifically states, ``The MON will enable 
pilots to revert from Performance Based Navigation (PBN) to 
conventional navigation for approach, terminal and en route operations 
in the event of a GPS outage and supports the NAS transition from VOR-
based routes to a more efficient PBN structure consistent with NextGen 
goals and the NAS Efficient Streamlined Services Initiative.'' In 
accordance with VOR MON, NextGen, NAS Efficient Streamlined Services 
Initiative, and PBN NAS Navigation Strategy, conventional navigation 
services for approach, terminal and en route operations will be 
minimized in a strategic manner consistent with these initiatives.
    One individual recommended additional criteria to take into 
consideration nearby ``high volume airports'' when considering the 
cancellation of circling procedures, and the example of using the ILS 
OR LOC RWY 16 to circle to land RWY 34 at CHICAGO EXECUTIVE (KPWK), and 
its ``close proximity to CHICAGO OHARE INTL (KORD)'' as an example. The 
criteria requested by the individual states, ``Would the potential 
cancelling of the circling minimums involve an airport that is in close 
proximity to a high volume airport, impact safety, procedures or 
encounter delays?''
    In the commenter's example, the ILS OR LOC RWY 16 at KPWK would 
retain its circling minima in accordance with the FAA's proposed 
policy's criteria, ``Would cancellation result in removal of circling 
minima from all conventional NAVAID procedures at an airport? Note: If 
circling minima exists for multiple Conventional NAVAID procedures, 
preference would be to retain ILS circling minima.''
    Regarding the criteria proposed by the individual, circling 
procedures are being reviewed at every U.S. airport that has instrument 
approach procedures. ATC's involvement via notification from the 
Operations Support Group (Flight Procedures Team) will allow them ample 
opportunity to prevent the cancellation of circling procedures they 
deem necessary to their operations, and public notification, via the 
IFP Gateway, will allow the public ample opportunity to communicate 
concerns regarding the proposed cancellation of any circling procedure.

IV. Statement of Policy

    Based on the comments received, the FAA is finalizing the following 
policy regarding the criteria and process for the cancellation of 
standard instrument approach procedures as Part of the national 
procedures assessment as follows:
    All circling procedures will continue to be reviewed through the 
established IAP periodic review process.\6\ As part of that review 
process, each circling procedure will be evaluated against the 
following questions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Section 2-8 of FAA Order 8260.19 (Flight Procedures and 
Airspace) sets forth the minimum frequency of review of instrument 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Is this the only IAP at the airport?
     Is this procedure a designated MON airport procedure?
     If multiple IAPs serve a single runway end, does this 
procedure provide the lowest circling minima for that runway? \7\ Note: 
If the RNAV circling minima is not the lowest, but is within 50' of the 
lowest, the FAA would give the RNAV preference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This criterion has been slightly reworded for clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Would cancellation result in removal of circling minima 
from all conventional NAVAID procedures at an airport? Note: If 
circling minima exists for multiple Conventional NAVAID procedures, 
preference would be to retain ILS circling minima.
     Would cancellation result in all circling minima being 
removed from all airports within 20 NMs? This particular criterion 
recognizes the circling content of the Instrument Rating--Airplane 
Airman Certification Standards (ACS).
     Will removal eliminate lowest landing minima to an 
individual runway?
    The following questions are applicable only to circling-only 
procedures:
     Does this circling-only procedure exist because of high 
terrain or an obstacle which makes a straight-in procedure infeasible 
or which would result in the straight-in minimums being higher than the 
circling minima?
     Is this circling-only procedure (1) at an airport where 
not all runway ends have a straight-in IAP, and (2) does it have a 
Final Approach Course not aligned within 45 degrees of a runway which 
has a straight-in IAP?
    Further consideration for cancellation under this policy will be 
terminated if any of the aforementioned questions are answered in the 
affirmative. If all questions are answered in the negative, the 
procedure will be processed as described in the following paragraph.
    When a candidate has been identified for cancellation, Aeronautical 
Information Services will post the proposed cancellation on the 
Instrument Flight Procedures Information Gateway (IFP Gateway) (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/) and send a 
notification of procedure cancellation memorandum and completed 
checklist (see attached NPA Checklist Sample) to the appropriate 
Regional Service Area, Operations Support Group.\8\ The Regional 
Service Area, Operations Support Group will follow the same 
notification process used for standard IFP requests.\9\

[[Page 30322]]

Comments regarding the aforementioned circling procedure should be 
submitted via email to: [email protected]. Comments 
will only be considered and adjudicated when submitted prior to the 
comment deadline associated with the flight procedure as listed on the 
IFP Coordination tab of the Instrument Flight Procedures Information 
Gateway site. Aeronautical Information Services will adjudicate and 
respond to each comment within 30 days of being received. When a 
determination is made to cancel a part 97 instrument flight procedure 
or circling line of minima, the cancellation will be published in the 
Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The FAA has placed sample copies of the memorandum and 
checklist into the docket for this document.
    \9\ FAA Order 8260.43 (Flight Procedures Management Program) and 
FAA Order 8260.26 (Establishing Submission Cutoff Dates for Civil 
Instrument Procedures) contain additional information on this 
process. These orders are available on the FAA website.

    Issued in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on June 21, 2018.
Gary Powell,
Director, Aeronautical Information Services.
[FR Doc. 2018-13875 Filed 6-27-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


