[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 27, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33152-33156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-15719]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AWA-3]
Proposed Establishment of Class C Airspace and Revocation of
Class D Airspace, Cyril E. King Airport; VI
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to establish a Class C airspace area and
revoke the existing Class D airspace area at the Cyril E. King Airport,
Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, VI. The Cyril E. King Airport is a public-
use facility with a Level II control tower served by Limited Radar
Approach Control. The establishment of this Class C airspace area would
require pilots to maintain two-way radio communications with air
traffic control (ATC) while in Class C airspace. Implementation of the
Class C airspace area would promote the efficient control of air
traffic and reduce the risk of midair collision in the terminal area.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 4, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules
Docket [AGC-10], Airspace Docket No. 95-AWA-3, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
The official docket may be examined in the Rules Docket, Office of
the Chief Counsel, Room 916, weekdays, except Federal holidays, between
8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Regional Air Traffic Division, P.O. Box
20636, Atlanta, GA 30320.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia P. Crawford, Airspace and
Obstruction Evaluation Branch (ATP-240), Airspace-Rules and
Aeronautical Information Division, Air Traffic Rules and Procedures
Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-9255.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-
AWA-3.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed
in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available
for examination in the Rules Docket both before and after the closing
date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-220,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)
267-3485. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's
should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which
describes the application procedure.
Background
On April 22, 1982, the National Airspace Review (NAR) plan was
published in the Federal Register (47 FR 17448). The plan encompassed a
review of airspace use and procedural aspects of the ATC system. Among
the main objectives of the NAR was the improvement of the ATC system by
[[Page 33153]] increasing efficiency and reducing complexity. In its
review of terminal airspace, NAR Task Group 1-2 concluded that Terminal
Radar Service Areas (TRSA's) should be replaced. Four types of airspace
configurations were considered as replacement candidates, of which
Model B, since redesignated Airport Radar Service Area (ARSA), was
recommended by a consensus of the task group.
The FAA published NAR Recommendation 1-2.2.1, ``Replace Terminal
Radar Service Areas with Model B Airspace and Service'' in Notice 83-9
(July 28, 1983; 48 FR 34286) proposing the establishment of ARSA's at
the Robert Mueller Municipal Airport, Austin, TX, and the Port of
Columbus International Airport, Columbus, OH. ARSA's were designated at
these airports on a temporary basis by SFAR No. 45 (October 28, 1983;
48 FR 50038) to provide an operational confirmation of the ARSA concept
for potential application on a national basis.
Following a confirmation period of more than a year, the FAA
adopted the NAR recommendation and, on February 27, 1985, issued a
final rule (50 FR 9252; March 6, 1985) defining ARSA airspace and
establishing air traffic rules for operation within such an area.
Concurrently, by separate rulemaking action, ARSA's were
permanently established at the Austin, TX, Columbus, OH, and the
Baltimore/Washington International Airports (50 FR 9250; March 6,
1985). The FAA stated that future notices would propose ARSA's for
other airports at which TRSA procedures were in effect.
Additionally, the NAR Task Group recommended that the FAA develop
quantitative criteria for proposing to establish ARSA's at locations
other than those which were included in the TRSA replacement program.
The task group recommended that these criteria include, among other
things, traffic mix, flow and density, airport configuration,
geographical features, collision risk assessment, and ATC capabilities
to provide service to users. These criteria have been developed and are
being published via the FAA directives system.
The FAA has established ARSA's at 121 locations under a paced
implementation plan to replace TRSA's with ARSA's. This is one of a
series of notices to implement ARSA's at locations with TRSA's or
locations without TRSA's that warrant implementation of an ARSA.
Airspace Reclassification, effective September 16, 1993, reclassified
ARSA's as Class C airspace areas. This change in terminology is
reflected in the remainder of this NPRM.
This notice proposes Class C airspace designation at a location
which was not identified as a candidate for Class C in the preamble to
Amendment No. 71-10 (50 FR 9252). Other candidate locations will be
proposed in future notices published in the Federal Register.
The Cyril E. King Airport is a public-use airport with an operating
Level II control tower served by Limited Radar Approach Control.
Passenger enplanements reported at Cyril E. King Airport were 640,642,
583,817, and 602,373, respectively, for calendar years 1993, 1992, and
1991. This volume of passenger enplanements and aircraft operations
meets the FAA criteria for establishing Class C airspace to enhance
safety.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish a Class C airspace
area and revoke the Class D airspace area at the Cyril E. King Airport,
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, VI. Cyril E. King Airport is a public
airport with a Level II operating control tower served by Limited Radar
Approach Control.
The FAA published a final rule (50 FR 9252; March 6, 1985) which
defines Class C airspace, and prescribes operating rules for aircraft,
ultralight vehicles, and parachute jump operations in Class C airspace
areas. The final rule provides, in part, that all aircraft arriving at
any airport in Class C airspace or flying through Class C airspace
must: (1) prior to entering the Class C airspace, establish two-way
radio communications with the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the
area; and (2) while in Class C airspace, maintain two-way radio
communications with that ATC facility. For aircraft departing from the
primary airport within Class C airspace area, or a satellite airport
with an operating control tower, two-way radio communications must be
established and maintained with the control tower and thereafter as
instructed by ATC while operating in Class C airspace. For aircraft
departing a satellite airport without an operating control tower and
within Class C airspace, two-way radio communications must be
established with the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the area as
soon as practicable after takeoff and thereafter maintained while
operating within the Class C airspace area (14 CFR 91.130).
Pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations section 91.130 (14 CFR
part 91) all aircraft operating within Class C airspace are required to
comply with sections 91.129 and 91.130. Ultralight vehicle operations
and parachute jumps in Class C airspace areas may only be conducted
under the terms of an ATC authorization.
The FAA adopted the NAR Task Group recommendation that each Class C
airspace area be of the same airspace configuration insofar as is
practicable. The standard Class C airspace area consists of that
airspace within 5 nautical miles of the primary airport, extending from
the surface to an altitude of 4,000 feet above that airport's
elevation, and that airspace between 5 and 10 nautical miles from the
primary airport from l,200 feet above the surface to an altitude of
4,000 feet above that airport's elevation. Proposed deviations from
this standard have been necessary at some airports because of adjacent
regulatory airspace, international boundaries, topography, or unusual
operational requirements. The proposed Class C airspace area for the
Cyril E. King Airport would consist of that airspace extending upward
from the surface to and including 4,000 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius
of the airport, and that airspace extending upward from 1,900 feet MSL
to and including 4,000 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius of the airport.
Definitions and operating requirements applicable to Class C
airspace may be found in section 71.51 of part 71 and sections 91.1 and
91.130 of part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR parts 71,
91). The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class C and Class D airspace designations are
published, respectively, in paragraphs 4000 and 5000 of FAA Order
7400.9B dated July 18, 1994, and effective September 16, 1994, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class C airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order and the Class D airspace designation listed in this document
would be removed subsequently from the Order.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
The FAA has determined that this rulemaking is not a ``significant
rulemaking action,'' as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review). The anticipated costs and benefits associated
with this notice are summarized below. (A detailed discussion of costs
and benefits is contained in the full evaluation in the docket for this
notice.) [[Page 33154]]
Costs
The establishment of the proposed St. Thomas Class C airspace area
would impose a one-time FAA administrative cost of $600. For the
aviation community (namely, aircraft operators and fixed-based
operators), the NPRM would impose little, if any, operating or
equipment cost. The potential costs are presented below.
For the proposed Class C airspace area, the FAA does not expect to
incur any additional costs for ATC staffing, training, or facility
equipment. The FAA is confident that it can handle any additional
traffic that would participate in radar services through more efficient
use of personnel at the current staffing level.
The FAA holds an informal public meeting at each proposed Class C
airspace area location. These meetings provide pilots with the best
opportunity to learn both how a Class C airspace area works and how it
would affect their local operations. The expenses associated with these
public meetings are incurred regardless of whether a Class C airspace
area is ultimately established. Thus, they are more appropriately
considered routine FAA costs. If the proposed Class C airspace area
becomes a final rule, any subsequent public information costs would be
strictly attributed to the proposal. For instance, the FAA would
distribute a Letter To Airmen to all pilots residing within 50 miles of
the Class C airspace area site. The Letter to Airmen would cost
approximately $600. This one-time negligible cost would be incurred
upon the initial establishment of the proposed Class C airspace area.
The FAA anticipates that some pilots who currently transit the
terminal area without establishing radio communications may choose to
navigate around the proposed airspace. However, the FAA contends that
these operators could navigate around, over, or, in certain cases,
under the airspace without significantly deviating from their regular
flight paths.
The FAA recognizes that delays might develop at St. Thomas
following the initial establishment of the Class C airspace area.
However, those delays that do occur are typically transitional in
nature. The FAA contends that any potential delays would eventually be
more than offset by the increased flexibility afforded controllers in
handling traffic as a result of Class C separation standards. This has
been the experience at other Class C airspace areas.
Aircraft operating in the vicinity of the proposed airspace already
have a requirement for two-way radio communications capability and,
therefore, would not be expected to incur any additional costs.
If the proposed Class C airspace area becomes a final rule,
operators would be subject to the Mode C Rule. That rule requires all
aircraft to be equipped with an operable transponder with Mode C
capability when operating in and above a Class C airspace area (up to
10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL)). Some aircraft operators may have to
acquire (or upgrade to) a Mode C transponder as a result of the
proposed airspace. However, the cost of acquiring a Mode C transponder
for all aircraft in the U.S was completely accounted for as a cost of
the Mode C Rule.
The FAA has also adopted regulations requiring certain aircraft
operators to install Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS), which
allows air carriers to determine the position of other aircraft from
the signal emitted by Mode C transponders. TCAS issues conflict
resolution advisories as to what evasive actions are most appropriate
for avoiding potential midair collisions. The TCAS Rule would not
contribute to the potential costs of the proposed Class C airspace
area, but it would contribute to the potential safety benefits. The
benefits of the proposed St. Thomas Class C airspace area are discussed
below.
Benefits
The primary benefit of the proposed St. Thomas Class C airspace
area would be enhanced aviation safety for the increasing number of
passengers carrying aircraft transiting through this airspace. The
volume of passenger enplanements at St. Thomas has risen dramatically.
Enplanements in 1995 are projected to be 648,000, up from 491,000 in
1990; by the year 2000, enplanements are projected to be 810,000. This
high volume of passenger enplanements has made St. Thomas eligible to
become a Class C airspace area. The complexity of aircraft operations
at St. Thomas has also increased. Complexity refers to air traffic
conditions resulting from a mix of controlled or uncontrolled aircraft
(pilots that are not in contact with ATC) that vary widely in speed and
maneuverability. As this mix increases, so does the potential for
midair collisions.
To study the effect that Class C airspace areas has on reducing
this risk of midair collisions, the FAA looked at the occurrences of
near-midair collisions (NMAC). In a study of NMAC data, the FAA's
Office of Aviation Safety found that approximately 15 percent of
reported NMAC's occur in airspace similar to that at St. Thomas. This
study found that about half of all NMAC's occur in the 1,000- to 5,000-
foot altitude range, which is closely comparable to the altitudes where
aircraft operate around airports that qualify for Class C airspace
areas. This study also found that over 85 percent of NMAC's occur in
visual flight rules (VFR) conditions when visibility is 5 miles or
greater. Finally, the study found that the largest number of NMAC
reports are associated with instrument flight rules (IFR) operators
under radar control conflicting with VFR traffic during VFR flight
conditions below 12,500 feet. The mandatory participation requirements
of the Class C airspace area and the radar services provided by ATC to
VFR as well as IFR pilots would help alleviate such conflicts.
Ordinarily, the benefit of a reduction in the risk of midair
collisions from establishing a Class C airspace area would be
attributed entirely to establishing the proposed Class C airspace area.
However, an indeterminate amount of the benefits has to be credited to
the interaction of the proposed Class C airspace area (and the Class C
airspace area program in general) with the Mode C Rule, which in turn,
interacts with the TCAS Rule. The proposed Class C airspace area, as
well as other designated airspace actions that require Mode C
transponders, cannot be separated from the benefits of the Mode C and
TCAS Rules. These four actions would share potential benefits totaling
$4.4 billion.
Comparison of Costs and Benefits
The proposed rule to establish a Class C airspace area at St.
Thomas, VI, would impose a negligible cost of $600 on the agency. When
this cost estimate of $600 is added to the total cost of establishing
the other Mode-C-dependent airspace classes and the Mode C Rule and
TCAS Rule, the costs would still be less than their total potential
safety benefits. The proposal would also generate some benefits in the
form of enhanced operational efficiency while imposing little, if any,
additional operating costs on pilots who choose to remain clear of the
proposed airspace. Thus, the FAA believes that the proposed rule would
be cost-beneficial.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The proposal would only affect U.S. terminal airspace operating
procedures at and in the vicinity of St. Thomas, VI. The proposal would
not impose a competitive trade disadvantage on foreign firms in the
sale of either foreign [[Page 33155]] aviation products or services in
the United States. In addition, domestic firms would not incur a
competitive trade disadvantage in either the sale of United States
aviation products or services in foreign countries.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and
disproportionately burdened by government regulations. Small entities
are independently owned and operated small businesses and small not-
for-profit organizations. The RFA requires agencies to review rules
that may have ``a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities.''
Under FAA Order 2100.14A entitled Regulatory Flexibility Criteria
and Guidance, a significant economic impact means annualized net
compliance cost to an entity, which when adjusted for inflation, is
greater than or equal to the threshold cost level for that entity. A
substantial number of small entities means a number that is eleven or
more and is more than one-third the number of the small entities
subject to a proposed or existing rule.
For the purpose of this evaluation, the small entities that would
be potentially affected by the proposed rule are fixed-base operators,
flight schools, banner towing, seaplane shuttle bases, and other small
aviation businesses located at and around St. Thomas. By using cutouts,
special procedures, and Letters of Agreement between ATC and the
affected parties, the FAA would make an effort to eliminate any adverse
affect practicable on the operations of small entities in the vicinity
of St. Thomas. The FAA has utilized such arrangements extensively in
implementing other Class C airspace areas in the past. In addition, any
delay problems that may initially develop following implementation
would be transitory. This has been the experience at other Class C
airspace areas. Thus, the proposed rule would not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Federalism Implications
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed under ``Regulatory Evaluation,'' the FAA
has determined that this rule (1) is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; and (2) is not a ``significant
rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979). It is also certified that this rule does not
require preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under the RFA.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9B, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 18, 1994, and effective September 16,
1994, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 4000 Subpart C--Class C Airspace
* * * * *
ASO VI C Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, VI [New]
Cyril E. King Airport
(lat. 18 deg.20'19'' N., long. 64 deg.58'11'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
4,000 feet MSL within 5-mile radius of the Cyril E. King Airport;
and that airspace extending upward from 1,900 feet to 4,000 feet MSL
within a 10-mile radius of the airport from the 075 deg. bearing
from the airport clockwise to the 020 deg. bearing from the airport.
This Class C airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *
Paragraph 5000 Subpart D--Class D Airspace
* * * * *
ASO VI D Charlotte Amalie Cyril E. King Airport, St. Thomas, VI
[Removed]
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 12, 1995.
Harold W. Becker,
Manager, Airspace-Rules and Aeronautical Information Division.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[[Page 33156]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP27JN95.000
[FR Doc. 95-15719 Filed 6-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-BC
