[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 164 (Thursday, August 22, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43320-43324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-21479]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AWA-6]
Proposed Establishment of Myrtle Beach International Airport
Class C Airspace Area, SC; and Revocation of the Myrtle Beach AFB Class
D Airspace Area; South Carolina
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 Myrtle Beach
International Airport, Myrtle Beach, SC. The Myrtle Beach International
Airport is a public-use facility with a Level II control tower served
by a 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 use of air
traffic and reduce the risk of midair collision in the terminal area.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules
Docket, AGC-200, Airspace Docket No. 95-AWA-6, 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
Rules Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
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
[[Page 43321]]
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-6.'' 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 Air Traffic Airspace Management, Attention: Airspace and
Rules Division, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591, or by calling (202) 267-3075. Communications must identify the
notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a
mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to 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
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, l985, issued a
final rule (50 FR 9252; March 6, l985) 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,
l985). 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 Myrtle Beach International Airport is a public-use airport with
an operating Level II control tower served by Radar Approach Control.
The FAA assumed responsibility from the U.S. Air Force, for providing
air traffic services at the airport in December 1992. The number of
general aviation and air taxi aircraft operating in the terminal
environment at Myrtle Beach International Airport is increasing. The
volume of passenger enplanements reported at Myrtle Beach International
Airport were 316,809, 274,531, and 290,295, respectively, for calendar
years 1994, 1993, and 1992. Myrtle Beach International Airport
qualifies as a Class C airspace candidate based on the volume of
enplaned passengers.
The Proposal
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish a Class C airspace area at
the Myrtle Beach International Airport and revoke the Class D airspace
area at the Myrtle Beach AFB, SC. Myrtle Beach International Airport is
a public airport with a Level II operating control tower served by a
Radar Approach Control.
The FAA previously has published a final rule (50 FR 9252; March 6,
l985) that 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, 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 section 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
[[Page 43322]]
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 1,200 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.
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
7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, 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
Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to
analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess
the effect of regulatory changes on small entities changes on
international trade. In conducting these analyses, the FAA has
determined that this NPRM: (1) would generate benefits that justify its
minimal costs and is not ``a significant regulatory action'' as defined
in the Executive Order; (2) is not significant as defined in Department
of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (3) would not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities;
and (4) would not constitute a barrier to international trade. These
analyses are summarized below in the docket.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
The FAA has determined the proposed establishment of the Myrtle
Beach Class C airspace area would enhance operational efficiency
(through the promotion of additional ATC operating procedures) and
aviation safety (in the form of reduced risk of midair collision in the
proposed Class C airspace area).
Costs
Those potential cost components (navigational equipment for
aircraft operators and operations support equipment for the FAA,
including additional cost for air traffic controllers) that could be
imposed by the proposed rule are discussed as follows:
Cost Impact on Aircraft Operators
Aircraft operators would incur minimal, if any, cost with
compliance from the proposed rule. The assessment is based on the most
recent General Aviation and Avionics Survey Report. The report
indicates an estimated 82 percent of all General Aviation (GA) aircraft
operators are already equipped with two-way radios that are required to
enter Class C airspace. As of December 30, 1990, all aircraft (except
those without an electrical system, balloons and gliders) flying in the
vicinity of the Myrtle Beach Airport have been required to have a Mode
C transponder under Federal Aviation Regulations (14 part 91.215). The
FAA has traditionally accommodated GA aircraft operators without two-
way radio communication equipment and operators of aircraft without
electrical systems, via ATC authorized deviations or letters of
agreement, when practical to do so without jeopardizing aviation
safety. There would be no additional cost for transponder equipage, as
a result of the proposed rule, because the regulatory evaluation
prepared for the Mode C transponders rule estimated the cost of such
equipment for the affected operators. Not all GA aircraft operators may
receive authorized deviations or letters of agreement, these operators
would be required to circumnavigate the Class C airspace area. The FAA
has determined operators could circumnavigate around the proposed
airspace (5 miles), over, or in certain cases, under the proposed
airspace without significantly deviating from their regular flight
paths. Therefore, the FAA has determined the proposed rule would impose
minimal, if any, cost impact on aircraft operators.
Cost Impact on the FAA
The FAA assumed responsibility for ATC at the Myrtle Beach AFB from
the United States Air Force on December 27, 1992. In that same year, a
review of the radar system at Myrtle Beach was conducted. As a result
of that review, the FAA decided to expedite the replacement of the
computer system in conjunction with the radar scope. Myrtle Beach AFB
installed a new computer system, after the FAA's 1992 review;
therefore, the agency would not incur any additional cost for equipment
(such as consoles) with the proposed establishment of Class C airspace.
The proposed Class C airspace area would also be able to function
effectively with existing personnel resources. Once an NPRM becomes
final, the FAA distributes a Letter to Airmen to pilots residing within
50 miles of the proposed established Class C airspace area. This one-
time incurred cost of the established rule would be approximately $535.
The FAA systematically revises sectional charts every 6 months;
therefore, the proposed rule would not impose any additional charting
costs to the agency. 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. The FAA
recognizes that delays might develop at Myrtle Beach 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 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. Thus, the FAA has determined that the Myrtle Beach
facility is already equipped with the necessary personnel, capability,
and equipment to provide
[[Page 43323]]
Class C services to the maximum extent at minimal cost.
Benefits
Those potential benefit components (enhanced aviation safety and
operational efficiency) that are expected to be generated by the
proposed rule are discussed as follows:
Impact on Aviation Safety
The proposed rule would enhance aviation safety. The enhancement in
aviation safety would be in the form of a reduced probability of midair
collisions. The FAA has increased the controlled airspace around Myrtle
Beach, due to the increase in passenger enplanements and complexity of
operations in that area. The enhancement to aviation safety is based on
the fact that the proposed rule would impose equipment (i.e., two-way
radio and Mode C transponders) and operational requirements (i.e.,
separation procedures and safety alerts) on aircraft operators in the
proposed Class C airspace area. The FAA Office of Aviation Safety
conducted a study of the occurrences of near-midair collisions (NMAC),
the byproduct of the study, was that 15 percent of reported NMAC's
occur in airspace similar to that at Myrtle Beach.
Impact on Operational Efficiency
The proposed rule would enhance aircraft operational efficiency.
This assessment is based on the enhancement in operational efficiency
that would accrue from increased operational requirements in the
proposed Class C airspace area. Aircraft operators in this type of
airspace would receive additional information in the form of traffic
advisories and separation and sequencing of arrivals. The proposed rule
would not have an adverse impact on satellite airports located within
the surface area of the Class C airspace area.
Conclusion
In view of the minimal cost of compliance, enhanced aviation safety
and operational efficiency, the FAA has determined that the proposed
rule would be cost-beneficial.
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 Federal regulations. The RFA requires a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a proposed rule would have
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' FAA Order 2100.14A outlines the FAA's procedures and
criteria for implementing the RFA.
The small entities that may potentially incur minimal, if any, cost
with the implementation of the proposed rule are operators of aircraft
who do not meet Class C navigational equipment standards (primarily
parts 91, 121 and 135 aircraft without two-way radios and Mode C
transponders). The small entities potentially impacted by the proposed
rule would not incur any additional cost for navigational equipment and
more stringent operating procedures because they routinely fly into
airspace where such requirements are already in place. As the result of
the Mode C rule, all of these commercial operators are assumed to have
Mode C transponders. The FAA has traditionally accommodated GA and
other aircraft operators without two-way radio communication equipment
and Mode C transponders, via letters of agreement, when practical to do
so without jeopardizing safety. Therefore, the FAA has determined that
the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The proposed rule would not constitute a barrier to international
trade, including the export of American goods and services to foreign
countries and the import of foreign goods and services into the United
States. This assessment is based on the fact that the proposed rule
would neither impose costs on aircraft operators nor aircraft
manufacturers (U.S. or foreign).
Federalism Implications
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
Government and 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.
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. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 4000--Subpart C--Class C Airspace
* * * * *
ASO SC C Myrtle Beach, SC [New]
Myrtle Beach International Airport
(Lat. 33 deg.40'47'' N., long. 78 deg.55'42'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
4,000 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the Myrtle Beach
International Airport, and that airspace extending upward from 1,200
feet MSL to and including 4,000 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius of
the Myrtle Beach International Airport. This Class C airspace area
is effective during the specific dates and times of operation of the
Myrtle Beach Approach Control facility, as established in advance by
a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and times will thereafter be
continuously published in Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *
Paragraph 5000--Subpart D--Class D Airspace
* * * * *
ASO SC D Myrtle Beach AFB, SC [Removed]
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on August 15, 1996.
Jeff Griffith,
Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[[Page 43324]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22AU96.000
[FR Doc. 96-21479 Filed 8-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C