[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12892-12897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6685]
[[Page 12891]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 71
Proposed Modification of Class D Airspace South of Abbotsford, British
Columbia (BC), on the United States Side of the U.S./Canadian Border,
and the Proposed Establishment of a Class C Airspace Area in the
Vicinity of Point Roberts, Washington (WA); Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 12892]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 93-AWA-16]
RIN 2120-AA66
Proposed Modification of Class D Airspace South of Abbotsford,
British Columbia (BC), on the United States Side of the U.S./Canadian
Border, and the Proposed Establishment of a Class C Airspace Area in
the Vicinity of Point Roberts, Washington (WA)
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to establish a Class C airspace area in
the United States (U.S.) in the vicinity of Point Roberts, Washington,
with a ceiling of 12,500 feet mean sea level (MSL) and a floor of 2,500
feet MSL. In addition, this notice proposes to extend the existing
Abbotsford Class D airspace area, into airspace which is currently
Class E airspace, and lower the ceiling from 3,000 to 2,500 feet MSL in
U.S. airspace southwest of the Abbotsford Airport along the U.S./
Canadian border. The FAA is proposing these actions to assist Transport
Canada's efforts to reduce the risk of midair collision, enhance
safety, and improve air traffic flows within the Vancouver and
Abbotsford, BC, International Airport areas.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 2, 1997.
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. 93-AWA-16, 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, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98055-4056.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules
Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, 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 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. 93-
AWA-16.'' 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, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-8783. 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 air traffic
control (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, 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
[[Page 12893]]
terminology is reflected in the remainder of this NPRM.
This notice proposes Class C airspace designation at locations
which were not identified as candidates 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.
This proposal would affect airspace currently served by the
Vancouver and Abbotsford air traffic facilities in the vicinity of
Point Roberts, WA, along the Canadian border. Vancouver and Abbotsford
Airports are both international and public-use airports located in
Canada. The U.S. airspace subject to the provisions of this proposal is
currently designated as a Class E airspace area. Passenger enplanements
reported at the Vancouver in 1995 was 312,000, up from 301,000 in 1994.
This volume of passenger enplanements and aircraft operations meets the
FAA criteria for establishing Class C airspace to enhance safety.
Pre-NPRM Public Input
As announced in the Federal Register on March 22, 1995 (60 FR
15172), two pre-NPRM airspace meetings were held on May 9-10, 1995, in
Friday Harbor and Bellingham, WA. The purpose of these meetings was to
provide local airspace users with an opportunity to present input on
the Transport Canada proposal prior to initiating any regulatory
action. In the ensuing comment period, which closed on July 10, 1995,
over 300 comments were received in overwhelming opposition to the
proposal. The majority of this opposition centered around the
significant amount of airspace required for the original proposal. The
original proposal would have required the reclassification of airspace
in five contiguous areas from Abbotsford Airport, across Bellingham
Airport, to a point south of San Juan Island. As a result, subsequent
meetings were held between Transport Canada, FAA, and general aviation
groups to mitigate these concerns. These meetings resulted in an
agreement to revise Transport Canada's July 1994 proposal. Of the
original five airspace areas, only three would be recommended for
inclusion in the revised proposal. This revision significantly reduced
the amount of Class C airspace required.
On April 5, 1996, the FAA published a Notice of Public Meeting (61
FR 15331), to announce another informal airspace meeting to solicit
comments from airspace users, and others, regarding Transport Canada's
revised proposal. Since only three areas were retained in the Transport
Canada revised proposal request, only those comments pertaining to
these areas were considered and incorporated in this NPRM and are
summarized below.
Analysis of Comments
Comments Summary
The FAA agrees with the majority of the commenters that the
significant amount of airspace to be reclassified in the original
proposal was not in the best interest of the aviation community. The
FAA recognizes that flight safety is the paramount concern, and agrees
that a lesser amount of airspace could meet the needs of Transport
Canada's flight safety concerns. In coordination with aviation groups
and Transport Canada, the original proposal was modified. The modified
proposal redefines the U.S. airspace west and southwest of Point
Roberts, WA, within a 16-nautical-mile (NM) arc of the Vancouver Very
High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR), from above 2,500 feet to
12,500 feet MSL. This area would in effect designate a wedge of U.S
airspace between Vancouver and Victoria as Class C airspace. Redefining
this area with reference to the Vancouver VOR would make the proposed
area easily navigable by aircraft transiting the proposed area. The
proposed Class C and the modified Class D airspace areas in this
proposal are immediately south of the U.S./Canadian border on the
instrument approach to Abbotsford Airport. This proposal would reduce
the potential for near midair collisions between instrument flight
rules (IFR) and unknown visual flight rules (VFR) aircraft engaged in
north-south border crossings in U.S. airspace controlled by NAV-Canada.
In addition, the extension of the Abbotsford Class D airspace area,
with the overlay of Class C airspace, would provide protection for
aircraft engaged in flight training from unidentified VFR aircraft.
Comments
One commenter stated that Area 1 [referred to in this document as
the wedge of airspace located southwest of Point Roberts, WA] is larger
than it needs to be. The commenter suggested that the eastern border
should be moved west about 2 miles to lessen the impact on Point
Roberts, and thereby conform more to the traffic needs that exist.
Another commenter stated that Area 2 [U.S. airspace south and east
of Point Roberts] makes it easy for Transport Canada to design traffic
flow patterns into and out of Vancouver International Airport. In
addition, this commenter stated that increased traffic flow would lead
to expanded approaches and departures at Vancouver. This commenter's
concern is that the resulting increase in air traffic will be rerouted
into U.S. airspace instead of Canadian airspace. This commenter
suggested that the proposed airspace redesignations are unnecessary
because Transport Canada has sufficient airspace within Canadian
territory to accommodate its safety concerns.
The FAA does not agree, and further believes that safety will be
enhanced by removing the gap in the Vancouver terminal control area, by
reducing the potential for conflicts between IFR and VFR aircraft.
One commenter stated that the reason Transport Canada has requested
increased control of U.S. airspace is because Abbotsford Airport's role
as an instrument flight training facility has caused a significant
increase in air traffic. The commenter recommends relocating the
Abbotsford approach procedure turn to the north side of the approach
course. According to the commenter, this would place the protected
airspace for the procedure turn in Canadian territory. The commenter
believes that this modification would remove the perceived encroachment
on Blaine Airport, WA.
The FAA does not agree. The heavy volume of instrument flight
training being conducted in the Abbotsford area, coupled with north-
south border crossings, requires the modification of the existing
airspace. Further, the FAA believes that if the procedure turn was
moved north, Abbotsford's protected airspace could conflict with
Langley, BC, Airport's control zone. Finally, the FAA does not believe
that the proposed modification would result in an encroachment on
Blaine Airport. The ceiling of the proposed Class D airspace is 1,500
feet MSL and would not interfere with operations at the Blaine Airport
because the traffic pattern altitude is 900 feet MSL.
Noise Comment
One commenter stated that Transport Canada did not provide an
environmental impact statement for actions that would impact an
environmentally sensitive area. This commenter believes that VFR pilots
operating in the subject airspace areas would avoid contacting the
controlling agency by operating at lower altitudes and thereby creating
unnecessary noise and reducing safety. The commenter also believes that
if U.S. airspace is modified, Transport Canada may be inclined to route
arrivals/departures of large jet aircraft through this area. This
influx in traffic could result in increased
[[Page 12894]]
noise levels which would reduce property values. Another perceived
drawback could be reduced safety for local aircraft operators.
The FAA is not required to conduct environmental assessments for
certain airspace actions. FAA Order, 1050.1D, on ``Policies and
Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts,'' implements the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This Order establishes FAA
policies and procedures for the preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements and for preparing and processing environmental assessments
of FAA actions. FAA Order 1050.1D provides that the establishment of
Class C or D airspace is categorically excluded from the environmental
process.
The Proposal
The FAA is proposing an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to redesignate existing Class E
airspace to Class C airspace in the area of Point Roberts, WA, and to
extend the existing Class D airspace at Abbotsford, BC. The proposed
Class C airspace designation applies to an area lying within U.S.
airspace along the U.S./Canadian border. This notice addresses only
that airspace contained within the U.S.
The FAA adopted the NAR Task Group recommendation that each Class C
airspace area conform to a standard airspace configuration, insofar as
is practicable. The standard Class C airspace area consists of that
airspace within 5 NM 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 NM 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 Class C airspace configuration proffered in this proposal does
not conform to the standard Class C airspace dimensions. In this case,
the outer ring of the Vancouver Airport Class C airspace area is
established at 16 NM from the Vancouver VOR, as opposed to the standard
10 NM. The altitudes would extend from above 2,500 feet to 12,500 feet
MSL. This wedge of U.S. airspace would consequently abut Canadian
airspace and eliminate the gap between the Vancouver terminal control
area and the Victoria Class C airspace area as they presently exist.
This proposal would also establish Class C airspace and extend the
existing Class D airspace areas at Abbotsford Airport. Both proposed
airspace areas would be located immediately south of the international
border on the instrument approach west of Abbotsford Airport. The
airspace presently designated as Class E would become Class C, and
would adjoin the existing Vancouver Class C airspace. This airspace
would extend from 2,500 feet to 12,500 feet MSL. The existing Class D
airspace at Abbotsford would be extended approximately 7 NM to the
west. The proposed Class C airspace area would be established directly
above the modified Class D airspace. Since the proposed Class C floor
is at 2,500 feet MSL, the existing Class D airspace ceiling would be
lowered from 3,000 feet to 2,500 feet MSL. This proposed action would
provide protection to aircraft conducting procedure turns during
instrument approaches to Abbotsford Airport from aircraft traversing
the U.S./Canadian border in a north-south direction.
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), effective September 16, 1993. 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 7400.9D dated September 4, 1996, and effective
September 16, 1996, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class C and Class D airspace designations listed in this document
would be published subsequently in the Order.
Statistics provided by Transport Canada meet U.S. criteria for the
designation of Class C airspace provided in FAA Order 7400.2D,
``Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.'' Documented air traffic
activity for 1994, which combines air carrier, military and general
aviation, exceeded 200,000 annual operations. See FAA Order 7400.2D,
paragraph 26-20(a).
International Agreements
In accordance with international agreements, the FAA reviews and
considers proposals from neighboring countries to enhance the safety of
aircraft operations in the vicinity of international borders. It is not
unusual for a neighboring country to provide air traffic services in
the adjacent country's airspace. Establishing such services by
agreement works to the benefit of both countries.
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) would not be 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; (4) would not constitute a barrier to international trade;
and (5) would not contain any Federal intergovernmental or private
sector mandate. These analyses are summarized here in the preamble and
the full Regulatory Evaluation is in the docket.
Cost-Benefits Analysis
The FAA has determined that the proposed establishment of Class C
and modification of Class D airspace areas in the vicinity of Vancouver
and Abbotsford, BC, would result in minimal, if any, cost to either the
agency or aircraft operators.
Costs
The FAA has determined the proposed establishment of Class C and
modification of Class D airspace areas in the vicinity of Vancouver and
Abbotsford, BC, would impose minimal cost, if any, to either aircraft
operators or the FAA. 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
Establishment of Class C Airspace
Aircraft operators would incur minimal, if any, additional costs by
complying with the proposed rule. This
[[Page 12895]]
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 the
necessary equipment required to operate in a Class C airspace area
(i.e., two-way radios and Mode C transponders). Moreover, the FAA has
traditionally accommodated GA aircraft operators without two-way radio
communication, via letters of agreement, whenever possible without
jeopardizing safety. Further, the FAA has determined there would be
minimal cost to GA operators, who would utilize circumnavigation
procedures to avoid the proposed Class C and Class D airspace area, or
who could fly beneath the 2,500 feet MSL floor. Therefore, the FAA has
determined that the proposed rule would impose minimal, if any,
additional cost impact on circumnavigating operators.
Modification of Class D Airspace
Aircraft operators would incur minimal, if any, costs with
compliance from the proposed rule. This assessment is based on the most
recent General Aviation and Avionics Survey Report. The Report
indicates an estimated 85 percent of all GA aircraft operators are
already equipped with the necessary equipment to operate in a Class D
airspace area (i.e., two-way radios). The FAA has determined that
nonparticipating operators would be able to circumnavigate the Class D
airspace area, by altering their current flight paths between 2 and 7
NM, to avoid the new airspace. Therefore, the FAA has determined for
the aforementioned reasons, that the proposed rule would impose
minimal, if any, cost impact on nonparticipating aircraft operators.
Cost Impact on the FAA
A letter of agreement between the FAA and Transport Canada, signed
on May 1, 1995, establishes standard procedures for coordinating air
traffic operations between Seattle Air Route Traffic Control Center and
Vancouver Air Control Centre. The Letter of Agreement also establishes
the ATC responsibilities for each of the centers. The U.S. has
relinquished control of the proposed Class C and Class D airspace areas
to Canada. Transport Canada already provides radar service for the
additional 10 NM radar area that the proposed rule would establish. In
addition, Transport Canada currently provides VFR Advisory service for
the proposed modified Class D airspace area.
The FAA would not incur any additional charting and pilot education
expenses as a result of the modifications incurred from the proposed
rule. The FAA currently revises sectional charts every six months.
Changes of these types are required and made routinely to depict Class
C and Class D airspace areas during these cycles, and are considered an
ordinary operating cost. Further, pilots would not incur any additional
costs obtaining current charts depicting Class C and Class D airspace
areas because they should be using only the most current charts.
In order to advise the public of proposed changes to airspace
areas, the FAA holds informal public meetings at each location where
Class C establishments or modifications are proposed. These meetings
provide pilots with the best opportunity to learn about Class C
airspace operating procedures in the proposed areas. The routine
expenses associated with these public meetings are incurred regardless
of whether Class C is ultimately established. If either of the proposed
airspace changes occur, the FAA would distribute a ``Letter to Airmen''
to all pilots residing within 50 miles of the Class C airspace site
that would explain modifications to aircraft operation and airspace
configuration. In addition, FAA district offices conduct aviation
safety seminars on a regular basis. These seminars are provided by the
FAA to discuss a variety of aviation safety issues, including Class C
airspace areas. The one-time incurred cost of the ``Letter to Airmen''
would be $535 (1995 dollars). This one-time negligible cost would be
incurred upon the establishment of the proposed Class C airspace.
Benefits
The FAA has determined the proposed establishment of Class C and
modification of Class D airspace areas would promote the efficient
control of air traffic and reduce the risk of midair collision in the
terminal area. The FAA estimates that the total number of operations at
Vancouver International Airport in 1995 was 312,000, up from 301,000 in
1994, and these estimates are projected to increase to 347,000 by the
year 2000. Also, passenger enplanements were estimated at 12.2 million
in 1995, up from 11.1 million in 1994, and these estimates are
projected to increase to 14.8 million by the year 2000. In view of the
increases in passenger enplanements and aircraft operations, the FAA
has concluded that the proposed rule would enhance aviation safety.
Impact on Aviation Safety
The proposed rule would enhance aviation safety by imposing
equipment (i.e., two-way radios and Mode C transponders) on aircraft
operators, while providing services such as (i.e., separation
procedures and safety alerts) in the proposed Class C airspace.
Imposing these equipment and operational requirements for the proposed
establishment of Class C airspace and expansion of Class D airspace in
the vicinity of Vancouver, BC, would reduce the risk of midair
collisions between aircraft operating on IFR and aircraft operating in
accordance with VFR in that airspace area. This determination is based
on the FAA's expertise in airspace management, but has not been
quantified for this proposal in light of the minimum cost involved.
Impact on Operational Efficiency
Under the proposed rule, Transport Canada would provide aircraft
operators operational services such as traffic advisories, separation
and sequencing of arrivals, when transiting the subject airspace. As a
result of the proposed rule, aircraft operators would obtain services
provided by Transport Canada.
Conclusion
In view of the minimal, if any, cost of compliance and the benefits
of enhanced aviation safety and increased 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 a
``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 potentially may incur minimal, if any, cost
with the implementation of the proposed rule are operators of aircraft
who do not meet Class C or Class D navigational equipment standards.
But the small entities potentially impacted by the proposed rule
(primarily parts 121 and 135 aircraft without two-way radios and Mode C
transponders) would not incur any additional cost for navigational
equipment or the more stringent operating procedures because they
routinely fly into airspace where those requirements are already in
place. As
[[Page 12896]]
the result of the previously implemented ``Mode C rule,'' all of these
commercial operators are assumed to have Mode C transponders. In
addition, the FAA has traditionally accommodated GA aircraft operators
without two-way radio communication equipment when it was possible to
do so without jeopardizing safety, via letters of agreement. 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 not impose costs on aircraft operators or aircraft manufacturers
(U.S. or foreign).
Unfunded Mandate Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act),
enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal
agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment
of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency
rule that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more
adjusted annually for inflation in any one year by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Section
204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
(or their designees) of State, local and tribal governments on a
proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A ``significant
intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any provision in a Federal
agency regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate of $100 million
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. Section 203 of the
Act, 2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements section 204(a), provides that
before establishing any regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the agency shall
have developed a plan that among other things, provides for notice to
potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a meaningful
and timely opportunity to provide input in the development of
regulatory proposals.
This NPRM does not contain any Federal intergovernmental or private
sector mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.
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 7400.9D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated September 4, 1996, and effective September 16,
1996, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 4000--Subpart C--Class C Airspace
* * * * *
ANM BC C Vancouver, BC [New]
Vancouver International Airport, BC, Canada
(Lat. 49 deg.11''38'' N, long. 123 deg.11'04'' W)
Vancouver VORTAC
(Lat. 49 deg.04'38'' N, long. 123 deg.08'57'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL to 12,500
feet MSL beginning at lat. 49 deg.00'00'' N, long. 123 deg.19'20''
W; thence east along the U.S./Canadian boundary to lat.
49 deg.00'08'' N, 122 deg.33'50'' W; thence south to lat.
48 deg.57'59'' N, long. 122 deg.33'50'' W; thence west to lat.
48 deg.57'59'' N, long. 122 deg.47'12'' W; thence southwestward via
a 16 NM arc of the Vancouver VORTAC to lat. 48 deg.49'52'' N, long.
123 deg.00'31'' W; thence northwest along the U.S./Canadian boundary
to the point of beginning.
* * * * *
Paragraph 5000--Subpart D--Class D Airspace
* * * * *
ANM BC D Abbotsford, BC [Revised]
Abbotsford Airport, BC, Canada
(Lat. 49 deg.01'31'' N, long. 122 deg.21'48'' W)
Vancouver VORTAC
(Lat. 49 deg.04'38'' N, long. 123 deg.08'57'' W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to 2,500 feet
MSL beginning at lat. 48 deg.57'59'' N, long. 122 deg.18'57'' W,
thence counterclockwise along the 4-mile radius of the Abbotsford
Airport to lat. 49 deg.00'05'' N, 122 deg.16'08'' W; thence west
along the US-Canadian border to lat. 49 deg.00'05'' N, long.
122 deg.45'58'' W, thence clockwise along the 16-mile ARC of the
Vancouver VORTAC, to lat. 48 deg.57'59'' N, long. 122 deg.47'12'' W;
thence east along lat. 48 deg. 57'59'' N to the point of beginning;
excluding the airspace within the Vancouver, BC, Class C airspace
and the airspace west of long. 122 deg.33'50'' W below 1,500 feet
MSL.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 10, 1997.
Reginald C. Matthews,
Acting Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[[Page 12897]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18MR97.000
[FR Doc. 97-6685 Filed 3-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C