[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 14 (Tuesday, January 22, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2832-2835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-1373]



[[Page 2832]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2001-10432; Airspace Docket No. 01-AWA-05]
RIN 2120-AA66


Proposed Modification of the Santa Ana Class C Airspace Area; CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Santa Ana, CA, Class C 
airspace area. Specifically, this proposed rule would standardize and 
complete the 5 nautical mile (NM) inner circle; re-align the south and 
southwest quadrants; and, expand the north and east boundaries of the 
Santa Ana Class C airspace area. The FAA is proposing this action to 
improve the management of aircraft operations in the Santa Ana, CA, 
terminal area; enhance safety; reduce the potential for midair 
collision in the Santa Ana Class C airspace area, and accommodate the 
concerns of airspace users.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 8, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the Docket Management 
System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20591-0001. You must identify the docket 
number FAA-2001-10432/Airspace Docket No. 01-AWA-05, at the beginning 
of your comments.
    You may also submit comments on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. 
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments 
received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office 
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. The Docket Office (telephone number: 1-800-647-5527) is on 
the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at 
the above address.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business 
hours at the office of the Regional Air Traffic Division, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 15000 Aviation Boulevard, Hawthorne, CA 90261.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, 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 are 
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers 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 Docket No. FAA-2001-10432/
Airspace Docket No. 01-AWA-05.'' 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 also be filed in the 
docket.

Availability of NPRM's

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the 
Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents 
can also be accessed through the FAA web page at http://www.faa.gov or 
the Superintendent of Document's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by 
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of 
Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-8783. Communications must 
identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in 
being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should call the FAA's 
Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular 
No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which 
describes the application procedure.

Background

    In early 2001, the Southern California TRACON (SCT), and a 
California Users Group (an ad hoc committee that represents all major 
airspace users) reviewed the current Santa Ana Class C airspace area. 
The revocation of the El Toro Class C airspace area, which left the 
eastern side of the John Wayne Airport in Class E airspace instead of 
Class C airspace, prompted the review. The Technical Committee of the 
Southern California Users Group (SCAUWG) reviewed the Santa Ana Class C 
airspace area and developed recommendations for modifying the existing 
airspace design to provide pilots with a greater awareness of arriving 
and departing turbojet aircraft at John Wayne Airport, Santa Ana, CA.
    As announced in the Federal Register (66 FR 13122), one pre-NPRM 
airspace meeting was held on March 28, 2001, at Los Alamitos Army 
Airfield, Los Alamitos, CA. The purpose of this meeting was to provide 
local airspace users with an opportunity to present input on planned 
airspace changes to the Santa Ana Airspace Area prior to initiating any 
regulatory action.
    In response to the informal airspace meeting the FAA received six 
comments. The following is an analysis and FAA response to those 
comments.

Analysis of Comments

    One commenter requested that the FAA establish a Visual Flight 
Rules (VFR) Corridor through the Santa Ana Class C airspace. The FAA 
does not agree with this comment. This proposed design would safely 
accommodate all flight operations at SNA and a VFR corridor would not 
significantly enhance VFR operations in the airspace. Because of the 
small size of the proposed area, those aircraft transiting the area 
that do not want to establish radio communication with ATC may choose 
to circumnavigate the Class C airspace area.
    One commenter recommended that the Santa Ana Class C be modified to 
re-open V-8 at all altitudes to non-participating aircraft. The FAA 
does not agree with this comment. Currently the northwest corner of the 
existing Class C airspace overlaps a portion of V-8. This proposal does 
not change the overlap of Class C airspace over this airway. This 
airspace is needed to accommodate IFR arrivals. California Freeway 91 
(Riverside Freeway) will continue to be used as a guide to VFR pilots

[[Page 2833]]

transitioning this portion of the Class C airspace.
    Several commenters suggested that the proposed Paradise VOR 
215 deg. radial might not be suitable for navigation and should be 
checked for suitability. The FAA re-checked the radial and found it to 
be within tolerance and completely suitable for navigation.
    Several commenters objected to 5,400-foot ceiling south and west of 
the John Wayne airport but without suggesting an alternative altitude. 
The FAA has reviewed this area, and has determined that the 5,400-foot 
ceiling is necessary to accommodate air carrier arrivals and that 
lowering the ceiling would not provide adequate airspace for these 
operations.
    Several comments stated that the proposed changes in the northeast 
corner infringe on Santa Ana Canyon by extending the Class C airspace 
over the canyon. The Airline Pilots Association opposed any reduction 
in proposed Class C boundaries because the instrument procedures on the 
east side of the airport must be contained in Class C airspace.
    The FAA agrees with these comments and has proposed modifications 
to address each comment. The LAX 083 deg. radial would be used to 
redefine the northeast corner of the Class C airspace area. Using this 
radial as a boundary would provide more Class E airspace between the 
Santa Ana and Ontario Class C airspace areas (Santa Ana Canyon Area), 
which would provide a wider route for nonparticipating aircraft. In 
addition, this change would still accommodate instrument procedures 
east of the airport and keep them in Class C airspace.
    Several commenters stated generally that the proposed 2,000-foot 
floor should be raised to provide more Class E airspace for non-
participating aircraft. The FAA does not agree with these comments 
because raising the floor above 2,000 feet would not provide adequate 
Class C airspace to accommodate all instrument procedures.
    Comments were received suggesting the FAA use a circular design 
between 5- and 10-miles to provide additional Class C airspace. The FAA 
does not agree with these commenters. A standard circular design in 
this case would not meet the operational requirements around Santa Ana 
John Wayne Airport. Furthermore, 5- and 10-mile circles centered on the 
airport reference point would designate more Class C airspace than 
necessary and adversely impact general aviation operations in the area.
    Three commenters recommended that the informal VFR practice area 
near El Toro remain open ``as it is''. The FAA agrees and has raised 
the outer floor of the proposed Santa Ana John Wayne Airport (SNA) to 
accommodate the VFR practice area.
    Written comments supporting the proposal were received from the 
Airline Transport Association; the Airline Pilots Association; 
International Airlines; America West Airlines; Northwest Airlines; and 
U.S. Airways. These users also requested that the FAA establish a Class 
B airspace area for SNA since that airport meets the candidacy 
requirements for Class B airspace as well. They also suggested that a 
20-mile Mode C veil requirement be established around SNA as part of 
this notice.
    Presently, the FAA utilizes certain criteria based on the number of 
passengers enplaned annually or the number of flight operations at the 
airport, in considering a given airport as a candidate for a Class B 
airspace designation. This criteria is only for determining candidacy. 
Meeting the criteria in and of itself does not guarantee that a Class B 
airspace area would be established at any particular location. A number 
of other factors, including traffic density, complexity, and operations 
conducted, must be carefully evaluated to determine whether a Class B 
airspace area is warranted. Most importantly, it must be demonstrated 
that the establishment of a Class B airspace area would enhance the 
safety and efficiency of airspace management. The FAA studied this 
airspace and found that the current Class C airspace has areas of 
inefficiencies, areas where turbojet aircraft are not adequately 
accommodated, and areas in need of modification. The FAA concluded that 
enhancement of the existing Class C airspace sufficiently would address 
these issues and the establishment of Class B airspace was not 
warranted at this time.
    The FAA Transponder with Automatic Altitude Reporting Capability 
Requirement Final Rule (commonly referred to as the ``Mode C Rule'') 
requires all aircraft to have an altitude encoding transponder when 
operating within 30 NM of any designated Class B airspace area primary 
airport, from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL. The recommendation for 
the establishment of a 20-mile Mode C veil at SNA is beyond the scope 
of this rulemaking.

The Proposed Amendment

    The FAA proposes to amend 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 
71 by modifying the Santa Ana, CA, Class C airspace area. Specifically, 
this action proposes to expand Area A to a complete 5 NM circle, which 
would standardize the inner circle. Area B to the south and Area C to 
the southwest would also be re-aligned to provide additional airspace 
to accommodate Runway 1 arrivals. Proposed changes to Area F in the 
north would re-align the northern and eastern boundaries to improve 
efficiencies of Runway 19 arrivals. In addition, a new Area G is 
proposed on the east to accommodate instrument operations in an area 
formally within the revoked El Toro Class C airspace area. The FAA is 
making these changes to enhance safety; reduce the risk of midair 
collision; and improve the management of air traffic operations in the 
John Wayne terminal airspace area.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an 
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and 
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 
Therefore, this proposed action: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' 
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation 
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter 
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is 
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North 
American Datum 83. Class C airspace designations are published in 
paragraph 4000 of FAA Order 7400.9H, dated September 1, 2001, and 
effective September 16, 2001, 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.

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 of 1980, 
requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes 
on small entities. Third, the Trade

[[Page 2834]]

Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from 
setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade 
Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where 
appropriate, make them the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, requires agencies to prepare a 
written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of 
proposed or final rules. This would include a Federal mandate likely to 
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more, in any 
one year (adjusted for inflation).
    However, for regulations with an expected minimal impact the above-
specified analyses are not required. Department of Transportation Order 
DOT 2100.5, prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, 
analysis, and review of regulations. If it is determined that the 
expected impact is so minimal that the proposal does not warrant a full 
evaluation, a statement to that effect and the basis for it is included 
in proposed regulation.
    This NPRM would modify the Santa Ana, CA, Class C airspace Area. 
Specifically, this proposed rule would complete the 5 nautical mile 
(NM) inner circle for standardization, realign the south and southwest 
quadrants, and expand the north and east boundaries. The FAA has 
determined that the expansion of the north and east boundaries would 
result in minimal, if any, circumnavigation cost to general aviation 
operators. This assessment is based on the fact that aircraft operators 
could request clearance to operate within the proposed Class C airspace 
rather than navigate around it, and air traffic control will often 
grant them clearance. The FAA has also determined that the proposed 
rule would improve the flow of air traffic, while enhancing the level 
of safety. Therefore, the FAA has determined that the modification of 
the Santa Ana, CA, Class C airspace area would be cost-beneficial.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a 
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, 
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, 
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the 
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to 
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to 
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the 
rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small 
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and 
small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or 
final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the 
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in 
the Act.
    However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is 
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act provides that 
the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility 
analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement 
providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning 
should be clear.
    In view of the minimal cost impact of the rule, the FAA has 
determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Consequently, the FAA 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Analysis

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate 
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary 
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international 
standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. 
standards.
    In accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it would 
have only a domestic impact and therefore create no obstacles to the 
foreign commerce of the United States.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), 
enacted as Public Law 0104-4 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 (when 
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, which, among other things, must provide for 
notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a 
meaningful and timely opportunity for these small governments to 
provide input in the development of regulatory proposals.
    This proposed rule does not contain any Federal intergovernmental 
or private sector mandates. 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--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND 
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    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.


Sec. 71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 
7400.9J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 31, 
2001, and effective September 16, 2001, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 4000--Subpart C  Class C airspace

* * * * *

[[Page 2835]]

Santa Ana, CA [Revised]

John Wayne Airport/Orange County, CA
    (Lat. 33 deg.40'32"N., long. 117 deg.52'06"W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 
4400 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the John Wayne Airport/
Orange County (SNA); that airspace extending upward from 1500 feet 
MSL to and including 5400 feet MSL beginning at a point southeast of 
SNA where the SNA 5NM radius and the POM 185T/170M radial intersect, 
then south via the POM 185T/170M radial to the SNA 10NM radius, then 
clockwise via the SNA 10NM radius to the PDZ 230T/215M radial, then 
north via the PDZ 230T/215M radial to the SNA 5NM radius, the 
counterclockwise via the SNA 5NM radius to the point of beginning; 
that airspace extending upward from 3500 feet MSL to and including 
5400 feet MSL beginning at a point south of the SNA where the SNA 
5NM radius and the PDZ 230T/215M radial intersect, then southwest 
via the PDZ 230T/215M radial to the SNA 10NM radius, then clockwise 
via the SNA 10NM radius to the 251T/237M degree bearing from SNA at 
10NM, then north via a line extending between the SNA 251T/237M 
degree bearing at 10 NM and the SNA 351T/337M degree bearing at 10NM 
to the shoreline, then via the shoreline southeast to the point of 
beginning; that airspace extending upward from 2500 feet MSL to and 
including 5400 feet MSL beginning at a point south of the SNA where 
the SNA 5NM radius and the PDZ 230T/215M radial intersect then west 
via the shoreline to a line extending between the SNA 251T/237M 
degree bearing at 10NM and the SNA 351T/337M degree bearing at 10NM, 
then north via the line extending between the SNA 251T/237M degree 
bearing at 10NM and the SNA 351T/337M degree bearing at 10NM to the 
San Diego Freeway (I-405), then east via the San Diego Freeway (I-
405) to the SNA 5NM radius, then counterclockwise via the 5NM radius 
to point of beginning; that airspace extended upward from 2500 feet 
MSL to and including 4400 feet MSL beginning west of SNA at a point 
where the SNA 5NM radius and the San Diego Freeway (I-405) 
intersect, then west via the San Diego Freeway (I-405) to a line 
extending between the SNA 251T/237M degree bearing at 10NM and the 
SNA 351T/337M degree bearing at 10NM, then north via the line 
extending between the SNA 251T/237M degree bearing at 10NM and the 
SNA351T/337M degree bearing at 10NM, the clockwise via the SNA 10NM 
radius to the SNA 360T/346M degree bearing, then south via the SNA 
360T/346M degree bearing to the SNA 5NM radius, then 
counterclockwise via the SNA 5NM radius to the point of beginning; 
that airspace extending upward from 2000 feet MSL to and including 
4400 feet MSL beginning at a point where the SNA 5NM and the SNA 
360T/346M degree bearing intersect, then via the SNA 360T/346M 
degree bearing to the SNA 10NM radius, then via the SNA 10NM radius 
clockwise to the SLI 075T/060M radial to the LAX 098T/083M radial, 
then east via the LAX 098T/083M radial to the ELB 004T/350M radial, 
then south via the ELB 004T/350M radial to the PDZ 230T/215M radial, 
then southwest via the PDZ230T/215M radial to the SNA 5NM radius, 
then counterclockwise via the SNA 5NM radius to the point of 
beginning; that airspace extending upward from 3500 feet MSL to and 
including 4400 feet MSL beginning northeast of SNA at a point where 
the SNA 5NM and the PDZ 230T/215M radial intersect, then northeast 
via the PDZ 230T/215M radial to the ELB 004T/350M radial, then north 
via the ELB 004T/350M radial, to the LAX 098T/083M radial to POM 
157T/142M radial, then south via the POM 157T/142M radial to the ELB 
054T/040M radial, then southwest via ELB 054T/040M radial to ELB, 
then south via the ELB 184T/170M radial to the SNA 10NM radius, then 
clockwise via the SNA 10NM radius to the POM 185T/170M radial, then 
north via POM 185T/170M radial to the SNA 5NM radius, then 
counterclockwise via the SNA 5NM radius to the point of beginning. 
This Class C airspace area is effective during the specific days and 
hours of operation of the Orange County Tower as established in 
advance by a Notice to Airman. The effective dates and times will 
thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility 
directory.
* * * * *


    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 14, 2002.
Reginald C. Matthews,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Division.
[FR Doc. 02-1373 Filed 1-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P