[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 246 (Friday, December 23, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76148-76149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24431]



[[Page 76148]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2003-15976; Airspace Docket No. 03-AWA-5]
RIN 2120-AA66


Establishment of Prohibited Area P-50; Kings Bay, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Prohibited Area P-50 over the U.S. 
Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA. The prohibited area replaces a 
Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) that is currently in effect at that 
location. The FAA is taking this action in response to a request from 
the U.S. Navy as part of its efforts to enhance the security of the 
Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, February 16, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace and Rules, 
Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On February 26, 2004, the FAA published in the Federal Register a 
notice of proposed rulemaking to establish a prohibited area over the 
U.S. Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA (69 FR 8884). The FAA proposed 
this action, at the request of the U.S. Navy, to enhance the security 
of the Kings Bay facility. Interested parties were invited to 
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on 
the proposal. The comment period ended April 12, 2004. A total of 124 
comments were received in response to the notice. All comments received 
were considered in this rulemaking action, including six comments 
received by the Document Management System after the closing date.

Discussion of Comments

    One commenter wrote in support of the proposed action. All other 
commenters opposed the establishment of the prohibited area. The 
following is a discussion of the substantive comments received.
    Many commenters contended that there is no credible terrorist 
threat and adequate justification has not been provided for 
establishing a prohibited area at Kings Bay, GA.
    FAA Response: The purpose of establishing Prohibited Area P-50 is 
to be proactive in preventing terrorism rather than reactive. The 
September 11, 2001, attacks identified some weaknesses in the defense 
of certain critical U.S. assets, and some analysts still claim that 
necessary steps to prevent future terrorist attacks have not been 
taken. P-50 is just one part of the U.S. Navy's integrated, layered 
defense plan for the Kings Bay facility. The submarines berthed at 
Kings Bay are vital assets that require continual protection, not just 
during periods of heightened security.
    A number of commenters stated that a prohibited area would do 
nothing to enhance actual security at Kings Bay. It would provide no 
deterrence to terrorists because they do not follow the rules anyway. 
Commenters expressed doubt that a prohibited area would provide 
adequate time for the Navy to react to a threat. Further, the area 
would only serve to limit the freedom of law-abiding pilots and 
possibly put an aircraft at risk of a shoot down in the event of an 
inadvertent penetration of the prohibited area caused by an aircraft 
emergency or malfunction, lost pilot, or some other innocent 
circumstance.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that a prohibited area designation, in 
itself, presents no physical impediment to stop an attack. However, the 
Navy is aggressively pursuing a multitude of defensive measures at 
Kings Bay to prevent an airborne attack. Each of these measures 
includes the identification of hostile aircraft. P-50 will enhance the 
protection of U.S. assets by reducing low altitude aircraft overflights 
of the facility and provide a better means for identifying potentially 
hostile aircraft. The purpose of P-50, then, is not to provide a 
sterile environment for airborne assets to engage a hostile aircraft. 
An aircraft intruding into the prohibited area will draw the attention 
of ground security forces and may provide the ``heads up'' notice 
required to take proper action to prevent or lessen the severity of an 
attack. An incursion into P-50 would not automatically equate to 
hostile intent or trigger a defensive response.
    Several commenters stated that general aviation (GA) aircraft are 
too small to be a viable threat to the submarines at the Kings Bay 
facility. One commenter cited the January 2002 intentional crash by a 
suicidal pilot of a small aircraft into a Tampa, FL, office building as 
evidence that GA aircraft are not capable of causing significant damage 
to buildings or equipment.
    FAA Response: The FAA does not agree. Submarine characteristics and 
design information is classified and, therefore, cannot be discussed 
here. However, the potential for serious damage to the vessels does 
exist whether it is the result of a direct impact or collateral damage.
    Numerous commenters, including the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
Association (AOPA) and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association 
(GAMA), said that the FAA should consider alternatives to a permanent 
prohibited airspace designation. They cited a number of actions taken 
by the Federal government since September 11, 2001, to enhance aviation 
security, including: advanced screening of pilot data bases, flight 
training restrictions and background checks for foreign nationals 
seeking flight training, and various requirements pertaining to flight 
school operations. In addition, AOPA's nationwide Airport Watch program 
was initiated to improve the security of airports and aircraft. AOPA 
called for the FAA to issue an advisory for pilots, similar to that 
contained in the current Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) that advises pilots 
to avoid flight near nuclear power plants, instead of implementing the 
prohibited area.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the initiatives described above 
have contributed to aviation system security. However, these general 
initiatives do not negate the need for specific measures at the Kings 
Bay Naval Base. Regarding the suggestion that the FAA issue an advisory 
avoidance NOTAM instead of establishing a prohibited area, it should be 
noted that the ``power plant'' NOTAM discussed above is a voluntary 
measure and does not prohibit aircraft overflight of a facility. By 
prohibiting flight in the airspace above the base, the Navy's defense 
force can more easily focus on the identification of a potential threat 
and react accordingly.
    The majority of the commenters, including AOPA, GAMA, and the St. 
Marys Airport Authority, opposed the prohibited area because it would 
severely impact the operation of the nearby St. Marys Airport (4J6), 
St. Marys, GA. The airport has been continuously impacted by various 
TFR over the Kings Bay Naval Base since September 13, 2001. The 
commenters cited numerous adverse impacts on the airport and community, 
including: cancellation of the only instrument

[[Page 76149]]

approach procedure serving the airport, thereby reducing the airport to 
Visual Flight Rules only operations; adverse impact on the safety and 
usefulness of the airport due to the proximity of the TFR/prohibited 
area to the main airport runway 4/22 (which is the only runway with 
lighting for night operations); reluctance of user to conduct flight 
training at the airport due to the risk of unintentional penetration of 
the TFR/prohibited area; the airport has become less attractive to 
commercial operators; and, loss of jobs and lessened economic growth in 
the local area. Some commenters added that, because of the 
restrictions, the government should pay to install runway lighting and 
establish instrument approach procedures for the remaining runway 13/
31. Other commenters said the government should pay to relocate St. 
Marys Airport to a site unaffected by the Kings Bay restrictions.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that the restrictions imposed by the 
current TFR adversely affect St. Marys Airport operations. These 
restrictions will continue to exist under the proposed prohibited area. 
The airport's close proximity to the Kings Bay base limits the options 
available to offset the restrictions imposed by the TFR and the 
proposed prohibited area. Until recently, the only instrument approach 
serving the St. Marys Airport was the surveillance radar approach to 
runway 4 (ASR RWY 4). The close proximity of the TFR rendered the 
missed approach portion of that procedure unusable, therefore the 
approach was suspended. On September 30, 2004, a revised ASR RWY 4 
approach was authorized with a relocated missed approach point that 
provides additional space for aircraft to execute a left climbing turn 
away from the current TFR. On November 25, 2004, two area navigation 
(RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) approaches were published 
serving runways 13 and 31. However, because these runways are not 
lighted, the RNAV GPS approaches are not authorized for use at night.
    Currently, a St. Marys Airport relocation feasibility and site 
selection effort is in progress involving the City of St. Marys, the 
State of Georgia, and the FAA. A line item for a proposed replacement 
of the airport was included in the FAA's National Plan of Integrated 
Airport Systems (2005-2009). Environmental analysis of various 
alternatives is being conducted. No decisions about relocating the 
airport have been made at this time.
    One commenter wrote that numerous U.S. military facilities such as 
Fort Campbell, KY; Fort Benning, GA; McConnell Air Force Base (AFB), 
KS; and Eglin AFB, FL, are located in close proximity to civilian 
airports without a similar airspace restriction.
    FAA Response: The commenter is correct; however, other military 
installations do not have the same operational requirements or mission 
as that of the Naval Submarine Base, Kings Bay, GA.

Statutory Authority

    The FAA Administrator has broad authority under Title 49 of the 
United States Code (49 U.S.C.) to regulate the use of the navigable 
airspace. In exercising that authority, the Administrator is required 
to give consideration to the requirements of national defense and 
commercial and general aviation, and the public right of freedom of 
transit through the navigable airspace (49 U.S.C. 40101). The 
Administrator is also empowered to develop plans and policy for the use 
of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of 
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the 
efficient use of airspace (49 U.S.C. 40103(b)). Additionally, the 
Administrator shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, 
establish areas in the airspace the Administrator decides are necessary 
in the interest of national defense (49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3)(A)).

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 
part 73 by designating Prohibited Area P-50 at Kings Bay, GA. 
Prohibited Area P-50 consists of that airspace, from the surface to, 
but not including 3,000 feet MSL, within a 2-NM radius of Lat. 
30[deg]48'00'' N., long. 81[deg]31'00'' W. In accordance with 14 CFR 
Sec.  73.83 and Sec.  91.133, no person may operate an aircraft within 
a prohibited area unless authorization has been granted by the using 
agency. The dimensions of P-50 are identical to those contained in the 
TFR now in effect over the Kings Bay facility via NOTAM number 5/9063. 
NOTAM number 5/9063 will be cancelled on the effective date of 
Prohibited Area P-50.
    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 regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' 
under Department of Transportation, (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 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.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for a categorical 
exclusion from further environmental analysis under the National 
Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, 
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraphs 303d and 
312d.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration 
amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 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.  73.92  [New]

0
2. Sec.  73.92 is added as follows:
* * * * *

P-50 Kings Bay, GA [New]

    Boundaries. That airspace within a 2-NM radius of Lat. 
30[deg]48'00'' N., long. 81[deg]31'00'' W.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to but not including 3,000 feet 
MSL.
    Time of designation. Continuous.
    Using agency. Administrator, FAA, Washington, DC.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 19, 2005.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules.
[FR Doc. 05-24431 Filed 12-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P