[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