12892 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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
12894 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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
12896 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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.

§ 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°11′’38′′ N, long. 123°11′04′′ W)

Vancouver VORTAC

(Lat. 49°04′38′′ N, long. 123°08′57′′ W)

That airspace extending upward from

2,500 feet MSL to 12,500 feet MSL beginning

at lat. 49°00′00′′ N, long. 123°19′20′′ W;

thence east along the U.S./Canadian

boundary to lat. 49°00′08′′ N, 122°33′50′′ W;

thence south to lat. 48°57′59′′ N, long.

122°33′50′′ W; thence west to lat. 48°57′59′′

N, long. 122°47′12′′ W; thence

southwestward via a 16 NM arc of the

Vancouver VORTAC to lat. 48°49′52′′ N,

long. 123°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°01′31′′ N, long. 122°21′48′′ W)

Vancouver VORTAC

(Lat. 49°04′38′′ N, long. 123°08′57′′ W)

That airspace extending upward from the

surface to 2,500 feet MSL beginning at lat.

48°57′59′′ N, long. 122°18′57′′ W, thence

counterclockwise along the 4-mile radius of

the Abbotsford Airport to lat. 49°00′05′′ N,

122°16′08′′ W; thence west along the USCanadian border to lat. 49°00′05′′ N, long.

122°45′58′′ W, thence clockwise along the 16-

mile ARC of the Vancouver VORTAC, to lat.

48°57′59′′ N, long. 122°47′12′′ W; thence east

along lat. 48° 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°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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 12897

[FR Doc. 97–6685 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C