```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 188 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55788-55794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22568]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 93

[Docket No. FAA-2007-26470; and Notice No. 08-10]
RIN 2120-AJ29

Proposed Establishment of Special Air Traffic Rule, in the 
Vicinity of Luke AFB, AZ

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This rule would establish a Special Air Traffic Rule (SATR) in 
the vicinity of Luke Air Force Base (Luke) which would require general 
aviation (GA) traffic operating under visual flight rules (VFR) to 
establish communication with the Luke Radar Approach Control (RAPCON) 
while operating in the area around Luke. This action is necessary to 
address reported near midair collisions in the area around Luke and 
would help reduce the potential for midair collisions in the vicinity 
of Luke.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-
26470 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-
140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to Docket 
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you 
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can 
find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of 
our dockets,

[[Page 55789]]

including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing 
the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may 
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register 
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to 
http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online 
instructions for accessing the docket. Or, go to Docket Operations in 
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning 
this proposed rule contact Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules Group, 
Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, AJR-33 Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-8783. For legal questions contact Adrianne Wojcik, 
Office of Chief Counsel, Regulations Division, Air Traffic & 
Certification of Airman Law Branch, AGC-240 Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-7776.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional 
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal 
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is 
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of 
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how 
you can get a copy of related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator, including the 
authority to issue, rescind, and revise regulations. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes, in more detail, the scope of the agency's 
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Chapter 401, Section 40103(b), which 
allows the Administrator to regulate the use of the navigable airspace 
necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 
airspace. Moreover, Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Chapter 447, 
Section 44701(c) authorizes the Administrator to regulate air commerce 
in a way that helps to reduce or eliminate the possibility or 
recurrence of accidents in air transportation. The proposed change is 
within the scope of our authority and is a reasonable and necessary 
exercise of our statutory obligations.

Background

    Luke Air Force Base (AFB) is home to the 56th Fighter Wing, the 
United States Air Force's largest fighter wing. Since 1941, Luke has 
trained pilots and other aircrew members for America's front-line 
fighter aircraft. Today, over 200 F-16s conduct more than 201,000 
annual operations, and a majority of these operations are for student 
training. Situated beneath the Phoenix Class B Airspace Area, the Luke 
terminal area consists of Class D airspace. The Phoenix Deer Valley 
Airport (the nation's third busiest general aviation airport in 2004) 
is located within 5 nautical miles of the Luke terminal airspace. There 
are two flight schools and two Fixed Base Operators located at Phoenix 
Deer Valley Airport, and the flight schools conduct training within the 
vicinity of Luke.
    Alert Area A-231 is located adjacent and west of Luke, and is 
utilized by a high volume of pilot jet training operations. Military 
pilots are advised to be particularly alert when flying in Alert Area 
A-231, but there is no requirement for civil aircraft to establish 
communication with the Luke RAPCON during transit. The Air Force Flight 
Safety Office at Luke points out that although reported near midair 
collisions are approximately 3 per quarter, each occurrence affects 
multiple aircraft in the same formation. The significant number of near 
midair collisions between Luke F-16s and VFR aircraft indicates VFR 
pilots are not avoiding this area of concentrated student jet 
transition training.
    Operational problems affecting safety in the Luke terminal airspace 
area are particularly acute and include complex and voluminous traffic, 
aircraft congestion, terrain that constrains aircraft operations, and 
the uncontrolled mix of IFR and VFR traffic. Luke RAPCON traffic counts 
show a mix of military F-16 aircraft operations and GA traffic 
operations, with some civil air carrier operations. F-16 aircraft are 
operating at significantly higher airspeeds than most civil GA traffic, 
normally 200+ knots faster on arrival and 250+ knots faster on 
departure. This difference in airspeed creates extreme closure rates on 
converging F-16 and GA aircraft. In addition, complexity is increased 
because GA aircraft often do not detect all of the aircraft in a 
military flight formation. Student pilot training in the F-16 aircraft, 
combined with student flight training in GA aircraft, diminishes see-
and-avoid concepts, seriously compromises flight safety and increases 
the midair collision potential. The Luke RAPCON provides services to GA 
aircraft on request, but safety can be significantly enhanced with the 
full participation of all aircraft operating within the vicinity of the 
Luke terminal airspace area.
    The average number of conflicts between controlled and uncontrolled 
aircraft has increased steadily since 2000. Direct communication 
requirements for aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Luke 
terminal airspace area would reduce the number of conflicts and the 
near midair collision potential. Aircraft track data modeling tools 
indicate a significant volume of GA traffic crossing Luke primary 
instrument final approach course. These data indicate a direct 
correlation between near midair collision data and the proximity/flight 
patterns of GA aircraft operating out of the Phoenix Deer Valley 
Airport. Data track analysis also shows GA traffic from Goodyear 
Airport and Glendale Airport crossing the final approach course and 
departure path for Runway 21 at Luke.
    There are a number of prominent landmarks that GA aircraft use when 
operating under VFR. Two of these landmarks are the Glendale Arrowhead 
Mall and the Peoria Power Plant/Substation, which are very close to the 
Luke Runway 21 final approach course. Luke F-16s use the Peoria Power 
plant as a visual aid for turning to the final approach course when 
conducting formation landings. Additionally, many of the flight schools 
use the Proving Grounds located approximately 5 miles north of the Luke 
Auxiliary Field for conducting practice aircraft operations. Aircraft 
operations in the vicinity of the Proving Grounds conflict with the 
downwind radar pattern for the Luke Auxiliary Field. The use of these 
prominent VFR landmarks results in conflicts with the IFR and VFR 
patterns of Luke F-16s.
    For the past few years, the United States Air Force (USAF) has been 
educating the local aviation community about serious operational 
problems, including voluminous air traffic congestion, and the 
uncontrolled mix of IFR and VFR traffic, which impact safety around 
Luke. Initially, the USAF addressed these problems by making pilots at 
local airports and flight schools aware of the issue and urging 
aircraft operators to use various traffic services that could make 
operations in the area

[[Page 55790]]

safer. The USAF also posted its midair collision avoidance program on 
the Flying Office Safety Web site at: http://www.luke.af.mil/library/midaircollisionavoidance.asp. Although the ongoing educational efforts 
have had some success, leading to a reduction in near misses, there 
continued to be an average of one near midair collision per month. The 
USAF finally concluded that safety problems at Luke were so acute the 
USAF sought a rulemaking solution.
    On July 21, 2006, the USAF petitioned the FAA to establish a SATR 
in the vicinity of Luke, which would require pilots to obtain an air 
traffic clearance to operate in the area (FAA-2006-25459-1). The USAF 
believes that the growing amount of VFR traffic combined with a high 
volume of military air traffic, as well as the increasing number of 
near midair collisions occurring in the Phoenix West Valley, fully 
justify such an action. The petition included letters from local 
mayors, members of Congress, and U.S. senators, as well as many 
aviation organizations, such as Pam Am International Flight Academy, 
Westwind School of Aeronautics, Oxford Airline Training Center, Airline 
Training Center Arizona, Inc., and WESTMARC (a regional coalition of 
business, government, education and community organizations), endorsing 
the petition and strongly supporting the action.
    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and a few local 
pilot associations, such as Deer Valley Pilots Association and the 
Arizona Pilots Association, responded to the proposal by opposing any 
action that would require air traffic clearances to operate in the 
area. They insisted on solving the problem through more education and 
more robust charting notations about avoiding the Luke area during its 
peak operational hours. However, as discussed above, the USAF has 
already exhausted the use of non-rulemaking alternatives, which has not 
solved the serious problem of near midair collisions.
    After analyzing the petition and the initial response of the 
aviation community it generated, the FAA agrees that the establishment 
of a SATR in the area would significantly reduce safety problems in the 
vicinity of Luke. However, instead of requiring an air traffic 
clearance to operate in the area, we believe that a simple radio 
communication requirement for pilots operating around Luke would 
suffice to solve the issue of near midair collisions in the area. 
Hence, the proposed rule does not include a flight plan or advance 
clearance requirements. There may be a small number of non- radio-
equipped aircraft operating in the area, but those operators would be 
able to contact the USAF air traffic control by phone 24 hours in 
advance for alternate arrangements when transiting the area.
    The implementation of a SATR with a two-way radio communication 
requirement would provide an additional safety margin and increase the 
protection of both military and GA aircraft. Currently, all military 
aircraft en-route to/from Luke are required to establish two-way radio 
communication with Luke RAPCON, but the absence of required radio 
contact with VFR aircraft has led to a significant increase in the 
number of near midair collisions. When pilots operating VFR use 
advertised advisory services available at Luke RAPCON they are issued 
timely traffic advisories and assistance to successfully transit the 
area. Luke will provide continuous information on the status of the 
Luke SATR for flight crews both in flight and on the ground via land 
line and Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS). It is not the 
intent of this proposal to deny pilots flying VFR access to the area 
once communication is established with Luke RAPCON. Additionally, this 
proposal is minimally burdensome and will enhance safety.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there 
is no new information collection requirement associated with this 
proposed rule.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    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 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) 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, that they be the basis of U.S. 
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that 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 annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impacts of this proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking 
greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we 
have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed 
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an 
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in 
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; 
(5) would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of 
the United States; and (6) would not impose an unfunded mandate on 
State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by 
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized 
below. The FAA believes that this rule would impose minimal costs on 
VFR pilots of GA aircraft, Luke RAPCON and the Federal government. The 
rule would help reduce the risk of a midair collision in the SATR area, 
which would result in an increase in aviation safety. As a result, the 
FAA believes this rule is cost-beneficial.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA 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 rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If

[[Page 55791]]

the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA 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.
    This proposed rule would impose minimal costs on individuals 
operating GA aircraft in the Luke vicinity under VFR. Most operators of 
GA aircraft are individuals, not small business entities, and are not 
included when performing a regulatory flexibility analysis. However, 
flight schools, as well as GA operators flying for business reasons, 
are considered small business entities. The FAA assumes affected 
instructors and operators use aircraft already equipped with two-way 
radios, and therefore would not incur any extra costs.
    Therefore, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The FAA requests comments from affected entities on this 
finding and determination, and requests that comments be supported with 
clear and relevant documentation.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in 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. The FAA has assessed the 
potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined that it would 
have only a domestic impact and therefore no effect on international 
trade.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995) in any one 
year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by 
the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a ``significant 
regulatory action.'' The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value 
of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. This proposed rule does not 
contain such a mandate.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under the principles and criteria of 
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We have determined that this action 
will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, or the 
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Therefore, we have determined that this final rule does not 
have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the 
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no 
extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not 
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, 
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Additional Information

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also 
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or 
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in 
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion 
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain 
duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or 
if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments 
only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we 
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for 
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has 
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. 
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the 
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make 
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.
    You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this 
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from 
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in 
paragraph above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Navigation (air)

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as follows:

PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES

    1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502, 
44514, 44701, 44719, 46301.

    2. Add subpart N to Part 93 to read as follows:

[[Page 55792]]

Subpart N--Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Luke AFB, AZ.

Sec.  93.161  Applicability.

    This subpart prescribes a Special Air Traffic Rule for aircraft 
conducting VFR operations in the vicinity of Luke Air Force Base, AZ.

Sec.  93.163  Description of Area.

    The Luke Air Force Base, Arizona Terminal Area is designated during 
daylight hours Monday through Friday during flight training operations, 
other times by Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as advertised on the local 
ATIS, as follows:
    (a) East Sector:
    (1) South section includes airspace extending from 3,000 feet MSL 
to the base of the overlaying Phoenix Class B airspace bounded by a 
line beginning at:

    Lat. 33[deg]23'56'' N,; Long. 112[deg]28'37'' W; Lat. 
33[deg]22'32'' N,; Long. 112[deg]37'14'' W; Lat. 33[deg]25'39'' N,; 
Long. 112[deg]37'29'' W; Lat. 33[deg]31'55'' N,; Long. 112[deg]30'32'' 
W; Lat. 33[deg]28'00'' N,; Long. 112[deg]28'41'' W; to point of 
beginning.

    (2) South section lower includes airspace extending from 2,100 feet 
MSL to the base of the overlaying Phoenix Class B airspace, excluding 
the Luke Class D airspace area bounded by a line beginning at:

    Lat. 33[deg]28'00'' N,; Long. 112[deg]28'41'' W; Lat. 
33[deg]23'56'' N.; Long. 112[deg]28'37'' W; Lat. 33[deg]27'53'' N.; 
Long. 112[deg]24'12'' W; to point of beginning.

    (3) Center section includes airspace extending from surface to the 
base of the overlaying Phoenix Class B airspace, excluding the Luke 
Class D airspace area bounded by a line beginning at:

    Lat. 33[deg]42'22'' N,; Long. 112[deg]19'16'' W; Lat. 
33[deg]38'40'' N.; Long. 112[deg]14'03'' W; Lat. 33[deg]35'36'' N.; 
Long. 112[deg]15'36'' W; Lat. 33[deg]27'53'' N,; Long. 112[deg]24'12'' 
W; Lat. 33[deg]28'00'' N.; Long. 112[deg]28'41'' W; Lat. 33[deg]31'55'' 
N.; Long. 112[deg]30'32'' W; to point of beginning.

    (4) The north section includes that airspace extending upward from 
3,000 feet MSL to 4,000 feet MSL, bounded by a line beginning at:

    Lat. 33[deg]42'22'' N.; Long. 112[deg]19'16'' W; Lat. 
33[deg]46'58'' N.; Long. 112[deg]16'41'' W; Lat. 33[deg]44'48'' N.; 
Long. 112[deg]10'59'' W; Lat. 33[deg]38'40'' N.; Long. 112[deg]14'03'' 
W; to point of beginning.

    (b) West Sector:
    (1) The north section includes that airspace extending upward from 
3,000 feet MSL to 6,000 feet MSL, bounded by a line beginning at:

    Lat. 33[deg]51'52'' N.; Long. 112[deg]37'54'' W; Lat. 
33[deg]49'34'' N.; Long. 112[deg]23'34'' W; Lat. 33[deg]46'58'' N.; 
Long. 112[deg]16'41'' W; Lat. 33[deg]42'22'' N.; Long. 112[deg]19'16'' 
W; Lat. 33[deg]39'27'' N.; Long. 112[deg]22'27'' W; to point of 
beginning.

    (2) The south section includes that airspace extending upward from 
the surface to 6,000 feet MSL, bounded by a line beginning at:

    Lat. 33[deg]39'27'' N.; Long. 112[deg]22'27'' W; Lat. 
33[deg]38'06'' N.; Long. 112[deg]23'51'' W; Lat. 33[deg]38'07'' N.; 
Long. 112[deg]28'50'' W; Lat. 33[deg]39'34'' N.; Long. 112[deg]31'39'' 
W; Lat. 33[deg]39'32'' N.; Long. 112[deg]37'36'' W; Lat. 33[deg]51'52'' 
N.; Long. 112[deg]37'54'' W; to point of beginning.

Sec.  93.165  Operations in the Special Air Traffic Rule Area.

    (a) Unless otherwise authorized by Air Traffic Control (ATC), no 
person may operate an aircraft in flight within the Luke Terminal Area 
designated in Sec.  93.163 unless--
    (1) Before operating within the Luke Terminal area, that person 
establishes radio contact with Luke Radar Approach Control (RAPCON); 
and
    (2) That person maintains two-way radio communication with the Luke 
RAPCON or an appropriate FAA ATC facility while within the designated 
area.
    (b) Request for deviation from the provisions of this section must 
be submitted to the Luke RAPCON at least 24 hours before the proposed 
operation.

Hank Krakowski,
Chief Operating Offficer (COO), Air Traffic Organization.

    Note: The Following Map Will Not Appear In the Code of Federal 
Regulations.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 55793]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26SE08.430

[[Page 55794]]

 [FR Doc. E8-22568 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C
```