55788 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

The new Safe Fatigue Limits depend on: 

(1) Status of the modification 

(reinforcement) of the wing structure itself 

(Partenavia Service Bulletin No. 65 refers); 

and 

(2) Aircraft Flight Hours accumulated 

before the modification (reinforcement) was 

implemented. 

Actions and Compliance 

(f) Unless already done, do the following 

actions: 

(1) For serial numbers 01 through 356, 

determine the safe fatigue limit of the wing 

structure following Vulcanair S.p.A. Service 

Bulletin No. 120 Rev. 1, dated June 7, 2006, 

within 8,500 hours time-in-service (TIS) 

since new or within 500 hours TIS after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

later. 

(2) For serial numbers 01 through 356, 

inspect the wing structure and the wing to 

fuselage attachments following Vulcanair 

S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. 120 Rev. 1, dated 

June 7, 2006, within the safe fatigue limit 

determined in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD or 

within 500 hours TIS after the effective date 

of this AD, whichever occurs later. 

Repetitively thereafter inspect at intervals not 

to exceed every 500 hours TIS. 

(3) For serial numbers 357 and above, 

inspect the wing structure and the wing to 

fuselage attachments following Vulcanair 

S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. 120 Rev. 1, dated 

June 7, 2006, within 17,500 hours TIS since 

new or within 500 hours TIS after the 

effective date of this AD, whichever occurs 

later. Repetitively thereafter inspect at 

intervals not to exceed every 500 hours TIS. 

(4) For all serial numbers, inspect the 

stabilator following Vulcanair S.p.A. Service 

Bulletin No. 120 Rev. 1, dated June 7, 2006, 

within 8,500 hours TIS since new or within 

500 hours TIS after the effective date of this 

AD, whichever occurs later. Repetitively 

thereafter inspect at intervals not to exceed 

every 500 hours TIS. 

(5) If as a result of any inspection required 

by paragraphs (f)(2), (f)(3), or (f)(4) of this AD 

you find any discrepancies (for example, 

cracked or broken parts), do one of the 

following actions before further flight: 

(i) Repair the airplane following FAAapproved repair instructions obtained from 

Vulcanair S.p.A.; or 

(ii) Repair the airplane following a repair 

method approved by the FAA for this AD. 

Contact the FAA at the address in paragraph 

(g)(1) of this AD for an FAA-approved 

method. 

Note 1: For certain Model P 68 airplanes, 

AD 85–08–04 requires repetitive inspections 

of the front and rear wing spars for cracks 

with modification if cracks are found. The 

modification terminates the repetitive 

inspections required in AD 85–08–04 and 

may be done regardless if cracks are found. 

The actions of AD 85–08–08 are independent 

of this AD action and remain in effect. 

FAA AD Differences 

Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI 

and/or service information as follows: 

(1) The MCAI is extending the safe fatigue 

limits of the wing structure and the wing to 

fuselage attachments of certain airplanes. 

Airplanes registered in the United States did 

not have safe fatigue limits established for 

the wing structure and the wing to fuselage 

attachments. This AD is establishing safe 

fatigue limits for the wing structure and the 

wing to fuselage attachments. This AD is also 

establishing safe fatigue limits for the 

stabilator. 

(2) The MCAI requires implementation of 

safe fatigue limits into the airplane 

maintenance program (maintenance 

program). An airplane registered in the 

United States and operated under 14 CFR 

part 91 is required to have a maintenance 

program, but not necessarily following the 

airplane maintenance manual. This AD 

requires you to do specific actions of 

Vulcanair S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. 120 

Rev. 1, dated June 7, 2006, rather than 

incorporating those actions into the 

maintenance program. 

Other FAA AD Provisions 

(g) The following provisions also apply to 

this AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, Standards Office, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to 

ATTN: Sarjapur Nagarajan, Aerospace 

Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 

901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 

64106; telephone: (816) 329–4145; fax: (816) 

329–4090. Before using any approved AMOC 

on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector 

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District 

Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local 

FSDO. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any 

requirement in this AD to obtain corrective 

actions from a manufacturer or other source, 

use these actions if they are FAA-approved. 

Corrective actions are considered FAAapproved if they are approved by the State 

of Design Authority (or their delegated 

agent). You are required to assure the product 

is airworthy before it is returned to service. 

(3) Reporting Requirements: For any 

reporting requirement in this AD, under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved the information collection 

requirements and has assigned OMB Control 

Number 2120–0056. 

Related Information 

(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation 

Safety Agency AD No.: 2007–0027, dated 

February 5, 2007; and Vulcanair S.p.A. 

Service Bulletin No. 120 Rev. 1, dated June 

7, 2006, for related information. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

September 17, 2008. 

James E. Jackson, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E8–22338 Filed 9–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

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, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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 frontline 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

55790 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonrulemaking 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 nonradio-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-forprofit 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 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: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

55792 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart N—Special Flight Rules in the 

Vicinity of Luke AFB, AZ. 

§ 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. 

§ 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°23′56′′ N,; Long. 112°28′37′′ W; 

Lat. 33°22′32′′ N,; Long. 112°37′14′′ W; 

Lat. 33°25′39′′ N,; Long. 112°37′29′′ W; 

Lat. 33°31′55′′ N,; Long. 112°30′32′′ W; 

Lat. 33°28′00′′ N,; Long. 112°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°28′00′′ N,; Long. 112°28′41′′ W; 

Lat. 33°23′56′′ N.; Long. 112°28′37′′ W; 

Lat. 33°27′53′′ N.; Long. 112°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°42′22′′ N,; Long. 112°19′16′′ W; 

Lat. 33°38′40′′ N.; Long. 112°14′03′′ W; 

Lat. 33°35′36′′ N.; Long. 112°15′36′′ W; 

Lat. 33°27′53′′ N,; Long. 112°24′12′′ W; 

Lat. 33°28′00′′ N.; Long. 112°28′41′′ W; 

Lat. 33°31′55′′ N.; Long. 112°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°42′22′′ N.; Long. 112°19′16′′ W; 

Lat. 33°46′58′′ N.; Long. 112°16′41′′ W; 

Lat. 33°44′48′′ N.; Long. 112°10′59′′ W; 

Lat. 33°38′40′′ N.; Long. 112°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°51′52′′ N.; Long. 112°37′54′′ W; 

Lat. 33°49′34′′ N.; Long. 112°23′34′′ W; 

Lat. 33°46′58′′ N.; Long. 112°16′41′′ W; 

Lat. 33°42′22′′ N.; Long. 112°19′16′′ W; 

Lat. 33°39′27′′ N.; Long. 112°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°39′27′′ N.; Long. 112°22′27′′ W; 

Lat. 33°38′06′′ N.; Long. 112°23′51′′ W; 

Lat. 33°38′07′′ N.; Long. 112°28′50′′ W; 

Lat. 33°39′34′′ N.; Long. 112°31′39′′ W; 

Lat. 33°39′32′′ N.; Long. 112°37′36′′ W; 

Lat. 33°51′52′′ N.; Long. 112°37′54′′ W; 

to point of beginning. 

§ 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 

§ 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 55793 


mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALSEP26SE08.430</GPH>
55794 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 188 / Friday, September 26, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

[FR Doc. E8–22568 Filed 9–25–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 20 

[FBI Docket No. 118] 

RIN 1110–AA29 

FBI Records Management Division 

National Name Check Program Section 

User Fees 

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI), Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The FBI is authorized to 

establish and collect fees for providing 

fingerprint-based and name-based 

criminal history record information 

(CHRI) checks and other identification 

services submitted by authorized users 

for non-criminal justice purposes 

including employment and licensing. 

The fees may include an amount to 

establish a fund to defray expenses for 

the automation of criminal justice 

information services and associated 

costs. The proposed rule concerns the 

name-based checks conducted by the 

Records Management Division (RMD) in 

the National Name Check Program 

(NNCP). 

The rule explains the methodology 

used to calculate the revised fees and 

provides a proposed fee schedule. After 

public comment, a final rule and notice 

of the final fee schedule will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 25, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. FBI 118, by 

either of the following methods: 

• Federal Regulations Web site: You 

may review this regulation on http:// 

www.regulations.gov and use the 

comment form for this regulation to 

submit your comments. You must 

include Docket No. FBI 118 in the 

subject box of your message. 

• Mail: You may use the U.S. Postal 

Service or other commercial delivery 

services to submit written comments to 

the FBI, Records Management Division, 

National Name Check Program Section, 

1325 G Street, Room G–300, 

Washington, DC 20005, Attention: 

Michael A. Cannon. 

To ensure proper handling, please 

reference Docket No. FBI 118 in your 

comment. When submitting written 

comments, please allow for delivery 

time plus at least two days for internal 

mail security scanning and delivery. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Cannon, FBI, Records 

Management Division, National Name 

Check Program Section, 1325 G Street, 

Room G–300, Washington, DC 20005, 

telephone number (202) 220–1198. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Posting of Public Comments 

II. Background 

III. Fee Calculation 

IV. Revised Fee Schedule 

V. Administrative 

VI. Regulatory Certifications 

I. Posting of Public Comments 

Please note that all comments on the 

proposed rule are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Such information 

includes personal identifying 

information (such as your name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter. 

If you want to submit personal 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also locate 

all the personal identifying information 

you do not want posted online in the 

first paragraph of your comment and 

identify what information you want 

redacted. 

If you want to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment but do not want it to be posted 

online, you must include the phrase 

‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also 

prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment has 

so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Personal identifying information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will be placed in the agency’s public 

docket file, but not posted online. 

Confidential business information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will not be placed in the public docket 

file. If you wish to inspect the agency’s 

public docket file in person by 

appointment, please see the ‘‘For 

Additional Information’’ paragraph. 

II. Background 

For purposes of discussion, FBI user 

fees may be differentiated by the FBI 

Division providing the service. The user 

fees for the National Name Check 

Program (NNCP) checks provided by the 

Records Management Division (RMD) 

are the subject of this rulemaking. Fees 

for the criminal history record 

information checks provided by the 

Criminal Justice Information Services 

Division (CJIS) are the subject of a 

separate rulemaking (Docket No. FBI 

114, RIN 1110–AA26). The separate CJIS 

fee rule also proposes to amend 28 CFR 

20.31. In the event that the CJIS fee rule 

is finalized first, the revisions proposed 

in this rulemaking to section 20.31(e) 

will be conformed with the changes 

contained in the CJIS fee rule. 

The rulemaking process provides 

federal governmental agencies and the 

public the opportunity to review and 

comment on the methodology utilized 

by the FBI to implement its statutory 

authority to establish and collect fees 

and the proposed fee schedule, and 

advises that future fee adjustments will 

be made by notice published in the 

Federal Register. After analysis and 

response to the comment, a final rule 

and notice of the fee schedule will be 

published in the Federal Register. This 

rule will be published at Part 20 of 28 

CFR. 

FBI’s Legal Authority To Collect Fees 

The FBI has collected fees for NNCP 

checks since 1991, under the authority 

set out in Public Law 101–162. This law 

authorized the FBI to collect fees to 

process identification records and name 

checks for non-criminal justice purposes 

and to set such fees at a level to include 

an amount to defray expenses for the 

automation of fingerprint identification 

and associated costs. Congress, in Public 

Law 101–515, subsequently authorized 

the FBI to establish and collect these 

fees on a continuing basis. 

National Name Check Program Services 

Under Public Law 101–515, the FBI is 

authorized to charge a fee for noncriminal justice name-based checks for 

such purposes as immigration, Federal 

Government employment and security 

clearance processes. The FBI does not 

charge a fee for NNCP services 

performed for criminal justice purposes, 

which are supported by federal 

appropriations. 

Reasons for the Proposed Fee Schedule 

While the RMD has automated some 

portions of the NNCP process, the 

current fees, which have not changed 

since 1991, do not reflect the expense of 

personnel time and other costs involved 

in the analysis of the pertinent 

information. As explained below, the 

NNCP disseminates information from 

the FBI’s Central Records System (CRS) 

in response to requests submitted by 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS