Proposed Establishment of Myrtle Beach International Airport Class C Airspace Area, SC; and Revocation of the Myrtle Beach AFB Class D Airspace Area; South Carolina

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95-AWA-6]

Proposed Establishment of Myrtle Beach International Airport

Class C Airspace Area, SC; and Revocation of the Myrtle Beach AFB Class

D Airspace Area; South Carolina

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to establish a Class C airspace area and

revoke the existing Class D airspace area at the Myrtle Beach

International Airport, Myrtle Beach, SC. The Myrtle Beach International

Airport is a public-use facility with a Level II control tower served

by a Radar Approach Control. The establishment of this Class C airspace

area would require pilots to maintain two-way radio communications with

air traffic control (ATC) while in Class C airspace. Implementation of

the Class C airspace area would promote the efficient use of air

traffic and reduce the risk of midair collision in the terminal area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 22, 1996.

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. 95-AWA-6, 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, P.O. Box

20636, Atlanta, GA 30320.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia P. Crawford, Airspace and

Rules Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management,

Federal Aviation Administration, 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

[[Page 43321]]

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. 95-

AWA-6.'' 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, Attention: Airspace and

Rules Division, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC

20591, or by calling (202) 267-3075. Communications must identify the

notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a

mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the Federal Aviation

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, to 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 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, l985, issued a

final rule (50 FR 9252; March 6, l985) 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,

l985). 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 terminology is

reflected in the remainder of this NPRM.

This notice proposes Class C airspace designation at a location

which was not identified as a candidate 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.

The Myrtle Beach International Airport is a public-use airport with

an operating Level II control tower served by Radar Approach Control.

The FAA assumed responsibility from the U.S. Air Force, for providing

air traffic services at the airport in December 1992. The number of

general aviation and air taxi aircraft operating in the terminal

environment at Myrtle Beach International Airport is increasing. The

volume of passenger enplanements reported at Myrtle Beach International

Airport were 316,809, 274,531, and 290,295, respectively, for calendar

years 1994, 1993, and 1992. Myrtle Beach International Airport

qualifies as a Class C airspace candidate based on the volume of

enplaned passengers.

The Proposal

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal

Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish a Class C airspace area at

the Myrtle Beach International Airport and revoke the Class D airspace

area at the Myrtle Beach AFB, SC. Myrtle Beach International Airport is

a public airport with a Level II operating control tower served by a

Radar Approach Control.

The FAA previously has published a final rule (50 FR 9252; March 6,

l985) that defines Class C airspace, and prescribes operating rules for

aircraft, ultralight vehicles, and parachute jump operations in Class C

airspace areas. The final rule provides, in part, that all aircraft

arriving at any airport in Class C airspace or flying through Class C

airspace must: (1) prior to entering the Class C airspace, establish

two-way radio communications with the ATC facility having jurisdiction

over the area; and (2) while in Class C airspace, maintain two-way

radio communications with that ATC facility. For aircraft departing

from the primary airport within Class C airspace, or a satellite

airport with an operating control tower, two-way radio communications

must be established and maintained with the control tower and

thereafter as instructed by ATC while operating in Class C airspace.

For aircraft departing a satellite airport without an operating control

tower and within Class C airspace, two-way radio communications must be

established with the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the area as

soon as practicable after takeoff and thereafter maintained while

operating within the Class C airspace area (14 CFR section 91.130).

Pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations section 91.130 (14 CFR

part 91) all aircraft operating within Class C airspace are required to

comply with

[[Page 43322]]

sections 91.129 and 91.130. Ultralight vehicle operations and parachute

jumps in Class C airspace areas may only be conducted under the terms

of an ATC authorization.

The FAA adopted the NAR Task Group recommendation that each Class C

airspace area be of the same airspace configuration insofar as is

practicable. The standard Class C airspace area consists of that

airspace within 5 nautical miles 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 nautical miles from the

primary airport from 1,200 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.

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). 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

7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class C airspace

designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in

the Order and the Class D airspace designation listed in this document

would be removed subsequently from the Order.

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) is not 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;

and (4) would not constitute a barrier to international trade. These

analyses are summarized below in the docket.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

The FAA has determined the proposed establishment of the Myrtle

Beach Class C airspace area would enhance operational efficiency

(through the promotion of additional ATC operating procedures) and

aviation safety (in the form of reduced risk of midair collision in the

proposed Class C airspace area).

Costs

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

Aircraft operators would incur minimal, if any, cost with

compliance from the proposed rule. The 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 two-way radios that are required to

enter Class C airspace. As of December 30, 1990, all aircraft (except

those without an electrical system, balloons and gliders) flying in the

vicinity of the Myrtle Beach Airport have been required to have a Mode

C transponder under Federal Aviation Regulations (14 part 91.215). The

FAA has traditionally accommodated GA aircraft operators without two-

way radio communication equipment and operators of aircraft without

electrical systems, via ATC authorized deviations or letters of

agreement, when practical to do so without jeopardizing aviation

safety. There would be no additional cost for transponder equipage, as

a result of the proposed rule, because the regulatory evaluation

prepared for the Mode C transponders rule estimated the cost of such

equipment for the affected operators. Not all GA aircraft operators may

receive authorized deviations or letters of agreement, these operators

would be required to circumnavigate the Class C airspace area. The FAA

has determined operators could circumnavigate around the proposed

airspace (5 miles), over, or in certain cases, under the proposed

airspace without significantly deviating from their regular flight

paths. Therefore, the FAA has determined the proposed rule would impose

minimal, if any, cost impact on aircraft operators.

Cost Impact on the FAA

The FAA assumed responsibility for ATC at the Myrtle Beach AFB from

the United States Air Force on December 27, 1992. In that same year, a

review of the radar system at Myrtle Beach was conducted. As a result

of that review, the FAA decided to expedite the replacement of the

computer system in conjunction with the radar scope. Myrtle Beach AFB

installed a new computer system, after the FAA's 1992 review;

therefore, the agency would not incur any additional cost for equipment

(such as consoles) with the proposed establishment of Class C airspace.

The proposed Class C airspace area would also be able to function

effectively with existing personnel resources. Once an NPRM becomes

final, the FAA distributes a Letter to Airmen to pilots residing within

50 miles of the proposed established Class C airspace area. This one-

time incurred cost of the established rule would be approximately $535.

The FAA systematically revises sectional charts every 6 months;

therefore, the proposed rule would not impose any additional charting

costs to the agency. The FAA holds an informal public meeting at each

proposed Class C airspace area location. These meetings provide pilots

with the best opportunity to learn both how a Class C airspace area

works and how it would affect their local operations. The expenses

associated with these public meetings are incurred regardless of

whether a Class C airspace area is ultimately established. Thus, they

are more appropriately considered routine FAA costs. If the proposed

Class C airspace area becomes a final rule, any subsequent public

information costs would be strictly attributed to the proposal. The FAA

recognizes that delays might develop at Myrtle Beach following the

initial establishment of the Class C airspace area. However, those

delays that do occur are typically transitional in nature. The FAA

contends that any potential delays that do occur are typically

transitional in nature. The FAA contends that any potential delays

would eventually be more than offset by the increased flexibility

afforded controllers in handling traffic as a result of Class C

separation standards. This has been the experience at other Class C

airspace areas. Thus, the FAA has determined that the Myrtle Beach

facility is already equipped with the necessary personnel, capability,

and equipment to provide

[[Page 43323]]

Class C services to the maximum extent at minimal cost.

Benefits

Those potential benefit components (enhanced aviation safety and

operational efficiency) that are expected to be generated by the

proposed rule are discussed as follows:

Impact on Aviation Safety

The proposed rule would enhance aviation safety. The enhancement in

aviation safety would be in the form of a reduced probability of midair

collisions. The FAA has increased the controlled airspace around Myrtle

Beach, due to the increase in passenger enplanements and complexity of

operations in that area. The enhancement to aviation safety is based on

the fact that the proposed rule would impose equipment (i.e., two-way

radio and Mode C transponders) and operational requirements (i.e.,

separation procedures and safety alerts) on aircraft operators in the

proposed Class C airspace area. The FAA Office of Aviation Safety

conducted a study of the occurrences of near-midair collisions (NMAC),

the byproduct of the study, was that 15 percent of reported NMAC's

occur in airspace similar to that at Myrtle Beach.

Impact on Operational Efficiency

The proposed rule would enhance aircraft operational efficiency.

This assessment is based on the enhancement in operational efficiency

that would accrue from increased operational requirements in the

proposed Class C airspace area. Aircraft operators in this type of

airspace would receive additional information in the form of traffic

advisories and separation and sequencing of arrivals. The proposed rule

would not have an adverse impact on satellite airports located within

the surface area of the Class C airspace area.

Conclusion

In view of the minimal cost of compliance, enhanced aviation safety

and 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

``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 may potentially incur minimal, if any, cost

with the implementation of the proposed rule are operators of aircraft

who do not meet Class C navigational equipment standards (primarily

parts 91, 121 and 135 aircraft without two-way radios and Mode C

transponders). The small entities potentially impacted by the proposed

rule would not incur any additional cost for navigational equipment and

more stringent operating procedures because they routinely fly into

airspace where such requirements are already in place. As the result of

the Mode C rule, all of these commercial operators are assumed to have

Mode C transponders. The FAA has traditionally accommodated GA and

other aircraft operators without two-way radio communication equipment

and Mode C transponders, via letters of agreement, when practical to do

so without jeopardizing safety. 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 neither impose costs on aircraft operators nor aircraft

manufacturers (U.S. or foreign).

Federalism Implications

The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship between the national

Government and States, or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this

proposed rule would not have sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24

FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.

Sec. 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal

Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and

Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,

1995, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 4000--Subpart C--Class C Airspace

* * * * *

ASO SC C Myrtle Beach, SC [New]

Myrtle Beach International Airport

(Lat. 33 deg.40'47'' N., long. 78 deg.55'42'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including

4,000 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of the Myrtle Beach

International Airport, and that airspace extending upward from 1,200

feet MSL to and including 4,000 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius of

the Myrtle Beach International Airport. This Class C airspace area

is effective during the specific dates and times of operation of the

Myrtle Beach Approach Control facility, as established in advance by

a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and times will thereafter be

continuously published in Airport/Facility Directory.

* * * * *

Paragraph 5000--Subpart D--Class D Airspace

* * * * *

ASO SC D Myrtle Beach AFB, SC [Removed]

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 15, 1996.

Jeff Griffith,

Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 43324]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22AU96.000

[FR Doc. 96-21479 Filed 8-21-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C