[Federal Register: August 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 149)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 45249-45262]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04au05-21]
[[Page 45249]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part V
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Part 93
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area; Proposed
Rule
[[Page 45250]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 93
[Docket No. FAA-2003-17005; Notice No. 05-07]
RIN 2120-AI17
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to codify current flight restrictions for
certain aircraft operations in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area.
This action is necessary because of the ongoing threat of terrorist
attacks. The FAA intends by this action to help the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of Defense protect national assets
in the National Capital region.
DATES: Send your comments on or before November 2, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments that do not include national security
or sensitive security information identified by Docket Number FAA-2003-
17005 using any of the following methods:
DOT Docket Web Site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
Government-wide Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-001.
Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
For more information on the rulemaking process or instructions on
submitting comments that include national security or sensitive
security information, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
Privacy: Subject to review for national security or sensitive
security information, we will post all comments we receive, without
change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you
provide. For more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of
the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Crum, Airspace and Rules, Office
of System Operations and Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. (See also
``Sensitive Security Information'' below.) 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. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, subject to
review for national security or sensitive security information as
indicated above, as well as a report summarizing each substantive
public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking.
The docket is available for public inspection before and after the
comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to
the address in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may
also review the docket using the Internet at the Web address in the
ADDRESSES section.
Privacy Act: Using the search function of our docket Web site,
anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets,
including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing
the comment on behalf of 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://dms.dot.gov.
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 late if it is possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments
we receive.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this
proposal, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard
on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the
postcard and mail it to you.
Sensitive Security Information
Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be
sensitive security information. Send or deliver this information
(identified as docket number FAA-2003-17005) directly to Edith V.
Parish, Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules, Office of System Operations
and Safety, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-8783. You must mark
information that you consider security-sensitive.
Under 14 CFR 11.35 (a), we will review comments as we receive them,
before they are placed in the docket. If a comment contains sensitive
security information, we remove it before placing the comment in the
general docket.
Availability of This Action
You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
(1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket
Management System (DMS) Web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search); (2) Visiting the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov; 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 submitting 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. Be sure
to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number of
this rulemaking.
Statutory Authority
The FAA Administrator has broad authority to regulate the safe and
efficient use of the navigable airspace (49 U.S.C. 40103). The
Administrator is also authorized to issue air traffic rules and
regulations to govern the flight of aircraft, the navigation,
protection, and identification of aircraft for the protection of
persons and property on the ground, and for the efficient use of the
navigable airspace. Additionally, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3) the
Administrator has the authority, in consultation with the Secretary of
[[Page 45251]]
Defense, to ``establish security provisions that will encourage and
allow maximum use of the navigable airspace by civil aircraft
consistent with national security.'' Such provisions may include
establishing airspace areas the Administrator decides are necessary in
the interest of national defense; and by regulation or order,
restricting or prohibiting flight of civil aircraft that the
Administrator cannot identify, locate and control with available
facilities in those areas. See 49 U.S.C. 40103(b). The Administrator
also has broad statutory authority to issue regulations to promote safe
flight of civil aircraft in air commerce, when the Administrator finds
that such regulations are necessary for safety in air commerce and
national security. See 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5). The FAA must consider, as
a matter of policy, maintaining and enhancing safety and security in
air commerce as its highest priorities (49 U.S.C. 40101(d)).
Background
After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, which resulted in
the loss of human life at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in
southwestern Pennsylvania, the FAA immediately curtailed all aircraft
operations within the National Airspace System (NAS), except certain
military, law enforcement, and emergency related aircraft operations.
On September 13, 2001, the FAA took action to allow additional
aircraft operations in some areas of the NAS. However, the FAA
maintained flight restrictions over certain cities and sensitive sites.
Even after specific temporary flight restrictions over a particular
city or site were rescinded, some flight restrictions were occasionally
reinstated in response to specific and general intelligence information
regarding terrorist threats. Most of these flight restrictions were
issued pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations in 14 CFR 91.139,
Emergency Air Traffic Rules; 14 CFR 91.137, Temporary Flight
Restrictions in the Vicinity of Disaster/Hazard Areas; or 14 CFR part
99, Security Control of Air Traffic. These flight restrictions were
issued via the U.S. Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) System.
While many aspects of the initial flight restrictions were
cancelled, in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area the FAA continued to
impose several temporary flight restrictions at the request of the
Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Defense (DoD) to assist them
in their newly assigned counter-terrorism mission.
On February 19, 2002, the FAA issued Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR) No. 94, Enhanced Security Procedures for Operations
at Certain Airports in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special
Flight Rules Area (67 FR 7538; Feb. 19, 2002). SFAR 94, which expired
on February 13, 2005, required any person operating an aircraft to or
from College Park Airport, Potomac Airfield, or Washington Executive/
Hyde Field to conduct those operations in accordance with security
procedures approved by the Administrator. The SFAR was a general
operating rule containing both flight communication requirements and
airport security requirements. It applied to any person operating an
aircraft to or from one of the specified airports and affected all
aircraft operations at these airports, including those conducted under
14 CFR part 91, those for which an air carrier or an operating
certificate may be issued under 14 CFR part 119 (for operations
conducted under 14 CFR part 121 or 135), and those which may be
conducted under part 125, 129, 133, or 137.
Procedures addressing airport security previously contained in SFAR
94 are now included in a regulation promulgated on February 10, 2005 by
the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which is now
responsible for airport security procedures (70 FR 7150; Feb. 10,
2005). The flight communication requirements are included in this NPRM.
They include flight plan filing, two-way radio communication, and
transponder requirements.
Request To Permanently Codify Temporary Flight Restrictions Over the
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area
Because of its status as home to all three branches of the Federal
government, as well as numerous Federal buildings, foreign embassies,
multi-national institutions, and national monuments, the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area continues to be an obvious high value target for
terrorists.
Despite recent successes in the war on terrorism, the DHS believes
that the threat of extremists launching an attack using aircraft
remains high. Although there is no information suggesting an imminent
plan by terrorists to use airplanes to attack targets in the
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area, the success of the September 11, 2001
attack on the Pentagon and reports demonstrating terrorist groups'
enduring interest in aviation-related attacks indicate the need for
continued vigilance in aviation security.
For example, the April 2003 arrest of Waleed bin Attash and the
subsequent discovery of a plot to crash an explosive-laden small
aircraft into the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan illustrates
terrorist groups' continued interest in using aircraft to attack U.S.
interests. Other information--such as documents found in Zacarias
Moussaoui's possession, which outlined crop duster operations--suggests
that terrorist groups may have been considering other domestic aviation
attack plans in addition to the September 11, 2001 attacks. As of mid-
June 2003, Islamic extremists may have been planning suicide hijackings
against government, military, and/or economic targets along the east
coast of the United States.
In addition, press reports on the debriefings of detained terrorist
leader Khalid Shaykh Muhammad not only hint at the complexity of
planning involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks, but also suggest
the group was likely planning follow-on operations inside the United
States, possibly including inside the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area.
While the DHS has no specific information that terrorist groups are
currently planning to use general aviation (GA) aircraft to perpetrate
attacks against the U.S., it remains concerned that (in light of
completed and ongoing security enhancements for commercial aircraft and
airports) terrorists may turn to GA as an alternative method for
conducting operations.
The DHS believes that Al-Qa'ida is the group most likely to use GA
to attack targets in the U.S. Several of its operatives--including some
of the September 11 hijackers--have trained on small aircraft. Indeed,
according to the testimony before Congress of the then-Director of
Central Intelligence, George Tenet, September 11 mastermind Khalid
Shaykh Muhammad originally proposed using multiple small aircraft
packed with explosives to conduct the attacks. Usama Bin Laden
reportedly suggested the use of larger aircraft instead. Even earlier,
Muhammad and Ramzi Yousef--both involved in the 1995 Manila Air plot--
considered the notion of crashing an airplane into CIA Headquarters.
Based on this and other information, the DHS believes that
GA aircraft may be vulnerable to targeting by terrorists for misuse.
In February 2003, FAA, in consultation with DHS and other Federal
agencies, implemented a system of airspace control measures to protect
against a potential threat to the
[[Page 45252]]
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area. The dimensions of this protected
airspace were determined after considering such factors as the speed of
likely suspect aircraft, minimum launch time and the speed of intercept
aircraft. After extensive coordination among Federal agencies, two
airspace areas were implemented. The outer area, which closely mimics
the current Washington Tri-area Class B airspace, is called an Air
Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) and requires identification of all
flight operations within the airspace in order to ensure the security
of protected ground assets. The inner area, called a Flight Restricted
Zone (FRZ), is approximately a 15 NM radius around the Washington VHF
omni-directional range/distance measuring equipment (DCA VOR/DME) where
more stringent access procedures are applied. Most kinds of flight
operations are prohibited in this area, and under this proposal such
operations would continue to be prohibited in this area. Part 121
operations are presently permitted in this airspace and, under this
proposal, would continue to be permitted in the FRZ airspace. DoD, law
enforcement and aeromedical flights are permitted in this airspace and
would continue to be permitted in this airspace as long as the flight
crew remains in contact with air traffic control (ATC) and operates the
aircraft transponder on an air traffic control-assigned beacon code. If
adopted, the airspace presently known as the DC ``ADIZ'' would be
redesignated as the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight
Rules Area (DC SFRA). The DC SFRA would encompass the same airspace as
the ADIZ and include the area known as the FRZ.
This airspace structure and associated procedures associated with
the ADIZ and FRZ have been in place for about 2 years. The agencies
responsible for intercepting intruders within the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area (the DoD and agencies of the DHS) believe that the
existing airspace dimensions and procedures are the minimum acceptable
to successfully accomplish their missions and should be retained on a
permanent basis.
This airspace structure is also an essential component of the DoD
and DHS air security plan. The DoD and DHS believe that by establishing
a National Defense airspace area over the Washington, DC Metropolitan
Area, they would have sufficient time to successfully conduct
countermeasures to ensure the safety of protectees in the event that a
potentially hostile aircraft enters the airspace area.
It is with this in mind that the Departments of Defense and
Homeland Security requested that the FAA Administrator take action to
codify permanently current aviation flight restrictions over the
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area to support their continuing mission to
protect national assets in the National Capital Region.
General Discussion of the Proposal
After the events of September 11, 2001, Congress and the President
tasked government agencies to increase the protection of the United
States and its interests. Congress established the TSA and tasked it
with protecting the security of our nation's transportation
infrastructure. Additionally, Congress established the Department of
Homeland Security, in order to centralize the administration of the
country's security efforts.
For the past two years, the FAA has been working closely with the
DoD and DHS to draft security contingency plans to protect the American
public, national assets, and operations in the National Airspace
System. Some of the measures taken by the FAA include additional
cockpit security for certain air carrier aircraft and temporary flight
restrictions over special events (often at stadiums) that attract large
numbers of people and may be seen as potential targets by terrorists.
Since the seat of our nation's government is in Washington, DC,
flight restrictions were established immediately after September 11,
2001, and most remain in place. Establishing specific airspace for
security reasons in the Washington, DC area is not a new practice. In
1938, by Executive Order 7910, the President reserved and set apart
airspace for national defense, the public safety and other governmental
purposes. Those airspace reservations were subsequently codified in 14
CFR part 73 as ``prohibited areas.'' Over the years, the size and
dimensions of one of these areas, Prohibited Area 56 (P-56), which is
the airspace over and near the White House, has changed in response to
world events. In accordance with 14 CFR 73.83, no person may operate an
aircraft within a prohibited area unless authorization has been granted
by the using agency. The action proposed in this notice does not modify
P-56.
The FAA is aware that the flight restrictions imposed over the
Washington DC Metropolitan Area have impacted, and will continue to
impact some pilots in the area. However, government security officials
believe that the proposed DC SFRA would enhance and strengthen the
ability of DoD and DHS to protect the President, Cabinet members, the
Congress and other assets in the capital region.
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the threat
of extremists launching an attack using aircraft still exists. Numerous
reports continue to be received that demonstrate Al-Qa'ida's enduring
interest in aviation-related attacks. Thus, there is a continued need
for aviation security vigilance. Intelligence reports indicate that
terrorists continue to be interested in using general aviation aircraft
as part of another attack on the U.S. or facilitation of activities
since general aviation aircraft are readily available and relatively
inexpensive. Also, though security measures at general aviation
airports have improved, they are less stringent than those in place at
many commercial airports. Overall and even though general aviation
aircraft are generally smaller than those used in the 9/11 attack, the
destructive potential of a small aircraft loaded with explosives may be
significant. It should be noted that almost 70% of U.S. general
aviation is comprised of aircraft that are relatively small. Aircraft
in this segment of the industry range from homebuilt craft to large
airliners. In addition, there are thousands of general aviation
airports in the United States with varying degrees of security
procedures implemented.
We believe that as part of ensuring the security of the people,
property and institutions in the Nation's capital, and surrounding
area, it is essential to know the intended route of flight of the
aircraft, to have the aircraft squawk a discrete transponder code, and
to have automatic altitude reporting equipment on board the aircraft
that transmits to ATC. Government officials believe that some types of
aircraft operations (i.e., those conducted under parts 91, 101, 103,
105, 125, 133, 135 and 137) should continue to be prohibited within 15
miles of the DCA VOR/DME, unless specifically authorized by the FAA in
consultation with the DoD and DHS. Generally speaking, pre-departure
security procedures and onboard security equipment for such operations
are substantially less demanding than those security procedures and
safeguards currently in place for part 121 aircraft operations.
Therefore, the FAA is proposing the following action which, in part,
restricts flight in certain areas and requires pilots operating in
designated areas to file flight plans, communicate with appropriate air
traffic control facilities, and display an ATC-assigned transponder
code. This proposed action is one of many being undertaken by
government agencies that
[[Page 45253]]
are intended to enhance security in the Washington DC Metropolitan
area.
By this proposed action the Federal Government would more
explicitly classify the airspace over the Washington DC Metropolitan
Area (the DC SFRA) as ``National Defense Airspace.'' Any person who
knowingly or willfully violates the rules concerning operations in
National Defense Airspace is subject to certain criminal penalties. See
49 U.S.C. 46307. It is hoped that codification of these airspace
restrictions and the classification of this airspace as ``National
Defense Airspace'' will reduce, through pilot education, the number of
careless and inadvertent encroachments of the airspace by some pilots.
Reducing the number of unauthorized airspace penetrations will reduce
the number of times that the U.S. Government aircraft have to intercept
unauthorized aircraft. The government also believes this rule will
reduce the risks that the Government might have to fire on an aircraft
that proceeds dangerously close to certain locations in the Washington
DC Metropolitan Area.
In addition, in response to Congressional mandate, the
Transportation Security Administration issued an interim final rule on
July 19, 2005 to restore access to Reagan National Airport for certain
aircraft operations (70 FR 41586; July 19, 2005). The rule will become
effective on August 18, 2005. The final rule will reflect changes to
the airspace restrictions based on that rule, as well as other changes
that might result from other unforeseen security concerns.
Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposed 14 CFR Part 93 Subpart B
Section 93.31--What Is the Purpose of This Subpart and Who Would Be
Affected?
This section, if adopted, would inform the public that this subpart
was issued to enhance security efforts in the Washington, DC
Metropolitan Area and deter anyone who might use an aircraft for
terrorist activity. It would further inform readers that it establishes
a National Defense Airspace Area over the Washington, DC, Metropolitan
Area. This area would be known as the Washington DC Metropolitan Area
Special Flight Rules Area, which would be defined in proposed Sec.
93.35. This would include flights in the Washington, DC, Metropolitan
Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ), which is also defined in proposed
Sec. 93.35. This subpart would affect anyone who operates an aircraft
in the DC SFRA.
Section 93.33--What Could Happen if You Fail To Comply With the Rules
of This Subpart?
This proposed section informs readers that if they do not comply
with this rule or any special security instruction announced by a
Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) that affects this rule, then the government
may do any or all of the following:
(1) Direct deadly force toward their aircraft. This could happen if
it is determined that the aircraft poses an imminent security threat.
(2) Pursue criminal charges. Criminal prosecutions could be
pursued, in the right case with the appropriate evidence, because this
airspace is being established, in part, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)
as National Defense Airspace.\1\ This would not be the first time that
the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, has
acted pursuant to the authority under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b). For example,
the FAA considers certain Prohibited Areas to be National Defense
Airspace and certain temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) sites in the
same vein, because those prohibited areas and those TFRs were
established, in part, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 40103 in consultation with
the Secretary of Defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 46307. Violation of national defense airspace. A
person that knowingly or willfully violates section 40103(b)(3) of
this title or a regulation prescribed or order issued under section
40103(b)(3) shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more
than one year, or both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Take administrative action, including imposing civil penalties
and suspend or revoke airmen certificates. Paragraph (c) simply
summarizes the FAA's long-standing and long-recognized statutory
authority to take administrative enforcement action against those who
violate FAA regulations (See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 44709 and 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 463 (Penalties)).
Section 93.35--Definitions
This proposed section contains definitions applicable to this rule.
Specifically, this section provides the definition for the proposed
airspace known as the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Special Flight
Rules Area (SFRA) and the airspace contained within the Washington DC
Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ). The SFRA is currently
defined by a NOTAM, and known as the Washington DC ADIZ. Both the SFRA
airspace and the FRZ airspace (which is part of SFRA airspace) are
categorized as ``National Defense Airspace.'' This proposed section
also defines the term ``fringe airports'' to identify certain airports
located near the outer boundary of the SFRA where specific egress-only
procedures may be applied.
Section 93.37--General Requirements for Operating in the Washington,
DC, Metropolitan Area SFRA
This proposed section establishes that if you conduct any type of
flight in the Washington, DC, SFRA, you will be subject to:
(1) All of the requirements in this part;
(2) All special instructions issued by the FAA in the interest of
national security; and
(3) All other FAA requirements in 14 CFR.
Generally, any special instructions would be issued as NOTAMs
pursuant to Sec. 99.7 and would be temporary, but could be issued in
any manner the FAA considers appropriate.
Section 93.39--Specific Requirements for Operating in the Washington,
DC, Metropolitan Area SFRA, Including the FRZ
On February 10, 2003, the FAA issued NOTAM 3/2126 that established
the Washington DC Metropolitan Area ADIZ. NOTAM 3/2126 contains flight
restrictions and procedures for aircraft operations within the area,
including transponder equipment, two-way radio communication and filing
a flight plan. In this action we propose to establish an area
(Washington DC SFRA) with specific procedures and pilot and equipment
requirements. The proposed procedures reflect those currently in place
via NOTAM for that airspace currently known as the Washington DC
Metropolitan Area Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ).
Section 93.41--Aircraft Operations Prohibited in the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ)
This section proposes to codify prohibitions on certain kinds of
aircraft operations in the Washington DC Metropolitan Area FRZ. The FRZ
evolved from flight restrictions originally imposed by NOTAM on
December 19, 2001. On February 10, 2003, the FRZ (which covers
approximately a 15 nautical mile radius of the Washington DC VOR/DME)
was introduced to describe an area wherein all flight operations
conducted under parts 91, 101, 103, 105, 125, 133, 135, and 137 are
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the FAA, in consultation
with DHS.
[[Page 45254]]
Section 93.43--Requirements for Aircraft Operations to or From College
Park Airport; Potomac Airfield; or Washington Executive/Hyde Field
Airports
This proposed section contains portions of the procedures
previously found in SFAR No. 94, and it also contains air traffic
procedures that are in place via NOTAM.
SFAR 94 contained both flight communication requirements and
airport security requirements. The flight communication requirements
are included in this NPRM. They include flight plan filing, two-way
radio communication, and transponder requirements. Procedures
addressing airport security previously contained in SFAR 94 are now
regulated by the TSA. See ``Background'' above.
Section 93.45--Special Ingress/Egress Procedures for Bay Bridge and
Kentmorr Airports
This section proposes to permanently codify ingress/egress
procedures for certain airports within the Washington, DC Metropolitan
Area Special Flight Rules Area but not in the FRZ. This proposed
section details ingress/egress procedures for pilots operating to/from
the Bay Bridge and Kentmorr Airports. Specifically, the procedures
would allow aircraft arriving at or departing from either of these
airports to operate directly to or from the airport, along a specified
route, at a specified altitude, without filing a flight plan or
contacting air traffic control, provided they are displaying the
appropriate ATC-assigned transponder code (1227 for Bay Bridge Airport
and 1233 for Kentmorr Airport).
Section 93.47--Special Egress Procedures for Fringe Airports
This section proposes egress-only procedures for those pilots
departing the Airlie, Albrecht, Harris, Martin, Martin State, Meadows,
Mylander, Stewart, St. John, Tilghman Whipp, Upperville, and Wolf
airports. Pilots departing from these airports would display ATC
transponder code 1205 and monitor the appropriate ATC frequency for the
area. They would be expected to exit the SFRA by the most direct route.
Also, these pilots would not have to establish two-way communications
with ATC unless requested, and would not have to file a flight plan.
It should be noted that these procedures are being proposed to
provide relief to certain pilot operations in the SFRA. Any pilot
deviating from these procedures will trigger a U.S. government
response.
Section 93.49--Airport Security Procedures
This section proposes to prohibit any person from operating an
aircraft at the three subject Maryland airports unless those airports
have a TSA-approved airport security program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposal contains the following new information collection
requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted the information requirements
associated with this proposal to the Office of Management and Budget
for its review. This information is currently being collected under the
NOTAM issued pursuant to 14 CFR 99.7.
Estimated Burden: The FAA expects that this proposed rule would
impose additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements on airports
and pilots. It would have the following impacts:
For the airports impacted by SFAR 94, the FAA estimates
that it would take 1,497.50 hours to process flight plans, costing
$47,111 annually.
For the other airports affected by this rulemaking, the
FAA estimates that it would take 6,466.28 hours to process the
additional flight plans, costing $203,429 annually.
The total impact to file these flight plans averages $250,540, taking
7,963.78 hours annually.
The regulation would increase paperwork for the Federal government,
as there would be an additional air traffic burden dealing with pilot
deviations, tracks of interest, and litigation, taking an average of
129,197.33 hours, costing $10,913,253 annually. In addition, FAA
employees would have to process the additional flight plans; for the
airports impacted by SFAR 94, this would take 1,497.50 hours, costing
$70,847, and for all other airports in the SFRA, this would take
6,466.28 hours, costing $203,429 annually. The total impact on the
Federal government would be 137,161.10 hours, costing $11,187,529
annually.
The agency is soliciting comments to--
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Individuals and organizations may submit comments on the
information collection requirement by October 3, 2005, and should
direct them to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
document. Comments also should be submitted to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Building, Room
10202, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20053, Attention: Desk
Officer for FAA.
According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5
CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the
collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection
requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control number for this information collection will be
published in the Federal Register, after the Office of Management and
Budget approves it.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.
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 requires agencies to analyze the
economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the
Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) 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, to be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a
[[Page 45255]]
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$120.7 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation).
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined this proposed
rule: (1) Would have benefits that justify its costs, is a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (2) may have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities; (3) would have no
affect on international trade; and does not impose an unfunded mandate
on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector. These
analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.
Who Is Potentially Affected by This Rulemaking
Private Sector
All aircraft would have to be transponder equipped when entering
the proposed DC SFRA and maintain two-way communications while flying
in the proposed area. Pilots operating in accordance with visual flight
rules (VFR) would have to file flight plans to fly within the proposed
DC SFRA.
There are approximately 150 airports in the proposed DC ADIZ. Given
the additional requirements that general aviation pilots face, the FAA
is concerned that many of these airports would have fewer operations.
In some cases, some of these pilots may elect to use alternate nearby
airports outside of the proposed DC SFRA.
Government
The FAA has experienced additional burdens in maintaining the
requested security requirements within the DC ADIZ/FRZ since September
11, 2001. In particular, this includes additional work for the air
traffic control facilities of Potomac Consolidated Terminal Radar
Approach Control (TRACON) and Leesburg Automated Flight Service Station
(AFSS) as well as adjacent air traffic control towers and AFSS's.
One of the airports affected by the flight restrictions imposed
since September 11, 2001 is the College Park Airport. This airport is
owned and partially funded by two Maryland Counties, Montgomery and
Prince George's.
Our Cost Assumptions and Sources of Information
In this analysis, the FAA estimated future costs for a 10-year
period, from 2004 through 2013. As required by the Office of Management
and Budget, the present value of this stream of costs was calculated
using a discount factor of 7 percent. All costs in this analysis are in
2002 dollars.
The analysis examined costs associated with the proposed DC SFRA.
Impact to Air Traffic
The FAA calculated the number of additional air traffic staff by
looking at air traffic controller availability during the average
workweek and during the year. Staffing demands in the future are
calculated by using annual growth rates of 1.2% for the TRACONs and
0.5% for the AFSSs. In addition, personnel compensation and benefits
for a certified professional controller are estimated at $140,000 and
for an automated flight service station specialist are estimated at
$90,000.
Airports Impacted by the Former SFAR 94--College Park, Potomac, and
Washington Executive/Hyde
For the three airports impacted by the former SFAR 94, the FAA also
used the following assumptions:
The cost of either a pilot's or an aircraft occupant's
time is $31.46 per hour.
The per hour cost of operating a piston driven, four seat
aircraft is $64.75.
The average load factor for a four seat aircraft is 43.7
percent or 1.75 occupants.
An airport manager's hourly wage, based on each airport's
actual cost and revenue streams, is $45 per hour at College Park, $42
per hour at Potomac, and $40 per hour at Washington Executive/Hyde.
To account for financial losses not explicitly captured by
the analysis, twenty percent of lost revenue is added to the estimated
cost of operational restrictions for all three airports.
To compensate for the lack of financial data for
Washington Executive Airport/Hyde Field, the average estimated cost of
certain operational restrictions for the two other airports (College
Park and Potomac) is used to estimate the revenue losses.
The data for the days that each airport was open and
operating in 2002 was annualized to help estimate total operations and
revenues. This data summed to about 6\1/2\ months for the College Park
and Potomac airports and 4 months for Washington Executive Airport/Hyde
Field.
Hourly costs to the Federal Government include airport
inspector (FG-14, $56.48) and flight service station specialist
($47.37) and to the state government law enforcement agency employee
($47.80).
Revenue is used as the financial indicator of economic
costs in lieu of unavailable data on lost profits.
Local purchases include procurements made by the airport
and its tenants and airport sales to tenants, visitors, and local
organizations.
For ground delays, the hourly value of passenger time per
operation is $55.06. The average ground delay varied per airport.
For in-flight delays, the hourly cost of an in-flight
delay is $119.81. The average flight delay varied per airport.
In addition, the FAA made the following assumptions concerning the
number of operations and revenue at these three airports:
The number of operations, which was annualized from 2002
data, would remain constant at all three airports for the ten years
examined by this analysis. In a recent Interim Final Rule, the TSA has
allowed transient operations into these airports. However, FAA does not
know how many additional aircraft will fly into or out of these
airports. Unless a pilot plans on using one of these airports on a
regular basis, they probably would not want to go through the vetting
process. Thus, the FAA believes that the number of additional new
operations would be minimal.
Given the additional security vetting required by TSA, the
FAA believes that these pilots who fly into any of these three airports
would do so only if they believe that it is to their advantage to do
so. In other words, the FAA recognizes that these pilots would enjoy an
unquantifiable benefit.
The FAA does not believe that the recent TSA rule would
increase the total number of flights within the SFRA. So while the
actual number of flights to the Maryland-3 and to the other airports
within the SFRA may change, the total number of flights within the SFRA
would not. While the costs estimated and projected for the Maryland-3
and the other airports may change, the total costs related to these
operations within the SFRA (in-flight delays, on-the-ground delays, and
flight plan processing) would not change.
Annual revenue, which was also annualized from 2002 data,
would remain constant at all three airports for the ten years examined
by this analysis. The FAA recognizes that additional transient flights
have the potential to boost revenue to each airport, but believes that
any potential increase would be small.
[[Page 45256]]
Other Costs Associated With the Proposed DC SFRA
The FAA assumes that the additional number of flight plans
filed in 2004 would be 123,800, growing to 135,000 in 2013; these
numbers are net of those needed to be filed for the three airports
impacted by the former SFAR 94.
As above, for ground delays, the hourly value of passenger
time per operation is $55.06, while for in-flight delays; the hourly
cost per operation is $119.81.
Benefits of This Rulemaking
This proposed rule is intended to enhance DoD/DHS security measures
to deter airborne terrorist attacks. The primary benefit of the
proposal would be enhanced protection for a significant number of
government assets and infrastructure in the National Capital Region.
The security provisions and flight restrictions contained in this rule
are an integral part of the effort to identify and defeat the threat
posed by terrorists.
Given the myriad of possible scenarios, the cost of an act of
terrorism against a nationally prominent target or critical government
infrastructure is extremely difficult to quantify. They can include
areas such as the direct and indirect costs of the September 11 attacks
as well as a reduction in D.C. tourism. Due to the sensitive nature of
this information, many of the specifics of these effects will not be
discussed in this document. However, the FAA acknowledges that these
costs would be very high.
The FAA acknowledges that there would be non-quantifiable benefits.
The separation of air traffic is predicated on knowing the intentions
of aircraft operating within the controller's airspace. The proposed DC
SFRA would require two way communication, flight plans and operable
transponders for pilots to operate in the area. This would allow the
government to know the pilots' intentions, to monitor the aircraft
altitude, and to communicate with each pilot. Knowing this information
would enhance safety and security.
In addition, the FAA believes that this rule will reduce the number
of times that the U.S. Government might have to intercept unauthorized
aircraft. The current restrictions are contained in NOTAMs, which are
not as widely disseminated or understood as Federal regulations. As the
public becomes more aware of these airspace restrictions, the FAA
believes the number of careless and inadvertent encroachments of the
airspace will be reduced. The FAA does not have any data on the
possible reduction in the number of times that the U.S. Government
might have to intercept unauthorized aircraft, but believes that a
better educated flying public would make fewer critical flying errors.
Costs of This Rulemaking
The analysis examined costs associated with the proposed DC SFRA.
The Impact to Air Traffic
The FAA has borne additional burdens in maintaining the requested
airspace restrictions within the existing Washington, DC ADIZ/FRZ. To
calculate the costs associated with the proposed DC SFRA, the FAA made
a comparison using the baseline months of July 2001, 2002, and 2003.
Based on the additional workload for 2003, controller staffing has been
increased; total increased staffing costs, over ten years, sum to
$62.12 million ($43.83 million, discounted). The total number of
controllers would increase from 39 in 2004 to 43 in 2013.
There are other costs due to additional activities, all centered at
the Potomac TRACON. These other costs include additional pilot
deviations, additional tracks of interest, increased litigation, and
costs associated with creating and operating a National Security
Special Operations Unit. This increased workload sums to $122.15
million ($71.28 million, discounted) over ten years.
Total ten-year costs, to handle the additional air traffic burden,
sum to $184.27 million ($128.70 million, discounted).
Costs to the Airports Impacted by the Former SFAR 94--College Park,
Potomac, and Washington Executive/Hyde
SFAR 94, enacted February 13, 2002, authorized general aviation
operations at College Park Airport, Potomac Airfield, and Washington
Hyde Field, provided that stringent requirements were met. In February
2003, the FAA, in concert with TSA, extended the SFAR 94 for an
additional two years. In February 2005, TSA extended the security
aspects of these procedures under 49 CFR part 1562; the airspace
restrictions and communications provisions in NOTAM 3/0853 remain under
FAA authority. This rulemaking would codify these airspace restrictions
and communications provisions.
The FAA was able to obtain limited historical financial and
operational data for College Park and Potomac Field Airports for part
of their first year under the SFAR. Additional data restrictions,
however, limited the analysis of the rule's impact on the Washington
Executive Airport/Hyde Field. Thus, the FAA was required to make
additional assumptions in doing the analysis for this airport.
College Park Airport
The College Park Airport opened in 1909 and is the oldest
continuously operating airport in the world. With the exception of
about 100 annual air taxi operations, the College Park Airport serves
private pilots who use their aircraft for pleasure and business. The
estimate of annual losses to College Park Airport associated with
complying with the current DC ADIZ/FRZ operational restrictions is
$1.62 million. This annualized revenue loss has been increased by a
factor of 20% to account for revenue losses not included in the
analysis. The annual airspace restriction costs to the pilots using the
College Park Airport sum to $171,900 and are based on the ground and
in-flight delays as well as the time to file flight plans. Complying
with the airspace and communication requirements in the proposed DC
SFRA would cost the College Park Airport an estimated $1.80 million
annually.
Potomac Airfield
The Potomac Airfield is a small privately owned airport located in
Fort Washington, Maryland. Based on information from the first 8 months
of 2002, and assuming that these revenues derived during the period
stay the same, the FAA estimates the revenue loss to be $1.36 million.
This annualized revenue loss has been increased by a factor of 20% to
account for revenue losses not included in the analysis. Thus the FAA
estimates annual losses of $1.63 million for the time examined by this
analysis. The annual airspace restriction costs to the pilots using the
Potomac Airfield Airport sum to $368,500 and are based on the ground
and in-flight delays as well as the time to file flight plans.
Complying with the requirements in the proposed DC SFRA would cost the
Potomac Airfield Airport an estimated $2.00 million annually.
Washington Executive/Hyde Field Airport
Washington Executive/Hyde Field Airport is a small privately owned
airport located in Clinton, Maryland. The airport largely serves the
needs of private pilots who occasionally fly for business reasons. This
airport was closed longer than the other two; operations resumed at
Hyde Field on March 2, 2002. However, on May 17, 2002, the airport was
closed again
[[Page 45257]]
because of a security violation. The airport reopened on September 28,
2002. This annualized revenue loss has been increased by a factor of
20% to account for revenue losses not included in the analysis. This
resulted in the estimate of annual losses associated with complying
with the operational restrictions in the former SFAR 94 for this
airport to be $1.60 million.
The annual airspace restriction costs to the pilots using the
Washington Executive Airport/Hyde Field sum to $596,500 and are based
on the ground and in-flight delays as well as the time to file flight
plans. Complying with the requirements in the proposed DC SFRA would
cost the Washington Executive/Hyde Field Airport an estimated $2.19
million annually.
Other Costs Related to the Above Three Airports
Flight service station specialists would need to process the flight
plans; annual costs sum to approximately $70,800. Annual costs for the
ten-year extension of the provisions of the proposed DC SFRA sum to
$6.06 million. Over ten years, these costs sum to $60.64 million
($42.59, discounted).
Other Costs Related to the Proposed DC SFRA
There are approximately 150 airports/heliports within the proposed
DC SFRA. The costs for three of these airports (College Park, Potomac,
and Washington Executive/Hyde) have already been discussed above.
However, there are additional costs, both for pilots and airports
within the proposed DC SFRA.
Costs for pilots--The proposal would implement new requirements for
all pilots. The proposal would require all operators to file flight
plans. Pilots operating VFR would have to file flight plans to operate
within the proposed DC SFRA; these are new costs. The FAA estimates an
additional 123,800 flight plans would need to be filed annually in
2004, growing to 135,000 in 2013. Ten year costs due to flight delays
and the time to file flight plans sum to $48.63 million. In addition,
flight service station specialists would need to process the flight
plans; ten-year costs sum to approximately $3.06 million. Total costs
for these additional flight plans sum to $51.70 million ($36.12
million, discounted) over ten years. The FAA invites comments on:
The total number of additional flight plans,
The filing time due to ground and in-flight delays and
related costs, and
The net results of pilots circumventing the DC SFRA.
The FAA requests that all comments be accompanied by documentation.
Costs for small airports--There are approximately 150 airports/
heliports in the proposed DC SFRA, most of which do not keep operations
records. Given the additional requirements that general aviation pilots
face, the FAA notes that many of these airports would have fewer
operations, resulting in a loss of revenue. In some cases, some of
these pilots would fly to alternate airports outside the proposed DC
SFRA, resulting in an increase in operations and revenue for these
alternate airports. The FAA does not have data as to the change in
operations and revenue in the airports both within and just outside the
proposed DC SFRA since February 2001. Accordingly, the FAA invites
comments from both small airports and general aviation pilots on the
effect of the DC SFRA on these airports. The FAA requests that all
comments be accompanied by documentation.
Total Costs
Total quantifiable costs sum to $296.60 million ($207.41 million,
discounted) over ten years.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
For this proposed rule, the small entity group is considered to be
small general aviation airports (North American Industry Classification
System [NAICS] 488119--Airport Operations and Terminal Services). The
small entity size standards criteria involving airports defines a small
airport as one that is independently owned with annual revenues of less
than $5 million or owned by a small governmental jurisdiction with a
population less than 50,000. In addition, all privately owned, public-
use airports are considered small. All the small airports, both public-
use and private-use, in the proposed Washington, DC SFRA need to be
examined in this regulatory flexibility analysis.
The FAA only has revenue (both pre- and post-DC ADIZ) and
compliance cost data for the three airports within the FRZ, and so can
only do a regulatory flexibility analysis on these airports, based on
the effects of the SFRA. Because the proposal would have a significant
impact on two of the three airports impacted by the former SFAR 94 that
would trigger the need for a regulatory flexibility analysis if the
proposed rule were only dealing with the former SFAR 94 and the current
combination of TSA's 49 CFR part 1562 and FAA's NOTAM 3/0853. However,
there are approximately 150 airports within the SFRA that are affected
by other provisions of the proposed rule, and the FAA does not know if
these other provisions would have a significant impact on a substantial
number of all those airports. Accordingly, the FAA prepared a
regulatory flexibility analysis, as it believes it important to show
the potential impact on these entities for the sake of completeness and
to engender comments.
Hence, the focus of the following analysis will not be the proposed
rule, but rather, a subsection of the proposed rule--the impact of the
former SFAR 94. The FAA requests comments containing revenue (both pre-
and post-DC ADIZ) and compliance cost data for these other airports
within the existing Washington, DC SFRA/FRZ as well as any other
pertinent information of the potential burden of this proposal on small
airports. The FAA requests that such data be accompanied with full
documentation.
As discussed above, three airports are directly affected. The
College Park Airport is owned and partially funded by two Maryland
Counties, Montgomery and Prince George's. The 2000 census discloses
that the combined population of the two counties is approximately 1.7
million. As such, the College Park Airport is not a small entity. Both
the Potomac Airfield Airport and Washington Executive Airport/Hyde
Field are privately owned and considered small in this analysis.
Small general aviation airports are not required to have security
programs; only those airports that have scheduled service are required
to have such a program. Air carrier airports are funded from tax
revenues and generally have greater aviation traffic activity than
general aviation airports and airports without scheduled service. By
and large, Potomac Airfield and Hyde Field are not supported from tax
revenues, as the revenues that sustain the two airports are derived
solely from the pilots who use the airports; however, these airports
received Airport Improvement Project (AIP) funds for the costs of
operating and for security enhancements due to the special provisions
in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA). The provision
lasted for one year, in 2002. Potomac Airfield Airport received about
$150,100, while Washington Executive Airport/Hyde Field received
$342,300. Neither airport can count on these AIP funds to sustain them
in the future.
The estimated annual cost of compliance, based on known costs and
revenues for the Washington Executive Airport is $291,600 and the
burden on the Potomac Airfield Airport is $221,400; they increase to
$334,000 and
[[Page 45258]]
$252,900 when the anticipated airport revenue losses are increased by
20%, as discussed above. These costs are considered burdensome because
they are well in excess of one percent of the median annual revenue of
small airport operators (one percent of the annual median revenue for
small operators is $28,000). If these were the only small airports
within the proposed DC SFRA, the FAA would determine that the rule
would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Without similar information from the other small
airports, the FAA is unable to make such a determination, but, as
mentioned above, the FAA believes it is important to show the potential
impact on these entities for the sake of completeness. Accordingly, it
conducted a regulatory flexibility analysis only on a subsection of the
proposed rule--those airports impacted by the former SFAR 94.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Under section 603 (b) of the RFA (as amended), each regulatory
flexibility analysis is required to address the following points: (1)
Reasons the FAA considered the rule, (2) the objectives and legal basis
of the rule, (3) the kind and number of small entities to which the
rule will apply, (4) the reporting, record keeping, and other
compliance requirements of the rule, and (5) all Federal rules that may
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule. The FAA will perform an
analysis for the two small airports impacted by this rule, because the
rule will make SFAR 94 permanent.
Reasons the FAA considered the rule: The catastrophic events of
September 11, 2001 introduced the awareness that terrorists will use
civil aviation aircraft as a missile or, potentially, as carriers of
biological, chemical, radioactive and/or conventional weaponry against
civilian targets. This proposed rule recognizes that the terrorist
threat is changing and growing and that extraordinary steps must be
taken to safeguard the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area.
The objectives and legal basis for the rule: The objective of the
rule is to combine all the airspace restrictions within the Washington,
DC Metropolitan Area into one regulation. This effort is to assist DHS
and DoD in their efforts to enhance security protection of vital
national assets located within the National Capital Region. The
statutory authority for these rules can be found in 49 U.S.C. 40103 and
44701(a)(5). The FAA must consider, as a matter of policy, maintaining
and enhancing safety and security in air commerce as its highest
priorities (49 U.S.C. 40101 (d)).
The kind and number of small entities to which the rule will apply:
As noted above, the FAA only has enough data on two small airports,
Potomac and Washington Executive/Hyde to perform this analysis;
however, the proposed rule potentially applies to all pilots,
regardless of where they are based, if they operate within the proposed
DC SFRA. Private pilots operate their aircraft for business and
pleasure at these airports.
All Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
rule: The FAA is unaware of any Federal rules that duplicate, overlap,
or conflict with this rule.
Other Considerations
Affordability analysis: The extent to which a small airport can
``afford'' the cost of compliance is directly related to the
availability of income and earnings. The small airports subject to this
rule generate income to sustain their operations from landing fees,
tie-down charges, rent and other compensation paid by airport tenants,
fuel sales, flight school instruction, sightseeing rides, aircraft
rentals, and miscellaneous local sales. All of these sources of income
are influenced directly by the number of operations at the airport. The
reduction in operations experienced by the airports as a consequence of
the flight restrictions in place before and after the former SFAR 94
became effective is significant. Even if there is an increase in
operations as a result of the recent TSA rule, the FAA believes that
this increase would be minimal, leading to the same conclusion that the
overall reduction in operations is significant.
The decrease in operations corresponds directly to the decline in
working capital at the airports. Working capital is defined as the
excess of current assets over current liabilities. The financial
strength and viability of a business entity is substantially influenced
by its working capital position and its ability to meet its short-term
liabilities. As fixed-base operators and pilots have relocated to other
airfields, revenues have continued to decline. Besides laying off
staff, without other sources of revenue, the airports are unable to
implement offsetting cost-saving efficiencies that could ameliorate the
loss of income.
At this time, there is no comprehensive source of information
available that would account for a total financial picture of these
airports. There is also no information about the airports' ability to
obtain credit. The only evidence is limited to the fact that the
airport and its tenants generated revenues in previous years and were
able to pay their taxes. As such, it can be assumed that these small
entities were generating sufficient revenues to meet tax and other
obligations; however, the costs of complying with the former SFAR 94
are very high relative to the current revenues reported by the
airports. As discussed for both airports, the security costs alone are
more than 20% of the projected revenues, $63,800 out of total airport
revenue of $259,000 at Potomac and $79,500 out of total airport revenue
of $291,300 at Washington Executive Airport/Hyde Field.
The financial impact of the flight restrictions in place before the
effective date of the former SFAR 94 is significant relative to the
size of these airports. The reopening of the airports has not improved
the financial posture of the airports. The May 17, 2002, temporary
closing again of Washington Executive Airport/Hyde Field imperiled the
survival of this airport. The complex and burdensome flight
restrictions now in place have caused private pilots to relocate to
other airports. On the basis of the above, the FAA considers that the
rule impacts the viability of the affected airports. Even with the
potential for an increase in revenue as a result of transient
operations, the FAA still considers that the rule would impact the
viability of the affected airports.
Competitiveness analysis: Airports located farther away from the
DCA VOR/DME are not subject to the security provisions and air traffic
restrictions now in effect for Potomac Airfield Airport and Washington
Executive Airport/Hyde Field. These airports offer a convenient
alternative location for pilots seeking to avoid costly operational
restrictions and security requirements. The availability of these
airports has contributed to reducing the competitiveness of the
affected airports. Pilots flying into the airports covered by this
proposed action face additional costs in filing flight plans which they
would not have at alternative airport; these costs sum to $368,500
annually at Potomac and $596,500 annually at Washington Executive
Airport/Hyde Field, both averaging $35.10 per operation. The advent of
transient flights has the potential to increase these total costs to
pilots.
Business Closure: The FAA is unable to determine with certainty
whether the two small airports significantly impacted by this rule
would remain open. On the basis of the Affordability Analysis provided
above, the FAA considers that the rule would impact the viability of
these affected airports. Even
[[Page 45259]]
with the addition of transient operations, the FAA still reaches the
same conclusion.
Alternatives
The objective of the rule is to combine all the airspace
restrictions within the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area into one
regulation. This effort is to assist DHS and DoD in their efforts to
enhance security protection of vital national assets located within the
National Capital Region. The fact that the provisions of former SFAR 94
are still in effect (in TSA's interim final rule and the FAA's NOTAM 3/
0853), and that the existing Washington, DC Metropolitan Area ADIZ/FRZ
is also in effect, reduces the number of options to be examined in this
analysis. The government believes that substantial changes to the
security requirements or air traffic restrictions would be the
equivalent of revoking the rule and increasing the vulnerability of the
National Capital Region. Thus, the FAA has examined the following three
alternatives.
Alternative 1: Rescind the TSA's 49 CFR part 1562, FAA's NOTAM 3/
0853, and the DC ADIZ/FRZ immediately--This alternative would provide
immediate relief to these airports by removing security provisions and
restoring former air traffic control procedures and air space
configurations. Implementation of this alternative would facilitate the
return of pilots who, for the sake of operating simplicity and reduced
flying costs, relocated to other airports. This would be the least
costly option. The FAA believes that the threat of terrorists using
aircraft as missiles must be guarded against, and this option would not
adequately achieve that goal.
Conclusion: Rescinding these actions would increase the
vulnerability and diminish the level of protection now in place to
safeguard vital national assets located within the National Capital
Region. This alternative is rejected because it would compromise the
security of vital national assets and increase their vulnerability.
Alternative 2: Codify existing flight restrictions over the
Washington, DC Metropolitan Area--Under this alternative, the
government would maintain the present security and air traffic
operational restrictions. The annual cost of compliance for the
affected airports totals $513,000; they increase to $585,400 when the
anticipated airport revenue losses are increased by 20%. These costs
could change marginally with the advent of transient operations. The
proposed rule enhances security measures in place that would require
any aircraft operating to and from the affected airports and transiting
the proposed SFRA to be properly identified and cleared.
Conclusion: This alternative is preferred because it balances the
government's security concerns about a terrorist attack in this area
against the costs that would be imposed by more draconian measures.
Alternative 3--Close all airports within the proposed DC SFRA
permanently--Under this alternative, the government would completely
close these airports to all aviation operations. This would effectively
close all aviation-related businesses in the area. They would be forced
to move to other airports or close their businesses permanently. All
pilots who have aircraft permanently based at the airports would also
be forced to move their aircraft to other locations, thereby imposing
moving costs, including new hangar, tie-down, storage fees, etc.
Workers at the airports would be forced to seek employment at one of
the other general aviation airports in the Washington Metro area. This
is the most costly option.
Conclusion: This alternative is not preferred because it causes the
greatest financial burden on the airports, their tenants and aviation-
related businesses, and individuals who work or store aircraft at those
airports.
Alternative 4--Retain the FRZ, eliminate the ADIZ--Under this
proposal, airspace in the Washington DC Metropolitan area with flight
restrictions would be reduced considerably. The only flight
restrictions remaining would be within approximately 15 miles of the
DCA VOR, restricting all aircraft operations except part 121 operators,
DOD operations, law enforcement operations and authorized Emergency
Medical Services operations. This removes the requirement for filing
flight plans for aircraft operators in airspace outside the FRZ,
resulting in reduced pilot and controller workload. This alternative
would provide relief to some general aviation operators that would
operate in the ADIZ area and not into the FRZ. It would restore former
air traffic control procedures and air space configurations for some of
the area. Implementation of this alternative may reduce costs for some
general aviation operators in that they would not have to comply with
many of the current ADIZ restrictions.
Conclusion: This alternative is not preferred because it does not
meet the requirements of those security agencies responsible for the
safety of the Washington DC Metropolitan area.
Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 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 NPRM and has determined that it would have
only a domestic impact and therefore no effect on any trade-sensitive
activity.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) is intended,
among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act
requires each Federal agency, to the extent permitted by law, 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)
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 $120.7 million in lieu of $100 million.
This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the
requirements of Title II do not apply.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We have determined that
this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, and therefore would not have federalism
implications.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) requires each
agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. We
invite your comments on how to make these proposed regulations easier
to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly
stated?
[[Page 45260]]
Do the proposed regulations contain unnecessary technical
language or jargon that interferes with their clarity?
Would the regulations be easier to understand if they were
divided into more (but shorter) sections?
Is the description in the preamble helpful in
understanding the proposed regulations?
Please send your comments to the address specified in the ADDRESSES
section.
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 in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined that 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 likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93
Aircraft flight, Airspace, Aviation safety, Air traffic control,
Aircraft, Airmen, Airports.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend part 93 of title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR part 93) as follows:
PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 93 continues to read as
follows;
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502,
44514, 44701, 44719, 46301, 46307.
2. Amend part 93 by adding subpart B, consisting of Sec. Sec.
93.31 through 93.49, to read as follows:
Subpart B--Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules
Area
Sec.
93.31 What is the purpose of this subpart and who would be affected?
93.33 What could happen if you fail to comply with the rules of this
subpart?
93.35 Definitions.
93.37 General requirements for operating in the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area SFRA.
93.39 Specific requirements for operating in the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area SFRA, including the FRZ.
93.41 Aircraft operations prohibited in the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ).
93.43 Requirements for aircraft operations to or from College Park;
Potomac Airfield; or Washington Executive/Hyde Field Airports.
93.45 Special ingress/egress procedures for Bay Bridge and Kentmorr
airports.
93.47 Special egress procedures for fringe airports.
93.49 Airport security procedures.
Sec. 93.31 What is the purpose of this subpart and who would be
affected?
The purpose for this subpart is to enhance security efforts in the
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area by creating national defense airspace
to deter persons who would use an aircraft as a weapon, or as the means
of delivering weapons, to conduct an attack on persons, property, or an
institution in the area. This subpart applies to you if you conduct any
type of flight operations in the airspace designated as the Washington,
DC, Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area (as defined in Sec.
93.35), which includes the airspace designated as the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (as defined in Sec. 93.35).
Sec. 93.33 What could happen if you fail to comply with the rules of
this subpart?
If you do not comply with any rule in this subpart or any special
security instruction announced by NOTAM that modifies, amends or adds
to any rule of this subpart, it could result in any of the following:
(a) The United States Government directing deadly force against the
airborne aircraft you are operating, if it is determined that the
aircraft poses an imminent security threat;
(b) The United States Government pursuing criminal charges against
you, including charges under Title 49 of the United States Code,
section 46307; and
(c) The FAA taking administrative action against you, including
imposing civil penalties and the suspension or revocation of airmen
certificates.
Sec. 93.35 Definitions.
Fringe Airports. For the purposes of this subpart, the following
airports located near the outer boundary of the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area are considered to be Fringe
airports: Airlie, VA; Albrecht, MD; Harris, VA; Martin, MD; Martin
State, MD; Meadows, VA; Mylander, MD; Stewart, MD; St. John, MD;
Tilghman Whipp, MD; Upperville, VA; and Wolf, MD, Airports.
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ) is
National Defense Airspace. It is within the SFRA airspace and consists
of that airspace within an area from the surface up to, but not
including, FL180 bounded by a line beginning at the Washington (DCA)
VOR/DME 311[deg] radial at 15 nautical miles (nm) (lat. 38[deg]59'31''
N., long. 77[deg]18'30'' W.); then clockwise along the DCA 15 nautical
mile arc to the DCA 022[deg] radial at 15 nm (lat. 39[deg]06'11[sec]
N., long 76[deg]57[min]51[sec] W.); then southeast along a line drawn
to the DCA 049[deg] radial at 14 nm (lat. 39[deg]02[min]18[sec] N.,
long. 76[deg]50[min]38[sec] W.); then south along a line drawn to the
DCA 064[deg] radial at 13 nm (lat. 38[deg]59[min]01[sec] N., long.
76[deg]48[min]32[sec] W.); then clockwise along the DCA 13 nm arc to
the DCA 276[deg] radial at 13 nm (lat.38[deg]50[min]53[sec] N., long
77[deg]18[min]48[sec] W.); then north along a line to the point of
beginning. The FRZ does not include the airspace within a one nautical
mile radius of the Freeway Airport, Mitchellville, MD Airport Reference
Point.
Washington, DC, Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA)
is National Defense Airspace. It consists of that airspace, from the
surface up to, but not including, Flight Level (FL) 180, within the
outer boundary of the Washington, DC, Tri-Area Class B Airspace Area;
and that additional airspace bounded by a line beginning at lat.
38[deg]37'12'' N., long. 77[deg]36'00'' W.; then counterclockwise along
the 30-mile arc of the DCA VOR/DME to lat. 38[deg]41'24'' N., long.
76[deg]25'48'' W; then west along the southern boundary of the
Washington, DC, Tri-Area Class B Airspace Area to the point of
beginning. The SFRA airspace includes the Washington, DC, Metropolitan
Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ).
Sec. 93.37 General requirements for operating in the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area SFRA.
If you conduct any type of flight operation in the Washington, DC,
SFRA, in addition to the restrictions listed in this subpart, you must
comply with all special instructions issued by the FAA in the interest
of national security. Those special instructions may be issued in any
manner the FAA considers appropriate, including a NOTAM. Additionally,
complying with the rules of this subpart does not relieve
[[Page 45261]]
you from complying with the other FAA requirements listed in 14 CFR.
Sec. 93.39 Specific requirements for operating in the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area SFRA, including the FRZ.
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
and in Sec. Sec. 93.45 and 93.47, or unless authorized by Air Traffic
Control, no person may operate an aircraft, including an ultralight or
any civil aircraft or public aircraft, in the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area SFRA, including the FRZ, unless:
(1) The aircraft is equipped with an operable two-way radio capable
of communicating with Air Traffic Control on appropriate radio
frequencies;
(2) Before operating the aircraft in the SFRA airspace, including
the FRZ airspace, the flight crew establishes two-way radio
communications with the appropriate Air Traffic Control facility and
maintains such communications while operating the aircraft in the SFRA
airspace, including the FRZ airspace;
(3) The aircraft is equipped with an operating automatic altitude
reporting transponder;
(4) Before operating an aircraft in the SFRA airspace, including
the FRZ airspace, the flight crew obtains and displays a discrete
transponder code from ATC, and the aircraft's transponder continues to
transmit the assigned code while operating within the SFRA airspace;
(5) The flight crew files and activates a flight plan with an AFSS
before entering the SFRA and closes the flight plan upon landing or
departing the SFRA;
(6) Before operating the aircraft into, out of, or through the
Washington, DC Tri-Area Class B airspace area, the flight crew receives
a specific ATC clearance to operate in the Class B airspace area; and
(7) Before operating the aircraft into, out of, or through Class C
or D airspace area that is within the SFRA airspace, the flight crew
complies with Sec. 91.130 or Sec. 91.129 of this chapter,
respectively.
(b) Paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section do not apply
to Department of Defense, law enforcement, or aeromedical flight
operations if the flight crew is in contact with Air Traffic Control
and is displaying an Air Traffic Control assigned discrete transponder
code.
(c) You may, without filing a flight plan, operate an aircraft in
the VFR traffic pattern at an airport that is within the SFRA airspace
(but not in FRZ airspace) if:
(1) At an airport that does not have an Airport Traffic Control
tower:
(i) Before moving the aircraft to taxi or take off, you notify Air
Traffic Control of the time and location of the VFR traffic pattern
operation you will conduct;
(ii) You monitor the airport's Common Traffic Advisory Frequency
continuously while operating the aircraft;
(iii) The aircraft's transponder continuously transmits Code 1234
(Department of Defense aircraft, operating in a VFR traffic pattern at
a military airport may be assigned a beacon code other than 1234); and
(iv) When exiting the VFR traffic pattern, you comply with
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.
(2) At an airport that has an operating Airport Traffic Control
Tower you must:
(i) Request to remain in the traffic pattern before taxiing, or
before entering the traffic pattern;
(ii) Remain in two-way radio communications with the tower;
(iii) Continuously operate the aircraft transponder on code 1234
unless Air Traffic Control assigns you a different code; and
(iv) Before exiting the traffic pattern, comply with paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(5) of this section.
Sec. 93.41 Aircraft operations prohibited in the Washington, DC,
Metropolitan Area Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ).
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person
may conduct any flight operation under part 91, 101, 103, 105, 125,
133, 135, or 137 of this chapter in the Washington DC, Metropolitan
Area FRZ, unless the specific flight is authorized by the FAA, in
consultation with the United States Secret Service and the
Transportation Security Administration.
(b) Department of Defense, law enforcement, and aeromedical flight
operations are excepted from the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this
section if the flight crew is in contact with Air Traffic Control and
operates the aircraft transponder on an Air Traffic Control assigned
beacon code.
Sec. 93.43 Requirements for aircraft operations to or from College
Park; Potomac Airfield; or Washington Executive/Hyde Field Airports.
(a) You may not operate an aircraft to or from College Park, MD
Airport; Potomac, MD Airfield; or Washington Executive/Hyde Field, MD
Airport unless the following requirements are met:
(1) The aircraft and its crew and passengers comply with security
rules issued by the Transportation Security Administration in 49 U.S.C.
1562 subpart A;
(2) Before departing, the pilot files an IFR or VFR flight plan
with Leesburg AFSS for each departure and arrival at College Park,
Potomac Airfield, and Washington Executive/Hyde Field airports, whether
or not the aircraft makes an intermediate stop;
(3) When you file a flight plan with Leesburg AFSS, you identify
yourself using the pilot identification code assigned to you. Leesburg
AFSS will accept the flight plan only after verifying the code;
(4) You do not close a VFR flight plan with Leesburg AFSS until the
aircraft is on the ground. You may request ATC to cancel an IFR flight
plan while airborne; however, if you are landing at the College Park,
Potomac Airfield, and Washington Executive/Hyde Field airports you must
remain on your assigned beacon code until on the ground and close your
flight plan with Leesburg AFSS after you are on the ground; and
(5) You must comply with the applicable IFR or VFR departure
procedures in paragraph (c), (d) or (e) of this section.
(b) You may operate a Department of Defense, law enforcement, or
aeromedical services aircraft if you comply with paragraph (a) of this
section and any additional procedures specified by the FAA.
(c) If using IFR departure procedures, you must comply with the
following:
(1) You must obtain an Air Traffic Control clearance from Potomac
Approach by calling 540-349-7597; and
(2) Departures from Washington Executive/Hyde Field or Potomac
Airport, receive eastbound radar vectors from Air Traffic Control to
exit the FRZ. You must then proceed on course and remain clear of the
FRZ; or
(3) Departures from College Park Airport may receive radar vectors
eastbound or northbound from Air Traffic Control to exit the FRZ. You
must then proceed on the Air Traffic Control assigned course and remain
clear of the FRZ.
(d) If using VFR departure procedures, you must comply with the
following:
(1) Depart as instructed by Air Traffic Control, and expect a
heading directly away from the FRZ airspace until you establish two-way
radio communication with Potomac Approach; and
(2) Operate as assigned by Air Traffic Control until clear of the
FRZ and Class B airspace area.
(e) If using VFR arrival procedures, the aircraft must remain
outside the SFRA until you establish communications with Air Traffic
Control and receive authorization for the aircraft to enter the SFRA.
(f) VFR arrivals:
[[Page 45262]]
(1) If arriving College Park Airport you may expect routing via the
vicinity of Freeway Airport; or
(2) If arriving Washington Executive/Hyde Field and Potomac Airport
you may expect routing via the vicinity of Maryland Airport or the
Nottingham VORTAC.
Sec. 93.45 Special ingress/egress procedures for Bay Bridge and
Kentmorr Airports.
(a) Ingress/egress procedures area for Bay Bridge and Kentmorr
Airports. The Bay Bridge/Kentmorr airports ingress/egress procedures
area consists of that airspace inside an area beginning at
39[deg]03'27'' N., 076[deg]22'23'' W., or the BAL 128015.1, to
39[deg]00'45'' N., 076[deg]24'16'' W., or the BAL 139015.3, to
38[deg]50'12'' N., 076[deg]25'48'' W., or the BAL 163022.7, to
38[deg]50'10'' N., 076[deg]14'20'' W., or the BAL 146028.2, to
39[deg]00'49'' N., 076[deg]11'03'' W., or the BAL 124024.2, thence to
the point of beginning.
(b) You may operate an aircraft to or from the Bay Bridge Airport
or Kentmorr Airport without filing a flight plan or communicating with
ATC, as long as you comply with the following:
(1) You ensure that the aircraft remains in the ingress/egress area
described in paragraph (a) of this section, proceeding no further west
than the western-most point of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge;
(2) You ensure that the aircraft remains below the floor of Class B
airspace; and
(3) If you are operating arriving aircraft, you must fly the
aircraft along the shortest and most direct route from the eastern SFRA
boundary to the Bay Bridge or Kentmorr airports.
(4) If you are operating departing aircraft, you must fly the
aircraft along the shortest and most direct route from Bay Bridge
Airport or Kentmorr Airport to the eastern SFRA boundary.
(5) If you are operating an arriving or departing aircraft from or
to Bay Bridge Airport, the aircraft's transponder must transmit code
1227.
(6) If you are operating an arriving or departing aircraft from or
to Kentmorr Airport, the aircraft's transponder must transmit code
1233.
(7) If your planned flight will not conform to the procedures in
paragraphs (b) (1) through (b)(6) of this section, you must follow the
DC SFRA procedures in Sec. 93.39.
Sec. 93.47 Special egress procedures for fringe airports.
(a) SFRA egress-only procedures for fringe airports. You may depart
from a fringe airport as defined in Sec. 93.35 without filing a flight
plan or communicating with Air Traffic Control, unless requested, as
long as:
(1) The aircraft's transponder transmits code 1205;
(2) You monitor CTAF frequency until leaving traffic pattern
altitude, then monitor the appropriate Potomac TRACON frequency until
clear of the DC SFRA;
(3) You exit the SFRA by the shortest route before proceeding on
course.
(b) You do not operate an aircraft arriving at a fringe airport or
transit the SFRA unless you comply with the SFRA procedures in Sec.
93.39.
Sec. 93.49 Airport security procedures.
You may not operate an aircraft from College Park, Potomac
Airfield, or Washington Executive/Hyde Field Airports unless the
airport has an established airport security program approved by the
TSA.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 29, 2005.
Nancy B. Kalinowski,
Director, System Operations and Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-15375 Filed 8-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P