Proposed Modification of Class B Airspace; Charlotte, NC, 9538-9544 [2010-4377]
Download as PDF
9538
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules
requirements and duplication by
industry and public sector agencies.
The AMS is committed to complying
with the E-Government Act, to promote
the use of the Internet and other
information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and
services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this rule.
A small business guide on complying
with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop
marketing agreements and orders may
be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/
AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?
template=TemplateN&page=
MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide.
Any questions about the compliance
guide should be sent to Antoinette
Carter at the previously mentioned
address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.
A 30-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposed rule. Thirty days is
deemed appropriate because: (1) The
2010 fiscal year began on January 1,
2010, and the marketing order requires
that the rate of assessment for each
fiscal year apply to all assessable olives
handled during such fiscal year; (2) the
Committee needs sufficient funds to pay
its expenses, which are incurred on a
continuous basis; and (3) handlers are
aware of this action, which was
discussed by the Committee and
unanimously recommended at a public
meeting, and is similar to other
assessment rate actions issued in past
years.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932
Olives, Marketing agreements,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN
CALIFORNIA
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 932 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. Section 932.230 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 932.230
Assessment rate.
On and after January 1, 2010, an
assessment rate of $44.72 per ton is
established for California olives.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:15 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Dated: February 25, 2010.
David R. Shipman,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–4338 Filed 3–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No Docket No. FAA–2010–0049;
Airspace Docket No. 08–AWA–1]
RIN 2120–AA66
Proposed Modification of Class B
Airspace; Charlotte, NC
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY: This action proposes to
modify the Charlotte, NC, Class B
airspace area to ensure the containment
of aircraft, accommodate the
implementation of area navigation
(RNAV) departure procedures, and to
support operations of the third parallel
runway planned for commissioning in
early 2010. The FAA is proposing this
action to improve the flow of air traffic,
enhance safety, and reduce the potential
for midair collision in the Charlotte
terminal area.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 3, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on this
proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, RoomW12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001; telephone:
(202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA
Docket No. FAA–2010–0049 and
Airspace Docket No. 08–AWA–1, at the
beginning of your comments. You may
also submit comments through the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Gallant, Airspace and Rules Group,
Office of System Operations Airspace
and AIM, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
supporting the views and suggestions
presented are particularly helpful in
developing reasoned regulatory
decisions on the proposal. Comments
are specifically invited on the overall
regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related
aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both
docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA–
2010–0049 and Airspace Docket No. 08–
AWA–1) and be submitted in triplicate
to the Docket Management Facility (see
ADDRESSES section for address and
phone number). You may also submit
comments through the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov.
Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those
comments a self-addressed, stamped
postcard on which the following
statement is made: ‘‘Comments to
Docket Nos. FAA–2010–0049 and
Airspace Docket No.08–AWA–1.’’ 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 action may
be changed in light of comments
received. All comments submitted will
be available for examination in the
public 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
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded through the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through
the FAA’s Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
rulemaking/recently_published/.
You may review the public docket
containing the proposal, any comments
received and any final disposition in
person in the Dockets Office (see
ADDRESSES section for address and
phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. An informal docket
may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the
Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 210, 1701
Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337.
Persons interested in being placed on
a mailing list for future NPRMs should
contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking,
(202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory
Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Rulemaking Distribution System, which
describes the application procedure.
Background
In 1989, the FAA issued a final rule
which established the Charlotte, NC,
Terminal Control Area (TCA) to replace
the Charlotte Airport Radar Service Area
(ARSA) (54 FR 32604). As a result of the
Airspace Reclassification Final Rule (56
FR 65638), which became effective in
1993, the terms ‘‘terminal control area’’
and ‘‘airport radar service area’’ were
replaced by ‘‘Class B airspace area,’’ and
‘‘Class C airspace area,’’ respectively.
The primary purpose of a Class B
airspace area is to reduce the potential
for midair collisions in the airspace
surrounding airports with high density
air traffic operations by providing an
area in which all aircraft are subject to
certain operating rules and equipment
requirements.
The Charlotte Class B airspace area
was last modified in 1995 (60 FR
26594). Only minor changes were made
at that time. Since that modification, the
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport
(CLT) has experienced significant
growth in operations. For calendar year
2008, CLT was ranked number 8 in the
list of the ‘‘50 Busiest FAA Airport
Traffic Control Towers’’ and number 14
in the list of the ‘‘50 Busiest Radar
Approach Control Facilities.’’ Calendar
year 2008 passenger enplanement data
list Charlotte as number 13 among
Commercial Service Airports.
Enplanements at CLT in 2008 grew just
over four percent compared to calendar
year 2007 figures.
Several factors point to a need to
modify the Charlotte Class B airspace
area. Experience has shown that, with
the current Class B airspace
configuration, aircraft routinely enter,
exit, and then reenter Class B while
flying published instrument approach
procedures, contrary to FAA directives.
Modeling of projected traffic flows
shows that future traffic also would not
be fully contained within the existing
Class B airspace structure. In addition,
expanded Class B airspace will be
needed to accommodate operations of a
third parallel runway (36L/18R) now
under construction and planned for
commissioning in early 2010. The
proposed Class B airspace modifications
described in this NPRM are intended to
address these issues.
Pre-NPRM Public Input
In February 2008, an ad hoc
committee was formed to develop
recommendations for the FAA to
consider in designing a proposed
modification of the Charlotte/Douglas
International Airport Class B airspace
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:15 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
9539
area. The ad hoc committee membership
consisted of representatives from the
North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Division of Aviation;
South Carolina Department of
Commerce, Division of Aeronautics;
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
(AOPA); and representatives of the
following airports: Concord Regional,
NC (JQF); Lincolnton-Lincoln County
Regional, NC (IPJ); Monroe Regional, NC
(EQY); Wilgrove Airpark, NC (8A6):
Chester-Catawba Regional, SC (DCM);
Lancaster County-McWhirter Field, SC
(LKR); and Rock Hill (York County)
Airport-Bryant Field, SC (UZA).
On October 7, 2008, a meeting was
held in Charlotte to discuss parachute
operations at Chester-Catawba Regional
Airport (DCM). Attending the meeting
were representatives of the FAA, the ad
hoc committee, South Carolina
Department of Transportation, and
Skydive Carolina.
As announced in the Federal Register
(73 FR 63407), informal airspace
meetings were held on January 7, 2009,
at the Concord Regional Airport,
Concord, NC; and on January 8, 2009, at
the Rock Hill (York County) AirportBryant Field, Rock Hill, SC. The
purpose of the meetings was to provide
interested airspace users an opportunity
to present their views and offer
suggestions regarding planned
modifications to the Charlotte Class B
airspace area.
arriving at CLT via the UNARM ONE
and ADENA TWO Standard Terminal
Arrival Routes (STAR) overfly DCM
enroute to the runways 36L and 36R
final approach courses. This path makes
up the base leg when CLT is on a north
operation. The request for a cutout over
LKR was not adopted because the base
leg for arrivals from the southeast on the
CHESTERFIELD THREE or HUSTN ONE
STARs overflies LKR. Arriving aircraft
in this area need to be descended to
4,000 feet in order to be vertically
separated from aircraft approaching the
final approach course from the west at
5,000 feet. Since the proposed Class B
floor over LKR is 4,000 feet, aircraft will
still be able to transition into and out of
LKR without entering Class B airspace
if they so desire. The recommendation
to raise the floor of Class B airspace over
Lincolnton-Lincoln County Regional
Airport (IPJ) from the current 4,600 feet
to 6,000 feet was also not adopted.
Initially, the FAA considered lowering
the floor of Class B airspace in that area
from 4,600 feet to 3,600 feet. However,
after further review, it was determined
that lowering the floor from 4,600 feet
to 4,000 feet (instead of 3,600 feet)
would be sufficient to protect aircraft
that are transitioning from the west to
runway 18L at the initial approach fix
altitude of 4,000 feet mean sea level
(MSL).
Discussion of Recommendations and
Comments
Comment: The cutout surrounding the
Gastonia Municipal Airport (AKH)
should be changed from a ‘‘C’’ shape to
a more open shape. This would help
prevent pilots from ‘‘clipping’’ the edges
of the cutout when operating to or from
AKH.
Response: The FAA agrees and
proposes a modified cutout. Opening
the width of the cutout should reduce
the chances of inadvertent Class B
incursions.
Comment: The ‘‘new’’ Highway 321
should be used as the source for the
north-south boundary that lies west of
AKH. The new Highway 321 is easier to
distinguish from the air.
Response: The FAA agrees and will
use ‘‘new’’ Highway 321 to define the
boundary as suggested.
Comment: The diagonal line that
originates west of AKH and extends
southwesterly should be adjusted to
follow the power lines depicted on the
Charlotte Terminal Area Chart that
roughly coincide with the line. This will
give pilots a good visual reference to
use.
Response: Adjusting the line to
coincide with the power lines will still
contain runway 5 traffic within Class B
Ad hoc Committee Recommendations
The ad hoc committee recommended
that the radius of the Class B 1,800 foot
floor area (Area B) be kept at 11 nautical
miles (NM) from the point where it
intersects I–77 clockwise around to the
cutout for Gastonia Airport instead of
the proposed expansion to a full 14 NM
radius. The FAA adopted this
recommendation. The expansion of
Area B to a 14 NM radius will be limited
to an area north of CLT from a point
where the 14 NM arc intersects Highway
321 then clockwise to intersect the
Charlotte VOR/DME 029° (M) radial.
Three ad hoc committee
recommendations were not adopted.
These recommendations were: (1) A
cutout over the Chester-Catawba
Regional Airport (DCM); (2) a cutout
over the Lancaster County-McWhirter
Field (LKR); and (3) that the floor of
Class B airspace over LincolntonLincoln County Regional Airport (IPJ) be
raised from the current 4,600 feet to
6,000 feet. The request for a cut-out over
DCM was not adopted because a large
number of turbine powered aircraft
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Informal Airspace Meeting Comments
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
9540
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules
airspace, therefore, the FAA concurs
with this comment.
Comment: The short line in the northnorthwest section of the proposed Class
B airspace (north of Lincolnton-Lincoln
County Regional Airport) should be
extended to the proposed outer limit of
the Class B airspace area to simplify the
airspace for pilots.
Response: The FAA is unable to adopt
this suggestion. The proposed line
terminates prior to the Class B outer
limit due to the Charlotte ATCT/Atlanta
Center airspace boundary. At the
altitudes involved, extending the line as
suggested would place part of the Class
B area in Atlanta Center’s airspace.
Comment: The slides shown during
the [informal airspace meeting]
presentation did not show aircraft
overflying the Lancaster County, SC
airport. Therefore, the proposed design
should not include the airspace over
that airport.
Response: Under current procedures,
it is uncommon for arriving traffic to
overfly the Lancaster Airport. However,
once the new runway is operational at
CLT, the Instrument Landing System
(ILS) initial approach fixes for all
runways will be located further from
CLT in order to accommodate the 8,000
foot turn on altitude for runway 36C/
18C. Therefore, it is anticipated that
traffic will overfly the Lancaster Airport
at 8,000 feet enroute to runway 36C.
Additionally, traffic assigned to runway
36R will be descended to 4,000 feet, and
will have to be vectored over the
Lancaster Airport to join the runway
36R final approach course. As a result,
the floor of the Class B airspace in this
area is proposed to be established at
4,000 feet. In addition, modeling of
anticipated aircraft operations indicate
that the area between the 25 mile and
30 mile rings of the proposed Class B
airspace may be needed for vectoring
and sequencing traffic assigned both
runways 36C and 36R. During certain
operations, particularly the north triple
ILS operation, aircraft would overfly the
Lancaster Airport while enroute to CLT.
For those reasons, the FAA did not
adopt this suggestion.
Comment: The floor of the proposed
Class B airspace at the northern
boundary should be set at 6,000 feet
instead of 4,000 feet. The concern is that
lowering the floor to 4,000 feet in this
area would negatively impact IFR
operations at the Statesville Regional
Airport, NC (SVH).
Response: The floor was proposed at
4,000 feet in this area because the initial
approach altitude for traffic assigned
runway 18L from both the west and the
east is 4,000 feet. IFR operations at SVH
are not affected by the Class B airspace
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:15 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
boundaries. SVH IFR operations are and
will remain under the jurisdiction of
Atlanta Center. The airport will not be
placed within or under the Class B
airspace area by the proposed
modifications. The distance between
SVH and the proposed outer limit of the
Class B airspace will decrease, however,
from 9.1 miles to 4.4 miles which will
allow room for VFR operations at the
airport as well. Therefore, the FAA did
not concur with this comment.
Comment: AOPA suggested that
arrival routes be modified to allow
aircraft to remain at a higher altitude
and descend at a constant rate; that
arrival routes be redesigned to avoid
areas that would impact aviation
businesses that rely on airspace
availability; and that the FAA should
modify procedures so that aircraft do
not enter, exit, and then reenter the
class B airspace. Additionally, AOPA
said that the FAA should reduce the
ceiling of the Charlotte Class B airspace
from 10,000 feet to 8,500 feet.
Response: Modifying arrival routes to
allow arriving aircraft to remain at
higher altitudes and descend at a
constant rate would create a confliction
with other traffic. Specifically, arriving
aircraft must be descended so that
departures can be climbed above this
traffic. If arriving aircraft are not
descended as they are now, then
departures would have to be held down
below 10,000 feet for an extended
period of time. This creates conflictions
between departure aircraft and arrival
aircraft and does not allow departures to
vertically exit the ceiling of class B
airspace. The Standard Terminal Arrival
Routes (STARs) at Charlotte have been
in place for over 20 years. The design
of these routes is based on other airport
locations, airspace design, and traffic
flows in the entire southeastern U.S.
Changing these routes would have a
major impact on arrival routes (and
departure and overflight routes) to and
from the Atlanta Airport, as well as
other airports in the southeast. The
proposed Class B modifications are
intended, in part, to reduce the potential
for IFR aircraft to enter, exit and then
reenter the Charlotte Class B airspace
area. Modifying facility procedures to
keep aircraft within the current class B
airspace boundaries would create
bottlenecks and ‘‘choke points’’ and
would reduce arrival capacity.
Extensive vectoring would also be
required, leading to increased controller
workload, increased flying mileage, and
added frequency congestion. The FAA
is not aware of data that supports
lowering the Charlotte Class B airspace
ceiling to 8,500 feet.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Comment: Skydive Carolina
expressed concerns about the impact
that the proposed expansion of Class B
airspace to overlie the Chester-Catawba
Regional airport (DCM) might have on
its parachute jump activities, safety and
on the future growth and expansion of
its operations at DCM. Skydive Carolina
also expressed concern that the heavy
traffic projected in the future would
increase the probability of ‘‘go arounds’’
wherein the jump aircraft is instructed
by ATC to withhold jumpers due to
traffic, fly beyond the drop point and
then restart the pattern to let jumpers
out. Skydive Carolina indicated that this
maneuver would result in greater fuel
consumption, more airframe time on the
aircraft and longer time at jump altitude
(i.e., 13,500 feet MSL) for jumpers that
are not equipped with supplemental
oxygen.
Response: Although DCM now lies
outside the boundary of Class B
airspace, arrivals currently overfly DCM
when CLT is on a north operation.
Modeling of various traffic scenarios
indicates that this situation will
continue to exist after the third parallel
runway is opened. Designing a ‘‘cutout’’
to exclude the area around DCM from
the Class B airspace would require
controllers to employ extensive
vectoring to avoid the airspace over
DCM. This would lead to increased
controller workload, frequency
congestion and decreased system
efficiency. Regarding the concerns about
‘‘go arounds,’’ even though Skydive
Carolina does not currently operate in
Class B airspace, there are still instances
in which pilots are instructed to
withhold the release of jumpers due to
traffic. It is anticipated that these
instances would not significantly
increase if the skydive area is placed
within Class B airspace. The FAA
believes that the inclusion of the area
above DCM in Class B airspace can be
mitigated and parachute operations can
be accommodated through a Letter of
Agreement (LOA) between Charlotte
Airport Traffic Control Tower and
Skydive Carolina. LOAs have been used
successfully to accommodate parachute
activities at other Class B airspace
locations.
The Proposal
The FAA is proposing an amendment
to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 71 to modify the
Charlotte, NC Class B airspace area. This
action (depicted on the attached chart)
proposes to expand the lateral and
vertical limits of the Charlotte Class B
airspace area to provide the additional
airspace needed to support operations of
a third parallel runway and the
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules
implementation of RNAV departure
procedures; contain ILS approach
procedures for runways 23, 18L, 18C
(formerly 18R but redesignated
November 20, 2008) and the new
runway (18R); and contain aircraft being
vectored to a base leg from the west
when CLT is on a north operation. The
proposed revisions to the Charlotte
Class B airspace area are discussed
below.
Except for Area A, which extends
upward from the surface to and
including 10,000 feet MSL within a 7
NM radius of the CLT VOR/DME, the
proposed descriptions of all other
subareas that make up the Charlotte
Class B airspace area would be
reconfigured, redescribed and realigned
by geographic position in relation to the
airport rather than the current practice
of combining all areas that share a
common altitude floor into one large,
complex subarea description. The
current Charlotte Class B airspace area
consists of six subareas (A through F)
while the proposed configuration would
consist of 11 subareas (A through K).
Based on modeling of future traffic
flows, there is a need to expand the
lateral limits of Class B airspace to the
north and south of CLT from the current
25 NM arc out to the 30 NM arc, and
to set the floor of Class B airspace in
those sections at 4,000 feet MSL. The
extensions to 30 NM are required to
provide adequate vectoring areas for
controllers to vector arrivals to the
appropriate final approach course. A
4,000 foot MSL floor is needed out to
the 30 NM arc to provide sufficient
airspace to separate aircraft assigned to
different runways and to comply with
simultaneous ILS procedures.
Additionally, a review of radar data has
revealed that, when CLT is on a north
operation, a significant number of
aircraft inbound from the southwest on
either the UNARM ONE or ADENA
TWO standard terminal arrival routes
exit and reenter Class B airspace
between the existing 6,000 foot MSL
Class B airspace floor and the 4,600 foot
MSL floor to the south-southwest of
CLT. Lowering the Class B airspace floor
to 4,000 feet MSL in that area will
prevent these excursions.
Another problem exists with aircraft
established on the ILS approaches to
runways 18L and 18C dropping below
the floor of Class B airspace north of the
airport with the existing Class B
airspace configuration. These
excursions occur prior to the point
where the floor of Class B airspace
drops from 3,600 feet MSL to 1,800 feet
MSL. Consequently, aircraft are exiting
and reentering Class B airspace while
flying the published ILS procedures. To
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:15 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
correct this situation, the FAA proposes
to move the 1,800 foot MSL floor (Area
B) from the current 11 NM arc outward
to the 14 NM arc. This extension to the
14 NM arc would only be made to the
north of CLT (from the intersection of
the 14 NM arc with new Highway 321
northwest of the airport, then clockwise
along the arc to the CLT 024°T/029°M
radial). The remaining portion of Area B
would continue to follow the 11 NM arc
clockwise to the cutout for the AKH.
This change would ensure that arrivals
to runways 18L and 18C/36C, and the
new runway (18R/36L), are retained
within Class B airspace throughout the
approach. In addition, in response to
comments from the Informal Airspace
Meetings, the FAA is proposing to
widen the cutout in Area B around AKH
to facilitate better access to and from
that airport.
With the implementation of RNAV
departure procedures at CLT, the floor
of Class B airspace to the east and west
of the airport needs to be lowered.
Departures on easterly and westerly
tracks from the airport often exit and
then reenter Class B airspace as they
continue their climbs. To preclude this,
the FAA proposes to lower the existing
6,000 foot MSL floor (current Area E) to
5,000 feet MSL and to lower the existing
8,000 foot MSL floor (current Area F) to
6,000 feet MSL. The existing area
designations would be changed from the
current Areas E and F to a new Area G
(extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL)
and a new Area K (extending upward
from 6,000 feet MSL) west of CLT; and
a new Area D (extending upward from
5,000 feet MSL) and a new Area I
(extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL)
east of CLT (see attached chart).
To provide an adequate vector area for
runway 5 arrivals, it is necessary to
lower the Class B airspace floor from
6,000 feet MSL to 4,000 feet MSL floor
in an area to the southwest of AKH. This
new Area, designated Area F, would be
bounded on the east by new Highway
321, on the west by the 20 NM arc of
the CLT VOR/DME and on the north by
the power lines that extend in a
southwesterly direction west of AKH.
A further review of radar data
revealed a need to lower the floor of
Class B airspace to the northeast of CLT.
Due to vectoring patterns and the
descent profile of aircraft conducting
the ILS RWY 23 approach, it is
necessary to slightly extend the 3,600
foot Class B airspace floor to the
northeast of CLT. This would be
accomplished by extending the lateral
limits of the existing Area C from the
current 20 NM arc out to the 23 NM arc.
Finally, the Charlotte/Douglas
International Airport reference point
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9541
coordinates in the Class B airspace legal
description would be updated to reflect
current National Airspace System data.
These changes are being proposed to
ensure the containment of IFR aircraft
within Class B airspace as required by
FAA directives; accommodate the
implementation of RNAV departure
procedures; and support operations of a
third parallel runway.
All radials listed in the Charlotte
Class B airspace description in this
NPRM are stated in degrees relative to
both True North and Magnetic North.
Class B airspace areas are published
in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order
7400.9T, dated August 27, 2009 and
effective September 15, 2009, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. The Class B airspace area proposed
in this document would be published
subsequently in the Order.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Changes to Federal regulations must
undergo several economic analyses.
First, Executive Order 12866 directs that
each Federal agency shall propose or
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the
intended regulation justify its costs.
Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic
impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements
Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies
from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the U.S. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires
agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis of U.S. standards.
Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires
agencies to prepare a written assessment
of the costs, benefits, and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include
a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the
preamble summarizes the FAA’s
analysis of the economic impacts of this
proposed rule.
Department of Transportation Order
DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and
procedures for simplification, analysis,
and review of regulations. If the
expected cost impact is so minimal that
a proposed or final rule does not
warrant a full evaluation, this order
permits that a statement to that effect
and the basis for it be included in the
preamble if a full regulatory evaluation
of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
9542
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Such a determination has been made for
this proposed rule. The reasoning for
this determination follows:
After consultation with airports that
participated in the Charlotte airport ad
hoc advisory committee, the FAA
expects the proposed modifications of
the Class B airspace to result in minimal
cost. One representative said the
proposed changes would have
‘‘absolutely no effect’’ on his airport and
the pilots who use his airport reported
that the changes were ‘‘negligible.’’
Another manager of an airport
potentially affected by this proposed
rulemaking reported that having the
Class B airspace modified is not the
ideal situation, his airport would not
experience adverse changes to
instrument approaches and therefore
expected minimal, if any, economic
impact.
Of the six airports that participated in
ad hoc advisory committee and that
provided comments two expressed
concerns of a possible economic impact.
One airport reported that airplanes may
to stop at other airports but this
economic impact would be ‘‘hard to
quantify’’ which the FAA deems as
minimal cost. The other reported that
most of its revenue is generated from a
skydiving school that leases trailers and
hangers from the airport in addition to
the purchase of fuel. The airport
manager reported that the skydiving
classes go up to 14,500 feet and under
this proposed rule change the class
would have to coordinate their
scheduling of flights with Charlotte. The
FAA believes, however, that such flight
coordination would result in only
minimal costs. In sum the FAA believes
the proposed rule would result in
minimal costs.
The benefits of this proposed rule are
substantial resulting from the increased
utilization of a new 9,000 feet runway.
This runway will allow more
commercial flights to efficiently land at
Charlotte-Douglas International Airport.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a
principle of regulatory issuance that
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with
the objectives of the rule and of
applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and
informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation. To achieve this principle,
agencies are required to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals
and to explain the rationale for their
actions to assure that such proposals are
given serious consideration.’’ The RFA
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:15 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to
determine whether a rule will have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If
the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis as described in the
RFA.
However, if an agency determines that
a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that
the head of the agency may so certify
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required. The certification must
include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and
the reasoning should be clear.
The FAA believes the proposal would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
as the economic impact is expected to
be minimal. Based on the Small
Business Administration small entity
criterion for small government
jurisdictions the rule would impact a
substantial number of small entities. At
least two of the regional airports are
owned by governments with
populations less than 50,000. We were
unable to obtain publicly available
revenue data. As the proposed rule
would simply change the takeoff and
landing patterns to these airports, we
believe these changed patterns result in
a minimal economic impact. Therefore
the FAA certifies that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. We request comments from the
potentially affected entities which
would include estimated compliance
cost and airport revenue, such that we
could provide a measure of economic
impact.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub.
L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies
from establishing standards or engaging
in related activities that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the U.S. Pursuant to these
Acts, the establishment of standards is
not considered an unnecessary obstacle
to the foreign commerce of the U.S., so
long as the standard has a legitimate
domestic objective, such the protection
of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet
this objective. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and, where appropriate, that they be the
basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this
proposed rule to change the airspace
classification for Charlotte airport in
North Carolina and determined that it
would not have a potential effect on
trade-sensitive activities as discussed
above.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)
requires each Federal agency to prepare
a written statement assessing the effects
of any Federal mandate in a proposed or
final agency rule that may result in an
expenditure of $100 million or more (in
1995 dollars) in any one year by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector; such
a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant
regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of
$136.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
This proposed rule does not contain
such a mandate; therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not
apply.
Conclusion
FAA has, therefore, determined that
this proposed rule is a minimal cost rule
with substantial benefits and is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as
defined in section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, and is not ‘‘significant’’ as
defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies
and Procedures.
FAA has, therefore, determined that
this proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not
‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
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—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
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.
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points,
dated August 27, 2009, and effective
September 15, 2009, is amended as
follows:
Paragraph 3000
Airspace.
Subpart B—Class B
*
*
*
*
*
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
ASO NC B Charlotte, NC
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport
(Primary Airport)
(Lat. 35°12′50″ N., long. 80°56′35″ W.)
Charlotte VOR/DME
(Lat. 35°11′25″ N., long. 80°57′06″ W.)
Gastonia Municipal Airport
(Lat. 35°12′10″ N., long. 81°09′00″ W.)
Boundaries
Area A. That airspace extending upward
from the surface to and including 10,000 feet
MSL within a 7-mile radius of the Charlotte
VOR/DME.
Area B. That airspace extending upward
from 1,800 feet MSL to and including 10,000
feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the
Charlotte VOR/DME 024°T/029°M radial 14mile fix; thence direct to the Charlotte VOR/
DME 032°T/037°M radial 11-mile fix, thence
clockwise via the 11-mile arc of the Charlotte
VOR/DME to lat. 35°09′37″ N., long.
81°10′21″ W.; thence east to lat. 35°10′17″ N.,
long. 81°08′10″ W.; thence counterclockwise
around a 2-mile radius of the Gastonia
Municipal Airport to lat. 35°14′02″ N., long.
81°08′10″ W.; thence west to intersect U.S.
Highway 321 at lat. 35°15′00″ N., long.
81°11′21″ W.; thence north along U.S.
Highway 321 to the 14-mile arc of the
Charlotte VOR/DME at lat. 35°19′20″ N., long.
81°11′13″ W.; thence clockwise via the 14mile arc to the point of beginning, excluding
that airspace within Area A described above.
Area C. That airspace extending upward
from 3,600 feet MSL to and including 10,000
feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the
intersection of U.S. Highway 321 and the
Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile arc at lat.
35°26′49″ N., long. 81°12′44″ W.; thence
clockwise along the 20-mile arc to intersect
the Marshall Steam Plant Rail Spur at lat.
35°31′14″ N., long. 81°00′42″ W.; thence
north along the Rail Spur to the Charlotte
VOR/DME 25-mile arc at lat. 35°36′25″ N.,
long. 80°58′57″ W.; thence clockwise along
the 25-mile arc to long. 80°46′00″ W.; thence
south along long. 80°46′00″ W., to the
Charlotte VOR/DME 23-mile arc; thence
clockwise along the 23-mile arc to the
Charlotte VOR/DME 067°T/072°M radial;
thence southwest along the 067°T/072°M
radial to the Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile arc;
thence clockwise along the 20-mile arc to the
Charlotte VOR/DME 081°T/086°M radial;
thence west along the 081°T/086°M radial to
the Charlotte VOR/DME 11-mile arc; thence
counterclockwise along the 11-mile arc to the
Charlotte VOR/DME 032°T/037°M radial, 11mile fix; thence direct to the Charlotte VOR/
DME 024°T/029°M radial, 14-mile fix; thence
counterclockwise along the 14-mile arc of the
Charlotte VOR/DME to intersect U.S.
Highway 321 at lat. 35°19′20″ N., long.
81°11′13″ W., thence north along U.S.
Highway 321 to the point of beginning.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:15 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
Area D. That airspace extending upward
from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000
feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the
Charlotte VOR/DME 081°T/086°M radial 11mile fix; thence east along the 081°T/086°M
radial to the 20-mile fix; thence clockwise
along the 20-mile arc of the Charlotte VOR/
DME to lat. 34°56′07″ N., long. 80°41′23″ W.;
thence north to the point of beginning.
Area E. That airspace extending upward
from 3,600 feet MSL to and including 10,000
feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at lat.
35°15′00″ N., long. 81°11′21″ W., thence east
to lat. 35°14′02″ N., long. 81°08′10″ W.;
thence clockwise along a 2-mile radius of the
Gastonia Municipal Airport to lat. 35°10′17″
N., long. 81°08′10″ W.; thence west to
intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME 11-mile arc
at lat. 35°09′37″ N., long. 81°10′21″ W.;
thence counterclockwise along the 11-mile
arc to the Charlotte VOR/DME 081°T/86°M
radial 11-mile fix; thence south direct to the
Charlotte VOR/DME 147°T/152°M radial 25mile fix; thence clockwise along the 25-mile
arc of the Charlotte VOR/DME to lat.
34°49′37″ N., long. 81°12′05″ W.; thence
north to the Charlotte VOR/DME 218°T/
223°M radial 20-mile fix, thence clockwise
along the 20-mile arc of the Charlotte VOR/
DME, to intersect U.S. Highway 321 at lat.
34°57′21″ N., long. 81°14′28″ W.; thence
north along U.S. Highway 321 to the point of
beginning.
Area F. That airspace extending upward
from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000
feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the
intersection of the power lines and the
Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile arc at lat.
35°08′08″ N., long. 81°21′10″ W.; thence east
along the power lines to intersect U.S.
Highway 321 at lat. 35°11′52″ N., long.
81°12′41″ W.; thence south along U.S.
Highway 321 to intersect the Charlotte VOR/
DME 20-mile arc at lat. 34°57′21″ N., long.
81°14′28″ W.; thence clockwise along the 20mile arc to the point of beginning.
Area G. That airspace extending upward
from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000
feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the
intersection of the power lines and the
Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile arc at lat.
35°08′08″ N., long. 81°21′10″ W.; thence
clockwise along the 20-mile arc to intersect
U.S. Highway 321 at lat. 35°26′49″ N., long.
81°12′44″ W.; thence south along U.S.
Highway 321 to intersect the power lines at
lat. 35°11′52″ N., long. 81°12′41″ W.; thence
west along the power lines to the point of
beginning.
Area H. That airspace extending upward
from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000
feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at lat.
35°37′15″ N., long. 81°10′32″ W.; thence
direct to intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME
30-mile arc at lat. 35°41′30″ N., long.
80°57′40″ W.; thence clockwise along the 30mile arc to long. 80°46′00″ W.; thence south
along long. 80°46′00″ W., to intersect the
Charlotte VOR/DME 25-mile arc; thence
counterclockwise along the 25-mile arc to
intersect the Marshall Steam Plant Rail Spur
at lat. 35°36′25″ N., long. 80°58′57″ W.;
thence south along the Rail Spur to intersect
the Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile arc at lat.
35°31′14″ N., long. 81°00′42″ W.; thence
counterclockwise along the 20-mile arc to
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9543
intersect U.S. Highway 321 at lat. 35°26′49″
N., long. 81°12′44″ W.; thence north along
U.S. Highway 321 to intersect the Charlotte
VOR/DME 25-mile arc at lat. 35°32′26″ N.,
long. 81°13′44″ W.; thence clockwise along
the 25-mile arc to intersect the Charlotte
VOR/DME 337°T/342°M radial; thence
northwest along the 337°T/342°M radial to
the point of beginning.
Area I. That airspace extending upward
from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000
feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the
Charlotte VOR/DME 062°T/067°M radial, 30mile fix, thence southwest along the 062°T/
067°M radial to the 25-mile fix; thence
clockwise along the Charlotte VOR/DME 25mile arc to the Charlotte VOR/DME 120°T/
125°M radial; thence southeast along the
120°T/125°M radial to the 30-mile fix; thence
clockwise along the Charlotte VOR/DME 30mile arc to lat. 34°44′58″ N., long. 80°39′47″
W.; thence north direct to intersect the
Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile arc at lat.
34°56′07″ N., long. 80°41′23″ W.;, thence
counterclockwise along the 20-mile arc to the
Charlotte VOR/DME 067°T/072°M radial;
thence northeast along the 067°T/072°M
radial to the 23-mile arc; thence
counterclockwise along the 23-mile arc to
long. 80°46′00″ W.; thence north along long.
80°46′00″ W., to the Charlotte VOR/DME 30mile arc; thence clockwise along the 30-mile
arc to the point of beginning.
Area J. That airspace extending upward
from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000
feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the
Charlotte VOR/DME 147° radial 25-mile fix;
thence direct to intersect the Charlotte VOR/
DME 30-mile arc at lat. 34°44′58″ N., long.
80°39′47″ W.; thence clockwise along the
Charlotte VOR/DME 30-mile arc to lat.
34°44′01″ N., long. 81°12′05″ W.; thence
north to intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME 25mile arc at lat. 34°49′37″ N., long. 81°12′05″
W.; thence counterclockwise along the
Charlotte VOR/DME 25-mile arc to the point
of beginning.
Area K. That airspace extending upward
from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000
feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the
Charlotte VOR/DME 293°T/298°M radial, 30mile fix; thence clockwise along the Charlotte
VOR/DME 30-mile arc to lat. 35°41′30″ N.,
long. 80°57′40″ W.; thence southwest direct
to intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME 337°(T)/
342°(M) at lat. 35°37′15″ N., long. 81°10′32″
W.; thence southeast along the 337°T/342°M
radial to the Charlotte VOR/DME 25-mile arc;
thence counterclockwise along the 25-mile
arc to intersect U.S. Highway 321 at lat.
35°32′26″ N., long. 81°13′44″ W., thence
south along new Highway 321 to intersect the
Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile arc at lat.
35°26′49″ N., long. 81°12′44″ W.; thence
counterclockwise along the 20-mile arc to the
Charlotte VOR/DME 218°T/223°M radial;
thence south to intersect the Charlotte VOR/
DME 30-mile arc at lat. 34°44′01″ N., long.
81°12′05″ W.; thence clockwise along the 30mile arc to the Charlotte VOR/DME 242°T/
247°M radial, thence northeast along the
242°T/247°M radial to the Charlotte VOR/
DME 25-mile arc; thence clockwise along the
25-mile arc to the Charlotte VOR/DME
293°T/298°M radial; thence northwest along
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
9544
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the 293°T/298°M radial to the point of
beginning.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 23,
2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. 2010–4377 Filed 3–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 545
[BOP Docket No. BOP 1152–P]
RIN 1120–AB52
Inmate Work and Performance Pay
Program
Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau
of Prisons (Bureau) proposes to
streamline regulations on inmate work
and performance pay by removing
redundant language and provisions that
relate solely to staff guidance.
DATES: Written comments must be
postmarked and electronic comments
must be submitted on or before May 3,
2010. Commenters should be aware that
the electronic Federal Docket
Management System will not accept
comments after Midnight Eastern Time
on the last day of the comment period.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
submitted to the Rules Unit, Office of
General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320
First Street, NW., Washington, DC
20534. You may view an electronic
version of this rule at https://
www.regulations.gov. You may also
comment on this regulation via the
Internet at BOPRULES@BOP.GOV or by
using the https://www.regulations.gov
comment form for this regulation. When
submitting comments electronically you
must include the BOP Docket No. in the
subject box.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah Qureshi, Office of General
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202)
307–2105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Posting of Public Comments
Please note that all comments
received are considered part of the
public record and made available for
public inspection online at https://
www.regulations.gov. Such information
includes personal identifying
information (such as your name,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:15 Mar 02, 2010
Jkt 220001
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter.
If you want to submit personal
identifying information (such as your
name, address, etc.) as part of your
comment, but do not want it to be
posted online, you must include the
phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph
of your comment. You must also locate
all the personal identifying information
you do not want posted online in the
first paragraph of your comment and
identify what information you want
redacted.
If you want to submit confidential
business information as part of your
comment but do not want it to be posted
online, you must include the phrase
‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph
of your comment. You must also
prominently identify confidential
business information to be redacted
within the comment. If a comment
contains so much confidential business
information that it cannot be effectively
redacted, all or part of that comment
may not be posted on https://
www.regulations.gov.
Personal identifying information
identified and located as set forth above
will be placed in the agency’s public
docket file, but not posted online.
Confidential business information
identified and located as set forth above
will not be placed in the public docket
file. If you wish to inspect the agency’s
public docket file in person by
appointment, please see the ‘‘For
Additional Information’’ paragraph.
The reason that the Bureau is
requesting electronic comments before
Midnight Eastern Time on the day the
comment period closes is because the
inter-agency Regulations.gov/Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS)
which receives electronic comments
terminates the public’s ability to submit
comments at Midnight on the day the
comment period closes. Commenters in
time zones other than Eastern may want
to take this fact into account so that
their electronic comments can be
received. The constraints imposed by
the Regulations.gov/FDMS system do
not apply to U.S. postal comments
which will be considered as timely filed
if they are postmarked before Midnight
on the day the comment period closes.
Discussion
In this document, the Bureau
proposes to streamline regulations on
inmate work and performance pay by
deleting redundant language and
provisions that relate solely to staff
guidance. Below is a section-by-section
explanation of the proposed revisions.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Section 545.20 Purpose and scope.
This section describes the purpose of
the Inmate Work and Performance Pay
(IPP) program of the Bureau of Prisons
(Bureau). This section is derived from
current § 545.20(a). The second sentence
of current subparagraph (a), regarding
the requirement for physically and
mentally able sentenced inmates to
participate in the work program, is
deleted because the concept is repeated
in the subsequent regulation. Current
paragraph (b), regarding the Warden’s
ability to grant performance pay to
qualified inmates, is deleted because the
concept is later repeated in a regulation
exclusively devoted to performance pay.
Section 545.21 Definitions. This
section derives almost verbatim from
the current § 545.21, and defines terms
used in the rest of the subpart, including
‘‘physically and mentally able,’’
‘‘institution work assignment,’’ ‘‘industry
assignment,’’ ‘‘commissary assignment,’’
and other terms.
Deleted § 545.22. This section,
regarding the institution work and
performance pay committee, has been
deleted because it is guidance to staff
that need not be in regulation text. This
current regulation explains that the
Warden at each Bureau facility
establishes an Institution Inmate Work
and Performance Pay Committee to
administer the institution’s work and
performance pay program, comprised of
an Associate Warden, the Inmate
Performance Pay Coordinator, and any
other member(s) the Warden considers
appropriate. The Committee is
responsible for approving various
aspects of the inmate work and
performance pay program specific to
that Committee’s facility, including the
number of inmates and pay grades for
each work detail, job descriptions,
performance standards, budgeting
issues, and other such administrative
concerns. We will retain this language
in implementing text in the relevant
Bureau policy.
Section 545.22 Inmate work/
program assignment. This section
derives from current § 545.23. It
explains that each sentenced inmate
who is physically and mentally able
must participate in an institutional,
industrial, or commissary work program
unless an exception applies. An inmate
may be authorized to not participate in
IPP if the inmate instead participates in
an education, vocational, or drug abuse
treatment program, on either a full or
part-time basis, if it is required by
Bureau policy or statute (for example,
the Literacy Program) or with the
approval of the Warden or designee. An
inmate may also be excepted from IPP
participation if the inmate is a pretrial
E:\FR\FM\03MRP1.SGM
03MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 3, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9538-9544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4377]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No Docket No. FAA-2010-0049; Airspace Docket No. 08-AWA-1]
RIN 2120-AA66
Proposed Modification of Class B Airspace; Charlotte, NC
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Charlotte, NC, Class B
airspace area to ensure the containment of aircraft, accommodate the
implementation of area navigation (RNAV) departure procedures, and to
support operations of the third parallel runway planned for
commissioning in early 2010. The FAA is proposing this action to
improve the flow of air traffic, enhance safety, and reduce the
potential for midair collision in the Charlotte terminal area.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 3, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, RoomW12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone: (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2010-
0049 and Airspace Docket No. 08-AWA-1, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace and Rules
Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, 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 are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2010-0049 and Airspace Docket No. 08-AWA-1) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Nos. FAA-2010-0049 and Airspace Docket No.08-AWA-1.'' 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 action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public 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
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/.
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
[[Page 9539]]
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.
Background
In 1989, the FAA issued a final rule which established the
Charlotte, NC, Terminal Control Area (TCA) to replace the Charlotte
Airport Radar Service Area (ARSA) (54 FR 32604). As a result of the
Airspace Reclassification Final Rule (56 FR 65638), which became
effective in 1993, the terms ``terminal control area'' and ``airport
radar service area'' were replaced by ``Class B airspace area,'' and
``Class C airspace area,'' respectively. The primary purpose of a Class
B airspace area is to reduce the potential for midair collisions in the
airspace surrounding airports with high density air traffic operations
by providing an area in which all aircraft are subject to certain
operating rules and equipment requirements.
The Charlotte Class B airspace area was last modified in 1995 (60
FR 26594). Only minor changes were made at that time. Since that
modification, the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport (CLT) has
experienced significant growth in operations. For calendar year 2008,
CLT was ranked number 8 in the list of the ``50 Busiest FAA Airport
Traffic Control Towers'' and number 14 in the list of the ``50 Busiest
Radar Approach Control Facilities.'' Calendar year 2008 passenger
enplanement data list Charlotte as number 13 among Commercial Service
Airports. Enplanements at CLT in 2008 grew just over four percent
compared to calendar year 2007 figures.
Several factors point to a need to modify the Charlotte Class B
airspace area. Experience has shown that, with the current Class B
airspace configuration, aircraft routinely enter, exit, and then
reenter Class B while flying published instrument approach procedures,
contrary to FAA directives. Modeling of projected traffic flows shows
that future traffic also would not be fully contained within the
existing Class B airspace structure. In addition, expanded Class B
airspace will be needed to accommodate operations of a third parallel
runway (36L/18R) now under construction and planned for commissioning
in early 2010. The proposed Class B airspace modifications described in
this NPRM are intended to address these issues.
Pre-NPRM Public Input
In February 2008, an ad hoc committee was formed to develop
recommendations for the FAA to consider in designing a proposed
modification of the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Class B
airspace area. The ad hoc committee membership consisted of
representatives from the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Division of Aviation; South Carolina Department of Commerce, Division
of Aeronautics; Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA); and
representatives of the following airports: Concord Regional, NC (JQF);
Lincolnton-Lincoln County Regional, NC (IPJ); Monroe Regional, NC
(EQY); Wilgrove Airpark, NC (8A6): Chester-Catawba Regional, SC (DCM);
Lancaster County-McWhirter Field, SC (LKR); and Rock Hill (York County)
Airport-Bryant Field, SC (UZA).
On October 7, 2008, a meeting was held in Charlotte to discuss
parachute operations at Chester-Catawba Regional Airport (DCM).
Attending the meeting were representatives of the FAA, the ad hoc
committee, South Carolina Department of Transportation, and Skydive
Carolina.
As announced in the Federal Register (73 FR 63407), informal
airspace meetings were held on January 7, 2009, at the Concord Regional
Airport, Concord, NC; and on January 8, 2009, at the Rock Hill (York
County) Airport-Bryant Field, Rock Hill, SC. The purpose of the
meetings was to provide interested airspace users an opportunity to
present their views and offer suggestions regarding planned
modifications to the Charlotte Class B airspace area.
Discussion of Recommendations and Comments
Ad hoc Committee Recommendations
The ad hoc committee recommended that the radius of the Class B
1,800 foot floor area (Area B) be kept at 11 nautical miles (NM) from
the point where it intersects I-77 clockwise around to the cutout for
Gastonia Airport instead of the proposed expansion to a full 14 NM
radius. The FAA adopted this recommendation. The expansion of Area B to
a 14 NM radius will be limited to an area north of CLT from a point
where the 14 NM arc intersects Highway 321 then clockwise to intersect
the Charlotte VOR/DME 029[deg] (M) radial. Three ad hoc committee
recommendations were not adopted. These recommendations were: (1) A
cutout over the Chester-Catawba Regional Airport (DCM); (2) a cutout
over the Lancaster County-McWhirter Field (LKR); and (3) that the floor
of Class B airspace over Lincolnton-Lincoln County Regional Airport
(IPJ) be raised from the current 4,600 feet to 6,000 feet. The request
for a cut-out over DCM was not adopted because a large number of
turbine powered aircraft arriving at CLT via the UNARM ONE and ADENA
TWO Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STAR) overfly DCM enroute to the
runways 36L and 36R final approach courses. This path makes up the base
leg when CLT is on a north operation. The request for a cutout over LKR
was not adopted because the base leg for arrivals from the southeast on
the CHESTERFIELD THREE or HUSTN ONE STARs overflies LKR. Arriving
aircraft in this area need to be descended to 4,000 feet in order to be
vertically separated from aircraft approaching the final approach
course from the west at 5,000 feet. Since the proposed Class B floor
over LKR is 4,000 feet, aircraft will still be able to transition into
and out of LKR without entering Class B airspace if they so desire. The
recommendation to raise the floor of Class B airspace over Lincolnton-
Lincoln County Regional Airport (IPJ) from the current 4,600 feet to
6,000 feet was also not adopted. Initially, the FAA considered lowering
the floor of Class B airspace in that area from 4,600 feet to 3,600
feet. However, after further review, it was determined that lowering
the floor from 4,600 feet to 4,000 feet (instead of 3,600 feet) would
be sufficient to protect aircraft that are transitioning from the west
to runway 18L at the initial approach fix altitude of 4,000 feet mean
sea level (MSL).
Informal Airspace Meeting Comments
Comment: The cutout surrounding the Gastonia Municipal Airport
(AKH) should be changed from a ``C'' shape to a more open shape. This
would help prevent pilots from ``clipping'' the edges of the cutout
when operating to or from AKH.
Response: The FAA agrees and proposes a modified cutout. Opening
the width of the cutout should reduce the chances of inadvertent Class
B incursions.
Comment: The ``new'' Highway 321 should be used as the source for
the north-south boundary that lies west of AKH. The new Highway 321 is
easier to distinguish from the air.
Response: The FAA agrees and will use ``new'' Highway 321 to define
the boundary as suggested.
Comment: The diagonal line that originates west of AKH and extends
southwesterly should be adjusted to follow the power lines depicted on
the Charlotte Terminal Area Chart that roughly coincide with the line.
This will give pilots a good visual reference to use.
Response: Adjusting the line to coincide with the power lines will
still contain runway 5 traffic within Class B
[[Page 9540]]
airspace, therefore, the FAA concurs with this comment.
Comment: The short line in the north-northwest section of the
proposed Class B airspace (north of Lincolnton-Lincoln County Regional
Airport) should be extended to the proposed outer limit of the Class B
airspace area to simplify the airspace for pilots.
Response: The FAA is unable to adopt this suggestion. The proposed
line terminates prior to the Class B outer limit due to the Charlotte
ATCT/Atlanta Center airspace boundary. At the altitudes involved,
extending the line as suggested would place part of the Class B area in
Atlanta Center's airspace.
Comment: The slides shown during the [informal airspace meeting]
presentation did not show aircraft overflying the Lancaster County, SC
airport. Therefore, the proposed design should not include the airspace
over that airport.
Response: Under current procedures, it is uncommon for arriving
traffic to overfly the Lancaster Airport. However, once the new runway
is operational at CLT, the Instrument Landing System (ILS) initial
approach fixes for all runways will be located further from CLT in
order to accommodate the 8,000 foot turn on altitude for runway 36C/
18C. Therefore, it is anticipated that traffic will overfly the
Lancaster Airport at 8,000 feet enroute to runway 36C. Additionally,
traffic assigned to runway 36R will be descended to 4,000 feet, and
will have to be vectored over the Lancaster Airport to join the runway
36R final approach course. As a result, the floor of the Class B
airspace in this area is proposed to be established at 4,000 feet. In
addition, modeling of anticipated aircraft operations indicate that the
area between the 25 mile and 30 mile rings of the proposed Class B
airspace may be needed for vectoring and sequencing traffic assigned
both runways 36C and 36R. During certain operations, particularly the
north triple ILS operation, aircraft would overfly the Lancaster
Airport while enroute to CLT. For those reasons, the FAA did not adopt
this suggestion.
Comment: The floor of the proposed Class B airspace at the northern
boundary should be set at 6,000 feet instead of 4,000 feet. The concern
is that lowering the floor to 4,000 feet in this area would negatively
impact IFR operations at the Statesville Regional Airport, NC (SVH).
Response: The floor was proposed at 4,000 feet in this area because
the initial approach altitude for traffic assigned runway 18L from both
the west and the east is 4,000 feet. IFR operations at SVH are not
affected by the Class B airspace boundaries. SVH IFR operations are and
will remain under the jurisdiction of Atlanta Center. The airport will
not be placed within or under the Class B airspace area by the proposed
modifications. The distance between SVH and the proposed outer limit of
the Class B airspace will decrease, however, from 9.1 miles to 4.4
miles which will allow room for VFR operations at the airport as well.
Therefore, the FAA did not concur with this comment.
Comment: AOPA suggested that arrival routes be modified to allow
aircraft to remain at a higher altitude and descend at a constant rate;
that arrival routes be redesigned to avoid areas that would impact
aviation businesses that rely on airspace availability; and that the
FAA should modify procedures so that aircraft do not enter, exit, and
then reenter the class B airspace. Additionally, AOPA said that the FAA
should reduce the ceiling of the Charlotte Class B airspace from 10,000
feet to 8,500 feet.
Response: Modifying arrival routes to allow arriving aircraft to
remain at higher altitudes and descend at a constant rate would create
a confliction with other traffic. Specifically, arriving aircraft must
be descended so that departures can be climbed above this traffic. If
arriving aircraft are not descended as they are now, then departures
would have to be held down below 10,000 feet for an extended period of
time. This creates conflictions between departure aircraft and arrival
aircraft and does not allow departures to vertically exit the ceiling
of class B airspace. The Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) at
Charlotte have been in place for over 20 years. The design of these
routes is based on other airport locations, airspace design, and
traffic flows in the entire southeastern U.S. Changing these routes
would have a major impact on arrival routes (and departure and
overflight routes) to and from the Atlanta Airport, as well as other
airports in the southeast. The proposed Class B modifications are
intended, in part, to reduce the potential for IFR aircraft to enter,
exit and then reenter the Charlotte Class B airspace area. Modifying
facility procedures to keep aircraft within the current class B
airspace boundaries would create bottlenecks and ``choke points'' and
would reduce arrival capacity. Extensive vectoring would also be
required, leading to increased controller workload, increased flying
mileage, and added frequency congestion. The FAA is not aware of data
that supports lowering the Charlotte Class B airspace ceiling to 8,500
feet.
Comment: Skydive Carolina expressed concerns about the impact that
the proposed expansion of Class B airspace to overlie the Chester-
Catawba Regional airport (DCM) might have on its parachute jump
activities, safety and on the future growth and expansion of its
operations at DCM. Skydive Carolina also expressed concern that the
heavy traffic projected in the future would increase the probability of
``go arounds'' wherein the jump aircraft is instructed by ATC to
withhold jumpers due to traffic, fly beyond the drop point and then
restart the pattern to let jumpers out. Skydive Carolina indicated that
this maneuver would result in greater fuel consumption, more airframe
time on the aircraft and longer time at jump altitude (i.e., 13,500
feet MSL) for jumpers that are not equipped with supplemental oxygen.
Response: Although DCM now lies outside the boundary of Class B
airspace, arrivals currently overfly DCM when CLT is on a north
operation. Modeling of various traffic scenarios indicates that this
situation will continue to exist after the third parallel runway is
opened. Designing a ``cutout'' to exclude the area around DCM from the
Class B airspace would require controllers to employ extensive
vectoring to avoid the airspace over DCM. This would lead to increased
controller workload, frequency congestion and decreased system
efficiency. Regarding the concerns about ``go arounds,'' even though
Skydive Carolina does not currently operate in Class B airspace, there
are still instances in which pilots are instructed to withhold the
release of jumpers due to traffic. It is anticipated that these
instances would not significantly increase if the skydive area is
placed within Class B airspace. The FAA believes that the inclusion of
the area above DCM in Class B airspace can be mitigated and parachute
operations can be accommodated through a Letter of Agreement (LOA)
between Charlotte Airport Traffic Control Tower and Skydive Carolina.
LOAs have been used successfully to accommodate parachute activities at
other Class B airspace locations.
The Proposal
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Charlotte, NC Class B
airspace area. This action (depicted on the attached chart) proposes to
expand the lateral and vertical limits of the Charlotte Class B
airspace area to provide the additional airspace needed to support
operations of a third parallel runway and the
[[Page 9541]]
implementation of RNAV departure procedures; contain ILS approach
procedures for runways 23, 18L, 18C (formerly 18R but redesignated
November 20, 2008) and the new runway (18R); and contain aircraft being
vectored to a base leg from the west when CLT is on a north operation.
The proposed revisions to the Charlotte Class B airspace area are
discussed below.
Except for Area A, which extends upward from the surface to and
including 10,000 feet MSL within a 7 NM radius of the CLT VOR/DME, the
proposed descriptions of all other subareas that make up the Charlotte
Class B airspace area would be reconfigured, redescribed and realigned
by geographic position in relation to the airport rather than the
current practice of combining all areas that share a common altitude
floor into one large, complex subarea description. The current
Charlotte Class B airspace area consists of six subareas (A through F)
while the proposed configuration would consist of 11 subareas (A
through K).
Based on modeling of future traffic flows, there is a need to
expand the lateral limits of Class B airspace to the north and south of
CLT from the current 25 NM arc out to the 30 NM arc, and to set the
floor of Class B airspace in those sections at 4,000 feet MSL. The
extensions to 30 NM are required to provide adequate vectoring areas
for controllers to vector arrivals to the appropriate final approach
course. A 4,000 foot MSL floor is needed out to the 30 NM arc to
provide sufficient airspace to separate aircraft assigned to different
runways and to comply with simultaneous ILS procedures. Additionally, a
review of radar data has revealed that, when CLT is on a north
operation, a significant number of aircraft inbound from the southwest
on either the UNARM ONE or ADENA TWO standard terminal arrival routes
exit and reenter Class B airspace between the existing 6,000 foot MSL
Class B airspace floor and the 4,600 foot MSL floor to the south-
southwest of CLT. Lowering the Class B airspace floor to 4,000 feet MSL
in that area will prevent these excursions.
Another problem exists with aircraft established on the ILS
approaches to runways 18L and 18C dropping below the floor of Class B
airspace north of the airport with the existing Class B airspace
configuration. These excursions occur prior to the point where the
floor of Class B airspace drops from 3,600 feet MSL to 1,800 feet MSL.
Consequently, aircraft are exiting and reentering Class B airspace
while flying the published ILS procedures. To correct this situation,
the FAA proposes to move the 1,800 foot MSL floor (Area B) from the
current 11 NM arc outward to the 14 NM arc. This extension to the 14 NM
arc would only be made to the north of CLT (from the intersection of
the 14 NM arc with new Highway 321 northwest of the airport, then
clockwise along the arc to the CLT 024[deg]T/029[deg]M radial). The
remaining portion of Area B would continue to follow the 11 NM arc
clockwise to the cutout for the AKH. This change would ensure that
arrivals to runways 18L and 18C/36C, and the new runway (18R/36L), are
retained within Class B airspace throughout the approach. In addition,
in response to comments from the Informal Airspace Meetings, the FAA is
proposing to widen the cutout in Area B around AKH to facilitate better
access to and from that airport.
With the implementation of RNAV departure procedures at CLT, the
floor of Class B airspace to the east and west of the airport needs to
be lowered. Departures on easterly and westerly tracks from the airport
often exit and then reenter Class B airspace as they continue their
climbs. To preclude this, the FAA proposes to lower the existing 6,000
foot MSL floor (current Area E) to 5,000 feet MSL and to lower the
existing 8,000 foot MSL floor (current Area F) to 6,000 feet MSL. The
existing area designations would be changed from the current Areas E
and F to a new Area G (extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL) and a new
Area K (extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL) west of CLT; and a new
Area D (extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL) and a new Area I
(extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL) east of CLT (see attached
chart).
To provide an adequate vector area for runway 5 arrivals, it is
necessary to lower the Class B airspace floor from 6,000 feet MSL to
4,000 feet MSL floor in an area to the southwest of AKH. This new Area,
designated Area F, would be bounded on the east by new Highway 321, on
the west by the 20 NM arc of the CLT VOR/DME and on the north by the
power lines that extend in a southwesterly direction west of AKH.
A further review of radar data revealed a need to lower the floor
of Class B airspace to the northeast of CLT. Due to vectoring patterns
and the descent profile of aircraft conducting the ILS RWY 23 approach,
it is necessary to slightly extend the 3,600 foot Class B airspace
floor to the northeast of CLT. This would be accomplished by extending
the lateral limits of the existing Area C from the current 20 NM arc
out to the 23 NM arc.
Finally, the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport reference
point coordinates in the Class B airspace legal description would be
updated to reflect current National Airspace System data.
These changes are being proposed to ensure the containment of IFR
aircraft within Class B airspace as required by FAA directives;
accommodate the implementation of RNAV departure procedures; and
support operations of a third parallel runway.
All radials listed in the Charlotte Class B airspace description in
this NPRM are stated in degrees relative to both True North and
Magnetic North.
Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order
7400.9T, dated August 27, 2009 and effective September 15, 2009, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class B airspace area
proposed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the U.S. In developing U.S. standards, this
Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and,
where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires
agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and
other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
[[Page 9542]]
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows:
After consultation with airports that participated in the Charlotte
airport ad hoc advisory committee, the FAA expects the proposed
modifications of the Class B airspace to result in minimal cost. One
representative said the proposed changes would have ``absolutely no
effect'' on his airport and the pilots who use his airport reported
that the changes were ``negligible.'' Another manager of an airport
potentially affected by this proposed rulemaking reported that having
the Class B airspace modified is not the ideal situation, his airport
would not experience adverse changes to instrument approaches and
therefore expected minimal, if any, economic impact.
Of the six airports that participated in ad hoc advisory committee
and that provided comments two expressed concerns of a possible
economic impact. One airport reported that airplanes may to stop at
other airports but this economic impact would be ``hard to quantify''
which the FAA deems as minimal cost. The other reported that most of
its revenue is generated from a skydiving school that leases trailers
and hangers from the airport in addition to the purchase of fuel. The
airport manager reported that the skydiving classes go up to 14,500
feet and under this proposed rule change the class would have to
coordinate their scheduling of flights with Charlotte. The FAA
believes, however, that such flight coordination would result in only
minimal costs. In sum the FAA believes the proposed rule would result
in minimal costs.
The benefits of this proposed rule are substantial resulting from
the increased utilization of a new 9,000 feet runway. This runway will
allow more commercial flights to efficiently land at Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
The FAA believes the proposal would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities as the economic impact
is expected to be minimal. Based on the Small Business Administration
small entity criterion for small government jurisdictions the rule
would impact a substantial number of small entities. At least two of
the regional airports are owned by governments with populations less
than 50,000. We were unable to obtain publicly available revenue data.
As the proposed rule would simply change the takeoff and landing
patterns to these airports, we believe these changed patterns result in
a minimal economic impact. Therefore the FAA certifies that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. We request comments from the
potentially affected entities which would include estimated compliance
cost and airport revenue, such that we could provide a measure of
economic impact.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the U.S.
Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the U.S.,
so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such the
protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes
imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this proposed rule to change the airspace
classification for Charlotte airport in North Carolina and determined
that it would not have a potential effect on trade-sensitive activities
as discussed above.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
Conclusion
FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is a minimal
cost rule with substantial benefits and is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory
Policies and Procedures.
FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
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--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS
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.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation
[[Page 9543]]
Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, is
amended as follows:
Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B Airspace.
* * * * *
ASO NC B Charlotte, NC
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport (Primary Airport)
(Lat. 35[deg]12'50'' N., long. 80[deg]56'35'' W.)
Charlotte VOR/DME
(Lat. 35[deg]11'25'' N., long. 80[deg]57'06'' W.)
Gastonia Municipal Airport
(Lat. 35[deg]12'10'' N., long. 81[deg]09'00'' W.)
Boundaries
Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and
including 10,000 feet MSL within a 7-mile radius of the Charlotte
VOR/DME.
Area B. That airspace extending upward from 1,800 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the
Charlotte VOR/DME 024[deg]T/029[deg]M radial 14-mile fix; thence
direct to the Charlotte VOR/DME 032[deg]T/037[deg]M radial 11-mile
fix, thence clockwise via the 11-mile arc of the Charlotte VOR/DME
to lat. 35[deg]09[min]37[sec] N., long. 81[deg]10[min]21[sec] W.;
thence east to lat. 35[deg]10[min]17[sec] N., long.
81[deg]08[min]10[sec] W.; thence counterclockwise around a 2-mile
radius of the Gastonia Municipal Airport to lat.
35[deg]14[min]02[sec] N., long. 81[deg]08[min]10[sec] W.; thence
west to intersect U.S. Highway 321 at lat. 35[deg]15[min]00[sec] N.,
long. 81[deg]11[min]21[sec] W.; thence north along U.S. Highway 321
to the 14-mile arc of the Charlotte VOR/DME at lat.
35[deg]19[min]20[sec] N., long. 81[deg]11[min]13[sec] W.; thence
clockwise via the 14-mile arc to the point of beginning, excluding
that airspace within Area A described above.
Area C. That airspace extending upward from 3,600 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the
intersection of U.S. Highway 321 and the Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile
arc at lat. 35[deg]26[min]49[sec] N., long. 81[deg]12[min]44[sec]
W.; thence clockwise along the 20-mile arc to intersect the Marshall
Steam Plant Rail Spur at lat. 35[deg]31[min]14[sec] N., long.
81[deg]00[min]42[sec] W.; thence north along the Rail Spur to the
Charlotte VOR/DME 25-mile arc at lat. 35[deg]36[min]25[sec] N.,
long. 80[deg]58[min]57[sec] W.; thence clockwise along the 25-mile
arc to long. 80[deg]46[min]00[sec] W.; thence south along long.
80[deg]46[min]00[sec] W., to the Charlotte VOR/DME 23-mile arc;
thence clockwise along the 23-mile arc to the Charlotte VOR/DME
067[deg]T/072[deg]M radial; thence southwest along the 067[deg]T/
072[deg]M radial to the Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile arc; thence
clockwise along the 20-mile arc to the Charlotte VOR/DME 081[deg]T/
086[deg]M radial; thence west along the 081[deg]T/086[deg]M radial
to the Charlotte VOR/DME 11-mile arc; thence counterclockwise along
the 11-mile arc to the Charlotte VOR/DME 032[deg]T/037[deg]M radial,
11-mile fix; thence direct to the Charlotte VOR/DME 024[deg]T/
029[deg]M radial, 14-mile fix; thence counterclockwise along the 14-
mile arc of the Charlotte VOR/DME to intersect U.S. Highway 321 at
lat. 35[deg]19[min]20[sec] N., long. 81[deg]11[min]13[sec] W.,
thence north along U.S. Highway 321 to the point of beginning.
Area D. That airspace extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the
Charlotte VOR/DME 081[deg]T/086[deg]M radial 11-mile fix; thence
east along the 081[deg]T/086[deg]M radial to the 20-mile fix; thence
clockwise along the 20-mile arc of the Charlotte VOR/DME to lat.
34[deg]56[min]07[sec] N., long. 80[deg]41[min]23[sec] W.; thence
north to the point of beginning.
Area E. That airspace extending upward from 3,600 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at lat.
35[deg]15[min]00[sec] N., long. 81[deg]11[min]21[sec] W., thence
east to lat. 35[deg]14[min]02[sec] N., long. 81[deg]08[min]10[sec]
W.; thence clockwise along a 2-mile radius of the Gastonia Municipal
Airport to lat. 35[deg]10[min]17[sec] N., long.
81[deg]08[min]10[sec] W.; thence west to intersect the Charlotte
VOR/DME 11-mile arc at lat. 35[deg]09[min]37[sec] N., long.
81[deg]10[min]21[sec] W.; thence counterclockwise along the 11-mile
arc to the Charlotte VOR/DME 081[deg]T/86[deg]M radial 11-mile fix;
thence south direct to the Charlotte VOR/DME 147[deg]T/152[deg]M
radial 25-mile fix; thence clockwise along the 25-mile arc of the
Charlotte VOR/DME to lat. 34[deg]49[min]37[sec] N., long.
81[deg]12[min]05[sec] W.; thence north to the Charlotte VOR/DME
218[deg]T/223[deg]M radial 20-mile fix, thence clockwise along the
20-mile arc of the Charlotte VOR/DME, to intersect U.S. Highway 321
at lat. 34[deg]57[min]21[sec] N., long. 81[deg]14[min]28[sec] W.;
thence north along U.S. Highway 321 to the point of beginning.
Area F. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the
intersection of the power lines and the Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile
arc at lat. 35[deg]08[min]08[sec] N., long. 81[deg]21[min]10[sec]
W.; thence east along the power lines to intersect U.S. Highway 321
at lat. 35[deg]11[min]52[sec] N., long. 81[deg]12[min]41[sec] W.;
thence south along U.S. Highway 321 to intersect the Charlotte VOR/
DME 20-mile arc at lat. 34[deg]57[min]21[sec] N., long.
81[deg]14[min]28[sec] W.; thence clockwise along the 20-mile arc to
the point of beginning.
Area G. That airspace extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the
intersection of the power lines and the Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile
arc at lat. 35[deg]08[min]08[sec] N., long. 81[deg]21[min]10[sec]
W.; thence clockwise along the 20-mile arc to intersect U.S. Highway
321 at lat. 35[deg]26[min]49[sec] N., long. 81[deg]12[min]44[sec]
W.; thence south along U.S. Highway 321 to intersect the power lines
at lat. 35[deg]11[min]52[sec] N., long. 81[deg]12[min]41[sec] W.;
thence west along the power lines to the point of beginning.
Area H. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at lat.
35[deg]37[min]15[sec] N., long. 81[deg]10[min]32[sec] W.; thence
direct to intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME 30-mile arc at lat.
35[deg]41[min]30[sec] N., long. 80[deg]57[min]40[sec] W.; thence
clockwise along the 30-mile arc to long. 80[deg]46[min]00[sec] W.;
thence south along long. 80[deg]46[min]00[sec] W., to intersect the
Charlotte VOR/DME 25-mile arc; thence counterclockwise along the 25-
mile arc to intersect the Marshall Steam Plant Rail Spur at lat.
35[deg]36[min]25[sec] N., long. 80[deg]58[min]57[sec] W.; thence
south along the Rail Spur to intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile
arc at lat. 35[deg]31[min]14[sec] N., long. 81[deg]00[min]42[sec]
W.; thence counterclockwise along the 20-mile arc to intersect U.S.
Highway 321 at lat. 35[deg]26[min]49[sec] N., long.
81[deg]12[min]44[sec] W.; thence north along U.S. Highway 321 to
intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME 25-mile arc at lat.
35[deg]32[min]26[sec] N., long. 81[deg]13[min]44[sec] W.; thence
clockwise along the 25-mile arc to intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME
337[deg]T/342[deg]M radial; thence northwest along the 337[deg]T/
342[deg]M radial to the point of beginning.
Area I. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the
Charlotte VOR/DME 062[deg]T/067[deg]M radial, 30-mile fix, thence
southwest along the 062[deg]T/067[deg]M radial to the 25-mile fix;
thence clockwise along the Charlotte VOR/DME 25-mile arc to the
Charlotte VOR/DME 120[deg]T/125[deg]M radial; thence southeast along
the 120[deg]T/125[deg]M radial to the 30-mile fix; thence clockwise
along the Charlotte VOR/DME 30-mile arc to lat.
34[deg]44[min]58[sec] N., long. 80[deg]39[min]47[sec] W.; thence
north direct to intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile arc at lat.
34[deg]56[min]07[sec] N., long. 80[deg]41[min]23[sec] W.;, thence
counterclockwise along the 20-mile arc to the Charlotte VOR/DME
067[deg]T/072[deg]M radial; thence northeast along the 067[deg]T/
072[deg]M radial to the 23-mile arc; thence counterclockwise along
the 23-mile arc to long. 80[deg]46[min]00[sec] W.; thence north
along long. 80[deg]46[min]00[sec] W., to the Charlotte VOR/DME 30-
mile arc; thence clockwise along the 30-mile arc to the point of
beginning.
Area J. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the
Charlotte VOR/DME 147[deg] radial 25-mile fix; thence direct to
intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME 30-mile arc at lat.
34[deg]44[min]58[sec] N., long. 80[deg]39[min]47[sec] W.; thence
clockwise along the Charlotte VOR/DME 30-mile arc to lat.
34[deg]44[min]01[sec] N., long. 81[deg]12[min]05[sec] W.; thence
north to intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME 25-mile arc at lat.
34[deg]49[min]37[sec] N., long. 81[deg]12[min]05[sec] W.; thence
counterclockwise along the Charlotte VOR/DME 25-mile arc to the
point of beginning.
Area K. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the
Charlotte VOR/DME 293[deg]T/298[deg]M radial, 30-mile fix; thence
clockwise along the Charlotte VOR/DME 30-mile arc to lat.
35[deg]41[min]30[sec] N., long. 80[deg]57[min]40[sec] W.; thence
southwest direct to intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME 337[deg](T)/
342[deg](M) at lat. 35[deg]37[min]15[sec] N., long.
81[deg]10[min]32[sec] W.; thence southeast along the 337[deg]T/
342[deg]M radial to the Charlotte VOR/DME 25-mile arc; thence
counterclockwise along the 25-mile arc to intersect U.S. Highway 321
at lat. 35[deg]32[min]26[sec] N., long. 81[deg]13[min]44[sec] W.,
thence south along new Highway 321 to intersect the Charlotte VOR/
DME 20-mile arc at lat. 35[deg]26[min]49[sec] N., long.
81[deg]12[min]44[sec] W.; thence counterclockwise along the 20-mile
arc to the Charlotte VOR/DME 218[deg]T/223[deg]M radial; thence
south to intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME 30-mile arc at lat.
34[deg]44[min]01[sec] N., long. 81[deg]12[min]05[sec] W.; thence
clockwise along the 30-mile arc to the Charlotte VOR/DME 242[deg]T/
247[deg]M radial, thence northeast along the 242[deg]T/247[deg]M
radial to the Charlotte VOR/DME 25-mile arc; thence clockwise along
the 25-mile arc to the Charlotte VOR/DME 293[deg]T/298[deg]M radial;
thence northwest along
[[Page 9544]]
the 293[deg]T/298[deg]M radial to the point of beginning.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 23, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-4377 Filed 3-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P