Proposed Modification of the Philadelphia, PA, Class B Airspace Area, 76779-76781 [2013-30086]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
are the only terms intended to have a
specialized meaning when used in these
proposed special conditions:
(a) Basic Airframe Structure. Includes
design elements such as structural
members, structural joint features, and
fastener systems including airplane
skins, ribs, spars, stringers, etc., and
associated fasteners, joints, coatings,
and sealant. Basic airframe structure
may also include those structural
elements that are expected to be
removed for maintenance, such as
exterior fuel tank access panels and
fairing attachment features, provided
maintenance errors that could
compromise associated lightning
protection features would be evident
upon an exterior preflight inspection of
the airplane and would be corrected
prior to flight.
(b) Permanent Systems Supporting
Structure. Includes static, permanently
attached structural parts (such as
brackets) that are used to support
system elements. It does not include any
part intended to be removed, or any
joint intended to be separated, to
maintain or replace system elements or
other parts, unless that part removal or
joint separation is accepted by the FAA
as being extremely remote.
(c) Manufacturing Variability.
Includes tolerances and variability
allowed by the design and production
specifications as well as anticipated
errors or escapes from the
manufacturing and inspection
processes.
(d) Extremely Remote. Conditions that
are not anticipated to occur to each
airplane during its total life, but which
may occur a few times when
considering the total operational life of
all airplanes of one type. Extremely
remote conditions are those having an
average probability per flight hour on
the order of 1 × 10¥7 or less, but greater
than on the order of 1 × 10¥9.
(e) Extremely Improbable. Conditions
that are so unlikely that they are not
anticipated to occur during the entire
operational life of all airplanes of one
type. Extremely improbable conditions
are those having an average probability
per flight hour of the order of 1 × 10¥9
or less.
2. Alternative Fuel Tank Structural
Lightning Protection Requirements
For lightning protection features that
are integral to fuel tank basic airframe
structure or permanent systems
supporting structure, as defined in this
these proposed special conditions,
Definitions, for which Airbus shows and
the FAA finds compliance with
§ 25.981(a)(3) to be impractical, the
following requirements may be applied
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Dec 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
in lieu of the requirements of
§ 25.981(a)(3):
(a) Airbus must show that the airplane
design meets the requirements of part
25, Appendix M, as amended by
Amendment 25–125, for all fuel tanks
installed on the airplane.
(b) Airbus must show that the design
includes at least two independent,
effective, and reliable lightning
protection features (or sets of features)
such that fault tolerance to prevent
lightning-related ignition sources is
provided for each area of the structural
design proposed to be shown compliant
with these proposed special conditions
in lieu of compliance with the
requirements of § 25.981(a)(3). Fault
tolerance is not required for any specific
design feature if:
(1) For that feature, providing fault
tolerance is shown to be impractical,
and
(2) Fuel tank vapor ignition due to
that feature and all other non-faulttolerant features, when their fuel tank
vapor ignition event probabilities are
summed, is shown to be extremely
improbable.
(c) Airbus must perform an analysis to
show that the design, manufacturing
processes, and airworthiness limitations
section of the instructions for continued
airworthiness include all practical
measures to prevent, and detect and
correct, failures of structural lightning
protection features due to
manufacturing variability, aging, wear,
corrosion, and likely damage.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on
November 15, 2013.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–30236 Filed 12–18–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA–2013–0922; Airspace
Docket No. 13–AWA–5]
RIN 2120–AA66
Proposed Modification of the
Philadelphia, PA, Class B Airspace
Area
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
This action proposes to
amend the description of Area G of the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76779
Philadelphia Class B airspace area to
correct a design error that resulted in
the Class B airspace being published 2.1
nautical miles (NM) larger on the
southeast side of the area than intended.
No other changes to the Philadelphia
Class B airspace are being proposed.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before February 3, 2014.
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, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001; telephone:
(202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA
Docket No. FAA–2013–0922 and
Airspace Docket No. 13–AWA–5 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 Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace
Services, 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–
2013–0922 and Airspace Docket No. 13–
AWA–5) 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–2013–0922 and
Airspace Docket No. 13–AWA–5.’’ 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
E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM
19DEP1
76780
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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 NPRMs
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded through the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
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 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 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
Rulemaking Distribution System, which
describes the application procedure.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Background
On May 9, 2013, the FAA published
a final rule modifying the Philadelphia
Class B airspace area (78 FR 27025, July
25, 2013). After publication, it was
found that Area G extended 2.1 NM
farther southeast than intended from the
Philadelphia International Airport. This
was caused by the miscalculation of two
points during the design of the Area G
boundaries.
The Proposal
The FAA is proposing to amend Title
14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 to correct two points used to
define the boundaries of Area G in the
description of the Philadelphia Class B
airspace area. Specifically, the point
that reads ‘‘. . . the intersection of the
PHL 20-mile radius and the 136° bearing
from PHL . . .’’ would be changed to
read ‘‘. . . the intersection of the 17.9mile radius and the 138° bearing from
PHL. . . .’’ This point appears in two
places in the Area G description. In
addition, the point that reads ‘‘. . . the
intersection of the PHL 20-mile radius
and the 120° bearing from PHL . . .’’
would be changed to read ‘‘. . . the
intersection of the 20-mile radius and
the 118° bearing from PHL. . . .’’ This
point appears once in the Area G
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Dec 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
description. This change would result in
a small reduction in the lateral
dimensions of Class B airspace
southeast of Philadelphia International
Airport, near the Cross Keys Airport, NJ
(17N).
The FAA is not proposing
modifications to any other parts of the
Philadelphia Class B airspace area.
All radials listed in this proposal
stated in degrees relative to True North.
All geographic coordinates are stated in
degrees, minutes, and seconds based on
North American Datum 83.
Class B airspace areas are published
in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order
7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013,
and effective September 15, 2013, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
section 71.1. The Class B airspace area
listed 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 and
Executive Order 13563 direct that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the
intended regulation justify its costs.
Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic
impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements
Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies
from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the 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 to be included in the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
preamble if a full regulatory evaluation
of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for
this proposed rule. The reasoning for
this determination follows:
This proposal would amend the
description of Area G of the
Philadelphia Class B area to correct a
design error that resulted in the Class B
airspace being published 2.1 NM larger
than intended on the southeast side of
the area.
This proposed rule has the following
benefits.
1. It would improve the flow of air
traffic, enhance safety, and reduce the
potential for midair collision in the
Philadelphia Class B airspace.
2. It would continue to ensure the
containment of large turbine-powered
aircraft within Class B airspace as
required by FAA directive.
3. It would provide VFR aircraft with
additional non-Class B airspace.
4. It would enhance the safety and
efficient management of aircraft
operations in the Philadelphia terminal
area.
The FAA believes that this proposed
rule would result in minimal costs.
The 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a
principle of regulatory issuance that
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with
the objectives of the rule and of
applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and
informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.’’ To achieve this principle,
agencies are required to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals
and to explain the rationale for their
actions to assure that such proposals are
given serious consideration.’’ The RFA
covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to
determine whether a rule will have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If
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
E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM
19DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
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 proposed rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities, as the economic impact is
expected to be minimal. If an agency
determines that a rulemaking will not
result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities, the head of the agency may so
certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b),
the head of the FAA certifies that this
rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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 United States.
Pursuant to these Acts, the
establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to
the foreign commerce of the United
States, so long as the standard has a
legitimate domestic objective, such as
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 and
determined that it will enhance safety
and is not considered an unnecessary
obstacle to trade.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)
requires each Federal agency to prepare
a written statement assessing the effects
of any Federal mandate in a proposed or
final agency rule that may result in an
expenditure of $100 million or more (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
$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million.
This proposed rule does not contain
such a mandate; therefore, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:17 Dec 18, 2013
Jkt 232001
requirements of Title II of the Act do not
apply.
Environmental Review
This proposal will be subject to an
environmental analysis in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E,
‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,’’ prior to any FAA final
regulatory action.
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:
76781
bearing from 17N, thence direct to the
intersection of the 17N 1.5-mile radius and
the 341° bearing from 17N, thence clockwise
via the 1.5-mile radius of 17N to the 011°
bearing from 17N, thence direct to the
intersection of the PHL 15-mile radius and
the 127° bearing from PHL, thence direct to
the intersection of the PHL 20-mile radius
and the 118° bearing from PHL, and Areas A,
B, C, D, E and F.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Washington, DC, on December
11, 2013.
Ellen Crum,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2013–30086 Filed 12–18–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
■
1. The authority citation for part 71
continues to read as follows:
[Docket No. FAA–2013–0859; Airspace
Docket No. 13–AWA–4]
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp., p. 389.
RIN 2120–AA66
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points,
dated August 7, 2013, and effective
September 15, 2013, is amended as
follows:
■
Paragraph 3000
Airspace.
Subpart B—Class B
*
*
*
*
*
AEA PA B Philadelphia, PA [Amended]
Philadelphia International Airport, PA
(Primary Airport)
(Lat. 39°52′20″ N., long. 75°14′27″ W.)
Northeast Philadelphia Airport, PA
(Lat. 40°04′55″ N., long. 75°00′38″ W.)
Cross Keys Airport, NJ
(Lat. 39°42′20″ N., long. 75°01′59″ W.)
Boundaries.
By removing the current description of
Area G and adding in its place:
Area G. That airspace extending upward
from 3,500 feet MSL to and including 7,000
feet MSL within a 20-mile radius of PHL,
excluding that airspace south of a line
beginning at the intersection of the PHL 20mile radius and the 158° bearing from PHL,
thence direct to the intersection of the PHL
17.9-mile radius and the 138° bearing from
PHL, and that airspace bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the PHL 17.9mile radius and the 138° bearing from PHL,
thence direct to the intersection of the PHL
15-mile radius and the 141° bearing from
PHL, thence direct to the intersection of the
Cross Keys Airport (17N) 1.5-mile radius and
the 212° bearing from 17N, thence clockwise
via the 1.5-mile radius of 17N to the 257°
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Proposed Modification of Class B
Airspace; Salt Lake City, UT
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
This action proposes to
amend the description of Area C and
Area O of the Salt Lake City Class B
airspace area by raising the floor of a
small portion of Class B airspace
between the Salt Lake City Class B
surface area and the Hill Air Force Base
(AFB) Class D airspace area. This action
proposes to raise the Class B airspace
floor in the northeast corner of Area C
from 6,000 feet mean seal level (MSL) to
7,500 feet MSL, and redefine the new
boundary segment using the power lines
underlying the area. This would benefit
and enhance non-participating VFR
aircraft operations being flown north
and south through the Salt Lake Valley
over Interstate 15.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before February 3, 2014.
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, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001; telephone:
(202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA
Docket No. FAA–2013–0859 and
Airspace Docket No. 13–AWA–4 at the
beginning of your comments. You may
also submit comments through the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19DEP1.SGM
19DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76779-76781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30086]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA-2013-0922; Airspace Docket No. 13-AWA-5]
RIN 2120-AA66
Proposed Modification of the Philadelphia, PA, Class B Airspace
Area
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the description of Area G of the
Philadelphia Class B airspace area to correct a design error that
resulted in the Class B airspace being published 2.1 nautical miles
(NM) larger on the southeast side of the area than intended. No other
changes to the Philadelphia Class B airspace are being proposed.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 3, 2014.
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, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone: (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2013-
0922 and Airspace Docket No. 13-AWA-5 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 Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, 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-2013-0922 and Airspace Docket No. 13-AWA-5) 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-2013-0922 and Airspace Docket No. 13-AWA-5.'' 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
[[Page 76780]]
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 NPRMs
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
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
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 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
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.
Background
On May 9, 2013, the FAA published a final rule modifying the
Philadelphia Class B airspace area (78 FR 27025, July 25, 2013). After
publication, it was found that Area G extended 2.1 NM farther southeast
than intended from the Philadelphia International Airport. This was
caused by the miscalculation of two points during the design of the
Area G boundaries.
The Proposal
The FAA is proposing to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 71 to correct two points used to define the boundaries of
Area G in the description of the Philadelphia Class B airspace area.
Specifically, the point that reads ``. . . the intersection of the PHL
20-mile radius and the 136[deg] bearing from PHL . . .'' would be
changed to read ``. . . the intersection of the 17.9-mile radius and
the 138[deg] bearing from PHL. . . .'' This point appears in two places
in the Area G description. In addition, the point that reads ``. . .
the intersection of the PHL 20-mile radius and the 120[deg] bearing
from PHL . . .'' would be changed to read ``. . . the intersection of
the 20-mile radius and the 118[deg] bearing from PHL. . . .'' This
point appears once in the Area G description. This change would result
in a small reduction in the lateral dimensions of Class B airspace
southeast of Philadelphia International Airport, near the Cross Keys
Airport, NJ (17N).
The FAA is not proposing modifications to any other parts of the
Philadelphia Class B airspace area.
All radials listed in this proposal stated in degrees relative to
True North. All geographic coordinates are stated in degrees, minutes,
and seconds based on North American Datum 83.
Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order
7400.9X, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 7,
2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR section 71.1. The Class B airspace area listed 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 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the 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 to be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows:
This proposal would amend the description of Area G of the
Philadelphia Class B area to correct a design error that resulted in
the Class B airspace being published 2.1 NM larger than intended on the
southeast side of the area.
This proposed rule has the following benefits.
1. It would improve the flow of air traffic, enhance safety, and
reduce the potential for midair collision in the Philadelphia Class B
airspace.
2. It would continue to ensure the containment of large turbine-
powered aircraft within Class B airspace as required by FAA directive.
3. It would provide VFR aircraft with additional non-Class B
airspace.
4. It would enhance the safety and efficient management of aircraft
operations in the Philadelphia terminal area.
The FAA believes that this proposed rule would result in minimal
costs.
The 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.
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
[[Page 76781]]
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 proposed rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as the
economic impact is expected to be minimal. If an agency determines that
a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so
certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in
section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will
not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
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 United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as 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 and
determined that it will enhance safety and is not considered an
unnecessary obstacle to trade.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(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 $143.1 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.
Environmental Review
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
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
0
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]
0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B Airspace.
* * * * *
AEA PA B Philadelphia, PA [Amended]
Philadelphia International Airport, PA (Primary Airport)
(Lat. 39[deg]52'20'' N., long. 75[deg]14'27'' W.)
Northeast Philadelphia Airport, PA
(Lat. 40[deg]04'55'' N., long. 75[deg]00'38'' W.)
Cross Keys Airport, NJ
(Lat. 39[deg]42'20'' N., long. 75[deg]01'59'' W.)
Boundaries.
By removing the current description of Area G and adding in its
place:
Area G. That airspace extending upward from 3,500 feet MSL to
and including 7,000 feet MSL within a 20-mile radius of PHL,
excluding that airspace south of a line beginning at the
intersection of the PHL 20-mile radius and the 158[deg] bearing from
PHL, thence direct to the intersection of the PHL 17.9-mile radius
and the 138[deg] bearing from PHL, and that airspace bounded by a
line beginning at the intersection of the PHL 17.9-mile radius and
the 138[deg] bearing from PHL, thence direct to the intersection of
the PHL 15-mile radius and the 141[deg] bearing from PHL, thence
direct to the intersection of the Cross Keys Airport (17N) 1.5-mile
radius and the 212[deg] bearing from 17N, thence clockwise via the
1.5-mile radius of 17N to the 257[deg] bearing from 17N, thence
direct to the intersection of the 17N 1.5-mile radius and the
341[deg] bearing from 17N, thence clockwise via the 1.5-mile radius
of 17N to the 011[deg] bearing from 17N, thence direct to the
intersection of the PHL 15-mile radius and the 127[deg] bearing from
PHL, thence direct to the intersection of the PHL 20-mile radius and
the 118[deg] bearing from PHL, and Areas A, B, C, D, E and F.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 11, 2013.
Ellen Crum,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2013-30086 Filed 12-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P