Amendment of Class E Airspace; Guntersville, AL, 56504 [2020-20109]

Download as PDF 56504 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 178 / Monday, September 14, 2020 / Rules and Regulations In opposing the proposal, the ABA stated that defining a CSA as a ‘‘single local community’’ is unreasonable and unlawful. The ABA largely relied on the District Court opinion, which was unanimously reversed by the Circuit Court. The ABA provided examples of CSAs that it believes might not be a WDLC and contended that CSAs have a ‘‘daisy-chain nature’’ in which opposite ends have little connection. It then stated that the Circuit Court indicated that some CSAs might not be a WDLC and thus could be challenged on an ‘‘as applied’’ basis. The ABA further stated that the term ‘‘local community’’ should not automatically include a CSA. Rather, it stated that any presumption that a CSA is a local community should be rebuttable. The ABA further stated that the Board should not adopt these provisions while litigation remains pending, including the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court. After reviewing the comments in light of the unanimous Circuit Court decision to affirm the Board’s adoption of a CSA as a presumptive community, the Board has determined that it is appropriate and consistent with the Act to amend the Chartering Manual to allow a CSA to be re-established as a presumptive WDLC. Much of the ABA’s argument relied on the District Court decision that was unanimously rejected by the threejudge Circuit Court panel. In applying Chevron, the Circuit Court stated: ‘‘We appreciate the District Court’s conclusions, made after a thoughtful analysis of the Act. But we ultimately disagree with many of them. In this facial challenge, we review the rule not as armchair bankers or geographers, but rather as lay judges cognizant that Congress expressly delegated certain policy choices to the NCUA. After considering the Act’s text, purpose, and legislative history, we hold the agency’s policy choices ‘entirely appropriate’ for the most part. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 865.’’ 63 With respect to CSAs, the Circuit Court, in rejecting the District Court’s analysis, stated: khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES In addition to being consistent with the Act’s text, the Combined Statistical Area definition rationally advances the Act’s underlying purposes. In the 1998 amendments, Congress made two relevant findings about purpose. First, legislators found ‘‘essential’’ to the credit-union system a ‘‘meaningful affinity and bond among 63 Am. Bankers Ass’n, 934 F.3d at 656. See also with respect to CSAs: ‘‘The NCUA possesses vast discretion to define terms because Congress expressly has given it such power. But the authority is not boundless. The agency must craft a reasonable definition consistent with the Act’s text and purposes; that is central to the review we apply at Chevron’s second step. Here, the NCUA’s definition meets the standard.’’ Id. at 664. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:41 Sep 11, 2020 Jkt 250001 members, manifested by a commonality of routine interaction [;] shared and related work experiences, interests, or activities [;] or the maintenance of an otherwise wellunderstood sense of cohesion or identity.’’ § 2, 112 Stat. at 914. Second, Congress highlighted the importance of ‘‘credit union safety and soundness,’’ because a credit union on firm financial footing ‘‘will enhance the public benefit that citizens receive.’’ 64 The Circuit Court explicitly rejected the ABA’s assertion that CSAs have a ‘‘daisy chain’’ nature, linking multiple metropolitan areas that have nothing to do with those at opposite ends of the chain. As the court stated: [T]he NCUA’s definition does not readily create general, widely dispersed regions. Cf. First Nat’l Bank III, 522 U.S. at 502 (indicating that community credit unions may not be ‘composed of members from an unlimited number of unrelated geographical units’. Combined Statistical Areas are geographical units well-accepted within the government. See [81 FR at 88414]. Because they essentially are regional hubs, the Combined Statistical Areas concentrate around central locations. . . . The NCUA rationally believed that such ‘real-world interconnections would qualify as the type of mutual bonds suggested by the term ‘local community.’ . . . Thus, the agency reasonably determined that Combined Statistical Areas ‘‘simply unif[y], as a single community,’’ already connected neighboring regions. [See 81 FR at 88,415.] 65 The ABA’s misinterpretation of the Chevron doctrine was further repudiated by the entire Circuit Court, which rejected the ABA’s petition for a rehearing en banc. The Board emphasizes that the ABA repeatedly misstates the regulatory framework for approving a presumptive community, both in its court filings and in its comment letter on the proposed rule. Under the regulatory provisions in the Chartering Manual, established by notice-and-comment rulemaking, there is no automatic approval of an application based on a CSA. Rather, an applicant would have to establish in its application that it can serve the entire community, as documented in its business and marketing plan. A further constraint on any such CSA or portion thereof is that its population cannot exceed 2.5 million people. As the Circuit Court noted: We might well agree with the District Court that the approval of such a geographical area would contravene the Act. But even so, the Association would need much more to mount its facial pre-enforcement challenge in this case. As the Supreme Court repeatedly has held, ‘‘the fact that petitioner can point to a hypothetical case in which the rule might lead to an arbitrary result does not 64 Id. 65 Id. PO 00000 at 665–66. at 666–67. Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 render the rule’’ facially invalid. Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. NLRB, 499 U.S. 606, 619 (1991); see also EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. (EME Homer), 572 U.S. 489, 524 (2014) (‘‘The possibility that the rule, in uncommon particular applications, might exceed [the agency]’s statutory authority does not warrant judicial condemnation of the rule in its entirety.’’); INS v. Nat’l Ctr. for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc., 502 U.S. 183, 188 (1991) (‘‘That the regulation may be invalid as applied in s[ome] cases . . . does not mean that the regulation is facially invalid because it is without statutory authority.’’); cf. Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 29 (2003) (‘‘Virtually every legal (or other) rule has imperfect applications in particular circumstances.’’). Here, the Association’s complaint and the District Court’s accompanying worry strike us as too conjectural. The NCUA must assess the ‘‘economic advisability of establishing’’ the proposed credit union before approving it, [12 U.S.C. 1754], and as part of the assessment, the organizers must propose a ‘‘realistic’’ business plan showing how the institution and its branches would serve all members in the local community, see [12 CFR. part 701, app. B, ch. 1 section IV.D.] The Association has failed to demonstrate the plausibility of a local community that is defined like the hypothetical narrow, multi-state strip and accompanies a realistic business plan. And if the agency were to receive and approve such an application, a petitioner can make an as-applied challenge. See, e.g., EME Homer, 572 U.S. at 523–24; Buongiorno, 912 F.2d at 510.66 Thus, existing regulatory provisions guard against the extreme examples posited by the ABA, which claims incorrectly that the Board must approve them under the Chartering Manual. The Board agrees with the ABA and the Circuit Court that any application for a presumptive community, including one based on a CSA, can be challenged on an as applied, case-by-case basis. Given this regulatory framework, which is subject to judicial review, the Board agrees with the Circuit Court’s reasoning in concluding that re-establishing the CSA as a presumptive community is entirely consistent with the express authority delegated to the Board by Congress. This provision also advances the Act’s dual purposes of promoting common bonds while addressing safety and soundness considerations by ensuring that FCUs remain economically viable. 66 Id. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14SER1.SGM at 668. 14SER1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 178 (Monday, September 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20109]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0491; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-16]
RIN 2120-AA66


Amendment of Class E Airspace; Guntersville, AL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 
feet above the surface at Guntersville Municipal Airport-Joe Starnes 
Field (formerly Guntersville Municipal Airport), Guntersville, AL, to 
accommodate new area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) 
instrument approach procedures serving this airport. This action also 
updates the geographic coordinates of the airport. Controlled airspace 
is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules 
(IFR) operations in the area.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 5, 2020. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual 
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting 
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can 
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National 
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the 
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email [email protected] 
or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support 
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 
Columbia Ave, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone (404) 305-6364.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rule regarding aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's 
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described 
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, 
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of 
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient 
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority 
as it amends Class E airspace at Guntersville Municipal Airport-Joe 
Starnes Field, Guntersville, AL, to support IFR operations in the area.

History

    The FAA published a notice of prosed rulemaking in the Federal 
Register (85 FR 34148, June 3, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-0491 to 
amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface 
at Guntersville Municipal Airport-Joe Starnes Field, Guntersville, AL, 
from a 6.3-mile radius to a 7-mile radius. In addition, the FAA 
proposed to update the airport's name and geographic coordinates to 
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking 
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No 
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005, of 
FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 
2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E 
airspace designations listed in this document will be published 
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and 
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 
2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the 
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A, 
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic routes, and reporting 
points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 
part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above 
the surface at Guntersville Municipal Airport-Joe Starnes Field, 
Guntersville, AL, from a 6.3-mile radius to a 7-mile radius. In 
addition, the FAA updates the airport's name and geographic coordinates 
to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. These changes are 
necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations in the 
area.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is 
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an 
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and 
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It 
therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); 
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the 
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that 
only affects air traffic procedures an air navigation, it is certified 
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical 
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance 
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and 
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to 
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no 
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an 
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air)

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends 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(f), 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 FAA Order 7400.11D, 
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, 
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.
* * * * *

ASO AL E5 Guntersville, AL [Amended]

Guntersville Municipal Airport-Joe Starnes Field, AL
    (Lat. 34[deg]24'22'' N, long. 86[deg]15'39'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface 
within a 7-mile radius of Guntersville Municipal Airport-Joe Starnes 
Field.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on September 4, 2020.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air 
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2020-20109 Filed 9-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.