Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
This action amends the description of Area G of the Philadelphia Class B airspace area to correct a design error that resulted in the Class B airspace boundary being published 2.1 nautical miles (NM) larger on the southeast side of the area than intended. There are no other changes to the Philadelphia Class B airspace area.
Effective date 0901 UTC, July 24, 2014. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Start Further Info
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.
End Further Info
Start Supplemental Information
The FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Area G of the Philadelphia, PA, Class B airspace area (78 FR 76779, December 19, 2013). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were received.
The FAA is amending 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. . .” is changed to read “. . .the intersection of the 17.9-mile 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. . .” is changed to read “. . .the intersection of the 20-mile radius and the 118° bearing from PHL. . . .” This point appears once in the Area G description. This change results in a small reduction in the lateral dimensions of Class B airspace, southeast of Philadelphia International Airport, near the Cross Keys Airport, NJ (17N). This action does not modify any other parts of the Philadelphia Class B airspace area.
Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class B airspace area listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
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. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (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 and air navigation, it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA's authority to issue rules 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 the 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 makes editorial corrections to an existing Class B airspace description to maintain accuracy.
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 (Public Law 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 final 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 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 Start Printed Page 30020final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this final rule:
(1) Imposes minimal incremental costs and provides benefits;
(2) Is not an economically “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866;
(3) Is not significant as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures;
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) Will not have a significant effect on international trade; and
(6) Will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the monetary threshold identified.
These analyses are summarized below.
This final rule action modifies the Philadelphia, PA, Class B airspace area by reducing the size of Area G in the description of the Philadelphia Class B airspace area.
Benefits of the Final Rule Action
Reducing the size of the Class B airspace area increases the airspace available to aircraft that do not need to use Class B airspace.
Costs of the Action
The final rule action has no costs.
Outcome of the Final Rule
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. There the FAA has determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action “as defined in Section 3(f) of Executive 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
The FAA received no comments on the regulatory evaluation for the NPRM.
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 objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies 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.
This final rule is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation and has no costs.
The FAA received no comments on the Initial Regulatory Determination, accepts the determination of no significant economic impact. 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 received no comments on the proposed determination of no impact. Therefore, the FAA has determined that this final rule will have no impact on international trade because it reduces Class B airspace in the Philadelphia area.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 $151.0 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Start List of Subjects
End List of Subjects
- 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
Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, is amended as follows:End Amendment Part
Paragraph 3000 Subpart B—Class B Airspace.
* * * * *
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, PAStart Printed Page 30021
(Lat. 40°04′55″ N., long. 75°00′38″ W.)
Cross Keys Airport, NJ
(Lat. 39°42′20″ N., long. 75°01′59″ W.)
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° 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 17.9-mile 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° 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.
End Supplemental Information
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19, 2014.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2014-11995 Filed 5-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P