45290 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

May 31, 2011, to the Bombardier Challenger 

605 TLMC Manual. 

Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: The 

maintenance program revision required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD may be done by 

inserting a copy of Bombardier Temporary 

Revision (TR) 5–151, TR 5–250, TR 5–261, 

and TR 5–2–47 or TR 5–2–9, all dated May 

31, 2011, into the applicable TLMC manual. 

When the TR has been included in general 

revisions of the TLMC manual, the general 

revisions may be inserted in the TLMC 

manual, provided the relevant information in 

the general revision is identical to that in the 

applicable TR specified in paragraphs (g)(1) 

through (g)(4) of this AD. 

(h) Initial Compliance Times for Inspections 

The initial compliance time for the 

inspections specified in the temporary 

revisions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) 

through (g)(4) of this AD, is before the 

accumulation of 7,800 total flight cycles, or 

within 12 months after the effective date of 

this AD, whichever occurs later. 

(i) No Alternative Actions or Intervals 

After accomplishing the revision required 

by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative 

actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be 

used unless the actions or intervals are 

approved as an alternative method of 

compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this 

AD. 

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office, ANE–170, FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program 

Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, 

FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, 

Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; 

telephone 516–228–7300; fax 516–794–5531. 

Before using any approved AMOC, notify 

your appropriate principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness 

Directive CF–2011–33, dated August 16, 

2011, and the temporary revisions specified 

in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD, 

for related information. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 CoˆteVertu Road West, Dorval, Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, 

Canada; telephone 514–855–5000; fax 514– 

855–7401; email 

thd.crj@aero.bombardier.com; Internet http:// 

www.bombardier.com. You may review 

copies of the referenced service information 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 20, 

2012. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–18585 Filed 7–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0662; Airspace 

Docket No. 08–AWA–2] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Modification of Class B 

Airspace Area; Philadelphia, PA 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

modify the Philadelphia, PA, Class B 

airspace area to ensure the containment 

of large turbine-powered aircraft within 

Class B airspace, reduce controller 

workload, and reduce the potential for 

midair collision in the Philadelphia 

terminal area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 1, 2012. 

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–2012–0662 and 

Airspace Docket No. 08–AWA–2, at the 

beginning of your comments. You may 

also submit comments through the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Gallant, Airspace, Regulations and ATC 

Procedures 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– 

2012–0662 and Airspace Docket No. 08– 

AWA–2) 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 

http://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–2012–0662 and 

Airspace Docket No. 08–AWA–2.’’ 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 NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

Internet at http://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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 45291 

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 

In December 1974, the FAA issued a 

final rule that established the 

Philadelphia, PA, Terminal Control 

Area (TCA) with an effective date of 

March 27, 1975 (39 FR 43710). In 1993, 

as part of the Airspace Reclassification 

Final Rule (56 FR 65638), the term 

‘‘terminal control area’’ was replaced by 

‘‘Class B airspace area.’’ 

The primary purpose of Class B 

airspace 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. FAA policy requires that 

Class B airspace areas be designed to 

contain all instrument procedures and 

that air traffic controllers vector aircraft 

to remain within Class B airspace after 

entry. Controllers must inform the 

aircraft when leaving and re-entering 

Class B airspace if it becomes necessary 

to extend the flight path outside Class 

B airspace for spacing. However, in the 

interest of safety, FAA policy dictates 

that such extensions be the exception 

rather than the rule. 

The configuration of the Philadelphia 

Class B airspace area has not been 

modified since its establishment as a 

TCA in 1975. Since then, increasing 

operations have prompted a number of 

changes at the Philadelphia 

International Airport (PHL). For 

example, a new runway (8/26) was 

opened for use in December 1999; 

Precision Runway Monitor procedures 

were implemented in 2003, which 

permitted the use of independent ILS 

approaches to Runways 27L and 26; and 

in early 2009, Runway 17/35 was 

extended to accommodate continued 

growth in arrival demand. The newly 

extended runway alleviated congestion 

and delays on the airport’s two major 

runways. However, the Class B 

configuration has not kept pace with 

airport expansion and increasing 

operations, and the current design 

makes it difficult to comply with FAA’s 

policy to contain certain aircraft 

operations within Class B airspace. 

Most aircraft operations at PHL are 

conducted on parallel Runways 9L/R 

and 27L/R. Wind conditions dictate 

operating on a west operation (i.e., 

landing and departing to the west) 

approximately 75 percent of the year. 

On a west operation, Runways 27R, 27L 

and 26 are in use. On an east operation, 

Runways 9L/R are in use. The 

crosswind Runway (17/35) is also 

utilized during both operations. 

Changes Needed to Existing Class B 

Airspace 

The current Class B design does not 

fully contain turbine-powered aircraft 

once they have entered the airspace as 

required by FAA policy. This deficiency 

also contributes to increased air traffic 

controller workload and frequency 

congestion. Aircraft on all final 

approach courses drop below the 

existing floor of the Class B airspace 

while flying published ILS procedures. 

This has been documented using the 

Performance Data Analysis and 

Reporting System (PDARS) tool. Lower 

Class B airspace floors are needed to 

protect all final approach courses and 

downwinds. A major area of concern is 

the truncated boundary along the 

southeast quadrant of the PHL Class B. 

The original purpose of this area was to 

allow aircraft inbound to LaGuardia, 

Newark and McGuire airports to fly up 

Federal airways east of PHL without 

infringing on the Philadelphia Class B 

airspace area. However, this Class B 

configuration on the southeast side is 

inadequate to contain aircraft on the 

downwind and final approach courses 

for Runway 27 and Runway 35. 

Pre-NPRM Public Input 

The FAA prepared a preliminary 

design of the proposed PHL Class B 

modifications to illustrate the need for 

change and to serve as a basis for ad hoc 

committee review. In part, the 

preliminary design featured a proposed 

expansion of the surface area from the 

current 6-miles to 8-miles; expansion of 

the outer limit of Class B airspace from 

20-miles to 24-miles around the 

majority of the area; lower floors of 

Class B airspace in certain subareas; and 

a cutout around Cross Keys Airport, NJ 

(17N). 

An ad hoc committee was formed in 

2009 to review the Philadelphia Class B 

airspace and provide recommendations 

to the FAA about the proposed design. 

Meetings were held in March and May 

of 2009 at the Delaware Valley Regional 

Planning Commission’s Office of 

Aviation in Philadelphia, PA. 

In addition, as announced in the 

Federal Register of November 30, 2010 

(75 FR 74127), six informal airspace 

meetings were held in the Philadelphia 

area. The meetings were held on: 

February 15, 2011, at New Castle 

Airport, New Castle, DE; February 16, 

2011, at New Garden Airport, 

Toughkenamon, PA; February 17 and 

February 22, 2011, at Wings Field, Blue 

Bell, PA; February 23, 2011, at Flying W 

Airport, Medford, NJ; and February 24, 

2011, at Freefall Adventures Skydive 

School, Williamstown, NJ. The purpose 

of the meetings was to provide 

interested airspace users an opportunity 

to present their views and offer 

suggestions regarding the proposed 

modifications to the Philadelphia Class 

B airspace area. 

Discussion of Recommendations and 

Comments 

Ad hoc Committee Input 

The ad hoc committee provided the 

following input on the proposed 

Philadelphia Class B modifications. 

The Committee asked that the surface 

area cutout be expanded to include 

Cooper Hospital and Penn’s Landing 

Heliport (P72) to allow Medevac 

helicopter operations below 1,500 feet, 

and that an additional ring be created 

from 6 miles to 8 miles with a 1,000 foot 

floor so that flights from the Pottstown 

area could navigate to the Philadelphia 

center city hospital areas without 

entering Class B airspace. 

The FAA expanded the proposed 

cutout northeast of PHL to include both 

Cooper Hospital and Penn’s Landing 

heliports. A direct route of flight from 

the Pottstown area to center city 

Philadelphia is almost completely 

outside of the proposed Class B 

airspace. A 1,000-foot ring between 6 

and 8 miles is unnecessary because 

aircraft flying from the Pottstown area to 

downtown Philadelphia could remain 

outside the proposed Class B with only 

a small correction to the east. 

The Committee said that the proposed 

cutout for Cross Keys Airport (17N) 

should be widened to allow VFR traffic 

to operate in a corridor that provides 

sufficient access to the airport without 

encroaching on skydiving operations. 

The proposed cutout has been 

reconfigured to allow for skydiving and 

access for VFR aircraft arriving from or 

departing to the southeast. 

The Committee suggested a cutout 

south of Wings Field Airport (LOM) to 

allow aircraft entering the traffic pattern 

from the north to cross over the airport 

at 2,500 feet then descend to traffic 

pattern altitude. The Committee also 

noted that VFR aircraft maneuvering 

south of LOM must be below 2,000 feet 

to remain below the proposed Class B 

floor in that area, which could result in 

compression and concern about the 

1,600-foot towers nearby. 

Currently, the floor of Class B airspace 

just to the south of LOM is 3,000 feet. 

The proposed modifications would 

lower that floor to 2,000 feet. We are 

unable to create a cutout south of LOM 

because that portion of the proposed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45292 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Class B is designed to protect aircraft 

being vectored for the ILS approach to 

Runway 17 at PHL. Today, aircraft 

inbound to PHL in this area are 

routinely vectored to join the ILS 

localizer at altitudes between 2,000 and 

2,500 feet. There would be just over 1 

mile available for aircraft approaching 

LOM from the north and northwest to 

cross over LOM at 2,500 feet and 

descend to enter the local traffic pattern 

without entering the Class B airspace. 

The requested cutout south of LOM 

would not allow enough room to keep 

the Runway 17 arrivals within Class B 

airspace. The towers referenced above 

(known as the Roxboro Antennas) are 

located 7.5 miles south-southeast of 

LOM and should not be a factor. 

The Committee asked for a cutout east 

of New Garden Airport (N57) to allow 

glider operations to continue. 

While N57 lies well outside the 

existing 20-mile ring of the Class B 

airspace area, the proposed modification 

would extend the Class B airspace 

boundary out to 24 miles (which would 

lie just to the east of N57) with a floor 

of 4,000 feet. N57 is located under an 

area where a significant amount of 

commercial traffic is routed on a daily 

basis. When PHL is on an east 

operation, aircraft landing Runway 9R 

are operating in the immediate vicinity 

of N57. The Runway 9R arrivals from 

the north and south are handed off to 

the Final Vector (FV) controller who 

sequences and spaces these aircraft for 

landing. To accomplish this, the FV 

controller vectors and descends the 

arriving aircraft, blending the two feeds 

into one. FAA directives require that the 

aircraft be retained within Class B 

airspace during this process, but the 

current Class B configuration does not 

extend far enough to the west for 

controllers to comply with this 

requirement. The requested cutout east 

of N57 cannot be accommodated 

because it would not provide sufficient 

airspace to allow controllers to keep 

PHL arrivals within Class B airspace. 

The Committee said a corridor should 

be adopted to allow general aviation 

aircraft flying VFR from the west or 

northwest of Philadelphia to transit the 

Class B airspace with some 

predictability when en route to 

southeast and southern New Jersey. 

The FAA raised the proposed Class B 

floor in the majority of the 15-mile to 

20-mile ring to 3,500 feet. However, two 

sections between 15 miles and 20 miles 

(one on the east side and the other on 

the west side), would still have a 3,000- 

foot floor. These two 3,000-foot areas are 

essential for containing aircraft on the 

ILS approaches to the primary runways. 

Due to the 3,000-foot areas, pilots would 

still need to make a small route change 

when transitioning to or from the north 

or south, but setting the proposed floor 

at 3,500 feet in the remainder of the 15- 

mile to 20-mile ring would allow greater 

flexibility for general aviation aircraft 

operating around Philadelphia. 

Regarding VFR services, the FAA 

encourages VFR aircraft to contact PHL 

and request flight following, advisory 

and/or Class B separation services. This 

would allow these aircraft to operate at 

higher altitudes. PHL Airport Traffic 

Control Tower (ATCT) has made a 

commitment to the user community to 

plan for and staff to provide services to 

aircraft potentially impacted by the 

proposed changes to the Class B. 

The Committee proposed that a ‘‘key 

hole’’, or Runway 24 departure corridor, 

be established to enable aircraft 

departing Trenton Mercer Airport (TTN) 

to climb at a more expeditious rate prior 

to entering Class B airspace. Also, the 

use of Continuous Descent Approaches 

(CDA) for TTN arrivals to Runway 6 

should be considered. 

TTN currently is, and would remain, 

well outside the proposed Class B 

airspace. The FAA believes that the 

proposed Class B configuration would 

allow sufficient opportunity 

(approximately 7 miles) for aircraft 

departing TTN Runway 24 to either 

contact Philadelphia approach for Class 

B clearance or avoid the airspace. CDAs 

are not operationally feasible in the TTN 

area. These IFR procedures allow for a 

continuous descent from an enroute or 

high initial approach altitude to the 

runway. ATC sectorization (both interfacility and intra-facility) in the area 

northeast of PHL does not allow any 

procedures (CDAs or Optimized Profile 

Descents—OPD) that require steep, 

unrestricted descents. 

The Committee opposed the 

expansion of the surface area radius to 

8 miles because it would place the 

Commodore Barry Bridge (which serves 

as a landmark used by pilots to stay 

outside the Class B airspace) within 

Class B airspace. In addition, the 8-mile 

ring would place the Pier 36 heliport 

inside the surface area. 

The airspace in this area is required 

to contain PHL arrivals on the ILS to 

Runways 9R and 9L. While the 

proposed 8-mile ring would encompass 

the bridge, VFR pilots could still use the 

bridge as a landmark but would have to 

visually remain 2 miles west of the 

bridge to avoid the Class B airspace. The 

expanded ring would also protect small 

aircraft from possible wake turbulence 

caused by large and heavy jet aircraft 

landing Runway 9R. The proposal has 

been revised so that Pier 36 would be 

included in the cutout to the northeast 

of PHL. Helicopters approaching 

downtown Philadelphia from the west 

would be required to either obtain a 

Class B clearance or circumnavigate the 

airspace as they do today. 

The Committee requested a cutout 

around Perkiomen Valley Airport (N10) 

to accommodate flight school and 

skydive operations. 

The preliminary Class B design 

proposed to expand Class B airspace out 

to a 24-mile ring. This would have 

resulted in Class B airspace being 

established above N10 from 4,000 feet 

up to 7,000 feet. The FAA reevaluated 

the need for the 24-mile ring, and 

decided to propose expanding to 24 

miles on only east and west ends in 

order to encompass the extended finals 

to the primary runways at PHL. 

Therefore, the outer boundary of Class 

B airspace would remain at 20 miles in 

the vicinity of N10 as it is today. 

The Committee suggested that the 

FAA consider VFR routes through the 

Class B airspace similar to those in Los 

Angeles, CA. 

Charted VFR routes associated with 

the proposed Philadelphia Class B 

airspace are currently being considered 

and evaluated by the Philadelphia 

ATCT staff. 

The Committee provided an 

alternative proposed Class B design, 

prepared by the Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association (AOPA). AOPA 

contended that the FAA’s preliminary 

design appeared overly complex with 

multiple floors and sectors as well as 

being larger than needed to contain 

arriving and departing aircraft. 

As previously noted, the FAA 

changed the proposal remove to the 24- 

mile ring, except on the east and west 

ends. However, the alternative design’s 

higher floors and reduced eastern 

boundary would not meet the need for 

containing aircraft on ILS approaches to 

the primary runways. The alternative 

design’s 5,000-foot Class B floor to the 

east and west of the airport would not 

provide enough altitudes to separate 

aircraft on opposing base legs. In both 

areas, 4,000 feet and 5,000 feet must be 

available for controllers to comply with 

the vertical separation requirements 

while aircraft are on opposing base legs 

(i.e., head-on). Class B airspace also 

must be extended and lowered to the 

south of PHL to contain aircraft being 

vectored to Runway 35. With the 

increased usage of that runway, the final 

approach routinely extends beyond 15 

miles. 

Informal Airspace Meeting Comments 

More than 300 people attended the 

meetings and 46 written responses were 

received. Three commenters supported 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 45293 

the FAA’s proposal, while the 

remainder objected to various aspects of 

the proposal. The following section 

discusses the issues raised. 

Many commenters echoed the ad hoc 

committee recommendation that the 

proposed 24-mile ring be eliminated. As 

discussed above, the FAA changed the 

proposal to delete the 24-mile ring, 

except to the east and west of PHL along 

the extended runway centerlines. 

Two commenters contended that the 

proposed expansion of the surface area 

from 6 miles to 8 miles was not 

adequately justified, would result in 

compression of VFR traffic operating 

below the Class B floor, would cause the 

boundary to be difficult to identify 

visually. 

This issue was discussed, in part, in 

the ‘‘Ad hoc Committee’’ section, above. 

The expansion to 8 miles is necessary 

because some VFR operations are 

conducted beneath the final approach 

courses at locations and altitudes that 

are causing Traffic Alert and Collision 

Avoidance System (TCAS) Resolution 

Advisories (RAs) which cause arriving 

aircraft to execute unplanned missed 

approaches. Although the proposed 

cutout from the surface area was 

expanded northeast of PHL in response 

to Ad Hoc Committee input, the 

alignment of PHL’s runways (09/27 and 

17/35) makes an 8 mile surface are 

necessary to protect the final approach 

courses to those runways. 

Several commenters requested either 

a cutout around Brandywine Airport 

(OQN) or that the Class B floor above 

OQN remain at 4,000 feet. 

It is necessary to lower the floor of the 

20-mile ring (over OQN) from 4,000 feet 

to 3,500 feet, and the floor of the 15- 

mile ring (east of OQN), from 3,000 feet 

to 2,000 feet to contain arrivals landing 

Runway 9L as they descend on base leg 

for approach to PHL. 

Seven commenters had concerns 

about the effect of the proposal on glider 

operations at New Garden Airport 

(N57). A 5-mile cutout around N57 was 

requested. 

The proposed Class B extension to 24 

miles would place the boundary just 

east of N57, with a floor of 4,000 feet. 

This airspace is needed to contain 

arrivals when PHL is on an east 

operation. Philadelphia ATC personnel 

are discussing with the users of N57 the 

possibility of developing procedures via 

a Letter of Agreement that would 

minimize the impact of the Class B 

change on their operation. 

Ten commenters were concerned 

about the potential for compression of 

traffic and inadvertent Class B 

intrusions near Wings Field Airport 

(LOM) and suggested that the Class B 

floor over LOM be kept at 4,000 feet; the 

proposed 2,000-foot floor, south of 

LOM, be raised to 2,500 feet or 3,000 

feet; and/or a cutout around LOM be 

created. 

The proposed Class B airspace in the 

vicinity of LOM is intended to contain 

aircraft executing the ILS Runway 17 

approach at PHL. These arrivals cross a 

point about 14 NM north of PHL at 

3,000 feet, and descend on the glide 

path for Runway 17. VFR aircraft 

arriving at LOM currently overfly the 

airport at 2,500 feet then enter a left 

traffic pattern for Runway 24. These 

aircraft pose a potential conflict with 

PHL Runway 17 arrivals. PHL ATCT 

encourages VFR aircraft to contact PHL 

and request flight following, traffic 

advisories and/or Class B separation 

services. This would allow these aircraft 

to operate at higher altitudes. PHL 

ATCT has made a commitment to the 

user community to plan for, and staff to 

provide services to aircraft impacted by 

the changes to the Class B. 

Nine commenters suggested changes 

on behalf of the following airports 

located to the east and south of PHL: 

South Jersey Regional (VAY), Flying W 

(N14), Red Lion (N73); and Cross Keys 

(17N). Issues raised included: 

simplifying the design by changing the 

3,500-foot floor northeast of the 17N 

airport ‘‘cutout’’ to either 3,000 feet or 

4,000 feet to combine with adjacent 

areas, making the cutout for 17N larger, 

compression of VFR traffic, and creating 

a corridor similar to that in the Los 

Angeles, CA Class B airspace area. 

The proposed 17N cutout has been 

slightly expanded from the design 

presented at the informal airspace 

meetings, but it could not be further 

expanded without having an impact on 

traffic flows inside the Class B. Raising 

the floor to 4,000 feet would not be 

sufficient to contain arriving aircraft 

within Class B airspace, while a 3,000- 

foot floor would be more restrictive than 

needed to contain those aircraft. The 

proposal’s 3,500-foot floor provides 

adequate protection for PHL arrivals 

while minimizing the impact on VFR 

traffic. The volume and flow of traffic at 

PHL preclude the development of a 

corridor like the one through the Los 

Angeles Class B airspace area. However, 

VFR flyways under and around the 

airspace would be developed as part of 

the proposed Class B modification. 

Six commenters suggested changes on 

the east and south sides of the proposed 

Class B, including: raise the Class B 

floor or create a cutout over VAY, N14 

and N73; modify the Class B north of 

the 17N cutout so that the direct route 

between McGuire VORTAC (GXU) and 

Cedar Lake VORTAC (VCN) does not 

create nose-to-nose VFR traffic at 3,000 

feet; and expand the ‘‘funnel’’ between 

Robbinsville VORTAC (RBV) and VCN 

between the Class B boundary and Alert 

Area A–220 to prevent compression of 

VFR traffic. 

The FAA understands that the 

proposed changes would reduce the 

amount of airspace available for VFR 

operations southeast of the PHL Class B. 

To lessen this impact, the 24-mile ring 

has been reduced in size as discussed 

previously. However, because VAY, N14 

and N73 all lie within 24 miles of PHL, 

as well as in the arrival area, and less 

than 4 miles from the final approach 

course, it is not possible to create a 

cutout or raise the proposed Class B 

floor over those airports without a 

significant impact on PHL arrivals. PHL 

ATC would provide clearance through 

the Class B airspace to VFR flights 

whenever possible. In addition, traffic 

from PNE and TTN that transitions PHL 

airspace to points in South Jersey 

represents a large number of the 

conflictions with arrival traffic to 

Runways 26 and 27R. As such, the VFR 

corridor designed, more than 25 years 

ago, is no longer viable. It is PHL 

ATCT’s expectation that this traffic 

would contact PHL ATCT for flightfollowing and/or Class B separation 

services, thus providing a safer 

environment for all users of the ATC 

system. VFR aircraft wishing to transit 

the portion of Alert Area A–220 that 

would fall within the proposed Class B 

airspace would be under the control of 

ATC and therefore would receive 

separation services from any military 

aircraft. Pilots that choose to either 

circumnavigate the area, or fly at 

altitudes below the Class B airspace, 

could operate pretty much as they do 

today except at slightly lower altitudes. 

The possibility of developing charted 

routes through the Class B would be 

considered as a way to mitigate the 

potential compression issues identified 

by the commenters. 

One commenter suggested the DME 

distances should be published to 

identify the Class B rings. 

The distances depicted in this 

proposal are measured from the PHL 

Airport Reference Point (ARP) defined 

as lat. 39°52′20′′ N., long. 75°14′27′′ W. 

The lack of a VOR/DME facility at PHL, 

upon which to base radials and DME 

distances, limits the options for 

describing the airspace. There are six 

ILSs with DME at PHL. The FAA will 

explore the possibility of publishing an 

alternate description using ILS/DME 

distances on the PHL VFR Terminal 

Area chart with an explanation of how 

to use the DME distances as a guide for 

navigating around the area. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45294 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

One commenter was concerned that 

the Tabernacle, NJ practice area would 

not be usable for certain training 

maneuvers if it was under Class B 

airspace. 

The smaller proposed 24-mile Class B 

extension would not completely remove 

the practice area from under Class B 

airspace; however, no additional 

adjustments could be made in that area 

without impacting PHL arrivals. Users 

of the practice area should be able to get 

a Class B clearance when PHL is on an 

east operation and that airspace is not 

in use for arrivals. 

A number of commenters stated that 

there are too many Class B floor 

variations in the proposed design which 

would be confusing to pilots and it 

would be difficult to determine the 

boundaries without GPS navigation 

equipment on board. Further, this could 

cause compression underneath the Class 

B. 

Simplicity is a goal of airspace design 

and it is true that using one altitude for 

the entire circle would be less complex. 

However, the proposed 3,000-foot floor 

on the east and west sides could not be 

raised to 3,500 feet, as some suggested, 

without impacting PHL arrivals because 

this airspace is necessary to contain 

aircraft descending to land at PHL. 

Lowering the floor to 3,000 feet all the 

way around for simplicity would create 

additional impact on VFR operations by 

designating Class B airspace where a 

3,000-foot floor is not required by ATC. 

The FAA understands the need of VFR 

pilots to have access to Class B airspace 

for safety and efficiency of flight, and 

plans to make this available on request 

whenever it can be provided without 

impacting the safety of other aircraft 

operating in the airspace. 

One commenter proposed that the 

extensions on the east and west be made 

part-time so that they would only be 

active when actually being used for 

traffic containment. 

The suggestion for part-time Class B 

segments could potentially decrease the 

impact on nonparticipating traffic. A 

similar concept has been successfully 

applied to military special use airspace 

areas. However, further study of various 

issues is required to determine whether 

the concept is operationally feasible and 

could be safely implemented in a Class 

B airspace environment. These issues 

include: procedures for activating/ 

deactivating affected Class B sections 

and ensuring real-time pilot notification 

of airspace status changes, response to 

runway changes or closures and inflight 

emergencies, aeronautical charting 

specifications, weather factors, safety; 

etc. 

One commenter contended that the 

need for lower Class B floors could be 

reduced by eliminating the requirement 

for aircraft to be below the ILS 

glideslope when being turned on to final 

approach and by using a two-stage glide 

slope set at 3 degrees within 8 to 9 miles 

from the runway and up to 6 degrees at 

greater distances. 

These suggestions would require a 

revision of instrument flight procedures 

and the development of new or 

additional glideslope equipment which 

may not be technically feasible and/or 

may involve flight safety issues. As 

such, they are outside the scope of this 

airspace proposal. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) part 71 to modify the 

Philadelphia, PA, Class B airspace area. 

This action (depicted on the attached 

chart) proposes to modify the lateral and 

vertical limits of Class B airspace to 

ensure the containment of large turbinepowered aircraft once they enter the 

airspace, reduce frequency congestion 

and controller workload, and enhance 

safety in the Philadelphia terminal area. 

The Class B airspace ceiling would 

remain at 7,000 feet MSL. Mileages are 

in nautical miles and, unless otherwise 

noted, are based on a radius from PHL 

ARP (lat. 39°52′20′′ N., long. 75°14′27′′ 

W.). The proposed modifications of the 

Philadelphia Class B airspace area, by 

subarea, are outlined below. 

Area A. This area, extending upward 

from the surface to 7,000 feet MSL, 

would be expanded from the current 6- 

mile radius to an 8-mile radius. A 

cutout would be incorporated in the 

northeast quadrant of Area A to 

accommodate helicopter operations as 

discussed above. 

Area B. No changes are proposed to 

this area, which extends from 300 feet 

MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. 

Area C. This area, which extends from 

600 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL, would 

remain largely the same except that its 

boundaries would be extended outward 

to meet the proposed 8-mile radius of 

Area A. 

Area D. This area would extend from 

1,500 feet to 7,000 feet between the 8- 

mile and 11-mile rings around PHL, 

with an extension out to 15-miles to the 

east of PHL. 

Area E. Area E would extend from 

2,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL 

between the 11-mile and 15-mile rings 

from PHL with a cutout around 17N. 

The existing Class B floor in that area 

is 3,000 feet MSL. 

Area F. Area F would consist of two 

sections between the 15-mile and 20- 

mile rings. One section would be 

located west of PHL and the other to the 

east of PHL. These sections would 

extend from 3,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet 

MSL. The purpose of Area F would be 

to contain arrivals to the primary 

runways at PHL. 

Area G. This area would extend from 

3,500 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. It 

would generally lie between the 15-mile 

and 20-mile rings, excluding the 

airspace in Areas F and H. The current 

Class B floor in most of that area is 

4,000 feet MSL. Area G would also 

create new Class B airspace out to 20 

miles to the east and south of PHL with 

a cutout to accommodate operations at 

17N. 

Area H. This area would consist of 

two sections, extending from 4,000 feet 

MSL to 7,000 feet MSL, between the 20- 

mile and 24-mile rings, to the east and 

west of PHL. The purpose of this new 

Class B airspace would be to contain 

arrivals to the primary runways at PHL. 

The geographic latitude/longitude 

coordinates in this proposal are based 

on North American Datum 83. 

Class B airspace areas are published 

in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order 

7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011 and 

effective September 15, 2011, 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. 

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. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined that there is no new 

information collection requirement 

associated with this proposed rule. 

Regulatory Evaluation Summary 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 45295 

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 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: 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this proposed 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) Would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities; 

(5) Would not have a significant effect 

on international trade; and 

(6) Would 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. 

The Proposed Action 

This action proposes to modify the 

Philadelphia, PA, Class B airspace area 

to ensure the containment of large 

turbine-powered aircraft within Class B 

airspace, reduce controller workload, 

and reduce the potential for midair 

collision in the Philadelphia terminal 

area. 

Benefits of the Proposed Action 

The benefits of this action are that it 

would enhance safety, improve the flow 

of air traffic, and reduce the potential 

for midair collisions in the PHL 

terminal area. In addition this action 

would support the FAA’s national 

airspace redesign goal of optimizing 

terminal and enroute airspace areas to 

reduce aircraft delays and improve 

system capacity. 

Costs of the Proposed Action 

Possible costs of this proposal would 

include the costs of general aviation 

aircraft that might have to fly further if 

this proposal were adopted. However, 

the FAA believes that any such costs 

would be minimal because the FAA 

designed the proposal to minimize the 

effect on aviation users who would not 

fly in the Class B airspace. In addition 

the FAA held a series of meetings to 

solicit comments from people who 

thought that they might be affected by 

the proposal. Wherever possible the 

FAA included the comments from these 

meetings in the proposal. 

Expected Outcome of the Proposal 

The expected outcome of the proposal 

would be a minimal impact with 

positive net benefits and a regulatory 

evaluation was not prepared. The FAA 

requests comments with supporting 

justification about the FAA 

determination of minimal impact. 

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 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. 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 proposed or final 

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 Act. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a proposed or final rule is not expected 

to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 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 proposal is expected to improve 

safety by redefining Class B airspace 

boundaries and is expected to impose 

only minimal costs. The expected 

outcome would be a minimal economic 

impact on small entities affected by this 

rulemaking action. 

Therefore, the FAA certifies that this 

proposed rule, if promulgated, would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The FAA requests comments on 

this determination. Specifically, the 

FAA requests comments on whether the 

proposal creates any specific 

compliance costs unique to small 

entities. Please provide detailed 

economic analysis to support any cost 

claims. The FAA also invites comments 

regarding other small entity concerns 

with respect to the proposal. 

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 would have no effect 

on international 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 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

1 year by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector; such a mandate is 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
45296 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 

proposal does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore the requirements of 

Title II do not apply. 

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 

Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 9, 2011, and effective 

September 15, 2011, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B—Class B 

airspace. 

* * * * * 

AEA PA B Philadelphia, PA [Revised] 

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 

Area A. That airspace extending upward 

from the surface to and including 7,000 feet 

MSL within an 8-mile radius of the 

Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), 

excluding that airspace bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of the PHL 8- 

mile radius and the 002° bearing from PHL, 

thence direct to lat. 39°56′14′′ N., long. 

75°12′11′′ W., thence direct to lat. 39°55′40′′ 

N., long. 75°08′31′′ W., thence direct to the 

intersection of the PHL 8-mile radius and the 

061° bearing from PHL, and that airspace 

within and underlying Areas B and C 

hereinafter described. 

Area B. That airspace extending upward 

from 300 feet MSL to and including 7,000 

feet MSL, beginning at the east tip of 

Tinicum Island, thence along the south shore 

of Tinicum Island to the westernmost point, 

thence direct to the outlet of Darby Creek at 

the north shore of the Delaware River, thence 

along the north shore of the river to Chester 

Creek, thence direct to Thompson Point, 

thence along the south shore of the Delaware 

River to Bramell Point, thence direct to the 

point of beginning. 

Area C. That airspace extending upward 

from 600 feet MSL to and including 7,000 

feet MSL, beginning at Bramell Point, thence 

along the south shore of the Delaware River 

to Thompson Point, thence direct to the 

outlet of Chester Creek at the Delaware River, 

thence along the north shore of the Delaware 

River to the 8-mile radius of PHL, thence 

counterclockwise along the 8-mile radius to 

the 180° bearing from PHL, thence direct to 

Bramell Point. 

Area D. That airspace extending upward 

from 1,500 feet MSL to and including 7,000 

feet MSL within an 11-mile radius of PHL; 

and that airspace within 7.5 miles north and 

south of the Runway 27R localizer course 

extending from the 11-mile radius to the 15- 

mile radius east of PHL; excluding that 

airspace within a 5.8-mile radius of North 

Philadelphia Airport (PNE), and Areas A, B, 

and C. 

Area E. That airspace extending upward 

from 2,000 feet MSL to and including 7,000 

feet MSL within a 15-mile radius of PHL, 

excluding that airspace within a 5.8-mile 

radius of PNE, and that airspace bounded by 

a line beginning at 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, and Areas A, 

B, C, and D. 

Area F. That airspace extending upward 

from 3,000 feet MSL to and including 7,000 

feet MSL within 7.5 miles north and south 

of the Runway 9R localizer course extending 

from the 15-mile radius west of PHL to the 

20-mile radius west of PHL; and within 7.5 

miles north and south of the Runway 27R 

localizer course extending from the 8-mile 

radius east of PHL to the 20-mile radius east 

of PHL, excluding Area D. 

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 

20-mile radius and the 136° bearing from 

PHL, and that airspace bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of the PHL 20- 

mile radius and the 136° 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 120° bearing from PHL, and Areas A, 

B, C, D, E and F. 

Area H. That airspace extending upward 

from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 7,000 

feet MSL within 7.5 miles north and south 

of the Runway 9R localizer course extending 

from the 20-mile radius west of PHL to the 

24-mile radius west of PHL; and within 7.5 

miles north and south of the Runway 27R 

localizer course extending from the 20-mile 

radius east of PHL to the 24-mile radius east 

of PHL. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 26, 

2012. 

Gary A. Norek, 

Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC 

Procedures Group. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 147 / Tuesday, July 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 45297 

[FR Doc. 2012–18644 Filed 7–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1199 

[Docket No. CPSC–2012–0040] 

Children’s Toys and Child Care 

Articles Containing Phthalates; 

Proposed Guidance on Inaccessible 

Component Parts 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed guidance. 

SUMMARY: On August 14, 2008, Congress 

enacted the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), 

Public Law 110–314. Section 108 of the 

CPSIA, as amended by Public Law 112– 

28, provides that the prohibition on 

specified products containing 

phthalates does not apply to any 

component part of children’s toys or 

child care articles that is not accessible 

to a child through normal and 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP31JY12.000</GPH>