Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 27025 

(t) Credit for Previous Actions 

This paragraph restates the credit for 

previous actions specified by paragraph (t) of 

AD 2012–18–13, Amendment 39–17190 (77 

FR 57990, September 19, 2012). This 

paragraph provides credit for the actions 

required by paragraphs (k) through (s) of this 

AD, if the actions were performed before the 

effective date of this AD using the service 

bulletins specified in paragraphs (t)(1) 

through (t)(4) of this AD. 

(1) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1214, dated June 17, 1999. 

(2) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1214, Revision 1, dated June 22, 2000. 

(3) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1214, Revision 2, dated May 24, 2001. 

(4) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1214, Revision 3, dated January 19, 2011. 

(u) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, 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 manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests-faa.gov. 

(2) 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. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(4) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 99–08–23, Amendment 

39–11132 (64 FR 19879, April 23, 1999), are 

approved as AMOCs for the corresponding 

provisions of this AD. 

(5) AMOCs approved previously in 

accordance with AD 2012–18–13, 

Amendment 39–17190 (77 FR 57990, 

September 19, 2012), are approved as 

AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of 

this AD. 

(v) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120S, FAA, Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; phone: (425) 917–6440; fax: (425) 917– 

6590; email: alan.pohl@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H–65, 

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 206–766– 

5680; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review 

copies of the referenced service information 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. 

For information on the availability of this 

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

(w) Material Incorporated by Reference 

(1) The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

(IBR) of the service information listed in this 

paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR 

part 51. 

(2) You must use this service information 

as applicable to do the actions required by 

this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise. 

(3) The following service information was 

approved for IBR on October 24, 2012 (77 FR 

57990, September 19, 2012). 

(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737– 

53A1214, Revision 4, dated December 16, 

2011. 

(ii) Reserved. 

(4) The following service information was 

approved for IBR on May 10, 1999 (64 FR 

19879, April 23, 1999). 

(i) Boeing 737 Nondestructive Test Manual 

D6–37239, Part 6, Section 53–10–54, dated 

December 5, 1998. 

(ii) Boeing 737 Nondestructive Test 

Manual D6–37239, Part 6, Section 51–00–00, 

Figure 23, dated November 5, 1995. 

(5) For Boeing service information 

identified in this AD, contact Boeing 

Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & 

Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 

2H–65, Seattle, Washington 98124–2207; 

telephone 206–544–5000, extension 1; fax 

206–766–5680; Internet https:// 

www.myboeingfleet.com. 

(6) You may review copies of the 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For 

information on the availability of this 

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

(7) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to: http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 5, 

2013. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–09113 Filed 5–8–13; 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 

Modification of Class B Airspace; 

Philadelphia, PA 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action modifies 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: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, July 

25, 2013. 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Gallant, Airspace Policy and ATC 

Procedures Group, Office of Airspace 

Services, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

The FAA published in the Federal 

Register a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to modify the 

Philadelphia, PA, Class B airspace area 

(77 FR 45290, July 31, 2012). Interested 

parties were invited to participate in 

this rulemaking effort by submitting 

written comments on the proposal. 

Three comments were received in 

response to the NPRM. The FAA 

considered all comments received 

before making a determination on this 

final rule. 

Discussion of Comments 

All three commenters expressed 

concern over the effect of expanding the 

PHL Class B to the east and southeast. 

One commenter was concerned by the 

possible effect on a busy VFR flyway, 

and by the funnel effect of having only 

1000 feet vertically between the 

modified Class B and Alert Area A–220. 

Another commenter was concerned that 

more complicated airspace, combined 

with a bad economy and the high cost 

of flight training, would discourage 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
27026 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

student pilots from completing their 

training. The third commenter suggested 

that enough lateral space be provided 

between the edge of Alert Area A–220 

and the PHL Class B boundary to allow 

the two-way VFR flyway to continue. 

The FAA agrees that the airspace east 

of PHL is congested and used for many 

varying aviation activities, and it shares 

the desire to design the airspace to 

minimize the possibility of incidents. 

However, the suggestion to leave room 

for a VFR flyway between A–220 and 

the Class B would leave the airspace 

boundary essentially where it is today. 

The current corridor is only 4 miles 

wide. Providing a VFR flyway as 

requested would preclude expanding 

the Class B airspace in an area needed 

so that PHL can properly contain 

arrivals on the downwind or final 

approach. Raising the Class B floor to 

make additional altitudes available for 

VFR flight is also not a viable option. 

PHL arrivals on the base leg outside 20 

NM from the airport will be at, or 

descending to, 4,000 feet, making a 

4,000 foot Class B airspace floor 

necessary in that area to achieve the 

containment of aircraft. 

Mixing PHL arrivals and VFR aircraft 

outside the Class B presents a hazard to 

safety, which must be addressed. We 

believe that the Class B design in this 

rule provides the minimum airspace 

required for containment while leaving 

as much airspace as possible for VFR 

flight outside the Class B. 

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association (AOPA) expressed concern 

that the number of cutouts and varying 

floor heights, combined with a lack of 

VFR landmarks, results in a complex 

design which VFR pilots will find 

confusing, and may result in airspace 

violations, especially near PNE and ILG. 

The FAA does not agree. The multiple 

Class B subareas on final approach to 

runways 9 and 27 at PHL are designed 

to afford VFR flights, electing to fly 

beneath the Class B, the maximum 

amount of altitude while keeping them 

separated from airspace and altitudes 

used by IFR arrivals to PHL. To reduce 

the number of subareas or varying Class 

B floors, it would be necessary to 

combine subareas and use the lower 

floor for the entire subarea. This would 

cause the designation of more Class B 

airspace than is required for 

containment and further limit airspace 

available for VFR use. There are a 

number of references that can be used 

to assist VFR pilot navigation. Seven 

VOR facilities basically encircle the PHL 

Class B airspace area and can be used 

to assist in orientation to 

circumnavigate the area. There are also 

various landmarks such as Interstate I– 

295, I–95/New Jersey Turnpike, charted 

airports and charted VFR checkpoints. 

VFR aircraft can navigate below, above, 

around, or request ATC clearance to 

proceed through, the Class B airspace 

area. 

The two new subareas (F and H) to 

the east and west of PHL evolved from 

the elimination of the 24–NM outer ring 

around the majority of the Class B 

airspace area that was being considered 

by the FAA in the early stages of the 

PHL Class B design modification. As 

discussed in the NPRM, input from the 

ad hoc committee and informal airspace 

meetings requested that the 24–NM ring 

be eliminated. The FAA reevaluated the 

need for the expansion of the Class B to 

24–NM and decided to limit the 

expansion to 24–NM only to the east 

and west of PHL in order to encompass 

the extended finals to the primary 

runways. These extensions are required 

to contain the high volume of turbinepowered aircraft landing at PHL while 

still allowing adequate room for VFR 

aircraft to circumnavigate the PHL Class 

B airspace. 

The Rule 

The FAA is amending Title 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

part 71 to modify the Philadelphia, PA, 

Class B airspace area. This action 

(depicted on the attached chart) 

modifies the lateral and vertical limits 

(i.e., floors) of the Class B airspace area 

to ensure the containment of large 

turbine-powered aircraft once they enter 

the airspace, reduce frequency 

congestion and controller workload, and 

enhance safety in the Philadelphia 

terminal area. The ceiling of the 

Philadelphia Class B airspace area 

remains at 7,000 feet MSL. Mileages are 

in nautical miles and, unless otherwise 

noted, are based on a radius from the 

PHL airport reference point (ARP) (lat. 

39°52′20′′ N., long. 75°14′27′′ W.). The 

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, is 

expanded from the current 6-mile radius 

to an 8-mile radius. A cutout is 

incorporated in the northeast quadrant 

of Area A to accommodate helicopter 

operations. 

Area B. There are no changes to Area 

B, 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, remains 

largely unchanged except that its 

boundaries are extended outward to 

meet the new 8-mile radius of Area A. 

Area D. This area extends from 1,500 

feet to 7,000 feet between the 8-mile and 

11-mile rings around PHL, and includes 

an extension out to 15 miles to the east 

of PHL. 

Area E. Area E extends 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. This rule lowers 

the Class B airspace floor in this area 

from 3,000 feet MSL to 2,000 feet MSL. 

Area F. Area F consists of two 

sections between the 15-mile and 20- 

mile rings. One section is west of PHL 

and the other to the east of PHL. These 

sections both extend from 3,000 feet 

MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. The Area F 

section located to the east of PHL is new 

Class B airspace. The purpose of Area F 

is to contain arrivals to the primary 

runways at PHL. 

Area G. This area extends from 3,500 

feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. It generally 

lies 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 

also creates 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 consists of two 

sections, extending from 4,000 feet MSL 

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

and 24-mile rings, one to the east and 

one to the west of PHL. Area H is new 

Class B airspace. Its purpose is to 

contain arrivals to the primary runways 

at PHL. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has determined that this 

action qualifies for categorical exclusion 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act in accordance with FAA 

Order 1050.1E, ‘‘Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ 

paragraph 311a. 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. 

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 rule. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 27027 

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 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 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 

final 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. 

The Proposed Action 

The action proposed in the NPRM, 

was 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 

As discussed in the NPRM, this action 

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 

will 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 

As described in the NPRM, the costs 

included the costs of general aviation 

aircraft that might have to fly further if 

this action were adopted. However, the 

FAA believes that any such costs would 

be minimal because the FAA designed 

the air space 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 FAA received no comments on 

the FAA’s requests for comments on the 

minimal cost determination. Therefore, 

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. 

Final 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-forprofit organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

In the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis the FAA determined that the 

proposed rule would improve safety by 

redefining Class B airspace boundaries 

and was expected to impose only 

minimal costs on small entities and 

asked for comments. 

The FAA received no comments on 

small entity considerations. 

Therefore, the FAA Administrator 

certifies that this rule will not have 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 assessed the potential effect 

of this proposed rule in the NPRM and 

determined that it would have no effect 

on international trade. The FAA 

received no comments on this 

determination. 

Therefore, the FAA has determined 

that this final rule will have no impact 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
27028 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

List 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 

■ 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 7400.9W, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 8, 2012, and 

effective September 15, 2012, 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 April 23, 

2013. 

Gary A. Norek, 

Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC 

Procedures Group. 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 27029 

[FR Doc. 2013–10811 Filed 5–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0031; Airspace 

Docket No. 12–AWA–7] 

Modification of Class C Airspace; 

Nashville International Airport; TN 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action modifies the 

Nashville International Airport, TN, 

Class C airspace area by removing a 

cutout from the surface area that was 

put in place to accommodate operations 

at an airport that is now permanently 

closed. The FAA is taking this action to 

ensure the safe and efficient operations 

at Nashville International Airport. 

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, June 

27, 2013. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference action under 1 CFR part 51, 

subject to the annual revision of FAA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULESER09MY13.002</GPH>