Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 76779 

are the only terms intended to have a 

specialized meaning when used in these 

proposed special conditions: 

(a) Basic Airframe Structure. Includes 

design elements such as structural 

members, structural joint features, and 

fastener systems including airplane 

skins, ribs, spars, stringers, etc., and 

associated fasteners, joints, coatings, 

and sealant. Basic airframe structure 

may also include those structural 

elements that are expected to be 

removed for maintenance, such as 

exterior fuel tank access panels and 

fairing attachment features, provided 

maintenance errors that could 

compromise associated lightning 

protection features would be evident 

upon an exterior preflight inspection of 

the airplane and would be corrected 

prior to flight. 

(b) Permanent Systems Supporting 

Structure. Includes static, permanently 

attached structural parts (such as 

brackets) that are used to support 

system elements. It does not include any 

part intended to be removed, or any 

joint intended to be separated, to 

maintain or replace system elements or 

other parts, unless that part removal or 

joint separation is accepted by the FAA 

as being extremely remote. 

(c) Manufacturing Variability. 

Includes tolerances and variability 

allowed by the design and production 

specifications as well as anticipated 

errors or escapes from the 

manufacturing and inspection 

processes. 

(d) Extremely Remote. Conditions that 

are not anticipated to occur to each 

airplane during its total life, but which 

may occur a few times when 

considering the total operational life of 

all airplanes of one type. Extremely 

remote conditions are those having an 

average probability per flight hour on 

the order of 1 × 10¥7 or less, but greater 

than on the order of 1 × 10¥9. 

(e) Extremely Improbable. Conditions 

that are so unlikely that they are not 

anticipated to occur during the entire 

operational life of all airplanes of one 

type. Extremely improbable conditions 

are those having an average probability 

per flight hour of the order of 1 × 10¥9

or less. 

2. Alternative Fuel Tank Structural 

Lightning Protection Requirements 

For lightning protection features that 

are integral to fuel tank basic airframe 

structure or permanent systems 

supporting structure, as defined in this 

these proposed special conditions, 

Definitions, for which Airbus shows and 

the FAA finds compliance with 

§ 25.981(a)(3) to be impractical, the 

following requirements may be applied 

in lieu of the requirements of 

§ 25.981(a)(3): 

(a) Airbus must show that the airplane 

design meets the requirements of part 

25, Appendix M, as amended by 

Amendment 25–125, for all fuel tanks 

installed on the airplane. 

(b) Airbus must show that the design 

includes at least two independent, 

effective, and reliable lightning 

protection features (or sets of features) 

such that fault tolerance to prevent 

lightning-related ignition sources is 

provided for each area of the structural 

design proposed to be shown compliant 

with these proposed special conditions 

in lieu of compliance with the 

requirements of § 25.981(a)(3). Fault 

tolerance is not required for any specific 

design feature if: 

(1) For that feature, providing fault 

tolerance is shown to be impractical, 

and 

(2) Fuel tank vapor ignition due to 

that feature and all other non-faulttolerant features, when their fuel tank 

vapor ignition event probabilities are 

summed, is shown to be extremely 

improbable. 

(c) Airbus must perform an analysis to 

show that the design, manufacturing 

processes, and airworthiness limitations 

section of the instructions for continued 

airworthiness include all practical 

measures to prevent, and detect and 

correct, failures of structural lightning 

protection features due to 

manufacturing variability, aging, wear, 

corrosion, and likely damage. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

November 15, 2013. 

John P. Piccola, Jr., 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30236 Filed 12–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0922; Airspace 

Docket No. 13–AWA–5] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Modification of the 

Philadelphia, PA, Class B Airspace 

Area 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

amend the description of Area G of the 

Philadelphia Class B airspace area to 

correct a design error that resulted in 

the Class B airspace being published 2.1 

nautical miles (NM) larger on the 

southeast side of the area than intended. 

No other changes to the Philadelphia 

Class B airspace are being proposed. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 3, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001; telephone: 

(202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2013–0922 and 

Airspace Docket No. 13–AWA–5 at the 

beginning of your comments. You may 

also submit comments through the 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Gallant, Airspace Policy and 

Regulations Group, Office of Airspace 

Services, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. Comments 

are specifically invited on the overall 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA– 

2013–0922 and Airspace Docket No. 13– 

AWA–5) and be submitted in triplicate 

to the Docket Management Facility (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number). You may also submit 

comments through the internet at 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–2013–0922 and 

Airspace Docket No. 13–AWA–5.’’ The 

postcard will be date/time stamped and 

returned to the commenter. 

All communications received on or 

before the specified closing date for 

comments will be considered before 

taking action on the proposed rule. The 

proposal contained in this action may 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
76780 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

be changed in light of comments 

received. All comments submitted will 

be available for examination in the 

public docket both before and after the 

closing date for comments. A report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerned 

with this rulemaking will be filed in the 

docket. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

Internet at 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 

contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, 

(202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory 

Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Distribution System, which 

describes the application procedure. 

Background 

On May 9, 2013, the FAA published 

a final rule modifying the Philadelphia 

Class B airspace area (78 FR 27025, July 

25, 2013). After publication, it was 

found that Area G extended 2.1 NM 

farther southeast than intended from the 

Philadelphia International Airport. This 

was caused by the miscalculation of two 

points during the design of the Area G 

boundaries. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing to amend Title 

14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

part 71 to correct two points used to 

define the boundaries of Area G in the 

description of the Philadelphia Class B 

airspace area. Specifically, the point 

that reads ‘‘. . . the intersection of the 

PHL 20-mile radius and the 136° bearing 

from PHL . . .’’ would be 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 . . .’’ 

would be changed to read ‘‘. . . the 

intersection of the 20-mile radius and 

the 118° bearing from PHL. . . .’’ This 

point appears once in the Area G 

description. This change would result in 

a small reduction in the lateral 

dimensions of Class B airspace 

southeast of Philadelphia International 

Airport, near the Cross Keys Airport, NJ 

(17N). 

The FAA is not proposing 

modifications to any other parts of the 

Philadelphia Class B airspace area. 

All radials listed in this proposal 

stated in degrees relative to True North. 

All geographic coordinates are stated in 

degrees, minutes, and seconds based on 

North American Datum 83. 

Class B airspace areas are published 

in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order 

7400.9X, Airspace Designations and 

Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, 

and effective September 15, 2013, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

section 71.1. The Class B airspace area 

listed in this document would be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

Regulatory Evaluation Summary 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this proposed rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this proposed rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows: 

This proposal would amend the 

description of Area G of the 

Philadelphia Class B area to correct a 

design error that resulted in the Class B 

airspace being published 2.1 NM larger 

than intended on the southeast side of 

the area. 

This proposed rule has the following 

benefits. 

1. It would improve the flow of air 

traffic, enhance safety, and reduce the 

potential for midair collision in the 

Philadelphia Class B airspace. 

2. It would continue to ensure the 

containment of large turbine-powered 

aircraft within Class B airspace as 

required by FAA directive. 

3. It would provide VFR aircraft with 

additional non-Class B airspace. 

4. It would enhance the safety and 

efficient management of aircraft 

operations in the Philadelphia terminal 

area. 

The FAA believes that this proposed 

rule would result in minimal costs. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined 

that this proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as 

defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, and is not ‘‘significant’’ as 

defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 76781 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

The FAA believes the proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, as the economic impact is 

expected to be minimal. If an agency 

determines that a rulemaking will not 

result in a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, the head of the agency may so 

certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. 

Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), 

the head of the FAA certifies that this 

rulemaking will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

The FAA has assessed the potential 

effect of this proposed rule and 

determined that it will enhance safety 

and is not considered an unnecessary 

obstacle to trade. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Act do not 

apply. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures,’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 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 7400.9X, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 7, 2013, and effective 

September 15, 2013, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B—Class B 

Airspace. 

* * * * * 

AEA PA B Philadelphia, PA [Amended] 

Philadelphia International Airport, PA 

(Primary Airport) 

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

Northeast Philadelphia Airport, PA 

(Lat. 40°04′55′′ N., long. 75°00′38′′ W.) 

Cross Keys Airport, NJ 

(Lat. 39°42′20′′ N., long. 75°01′59′′ W.) 

Boundaries. 

By removing the current description of 

Area G and adding in its place: 

Area G. That airspace extending upward 

from 3,500 feet MSL to and including 7,000 

feet MSL within a 20-mile radius of PHL, 

excluding that airspace south of a line 

beginning at the intersection of the PHL 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. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

11, 2013. 

Ellen Crum, 

Acting Manager, Airspace Policy and 

Regulations Group. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30086 Filed 12–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0859; Airspace 

Docket No. 13–AWA–4] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Modification of Class B 

Airspace; Salt Lake City, UT 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

amend the description of Area C and 

Area O of the Salt Lake City Class B 

airspace area by raising the floor of a 

small portion of Class B airspace 

between the Salt Lake City Class B 

surface area and the Hill Air Force Base 

(AFB) Class D airspace area. This action 

proposes to raise the Class B airspace 

floor in the northeast corner of Area C 

from 6,000 feet mean seal level (MSL) to 

7,500 feet MSL, and redefine the new 

boundary segment using the power lines 

underlying the area. This would benefit 

and enhance non-participating VFR 

aircraft operations being flown north 

and south through the Salt Lake Valley 

over Interstate 15. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 3, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001; telephone: 

(202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2013–0859 and 

Airspace Docket No. 13–AWA–4 at the 

beginning of your comments. You may 

also submit comments through the 

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


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1