Vol. 81 Monday, 

No. 176 September 12, 2016 

Part II 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 93 

14 CFR Part 71 

Pearson Field Airport Special Flight Rules Area and Revocation of Class D 

Airspace; Vancouver, WA; Final Rules 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
62802 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 93 

[Docket No.: FAA–2015–3980; Amdt. No. 

93–100] 

RIN 2120–AK74 

Pearson Field Airport Special Flight 

Rules Area 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is establishing a 

Special Flight Rules Area in the vicinity 

of Pearson Field Airport, Vancouver, 

Washington. Pearson Field Airport is 

located approximately three nautical 

miles northwest of Portland 

International Airport, Portland, Oregon. 

The close proximity of the airport traffic 

patterns and approach courses create 

converging flight paths between traffic 

on approach to Portland International 

Airport and traffic at Pearson Field 

Airport, increasing the risk for near midair collision, mid-air collision and wake 

turbulence events. The intended effect 

of this action is to mitigate the 

identified risk by establishing operating 

requirements applicable to all aircraft 

when operating within a designated area 

at Pearson Field Airport, which would 

increase overall system efficiency and 

safety. 

DATES: Effective November 10, 2016, 

except for amendatory instruction #1, 

which is effective September 12, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How to Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Moorman, Airspace and Rules 

Team, AJV–115, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–8783; email 

Patrick.moorman@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

This rule establishes a special flight 

rules area (SFRA) around Pearson Field 

Airport (Pearson Field) in which pilots 

will have to follow mandatory 

procedures. These procedures are 

necessary to assist in the separation of 

air traffic, and to ensure pilots are aware 

of potential traffic conflicts between 

aircraft operating at Pearson Field and 

Portland International Airport. The 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

was published on October 6, 2015. 80 

FR 60310. The FAA received 16 

comments to the NPRM. All but one of 

the commenters supported creation of 

the special flight rules area for Pearson 

Field. However, those commenters 

believed that findings from the Safety 

Risk Management Panel for Pearson 

Field should be expressly included in 

the regulation. Based on the comments 

received, the FAA has made one minor 

change to proposed 14 CFR 93.163 

regarding operations over the runway or 

extended runway centerline of Pearson 

Field. This final rule will ensure safety 

of flight for aircraft operating at Pearson 

Field Airport and the adjacent Portland 

International Airport. 

II. Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Subtitle 

I, Section 106 describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the 

authority of the Administrator to 

promulgate regulations and rules. This 

rulemaking also is promulgated under 

the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 

40103, which vests the Administrator 

with broad authority to prescribe 

regulations to assign the use of airspace 

necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft 

and the efficient use of airspace, and 49 

U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the 

Administrator to promote safe flight of 

civil aircraft in air commerce by 

prescribing regulations and minimum 

standards for other practices, methods, 

and procedures necessary for safety in 

air commerce and national security. 

III. Background and History 

Pearson Field is located on the north 

bank of the Columbia River in 

Vancouver, Washington, approximately 

three nautical miles west of Portland 

International Airport, Portland, Oregon. 

Pearson Field is part of the Fort 

Vancouver National Historic Site, and is 

listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places. It is one of the oldest 

airports in the United States, and the 

longest continually operating airport 

west of the Mississippi. Pearson Field 

does not have an air traffic control 

tower. 

Portland International Airport is 

located 10 miles northeast of downtown 

Portland and has over 300,000 annual 

operations, primarily scheduled air 

carriers conducting operations under 

Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 121. It serves 

northern Oregon and southwest 

Washington with service to 120 cities 

worldwide. Due to the continued 

growth of Portland International Airport 

and the close proximity of Pearson 

Field, the FAA has identified safety 

issues. 

The airspace area surrounding 

Pearson Field is excluded from the 

Portland International Airport Class C 

airspace area and is commonly referred 

to as the Pearson cutout. The runway 08 

threshold at Pearson Field is directly 

below the instrument landing system 

(ILS) final approach course to Portland 

International Airport’s runway 10L. 

Additionally, runway 10L was 

expanded to accommodate heavy 

aircraft and Boeing 757s. These 

operations increase the risk of wake 

turbulence events between Portland 

International Airport arrivals to runway 

10L or departures from runway 28L/28R 

and aircraft operating at Pearson Field. 

The Airport/Facility Directory (A/FD) 

lists the traffic pattern altitude at 

Pearson Field as 1029 feet mean sea 

level (MSL) or 1000 feet above ground 

level (AGL). The A/FD also instructs 

aircraft operating over the runway 

centerline or extended runway 

centerline at Pearson Field to ‘‘maintain 

at or below 700 feet MSL due to traffic 

and wake turbulence from overflying 

aircraft to/from Portland International 

Airport Runway 10L/28R.’’ This is 

because aircraft established on the 

Portland International Airport ILS final 

approach course to runway 10L pass 

directly over Pearson’s runway 08 

threshold at 1091 feet MSL (1062 feet 

AGL). The close proximity of the traffic 

pattern and the approach course create 

converging flight paths between aircraft 

on approach to Portland International 

Airport’s runway 10L/10R and aircraft 

operating at Pearson Field. 

These converging flight paths and the 

lack of vertical separation create 

potential safety concerns for aircraft 

operating at both Pearson Field and 

Portland International Airport, 

including risk of mid-air collision and 

wake turbulence events. Currently, there 

is no requirement for pilots to establish 

communications with air traffic control 

to receive traffic advisories. In 

particular, when Portland International 

Airport is operating on an east traffic 

flow and weather permits aircraft to 

operate under visual flight rules (VFR) 

at Pearson Field the occurrence of traffic 

collision avoidance system (TCAS) 

resolution advisories (RA) increases. 

To mitigate the identified risk, FAA’s 

Portland Approach Control took 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 62803 

measures to increase safety, which 

included training controllers regarding 

flight paths into and out of Pearson 

Field, and refresher training regarding 

RAs, safety alerts and wake turbulence. 

Portland Air Traffic Control Tower 

established the ‘‘Pearson Advisory’’ 

position to provide traffic advisories to 

aircraft operating at Pearson Field. 

Additionally, recommended pilot 

communications and procedures were 

placed in the A/FD, which are voluntary 

but not required. While these 

mitigations have increased safety and 

pilot awareness, 20 TCAS RAs were 

reported and logged by air traffic control 

during calendar year 2014, and 18 TCAS 

RAs were reported and logged during 

calendar year 2015, reflecting an 

ongoing safety concern. 

IV. The Final Rule 

a. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

To address the safety concerns 

between traffic operating at Pearson 

Field and Portland International 

Airport, the FAA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking to establish a 

SFRA at Pearson Field by adding new 

subpart N to part 93, where special air 

traffic rules are codified. 80 FR 60310 

(October 6, 2015). The proposed rule 

provided a description of the airspace 

area (proposed § 93.162), 

communication requirements in the 

SFRA for both inbound and outbound 

flights (proposed § 93.163(a)), and 

procedural requirements necessary to 

reduce the risks associated with the 

operation (proposed § 93.163(c)). 

That NPRM proposed to make the 

following voluntary practices in the 

A/FD and air traffic procedures 

applicable in the Pearson Field SFRA 

and mandatory for all pilots unless 

otherwise authorized by Air Traffic 

Control (ATC): 

• Pilots must establish two-way radio 

communications with Pearson Advisory 

on the common traffic advisory 

frequency for the purpose of receiving 

air traffic advisories prior to entering the 

SFRA or taxiing onto the runway for 

departure. Additionally, pilots must 

continuously monitor the frequency at 

all times while operating within the 

designated airspace. 

• When operating over the extended 

centerline of Pearson Field Runway 8/ 

26, pilots must maintain an altitude at 

or below 700 feet MSL. 

• Pilots must obtain the Pearson Field 

weather prior to establishing two-way 

communications with Pearson 

Advisory. 

• Pilots must remain outside Portland 

Class C Airspace. 

• Pilots must make a right-hand 

traffic pattern when operating to/from 

Pearson Field Runway 26. 

• Pilots may operate in the area 

without establishing two-way radio 

communication, in the event of radio 

failure, provided that weather 

conditions at Pearson Field are at or 

above basic VFR weather minimums. 

B. Comments Received 

The FAA received sixteen comments 

to the NPRM: Nine from individuals 

(one individual submitted two 

comments, and another individual 

submitted three comments); and four 

comments from organizations: The Port 

of Portland, Washington Airport 

Management Association, the Pearson 

Field Airport Manager, and the Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association. Four of 

the nine individuals who commented to 

the notice of proposed rulemaking had 

previously participated in Safety Risk 

Management Panels related to Pearson 

Field. 

One individual commenter supported 

the NPRM without change. Seven 

individuals and the four organizations 

expressed general support for the 

rulemaking action. All of the comments 

supporting the NPRM discussed 

concerns regarding the proposed rule 

and recommended changes to more 

closely align the rule with current safety 

risk management procedures. One 

individual commenter opposed the 

NPRM. A discussion of the comments 

received and FAA’s responses follows. 

The 2012 safety risk management 

panel and the proposed rule: The Port 

of Portland, Washington Airport 

Management Association, Pearson Field 

Airport Manager, Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association, and six individual 

commenters—four of whom had 

participated in previous Safety Risk 

Management Panels—supported 

replacing the Class D airspace at 

Pearson Field with Class E airspace 

accompanied by a special flight rule in 

part 93, provided that the final rule and 

charting included all procedural 

elements described in Safety Risk 

Management Document (SRMD) SRMD– 

PDX–VUO–SI–2012–2991, Appendices 

J, K, and L and Letter to Airmen LTA– 

PDX–01. Commenters asserted that 

these procedures, developed by the FAA 

and users as part of the 2012 Safety Risk 

Management Panel, have been shown to 

be safe and efficient for commercial and 

recreational pilots at both Pearson Field 

and Portland International Airport. 

Commenters also argued that the 

proposed regulatory text has lost the 

intent of the Safety Risk Management 

Panel by removing certain provisions. 

Commenters believed that the proposed 

rule should include the specific 

language recommended within the 

Safety Risk Management Document. 

Commenters asserted that changes in 

the proposed regulatory text negate the 

risk management strategies the Panel 

approved in the SRMD and introduce 

new risk into the system in violation of 

the FAA’s own process. Commenters 

also believed the intent of the rule is to 

codify and replace LTA–PDX–01. The 

Pearson Field Airport manager, AOPA, 

and two individuals provided specific 

recommendations to better align the 

SFRA with the current SRMD. 

The purpose of this rulemaking is not 

to replace or codify the implemented 

mitigations discussed in SRMD–PDX– 

VUO–SI–2012–2991, including the 

procedural recommendations and 

provisions in Appendices J, K, and L. 

The FAA points out that initiation of a 

rule to establish a special flight rules 

area was not discussed or recommended 

in SRMD–PDX–VUO–SI–2012–2991. 

Two commenters specifically 

requested that SRMD–PDX–VUO–SI– 

2012–2991 be referenced in the final 

rule, both in the preamble and the 

regulatory text. This is not appropriate. 

The safety mitigations as discussed in 

the SRMD were not regulatory and were 

implemented using appropriate means. 

Specifically, the content of Appendix J 

was placed as a special notice in the 

A/FD, the content of Appendix K was 

published in a Letter to Airman, and the 

content of Appendix L is reflected on 

the Seattle Sectional Aeronautical Chart. 

This rulemaking did not propose to 

amend, eliminate, or address any of the 

implemented mitigations resulting from 

SRMD–PDX–VUO–SI–2012–2991. 

This rulemaking codifies the 

communications requirement, altitude 

limitation over the runway and runway 

centerline, and certain air traffic control 

(ATC) instructions that were listed in 

SRMD–PDX–VUO–SI–2012–2991 as 

existing controls already in place at the 

time of the panel’s analysis but they 

were only recommendations. With this 

rulemaking, the FAA formalizes aspects 

of those existing controls. 

Best practices for compliance, 

including procedural recommendations, 

and supplementary information are not 

appropriate to codify in the regulation 

but are appropriate for other FAA 

publications, such as the special notice 

placed in the A/FD. The FAA does not 

find that this rule is contradictory to, or 

would prevent a pilot from complying 

with, the procedural recommendations 

contained in other FAA publications for 

operations at Pearson Field Airport. 

The safety mitigations currently in 

place are only strengthened by this rule. 

Pilots must comply with the special 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
62804 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

flight rules and should continue to 

comply with all recommended 

procedures when operating to and from 

Pearson Field. This rulemaking does not 

replace or amend that guidance. 

Communication requirement: An 

individual believed that the proposal 

reduced (by omission) the inbound 

distance from Pearson Field that pilots 

are required to establish contact with 

Pearson Advisory from 5 miles to 

approximately 1.5 miles. The 

commenter asserted that this will result 

in increased traffic congestion over a 

populated area between 1,000 and 1,100 

MSL in a small area northwest of 

Pearson Field and south of Vancouver 

Lake (thus increasing traffic conflict 

hazards and increasing noise over 

neighborhoods). 

The commenters incorrectly 

understood the NPRM to state that a 

pilot should make his or her initial 

radio call when entering the traffic 

pattern. Rather, the proposal was to 

establish a mandatory requirement for a 

pilot to establish two-way radio 

communications with Pearson Advisory 

on the common traffic advisory 

frequency prior to entering the SFRA or 

taxiing onto the runway for departure. 

Additionally, pilots would have to 

continuously monitor the frequency at 

all times while operating within the 

designated airspace. 

At Pearson Field, local procedures 

listed in the A/FD include a 

recommendation that arriving pilots 

contact Pearson Advisory at least 5 

miles from the field to announce their 

position and intentions. Pilots should 

comply with all recommended 

procedures when operating to and from 

the airport; however, this rule makes it 

mandatory for a pilot to establish twoway radio communications prior to 

entering the SFRA. Codifying the 5 mile 

communication requirement would 

provide less flexibility to adjust local 

procedures as necessary. 

Altitude limitation over the runway 

centerline: One individual pointed out 

that the rule language only limits the 

operating altitude over the runway 

centerline and not the over runway 

itself. The commenter believed this 

would allow an aircraft, over the 

runway, to climb to a potentially unsafe 

altitude. The FAA agrees with the 

commenter that this could create a 

potentially unsafe situation. 

If a departing aircraft, or an aircraft 

completing a go-around, were to start a 

crosswind prior to reaching the runway 

end, it would be possible for that pilot 

to climb to an altitude greater than 700 

feet above mean sea level without 

having operated over the extended 

runway centerline. The FAA has revised 

proposed § 93.163(c)(1) to read: ‘‘When 

operating over the runway or extended 

runway centerline of Pearson Field 

Runway 8/26 maintain an altitude at or 

below 700 feet above mean sea level.’’ 

Circling aircraft: One commenter 

believed that the new SFRA will force 

incoming pilots to circle their aircraft at 

low altitudes for longer periods of time 

which could lead to noise complaints, 

wasted fuel, and contribute toward 

making Pearson Field less desirable. 

The commenter also believed that the 

SFRA could lead to a decrease in use of 

Pearson Field, as the rules make it 

harder for maintenance shops and flight 

schools to use Pearson for Touch-andGo flights which bring money to 

Pearson Field. The commenter believed 

that this financial issue should be 

weighed with the option of putting a 

control tower in place. 

In making certain voluntary practices 

mandatory for all pilots, unless 

otherwise authorized by ATC, this rule 

creates no more of a deterrent to pilots 

than currently exists under the 

voluntary procedures. Furthermore, 

establishment of the SFRA, along with 

charting of the area, will create greater 

awareness of the unique operating 

environment at Pearson Field and 

reduce the risk of a pilot operating to or 

from the airport without knowledge of 

the local procedures. 

Existing procedures: The commenter 

who opposed the proposed rule 

believed that the A/FD entry for Pearson 

already has mandatory procedures 

concerning conflict avoidance, and a 

SFRA would be burdensome upon 

general aviation pilots in the area, and 

would act as a deterrent for transient 

pilots, who may choose another airport 

due to lack of SFRA knowledge. The 

commenter thus believed that the SFRA 

would harm the economic impact of this 

airport. The FAA disagrees. The 

intended effect of this action is to 

mitigate the identified risk by 

establishing requirements necessary 

when operating within an established 

area at Pearson Field, and to increase 

overall system efficiency and safety; the 

expected outcome will have only a 

minimal impact. 

FAA guidance such as the procedures 

contained in the A/FD are not 

mandatory and do not constitute a 

regulation. This guidance is voluntary 

and is issued to outline methods of best 

practice for compliance to the 

regulations. 

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

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 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 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 final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows. The FAA 

received no comments on the initial 

regulatory evaluation minimal cost 

determination. The FAA makes the 

same determination herein and provides 

the logic below. 

Due to the continued growth of 

Portland International Airport and the 

close proximity of Pearson Field, safety 

issues have been identified. To address 

the safety concerns between traffic 

operating at Pearson Field and Portland 

International Airport, the FAA is 

establishing a SFRA at Pearson Field in 

part 93. The final rule provides a 

description of the area, communication 

requirements for both inbound and 

outbound flights, and procedural 

requirements necessary to reduce the 

risks associated with the operation. 

Currently, pilots voluntarily comply 

with procedures in the airport/facility 

directory, to establish two-way radio 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 62805 

communications with Pearson 

Advisory, and to maintain at or below 

700 feet above mean sea level when 

operating over the extended centerline 

of Pearson Field Runway 8/26. 

Additionally, air traffic control instructs 

pilots on Pearson advisory to obtain the 

Pearson Field weather, and to remain 

outside Portland Class C Airspace. As a 

result of being required to remain 

outside of Portland’s Class C Airspace, 

pilots must make a non-standard right 

traffic pattern if landing on runway 26 

at Pearson Field. A non-standard right 

traffic pattern is different, required for 

safety, but imposes only minimal cost. 

The other requirements of establishing 

two-way communication, obtaining the 

weather report, maintaining an altitude 

at or below 700 feet when operating 

over the runway, and remaining outside 

of Portland Class C Airspace are all 

minimal cost. The safety concern is real. 

Twenty TCAS resolution advisories 

(RAs) were reported and logged by air 

traffic control during calendar year 

2014, and 18 TCAS RAs were reported 

and logged during calendar year 2015, 

reflecting an ongoing safety concern. By 

making the voluntary compliance 

mandatory, the FAA expects a decrease 

in the occurrence of, and will avoid an 

increase in, RAs. For the reasons 

discussed above, the cost of the rule will 

be minimal. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined 

that this 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. 

B. 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 

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 that this final rule 

does not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities for the following reasons. For 

the initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

the FAA explained while the rule would 

affect a substantial number of small 

entities, the costs would be minimal. 

We received no comments on that 

analysis. With this rule, the procedures 

and voluntary practices already in place 

will become mandatory. The intended 

effect of this action is to mitigate the 

identified risk by establishing 

requirements necessary when operating 

within an established area at Pearson 

Field, and to increase overall system 

efficiency and safety. The expected 

outcome will have only a minimal 

economic impact on small entities 

affected by this rulemaking action. 

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. 

C. 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 final rule and 

determined that the rule would protect 

safety and is not considered an 

unnecessary obstacle to foreign 

commerce. 

D. 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 $155 

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. 

E. 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. The 

FAA has determined that there is no 

new requirement for information 

collection associated with this final 

rule. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to ICAO Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no corresponding 

standards with these regulations. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 5–6.6f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

VI. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this rule under 

the principles and criteria of Executive 

Order 13132, Federalism. The agency 

has determined that this action will not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, or the relationship between the 

Federal Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2
62806 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

will not have Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it will not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and will not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

(77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes 

international regulatory cooperation to 

meet shared challenges involving 

health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action will have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

VII. Additional Information 

A. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

• Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

• Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

• Accessing the Government 

Publishing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.fdsys.gov. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9677. Commenters 

must identify the docket, amendment, 

or notice number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this rule, including 

economic analyses and technical 

reports, may be accessed from the 

Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced above. 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov and 

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number for this 

action. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the FAA’s dockets 

by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA) requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93 

Air traffic control, Airports, 

Navigation (air). 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 93—SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC 

RULES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 93 is 

added to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 

40106, 40109, 40113, 44502, 44514, 44701, 

44715, 44719, 46301. 

■ 2. Add subpart N to part 93 to read as 

follows: 

Subpart N—Pearson Field (Vancouver, WA) 

Airport Traffic Rule 

Sec. 

93.161 Applicability. 

93.162 Description of area. 

93.163 Aircraft operations. 

Subpart N—Pearson Field (Vancouver, 

WA) Airport Traffic Rule 

§ 93.161 Applicability. 

This subpart prescribes special air 

traffic rules for aircraft conducting VFR 

operations in the vicinity of the Pearson 

Field Airport in Vancouver, 

Washington. 

§ 93.162 Description of area. 

The Pearson Field Airport Special 

Flight Rules Area is designated as that 

airspace extending upward from the 

surface to but not including 1,100 feet 

MSL in an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the point where the 019° 

bearing from Pearson Field intersects 

the 5-mile arc from Portland 

International Airport extending 

southeast to a point 11⁄2 miles east of 

Pearson Field on the extended 

centerline of Runway 8/26, thence south 

to the north shore of the Columbia 

River, thence west via the north shore 

of the Columbia River to the 5-mile arc 

from Portland International Airport, 

thence clockwise via the 5-mile arc to 

point of beginning. 

§ 93.163 Aircraft operations. 

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by 

ATC, no person may operate an aircraft 

within the airspace described in 

§ 93.162, or taxi onto the runway at 

Pearson Field, unless– 

(1) That person establishes two-way 

radio communications with Pearson 

Advisory on the common traffic 

advisory frequency for the purpose of 

receiving air traffic advisories and 

continues to monitor the frequency at 

all times while operating within the 

specified airspace. 

(2) That person has obtained the 

Pearson Field weather prior to 

establishing two-way communications 

with Pearson Advisory. 

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraph (a) of this section, if two-way 

radio communications failure occurs in 

flight, a person may operate an aircraft 

within the airspace described in 

§ 93.162, and land, if weather 

conditions are at or above basic VFR 

weather minimums. If two-way radio 

communications failure occurs while in 

flight under IFR, the pilot must comply 

with § 91.185. 

(c) Unless otherwise authorized by 

ATC, persons operating an aircraft 

within the airspace described in 

§ 93.162 must— 

(1) When operating over the runway 

or extended runway centerline of 

Pearson Field Runway 8/26 maintain an 

altitude at or below 700 feet above mean 

sea level. 

(2) Remain outside Portland Class C 

Airspace. 

(3) Make a right traffic pattern when 

operating to/from Pearson Field Runway 

26. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under the 

authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40103, and 

44701(a)(5) on August 26, 2016. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–21377 Filed 9–9–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2