Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 101 / Tuesday, May 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30019 

Sioux Falls, SD 

(FSD) 

VORTAC (Lat. 43°38′58′′ N., long. 96°46′52′′ W.) 

Aberdeen, SD 

(ABR) 

VOR/DME (Lat. 45°25′02′′ N., long. 98°22′07′′ W.) 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19, 

2014. 

Gary A. Norek, 

Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations 

Group. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11999 Filed 5–23–14; 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 

Modification of the Philadelphia, PA, 

Class B Airspace Area 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action amends the 

description of Area G of the 

Philadelphia Class B airspace area to 

correct a design error that resulted in 

the Class B airspace boundary being 

published 2.1 nautical miles (NM) larger 

on the southeast side of the area than 

intended. There are no other changes to 

the Philadelphia Class B airspace area. 

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, July 24, 

2014. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference action under 1 CFR part 51, 

subject to the annual revision of FAA 

Order 7400.9 and publication of 

conforming amendments. 

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: 

History 

The FAA published in the Federal 

Register a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Area G of 

the Philadelphia, PA, Class B airspace 

area (78 FR 76779, December 19, 2013). 

Interested parties were invited to 

participate in this rulemaking effort by 

submitting written comments on the 

proposal. No comments were received. 

The Rule 

The FAA is amending Title 14 Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 

to correct two points used to define the 

boundaries of Area G in the description 

of the Philadelphia Class B airspace 

area. Specifically, the point that reads 

‘‘. . .the intersection of the PHL 20-mile 

radius and the 136° bearing from 

PHL. . .’’ is changed to read ‘‘. . .the 

intersection of the 17.9-mile radius and 

the 138° bearing from PHL. . . .’’ This 

point appears in two places in the Area 

G description. In addition, the point that 

reads ‘‘. . .the intersection of the PHL 

20-mile radius and the 120° bearing 

from PHL. . .’’ is changed to read 

‘‘. . .the intersection of the 20-mile 

radius and the 118° bearing from PHL. 

. . .’’ This point appears once in the 

Area G description. This change results 

in a small reduction in the lateral 

dimensions of Class B airspace, 

southeast of Philadelphia International 

Airport, near the Cross Keys Airport, NJ 

(17N). This action does not modify any 

other parts of the Philadelphia Class B 

airspace area. 

Class B airspace areas are published 

in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order 

7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and 

effective September 15, 2013, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class B airspace area listed in 

this document will be published 

subsequently in the Order. 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. Since this is a routine 

matter that only affects air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of the airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it makes 

editorial corrections to an existing Class 

B airspace description to maintain 

accuracy. 

Regulatory Evaluation Summary 

Changes to federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Public Law 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

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

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a final rule does not warrant a full 

evaluation, this order permits that a 

statement to that effect and the basis for 

it to be included in the preamble if a full 

regulatory evaluation of the cost and 

benefits is not prepared. Such a 

determination has been made for this 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
30020 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 101 / Tuesday, May 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Action 

This final rule action modifies the 

Philadelphia, PA, Class B airspace area 

by reducing the size of Area G in the 

description of the Philadelphia Class B 

airspace area. 

Benefits of the Final Rule Action 

Reducing the size of the Class B 

airspace area increases the airspace 

available to aircraft that do not need to 

use Class B airspace. 

Costs of the Action 

The final rule action has no costs. 

Outcome of the Final Rule 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. There the FAA has determined 

that this final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action ‘‘as defined in Section 

3(f) of Executive 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

The FAA received no comments on 

the regulatory evaluation for the NPRM. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

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

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objective of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the business, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, 

the RFA requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration. The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-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. 

This final rule is a routine matter that 

only affects air traffic procedures and air 

navigation and has no costs. 

The FAA received no comments on 

the Initial Regulatory Determination, 

accepts the determination of no 

significant economic impact. Therefore, 

as provided in section 605(b), the head 

of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking 

will not result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

The FAA received no comments on 

the proposed determination of no 

impact. Therefore, the FAA has 

determined that this final rule will have 

no impact on international trade 

because it reduces Class B airspace in 

the Philadelphia area. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$151.0 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

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 action is not 

expected to cause any potentially 

significant environmental impacts, and 

no extraordinary circumstances exist 

that warrant preparation of an 

environmental assessment. 

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 14 CFR 

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 FAA Order 7400.9X, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, signed 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 101 / Tuesday, May 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30021 

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

Cross Keys Airport, NJ 

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

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 May 19, 

2014. 

Gary A. Norek, 

Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations 

Group. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11995 Filed 5–23–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Parts 772 and 774 

[Docket No. 131121983–4407–01] 

RIN 0694–AG02 

Revisions to the Export Administration 

Regulations Based on the 2013 Missile 

Technology Control Regime Plenary 

Agreements 

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and 

Security (BIS) is amending the Export 

Administration Regulations (EAR) to 

reflect changes to the Missile 

Technology Control Regime (MTCR) 

Annex that were agreed to by MTCR 

member countries at the October 2013 

Plenary in Rome, Italy, and at the 2013 

Technical Experts Meeting in Bonn, 

Germany. This final rule revises eight 

Export Control Classification Numbers 

(ECCNs), adds one new ECCN and lastly 

revises two defined terms (the definition 

of ‘‘payload’’ and ‘‘repeatability’’) to 

implement the changes that were agreed 

to at the meetings. 

DATES: This rule is effective: May 27, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon Bragonje, Nuclear and Missile 

Technology Controls Division, Bureau 

of Industry and Security, Phone: (202) 

482–0434; Email: sharon.bragonje@

bis.doc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The MTCR is an export control 

arrangement among 34 nations, 

including most of the world’s suppliers 

of advanced missiles and missile-related 

equipment, materials, software and 

technology. The regime establishes a 

common list of controlled items (the 

Annex) and a common export control 

policy (the Guidelines) that member 

countries implement in accordance with 

their national export controls. The 

MTCR seeks to limit the risk of 

proliferation of weapons of mass 

destruction by controlling exports of 

goods and technologies that could make 

a contribution to delivery systems (other 

than manned aircraft) for such weapons. 

In 1992, the MTCR’s original focus on 

missiles for nuclear weapons delivery 

was expanded to include the 

proliferation of missiles for the delivery 

of all types of weapons of mass 

destruction (WMD), i.e., nuclear, 

chemical and biological weapons. Such 

proliferation has been identified as a 

threat to international peace and 

security. One way to counter this threat 

is to maintain vigilance over the transfer 

of missile equipment, material, and 

related technologies usable for systems 

capable of delivering WMD. MTCR 

members voluntarily pledge to adopt the 

regime’s export Guidelines and to 

restrict the export of items contained in 

the regime’s Annex. The 

implementation of the regime’s 

Guidelines is effectuated through the 

national export control laws and 

policies of the regime members. 

Amendments to the Export 

Administration Regulations 

This final rule revises the EAR to 

reflect changes to the MTCR Annex 

agreed to at the October 2013 Plenary in 

Rome, Italy, and at the 2013 Technical 

Experts Meeting in Bonn, Germany. 

Corresponding MTCR Annex references 

are provided below for the MTCR 

Annex changes agreed to at the 

meetings. In the explanation below for 

the revisions made in this rule, BIS 

identifies these changes as follows: 

‘‘Rome 2013 Plenary’’ and ‘‘Bonn 2013 

TEM’’ to assist the public in 

understanding the origin of each change 

included in this final rule. 

In section 772.1 (Definitions of Terms 

as Used in the Export Administration 

Regulations) this final rule amends the 

definition of the term ‘‘payload’’ (MTCR 

Annex Change, Definitions: ‘‘Payload,’’ 

Bonn 2013 TEM). The definition of 

‘‘payload’’ is revised by adding the 

phrase ‘‘and separation systems’’ to the 

end of the description for space launch 

vehicles in Technical Note (b.2). This 

control changes the definition of 

‘‘payload’’ for space launch vehicles to 

specifically identify separation systems. 

This is a clarification and will not 

change any scope of control. This 

change is not expected to have any 

impact on the number of license 

applications received by BIS. 

In addition, in section 772.1, this final 

rule amends the definition of the term 

‘‘repeatability’’ (MTCR Annex Change, 

Category II: Item 9.A.3., Rome 2013 

Plenary). This final rule adds the phrase 

‘‘for Inertial Sensor Terminology’’ after 

the phrase ‘‘IEEE Standard’’ to add more 

description regarding the standard being 

referenced. In addition, after the 

standard number 528–2001, this final 

rule adds the phrase ‘‘in the Definitions 

section paragraph 2.214 titled 

repeatability (gyro, accelerometer).’’ 

These changes are not substantive and 

are limited to assisting the public in 

more easily identifying the standards 

being referenced in the ‘‘repeatability’’ 

definition. This change is not expected 

to have any impact on the number of 

license applications received by BIS. 

In addition, this rule amends the 

Commerce Control List (CCL) to reflect 

changes to the MTCR Annex. 

Specifically, the following nine ECCNs 

are affected: 

ECCN 1B102 is amended by revising 

‘‘items’’ paragraph (a) in the List of 

Items Controlled section by correcting a 

typographical error in the phrase ‘‘metal 

power’’ to make it read ‘‘metal powder.’’ 

This final rule also revises paragraph (a) 

by adding the term ‘‘spheroidal’’ to 

clarify that those types of materials are 

also within the scope of this paragraph. 

Lastly, this final rule revises the cross 

reference to the United States Munitions 

List (USML) to make the cross reference 

more specific and to conform to recent 

changes to the manner in which items 

controlled for MT reasons are identified 

on the USML (MTCR Annex Change, 

Category II: Item 4.B.3.d., Bonn 2013 

TEM). This change is a follow-up 

conforming change to the CCL to reflect 

the previous inclusion of the term 

‘‘spheroidal’’ in ECCNs 1C011 and 

1C111 in the 2012 MTCR Plenary 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES