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

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


### 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


### 30021 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 101 / Tuesday, May 27, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

(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