Document ID: FAA-2016-5391-0001
Agency: faa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Removal of Class A Airspace Area Exclusion
Posted Date: 2016-03-31T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18471-18473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07397]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5391; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWA-3]
RIN 2120-AA66

Removal of Class A Airspace Area Exclusion

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action removes a provision in part 71 that excludes from 
Class A airspace, that portion of U.S. domestic airspace that overlies 
the Santa Barbara and Farallon Islands and the airspace south of 
latitude 25[deg]04'00'' North (overlying and in the vicinity of the 
Florida Keys). The effect of this provision is that the airspace from 
18,000 feet MSL up to and including Flight Level (FL) 600 (within the 
excluded areas) is classified as Class G (uncontrolled) airspace which 
limits the flexibility for air traffic control operations.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC March 31, 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: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, 
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    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 removes from 14 CFR 71.33(a) a provision that excludes 
the airspace in the vicinity of the Santa Barbara and Farallon Islands 
and the Florida Keys from U.S. Class A airspace in order to maintain 
the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

Background

Positive Control Areas

    In 1958, the Civil Aeronautics Board delegated to the Administrator 
the authority to designate positive control route segments in any 
portion of the airspace between 17,000 to 35,000 feet, within which 
certain operational requirements would be applicable. That same year 
the Administrator designated in 14 CFR part 601 specific airways as 
positive control airspace, noting that ``with experience and the 
acquisition of more and better equipment, the positive control area 
will undoubtedly, from time to time, be expanded.'' 23 FR 3917 (June 5, 
1958).
    In 1962, the FAA redesignated part 601 as part 71. 27 FR 10353 
(Oct. 24, 1962). Section 71.15 addressed positive control areas, and 
Sec.  71.193 (published separately) contained those areas designated as 
positive control areas. Over several years, the airspace designated as 
positive control areas continued to expand as anticipated with the 
FAA's increased capability to control air traffic. In 1965, the FAA 
established an expansive area of positive control airspace designated 
the ``continental positive control area.'' 30 FR 1836 (February 10, 
1965). The FAA excluded from that positive control area the airspace 
over Santa Barbara Island and the Farallon Islands, and the airspace 
south of the latitude 25[deg]04'00'' North.

Class A Airspace

    In 1991, the FAA issued a final rule reclassifying ``positive 
control areas'' as Class A airspace.\1\ 56 FR 65638, 65639 (Dec. 17, 
1991).\2\ In that final rule, new Sec.  71.33 defined Class A airspace 
and continued to exclude from Class A airspace that airspace over Santa 
Barbara Island, the Farallon Islands, and south of latitude 
25[deg]04'00'' North that was originally established in 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The reclassification adopted the International Civil 
Aviation Organization (ICAO) letter classifications. (56 FR 65638; 
December 17, 1991).
    \2\ The effective date for the reclassification was September 
16, 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unless otherwise specified, Class A airspace in the United States 
consists of that airspace from 18,000 feet MSL up to and including 
flight level (FL) 600. Unless otherwise authorized, all persons must 
operate their aircraft under instrument flight rules in airspace 
designated as Class A and comply with the applicable requirements of 14 
CFR part 91. ``Class A airspace'' includes, in part, ``that airspace 
overlying the waters within 12 nautical miles of the coast of the 48 
contiguous States, from 18,000 feet MSL to and including FL600 
excluding the states of Alaska and Hawaii, Santa Barbara Island, 
Farallon Island, and the airspace south of latitude 25[deg]04'00'' 
North.''
    The airspace excluded from Class A airspace over the Santa Barbara 
and Farallon Islands and the airspace south of 25[deg]04'00'' North 
renders those portions of U.S. domestic airspace (i.e., within 12 
nautical miles (NM) of the baseline of the United States) as Class G 
(uncontrolled) airspace, which limits the provision of air traffic 
control services in those areas.
    As these excluded areas lie within the 12 NM territorial limits of 
the United States, the airspace would ordinarily be classified as Class 
A airspace. When the exclusions were implemented decades ago, air 
traffic control services in the

[[Page 18472]]

high altitude structure were limited due to lack of radar and radio 
communications coverage in some areas as well as less demand for those 
services. This was particularly true in the airspace near the Florida 
Keys.

Impact of the Exclusion

    The lack of Class A airspace inside portions of United States 
domestic airspace impacts the provision of air traffic control 
services. Although transit of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) traffic 
through uncontrolled airspace is permitted when requested by the pilot, 
Air Traffic Control (ATC) authority within uncontrolled airspace is 
limited.
    An example of the impacts is the Florida Keys area (that airspace 
south of latitude 25[deg]04'00'' North) which is under the jurisdiction 
of the Miami Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). There are four 
Air Traffic Service routes that transit the airspace in question. Miami 
ARTCC cannot use the routes or vector aircraft through the area unless 
requested by the pilot. This obligates air traffic controllers to 
vector aircraft around the airspace. Complicating their task is the 
location of military warning area airspace just to the south of the 
Florida Keys area. When the warning areas are activated, flights have 
to be rerouted hundreds of miles around the airspace. With an average 
of 317 flights per day transiting this airspace, ATC must employ 
Traffic Management Initiatives (TMI) to manage the volume of traffic. 
These TMIs increase delays and add to users' operating costs. The Miami 
ARTCC area has experienced dramatic growth in international air traffic 
to and through the area which is expected to continue into the future.
    Another example is the Farallon Islands area which is under the 
jurisdiction of the Oakland ARTCC. This area falls within a corridor of 
arrivals and departures for international flights to San Francisco, 
Oakland, and San Jose, which have increased exponentially since the 
inception of the original exclusion. To circumvent this area of 
uncontrolled airspace would result in a significant impact both to the 
Oakland ARTCC and NAS users. Returning the Farallon Islands area to 
controlled airspace would reduce the workload for air traffic 
controllers and flight crews, which enhances safety and aids in the 
management of controlled airspace within the National Airspace System 
(NAS). In addition NAS users will gain a measurable increase in 
efficiency with the ability to create flight plans utilizing this area 
as controlled airspace.
    The Santa Barbara Island exclusion encompasses two navigation fixes 
and overlaps the boundary of Control Area 1318H which connects to an 
inbound oceanic route. The close proximity of this exclusion to the Los 
Angeles terminal area affects Los Angeles ARTCC operations and poses 
similar impacts to the NAS as described above.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 
part 71 by amending section 71.33(a) in 14 CFR part 71 to remove the 
words ``. . . Santa Barbara Island, Farallon Island and the airspace 
south of latitude 25[deg]04'00'' North.'' Subparagraphs (b) and (c) in 
Sec.  71.33 remain unchanged by this action.
    The FAA is taking this action because the current exclusion 
severely limits the FAA's ability to provide ATC services in the 
affected areas of U.S. domestic airspace. The FAA believes that the 
current Class A airspace exclusion is no longer warranted considering 
the expansion of radar and radio communications coverage, greater air 
traffic control system capabilities and increased demand for ATC 
services in the affected areas since the exclusion was originally 
promulgated. The current exclusion creates an impediment to providing 
ATC services and leads to air traffic delays, rerouting of air traffic, 
increased controller workload and reduced efficiency of the National 
Airspace System.

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.) 
authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures when 
the agency for ``good cause'' finds that those procedures are 
``impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Under 
this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final 
rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking. Based on the 
information presented above, the FAA has determined that prompt 
remedial action is necessary to enhance safety and avoid significant 
adverse impact on the operation of the NAS. Without immediate action, 
the traveling public will experience substantial flight delays. 
Therefore, the FAA finds that it is impractical and contrary to the 
public interest to delay action in order to follow the normal notice 
and comment procedures.

Good Cause for Early Effective Date

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), publication of a substantive rule shall be 
made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except as 
otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published 
with the rule. The FAA is issuing this rule with an effective date of 
March 31, 2016, which is less than 30 days after publication. The FAA 
finds good cause because this rule will enhance safety and prevent 
significant adverse impact on the operation of the NAS.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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/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 rule. Without this rule 
there will be: An impediment to providing ATC service; traffic will be 
rerouted; increasing air traffic delays; increase controller workload; 
resulting in reduced efficiency of the National Airspace System. As 
current traffic patterns will not change unless this rule is not 
issued, the economic impact of this rule will be minimal cost.

[[Page 18473]]

    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.

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-for-profit 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 rule is necessary to avoid rerouting current air traffic. The 
rerouting will increase miles flown, increasing fuel and crew cost. 
While the rule will likely impact a substantial number of small 
entities, it will have a minimal economic impact.
    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 rule and determined that the rule 
will have the same impact on international and domestic flights and is 
a safety rule thus is consistent with the Trade Agreements Act.

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 rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the 
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Environmental Review

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environment Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.5a and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

How To Obtain Additional Information

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by 
using the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by 
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

0
2. Amend Sec.  71.33 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  71.33  Class A airspace areas.

    (a) That airspace of the United States, including that airspace 
overlying the waters within 12 nautical miles of the coast of the 48 
contiguous States, from 18,000 feet MSL to and including FL600 
excluding the states of Alaska and Hawaii.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 29, 2016.
Leslie M. Swann,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2016-07397 Filed 3-29-16; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P