81 FR 18471 - Removal of Class A Airspace Area Exclusion

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 62 (March 31, 2016)

Page Range		18471-18473
FR Document		2016-07397

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.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 62 (Thursday, March 31, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18471-18473]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[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.thefederalregister.org/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

Document Created: 2016-03-31 00:55:43
Document Modified: 2016-03-31 00:55:43

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Rules and Regulations
Action		Final rule.
Dates		Effective date 0901 UTC March 31, 2016.
Contact		Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267- 8783.
FR Citation		81 FR 18471
RIN Number		2120-AA66
CFR Associated		Airspace; Incorporation by Reference and Navigation (air)

81 FR 18471 - Removal of Class A Airspace Area Exclusion

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFederal Aviation Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 62 (March 31, 2016)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration