Overview
Title
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Lebanon, NH
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The FAA is updating a map description for a flying area near Lebanon, New Hampshire, by using new pinpoint numbers because an old reference point is no longer there. This change is like updating a map without changing the driving routes, and it doesn’t affect where planes can fly or the rules they follow.
Summary AI
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued a direct final rule changing how a reference point for airspace near Lebanon Municipal Airport, New Hampshire, is described. Due to the decommissioning of the BURGR Outer Marker, the FAA has replaced this reference with specific geographical coordinates in their regulations to keep the airspace's dimensions the same. This rule does not alter the boundaries or the operating requirements of the airspace. The FAA states that public comments were not necessary as the change is technical, without significant effects on the public or industry.
Abstract
This action changes the referenced BURGR Outer Marker (OM) in the airspace legal description to Point in Space Coordinates due to the decommissioning of the BURGR OM. This action does not change the airspace boundaries or operating requirements.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The document discussed is a direct final rule issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), part of the U.S. Department of Transportation. It concerns a technical change in the definition of certain airspace in the vicinity of Lebanon Municipal Airport, New Hampshire. Specifically, the rule updates the legal description by replacing a decommissioned navigation point, the BURGR Outer Marker, with specific geographical coordinates known as "Point in Space Coordinates." This adjustment ensures that the airspace's boundaries and its operating requirements remain unchanged, according to the FAA. The rule is slated to take effect in August 2025 and was deemed not subject to public comment due to its technical nature.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several aspects of the document could present challenges to its comprehension by those not familiar with aviation regulations:
Technical Jargon and References: The use of specialized terms such as "BURGR OM" and "Class E4 airspace," along with references to legal and technical documents, may be confusing for readers without a background in aviation.
Legal Language Complexity: The section explaining the bypassing of the notice and comment period contains advanced legal phrasing. This might hinder understanding for those unversed in administrative law.
Clarification on Public Comments: The explanation as to why public comments were unnecessary might benefit from greater clarity to ensure transparency, given that public input is typically part of regulatory changes.
Environmental Review: Phrases like "categorical exclusion" and "extraordinary circumstances" in the environmental review are not expanded upon, which could leave readers wondering about the environmental implications of this amendment.
Use of Specific Coordinates: While important for aviation purposes, precise geographic coordinates are given without context that might explain their importance to a broader audience.
Impact on the Public and Specific Stakeholders
Broadly, the document's impacts on the general public are minimal, as the rule does not alter the operational norms or scope of the airspace area. For most people, this change is behind-the-scenes and relates to internal FAA regulatory updates to maintain safety and conformity following the decommissioning of an outdated navigation aid.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders:
Aviation Professionals: For pilots and air traffic controllers, accurate and updated airspace information is crucial. This coordination ensures continued clarity in air operations around Lebanon Municipal Airport, supporting safe and efficient air travel.
Local Communities: Residents near the Lebanon Municipal Airport should experience no noticeable changes in flight patterns or air traffic operations due to this regulatory update.
Overall, the document represents a routine maintenance of technical regulations within the FAA's jurisdiction, underscoring the agency's ongoing efforts to ensure precise airspace management while minimizing any potential disruption to industry and public activities.
Issues
• The document uses technical jargon such as 'BURGR OM', 'Point in Space Coordinates', and 'Class E4 airspace' without providing explanations for readers unfamiliar with aviation terminology.
• The document references multiple legal and technical documents (e.g., FAA Order JO 7400.11J, CFR 71.1) without a detailed explanation, which may be difficult for a layperson to understand.
• The section 'Good Cause for Bypassing Notice and Comment' uses complex legal language that might not be easily comprehensible to the general public.
• The rationale for deeming public comment unnecessary might need more clarification for transparency, as it's a procedural step typically expected in rule changes.
• The environmental review section mentions 'categorical exclusion' and 'extraordinary circumstances' without elaborating on what these terms imply for the airspace amendment.
• Specific coordinates are mentioned (e.g., lat. 43°43′57″ N, long. 72°20′00″ W), but the purpose or significance of these exact points may not be clear to all readers.