10564 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes * * * * *

T–291 LOUIE, MD to Harrisburg (HAR), PA [New] LOUIE, MD Fix (Lat. 38°36′44″ N., long. 076°18′04″ W.) MORTY, MD WP (Lat. 39°19′51″ N., long. 076°24′41″ W.) Harrisburg, PA VORTAC (Lat. 40°18′08″ N., long. 077°04′10″ W.) (HAR) T–295 LOUIE, MD to Lancaster (LRP), PA [New] LOUIE, MD Fix (Lat. 38°36′44″ N., long. 076°18′04″ W.) MORTY, MD WP (Lat. 39°19′51″ N., long. 076°24′41″ W.) Lancaster, PA (LRP) VORTAC (Lat. 40°07′12″ N., long. 076°17′29″ W.)

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 8, Transportation, Docket Operations, M– comments will be considered before 2013. 30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West taking action on the proposed rule. The Gary A. Norek, Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, proposal contained in this action may Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Washington, DC 20590–0001; telephone: be changed in light of comments Procedures Group. (202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA received. All comments submitted will [FR Doc. 2013–03462 Filed 2–13–13; 8:45 am] Docket No. FAA–2012–1296 and be available for examination in the BILLING CODE 4910–13–P Airspace Docket No. 09–AWA–1 at the public docket both before and after the beginning of your comments. You may closing date for comments. A report also submit comments through the summarizing each substantive public DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. contact with FAA personnel concerned FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: with this rulemaking will be filed in the Federal Aviation Administration Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and ATC docket. Procedures, Office of Airspace Services, Availability of NPRMs 14 CFR Part 71 Federal Aviation Administration, 800 [Docket No. FAA–2012–1296; Airspace Independence Avenue SW., An electronic copy of this document Docket No. 09–AWA–1] Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. RIN 2120–AA66 267–8783. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may review the public docket Proposed Modification of Class B containing the proposal, any comments Comments Invited Airspace; Minneapolis, MN received and any final disposition in Interested parties are invited to person in the Dockets Office (see AGENCY: Federal Aviation participate in this proposed rulemaking ADDRESSES section for address and Administration (FAA), DOT. by submitting such written data, views, phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking or arguments as they may desire. 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, (NPRM). Comments that provide the factual basis except Federal holidays. An informal supporting the views and suggestions docket may also be examined during SUMMARY: This action proposes to presented are particularly helpful in normal business hours at the office of modify the Minneapolis, MN, Class B developing reasoned regulatory the Central Service Center, Operations airspace area to contain large turbine- decisions on the proposal. Comments Support Group, Federal Aviation powered aircraft conducting published are specifically invited on the overall Administration, 2601 Meacham Blvd. instrument procedures at the regulatory, aeronautical, economic, Fort Worth, TX 76137. Minneapolis-St. Paul International environmental, and energy-related Persons interested in being placed on Airport (MSP), MN, within Class B aspects of the proposal. a mailing list for future NPRMs should airspace. The FAA is proposing this Communications should identify both contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, action to ensure containment of aircraft docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA– (202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory being vectored to and conducting 2012–1296 and Airspace Docket No. 09– Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Simultaneous Instrument Landing AWA–1) and be submitted in triplicate Rulemaking Distribution System, which System (SILS) approaches to parallel to the Docket Management Facility (see describes the application procedure. Runways 12L/R and 30L/R, aircraft ADDRESSES section for address and Background being vectored to and conducting phone number). You may also submit approaches to Runway 35, and aircraft comments through the internet at http:// In 1974, the FAA issued a final rule being re-sequenced from approaches to www.regulations.gov. which established the Minneapolis, MN, Runway 35 to approaches to Runway Commenters wishing the FAA to Terminal Control Area (TCA) (38 FR 30L. This action would further support acknowledge receipt of their comments 34991). As a result of the Airspace the FAA’s national airspace redesign on this action must submit with those Reclassification final rule (56 FR 65638), goal of optimizing terminal and en route comments a self-addressed, stamped which became effective in 1993, the airspace areas to enhance safety, postcard on which the following terms ‘‘terminal control area’’ and improving the flow of air traffic, and statement is made: ‘‘Comments to ‘‘airport radar service area’’ were reducing the potential for near midair Docket Nos. FAA–2012–1296 and replaced by ‘‘Class B airspace area,’’ and collision in the terminal area. Airspace Docket No. 09–AWA–1.’’ The ‘‘Class C airspace area,’’ respectively. DATES: Comments must be received on postcard will be date/time stamped and The primary purpose of a Class B or before April 15, 2013. returned to the commenter. airspace area is to reduce the potential ADDRESSES: Send comments on this All communications received on or for midair collisions in the airspace proposal to the U.S. Department of before the specified closing date for surrounding airports with high density

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:13 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 10565

air traffic operations by providing an floor of Class B airspace while Pre-NPRM Public Input area in which all aircraft are subject to descending for sequencing to closely- An Ad Hoc Committee, formed in certain operating rules and equipment spaced, adjacent approaches at MSP. 2010, reviewed the Minneapolis Class B requirements. FAA directives require Since 2006, the fleet mix of aircraft airspace and provided Class B airspace areas be designed to operating at MSP has shifted from recommendations to the FAA about the contain all instrument procedures, and mostly rapidly descending DC–9s and proposed design. The Ad Hoc that air traffic controllers vector aircraft B727s, to A320s, B757s, and other Committee was chaired by the as appropriate to remain within Class B turbojet aircraft with more ‘‘efficient Minnesota Soaring Club representative airspace after entry. wings’’ that require a longer time to with participants representing aviation The Minneapolis Class B airspace area descend. As a result, the distance at interests in the greater Twin Cities area has only been amended once, in 2006, which these slower descending aircraft including representatives of air carrier, since being established to address the must start a descent is located farther significant growth in aircraft operations seaplane, ultralight, parachute, from MSP because the points at which aerobatic, sailplane, experimental and the construction of Runway 17/35 air traffic control (ATC) must ensure the to accommodate the increased aircraft, and general aviation interests. arriving aircraft reach 4,000 feet or 5,000 The Ad Hoc Committee met three times; operations at that time. That feet mean sea level (MSL), in order to amendment action modified the Class B May 15, 2010; June 15, 2010; and July commence the various instrument 13, 2010. airspace to (1) accommodate aircraft approach procedures, has not changed. conducting SILS approaches to parallel In addition, as announced in the This requirement to descend arriving Federal Register of January 5, 2011 (76 Runways 12L/R and 30L/R, and (2) large turbine-powered aircraft earlier provide protection for aircraft FR 489), four fact-finding informal often results in aircraft exiting the floor conducting instrument approaches to airspace meetings were held; the first on of existing Class B airspace. MSP’s new Runway 35. March 18, 2011, at the Metropolitan Since the 2006 Minneapolis Class B Finally, a portion of the Runway 35 Airports Commission in Minneapolis, airspace amendment action, changes to FAC, extended, is not contained entirely MN; the second on March 19, 2011, at MSP vector patterns (traffic flows) and within the existing Class B airspace. the In Flight Pilot Training, LLC., in aircraft descent profiles, and the Between 20 NM and 25 NM from the Eden Prairie, MN; the third on March realization of a miscalculated Class B Minneapolis-St. Paul International 21, 2011, at the Minnesota Army airspace boundary configuration have (Wold-Chamberlain) Airport DME National Guard, Aviation Facility, in St. resulted in unanticipated and Antenna (I–MSP DME), the Runway 35 Paul, MN; and the fourth on March 22, unintended Class B airspace exits. There FAC is outside the boundary of existing 2011, at the Metropolitan Airports are two areas in the existing Class B airspace; whereas, between 25 Commission in Minneapolis, MN. These Minneapolis Class B airspace extensions NM and 30 NM from the I–MSP DME, meetings provided interested airspace located northwest and southeast of MSP the Runway 35 FAC is inside the users with an opportunity to present where aircraft on south downwind flight boundary of existing Class B airspace. their views and offer suggestions paths to MSP Runways 12R and 30L As a result, aircraft turned on to the regarding the planned modifications to operate on, or in close proximity to, the Runway 35 FAC, extended, at 6,000 feet the Minneapolis Class B airspace area. existing Class B airspace boundaries. MSL will be within Class B airspace The navigation aid radial information These downwind ‘‘legs’’ must be far between 25 NM and 30 NM from the I– contained in the Ad Hoc Committee enough away from the associated final MSP DME, but will be outside Class B recommendations, the informal airspace approach course (FAC) to ensure that airspace, beneath the existing 7,000-foot meeting comments, and the proposal aircraft have enough airspace to execute Class B airspace floor in that area discussions that follow is presented a standard rate turn from the downwind between 20 NM and 25 NM from the I– relative to Magnetic North for ease of leg to a point at which they are MSP DME. Similarly, aircraft that are understanding. However, the navigation ° established on a 30 FAC intercept initially positioned for an approach to aid radial information contained in the ° heading. This 30 intercept heading Runway 35, but then re-sequenced to regulatory text legal description is must be achieved at least three miles Runway 30L, are also at risk of exiting presented relative to both True North from the FAC. On the north side of the the Class B airspace area. In this case, and Magnetic North. All substantive airspace final approach areas (for Runways 12L the typical flight path for aircraft being recommendations made by the Ad Hoc and 30R), the downwind legs are more re-sequenced from Runway 35 to Committee and public comments than 1.5 nautical miles (NM) from the Runway 30L passes under the existing received as a result of the informal Class B airspace boundary; however, on Class B airspace where, currently, the the south side of the final approach airspace meetings were considered in floor of the existing Class B airspace areas (for Runways 12R and 30L), the developing this proposal. subarea is 7,000 feet MSL. downwind legs are less than 0.65 NM Discussion of Ad Hoc Committee from the Class B airspace boundary. The The proposed Minneapolis Class B Recommendations southern boundaries of the existing airspace modifications described in this Class B airspace extensions located NPRM are intended to address these The FAA prepared a preliminary northwest and southeast of MSP require issues. For calendar year 2011, MSP design of the proposed Minneapolis a one NM expansion further south, at a ranked number 12 in the list of the ‘‘50 Class B airspace modifications to minimum, to ensure large turbine- Busiest FAA Airport Traffic Control illustrate the need for change and to powered aircraft flying the downwind Towers,’’ with over 435,000 total airport serve as a basis for the Ad Hoc legs of the southern traffic patterns operations. Additionally, the calendar Committee’s review. In general, the supporting Runways 12R and 30L year 2011 passenger enplanement data preliminary design featured a proposal instrument procedures are safely ranked MSP as number 16 among to expand the southern boundaries of contained within Class B airspace. Commercial Service Airports, with the existing Class B airspace extensions Also, there are three areas of the 15,895,653 passenger enplanements (an located northwest and southeast of MSP Minneapolis Class B airspace where increase of 2.47% from the previous by approximately one NM to the south; arriving aircraft ‘‘drop’’ beneath the year). lower the floor of portions of existing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:13 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 10566 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Class B airspace abeam both sides of the being aligned using GEP radials. They miles west of the FAC, but the GEP 168° existing Class B airspace extensions by noted this change would naturally radial is only 4 miles west of the FAC. 1,000 feet MSL; combine the existing shape the proposed Class B airspace When an aircraft flying at 6,000 feet Class B airspace subareas located south wider towards MSP and minimize the MSL on a left downwind to Runway 35 and southeast of MSP into one subarea, movement of the southern portion of the extends beyond 20 NM from the I–MSP and; expand the boundary of existing boundary towards SYN. DME, it would exit Class B airspace Class B airspace south of MSP from the The FAA notes that there are no beneath the existing Class B airspace Gopher VHF omnidirectional range navigation aids available in the MSP subarea with a 7,000-foot MSL floor, (VOR)/tactical air navigation (VORTAC) terminal area whose position would and again be flying in the same airspace antenna (GEP) 160° radial to the GEP provide a significantly improved north- used by nonparticipating VFR aircraft 157° radial. south alignment of the proposed before re-entering Class B airspace after The Ad Hoc Committee reported that boundary under discussion. Absent being turned-on to the base leg of the most of the proposed Minneapolis Class prominent landmarks being available traffic pattern in preparation of B airspace area changes had little or no where needed, to define a north-south intercepting the Runway 35 FAC, impact on the aviation community aligned boundary, the FAA also extended. Both scenarios highlight the represented by the Ad Hoc Committee; considered using geographic references unintended consequences that would however, they felt that the proposed (latitude/longitude) to define the result from moving the western modifications near the Stanton Airfield boundary. This alternative was also boundary of the existing Class B (SYN) would impact the Minnesota discounted because pilots of glider and airspace subarea located south of MSP Soaring Club and Stanton Sport powered aircraft, which are not GPS two degrees to the east and the Aviation operations. The Ad Hoc equipped, operating at SYN would not counterproductive result to this Committee’s report provided to the FAA be able to easily identify the Class B proposed action. contained six recommendations for airspace boundary and would risk The Ad Hoc Committee was consideration regarding the FAA’s further airspace incursions. Therefore, concerned about the availability of proposed modification of the this proposal would define the airspace north of SYN. They Minneapolis Class B airspace area. boundary being discussed for the recommended the FAA establish only The Ad Hoc Committee recommended proposed Class B airspace Area H using the portion of the proposed Class B limiting the expansion of the existing the GEP 158° radial. airspace located south of MSP, west of Class B airspace located south of MSP, The Ad Hoc Committee also the GEP 158° radial, with a 6,000-foot between 25 NM and 30 NM from the I– recommended the FAA consider moving MSL floor and retain the existing 7,000- MSP DME, by defining the boundary the western boundary of the existing foot MSL floor in the remainder of the using the GEP 158° radial instead of the Class B airspace, located south of MSP, existing Class B airspace north of SYN. initially proposed GEP 157° radial. They two degrees east by using the GEP 168° They further recommended that if more believed this change would better align radial to define the boundary. The Class B airspace was required north of the Class B airspace boundary with committee stated the two degree SYN, the FAA lower the portion of easily identifiable road junctions on the boundary movement would reduce the existing Class B airspace from 7,000 feet visual flight rules (VFR) charts and amount of Class B airspace with a 6,000- MSL to 6,000 feet MSL in the area allow pilots of glider and powered foot MSL floor that gliders operating out necessary in the Class B airspace cutout aircraft, which are not Global of SYN would have to stay below to north of SYN. The committee wanted to Positioning System (GPS) equipped, to clear. retain the majority of airspace available identify the Class B airspace boundary This recommendation to change the north of SYN with a 7,000-foot MSL visually. existing GEP 170° radial to the GEP 168° ceiling. The FAA incorporated the Ad Hoc radial to define the existing boundary of The FAA evaluated this Committee’s recommendation and Class B airspace located south of MSP recommendation and determined the defined the portion of the proposed would affect two air traffic flows for proposed Class B airspace located south Class B airspace boundary addressed Runway 35 arrivals and result in large of MSP and north of SYN (proposed above (proposed Area H) using the GEP turbine-powered aircraft not being Area H) is necessary with a 6,000-foot 158° radial. Defining this portion of the contained within Class B airspace as MSL floor. Aircraft that are inbound to proposed boundary from the GEP 157° they are today. If the committee’s Runway 35, but then re-sequenced to radial to the GEP 158° radial would change was incorporated, the large Runway 30L, are often vectored reduce the Class B airspace subarea by turbine-powered aircraft inbound to northeastward through the proposed 0.8 NM laterally, but still provide MSP flying the TWOLF Standard Class B airspace Area H subarea at 6,000 containment of large turbine-powered Terminal Arrival (STAR) procedure feet MSL or higher, depending on traffic aircraft within Class B airspace between from the south/southwest would fly, on volume. Typically, aircraft arrivals 20 NM and 30 NM from the I–MSP average, an additional three miles in the inbound from the south are re- DME. very same airspace that nonparticipating sequenced to Runway 30L when the The Ad Hoc Committee further VFR aircraft are flying in before they traffic flows from the north and recommended the FAA consider using a entered the protection of the Class B southwest saturate the Runway 35 FAC. north-south aligned boundary to define airspace area. Additionally, the large As the number of aircraft sequenced to the proposed GEP 158° radial boundary turbine-powered aircraft already Runway 35 increases, the point at which of the Class B airspace located south of contained in Class B airspace, flying a aircraft from the south must be re- MSP, between 25 NM and 30 NM from left downwind (southbound) traffic sequenced and turned to Runway 30L the I–MSP DME, in lieu of the pattern to intercept Runway 35 extends farther to the south; requiring discussion above. They thought this approach procedures, would exit Class the availability of Class B airspace with would more effectively shape the Class B airspace when the downwind leg of a 6,000-foot MSL floor. The proposed B airspace subarea boundary and the traffic pattern extended beyond 20 modification to establish the new Class minimize the Class B airspace NM from the I–MSP DME. The B airspace Area H with a 6,000-foot expansion towards Stanton Airfield downwind leg of the traffic pattern to MSL floor would ensure inbound (SYN), as compared to the boundary Runway 35 is typically five to seven aircraft that are at or descending to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:13 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 10567

6,000 feet MSL do not exit Class B Class B airspace area modification. The ‘‘exception’’ to the transponder airspace when transitioning from a following discussion addresses the requirement for aircraft not originally Runway 35 arrival to a Runway 30L substantive comments received. certified with an engine-driven arrival. One commenter questioned the reason electrical system to conduct operations However, in response to the second for the proposed Class B airspace within the 30 NM Mode C veil around part of the Ad Hoc Committee’s modification and submitted that the Class B airspace primary airports, recommendation to minimize the proposed modifications would further outside Class B airspace without a amount of Class B airspace north of SYN restrict General Aviation (GA) freedom transponder. This suggestion is beyond being lowered, the initially proposed 25 of flight around the Twin Cities area, the scope of this action. The MSP NM boundary of Class B airspace being especially near Airlake Airport (LVN). Terminal Radar Approach Control lowered to 6,000 feet MSL could be He stated that the new airspace design (TRACON) controllers are aware that reduced to the 24 NM arc from the I– might cause confusion and more gliders and sailplanes are operating near MSP DME with the floor of the airspace incursion violations, suggesting SYN without transponders and will remaining portion of existing Class B that the FAA ‘‘keep things the same’’ continue to provide traffic advisories, to airspace between the 24 NM and 25 NM and have fewer regulations. the extent possible, to VFR aircraft arcs from the I–MSP DME retained at The FAA is proposing this action to under their control that are operating 7,000 feet MSL. The net effect would be ensure aircraft being vectored and near SYN. to limit the amount of proposed Class B conducting SILS approaches to MSP One commenter stated that the Class airspace north of SYN being lowered to parallel Runways 12L/R and 30L/R, B airspace modifications presented in 6,000 feet MSL by moving the proposed aircraft being vectored to and the March 22, 2011, meeting offered boundary of that subarea one NM conducting approaches to Runway 35, some relief for SYN glider flights further north of SYN. This change to the and aircraft being re-sequenced from compared to previous versions, but that proposal would still provide the Class B approach procedures for Runway 35 to there was increased and unnecessary airspace necessary to contain large approach procedures for Runway 30L complexity created with the 24 NM to turbine-powered aircraft within Class B are contained within Class B airspace. 25 NM Class B airspace subarea retained airspace when being re-sequenced from The FAA does not agree with the with a 7,000-foot MSL floor. A second Runway 35 to Runway 30L, but leaves commenter that the proposed commenter argued the same point, the Class B airspace overhead SYN modification will further restrict GA stating that the proposed modification unchanged. freedom of flight, especially near LVN. creates an alleyway of airspace that will The Ad Hoc Committee’s final The closest proposed Class B airspace confuse pilots and may result in recommendation to the FAA was to modification to LVN by this action is inadvertent airspace incursions. The consider moving the existing Class B approximately six miles southeast of the commenters suggested that the airspace boundary over SYN north or airport; the proposed lowering of Class Minneapolis Class B airspace should eliminating the current 7,000-foot MSL B airspace (proposed Area H) from 7,000 either end at 24 NM between the GEP Class B airspace floor altogether. It felt feet MSL to 6,000 feet MSL. LVN is 158° radial and the Flying Cloud VOR/ that flight track data shown to it located approximately 14 NM south of DME navigation aid (FCM) 123° radial indicated that the floor at the 25 NM the I–MSP DME, between the 12 NM to simplify navigation for most gliders, line over SYN could be either moved and 20 NM I–MSP DME arcs where the or utilize a more consistent Class B northward or perhaps eliminated. Class B airspace floor would remain airspace floor in this area preserving the In this proposal, the FAA moved the unchanged at 4,000 feet MSL. 7,000-foot MSL floor directly over SYN. 25 NM boundary of proposed Class B Additionally, the navigation aids that The first commenter also mentioned airspace to be lowered to 6,000 feet MSL currently define the various Class B that the flight path summaries briefed at one NM north to the 24 NM arc from the airspace boundaries would continue to the informal airspace meetings did not I–MSP DME in accordance with the Ad define the modified boundaries. The show or take into account the non- Hoc Committee’s previous FAA believes the proposed Class B transponder equipped gliders operating recommendation. The existing Class B airspace modifications have been clearly in the vicinity of SYN adjacent to the airspace north of SYN that falls outside developed to prevent confusion, and current MSP Class B airspace. 24 NM from the I–MSP DME would would not contribute to unintentional The FAA reviewed the Class B remain unchanged. The FAA believes airspace incursion violations. airspace subarea with a 7,000-foot MSL the minimal number of flight tracks One commenter expressed concern floor located between 24 NM and 25 NM documented below the existing Class B with the regulations that allow aircraft from the I–MSP DME, from the GEP airspace between 24 NM and 25 NM without transponders (sailplanes and 158° radial to the FCM 123° radial, from the I–MSP DME below 7,000 feet gliders) to operate within the 30 NM addressed by the commenters and MSL can be managed with ATC- Mode C veil around MSP, outside the incorporated their suggestion to remove assigned course changes. Minneapolis Class B airspace area, it from the proposal to reduce the because ATC may not be able to see the perceived airspace complexity and Discussion of Informal Airspace sailplanes and gliders on radar or advise confusion for users in the area north of Meeting Comments other aircraft operating in the same area SYN. As a result, inbound aircraft The FAA received written comments of their presence. The commenter stated transitioning from Runway 35 to from thirteen individuals and that in the interest of safety, the FAA Runway 30L will be issued ATC- organizations as a result of the informal should look very seriously at the no- assigned headings to keep them within airspace meetings. Seven commenters transponder exception allowing aircraft the proposed Class B airspace Area H found the FAA’s presentation helpful in without a transponder to operate near between 20 NM and 24 NM from the I– understanding the requirement and congested Class B airspace areas. MSP DME. issues, and clearly demonstrated an The commenter is seeking a change to Additionally, the FAA acknowledges understanding of all stakeholders’ Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 that the flight path summaries presented views. The remaining commenters CFR) section 91.215, ATC transponder at the informal airspace meetings did provided comments opposing various and altitude reporting equipment and not include non-transponder equipped aspects of the proposed Minneapolis use. This regulation, in part, provides an aircraft (gliders) since track recording

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:13 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 10568 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules

are only possible on transponder- would reduce the risk of mid-air that share common Class B airspace equipped aircraft. This limitation collisions. altitude floors into one large, complex underscores the need and importance Using prominent geographic features subarea description. The current MSP for Minneapolis Class B airspace to be (landmarks), when they are easily Class B airspace area consists of six designed in such a way that it not only identifiable and coincide with proposed subareas (A through F) whereas the contains large turbine-powered aircraft airspace configuration modifications, proposed configuration would consist of arriving and departing MSP or help identify Class B airspace ten subareas (A through J). The nonparticipating VFR aircraft cleared boundaries and enhances the situational proposed revisions to the Minneapolis into the Class B airspace by the MSP awareness for VFR pilots flying in the Class B airspace area, by subarea, are TRACON, but also segregates aircraft vicinity of Class B airspace areas. The outlined below. operating within the Class B airspace scope of this proposed modification is Area A. Area A is the surface area that and those operating outside the Class B to modify the Minneapolis Class B extends upward from the surface to airspace, especially those not visible to airspace areas where aircraft 10,000 feet MSL in the Class B airspace ATC radar. containment has been compromised so contained in the current Area A. The One commenter suggested that as to minimize airspace impacts on FAA is not proposing any changes to lowering the Class B airspace located nonparticipating VFR aircraft operating Area A. north of SYN, from 7,000 feet MSL to in the vicinity of the Class B airspace. Area B. Area B extends upward from 6,000 feet MSL, should be limited to the There are not any easily identifiable 2,300 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL in airspace west of the GEP 158° radial and landmarks available that coincide with the Class B airspace contained in the the remainder of the Class B airspace the proposed Class B airspace current Area B. The FAA is not subarea left unchanged with a 7,000-foot boundaries needed to contain the large proposing any changes to Area B. MSL floor. The commenter argued that turbine-powered aircraft arriving/ Area C. Area C extends upward from this would allow continued upwind departing MSP, without expanding the 3,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL in operations of glider training flights proposed Class B airspace subareas the Class B airspace contained in the north of SYN. beyond what is required to match current Area C. The FAA is not As mentioned previously, the existing landmarks. Since there have not proposing any changes to Area C. proposed Class B airspace located north been any containment problems in the Area D. Area D would be revised to of SYN between 20 NM and 24 NM from areas where the commenter suggested include the airspace extending upward the I–MSP DME is necessary with a boundary changes, the FAA has opted to from 4,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL 6,000-foot MSL floor to ensure aircraft retain the existing boundaries and limit in the Class B airspace contained in the inbound to Runway 35, but then re- the scope of this action as mentioned current Area D with the southern sequenced to Runway 30L are contained previously. boundary of the Class B airspace within Class B airspace. The proposed extensions moved approximately 1 NM Class B airspace Area H would ensure The Proposal to the south. The expanded southern aircraft that are at or descending to The FAA is proposing an amendment boundary of the new Area D extensions 6,000 feet MSL do not exit Class B to Title 14 of the Code of Federal would ensure containment of aircraft airspace when transitioning from a Regulations flying the southern traffic pattern Runway 35 arrival to a Runway 30L (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the downwind legs for Runway 12R and arrival. However, this action also Minneapolis Class B airspace area. This 30L instrument procedures within Class proposes to return the Class B airspace action (depicted on the attached chart) B airspace. located north of SYN outside 24 NM proposes to expand the southern Area E. Area E would be revised to from the I–MSP DME between the GEP boundary of the existing Area D include the airspace extending upward 158° and FCM 123° radials to the NAS. extensions by approximately 1 NM to from 6,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL This airspace return is expected to the south, lower the floor of portions of between the GEP 295° radial clockwise continue supporting upwind operations existing Class B airspace Area E abeam to the GEP 352° radial and the 20 NM of glider training flights north of SYN, both sides of the existing Area D to 30 NM arcs from the I–MSP DME. as well as other nonparticipating VFR extensions by 1,000 feet MSL, reduce This new subarea would lower a portion aircraft flying in the vicinity of SYN. the southern boundary of existing Area of existing Class B airspace contained in One commenter suggested that the E located southeast of MSP by 1 NM and the current Area E by 1,000 feet MSL to FAA change nine of the Minneapolis combine the remaining airspace of that ensure containment of aircraft that Class B airspace boundary segments to portion of Area E with existing Area F, require a longer time/distance to align them with prominent geographic and move the eastern boundary of descend for sequence to closely spaced, landmarks such as rivers and freeways, existing Area F from the GEP 160° radial adjacent instrument approaches to rather than the existing DME distance to the GEP 158° radial between 24 NM Runways 12L and 12R within Class B and VOR radials. A list of specific and 30 NM from the I–MSP DME airspace. boundary changes were recommended navigation aid. These proposed Area F. Area F would include the and provided for the airspace modifications would provide the airspace extending upward from 7,000 boundaries located within a short minimum additional airspace needed to feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL between distance (less than one mile) of available contain large turbine-powered aircraft the GEP 085° radial clockwise to the landmarks, and where the realignments conducting instrument procedures GEP 105° radial and the 20 NM to 30 would keep MSP traffic contained within the confines of Class B airspace. NM arcs from the I–MSP DME. This within Class B airspace. The commenter Except for Areas A, B, and C, the new subarea would be established in argued that the recommended changes proposed descriptions of all other existing Class B airspace contained in would enhance safety by improving Minneapolis Class B airspace subareas the current Area E. situational awareness for VFR traffic would be reconfigured, re-described, Area G. Area G would include the operating below Class B airspace and realigned by geographic position in airspace extending upward from 6,000 subareas; stating that eliminating the relation to the I–MSP DME antenna feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL between need [for pilots] to keep eyes inside the rather than the previous practice of the GEP 105° radial clockwise to the cockpit would improve traffic scans and combining geographically separate areas GEP 115° radial and the 20 NM to 30

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:13 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 10569

NM arcs from the I–MSP DME. This in degrees, minutes, and seconds based this proposed rule. The reasoning for new subarea would lower a portion of on North American Datum 83. this determination follows: existing Class B airspace contained in Implementation of these proposed This action proposes to modify the the current Area E by 1,000 feet MSL to modifications to the Minneapolis Class Minneapolis, MN, Class B airspace area ensure containment of aircraft that B airspace area would ensure to contain large turbine-powered aircraft require a longer time/distance to containment of large turbine-powered conducting published instrument descend for sequence to closely spaced, aircraft within Class B airspace as procedures within Class B airspace, and adjacent instrument approaches to required by FAA directive to enhance reduce the potential for midair Runways 30L and 30R within Class B safety and the efficient management of collisions. Given the current boundaries airspace. aircraft operations in the Minneapolis, and changes in MSP traffic flows and Area H. Area H would include the MN, terminal area. aircraft descent profiles since the last airspace extending upward from 6,000 Class B airspace areas are published restructuring, instrument flight rules feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL in the in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order (IFR) flights are not contained within existing Class B airspace contained in 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Class B airspace. This amendment current Area F and a portion of current Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, would restructure the airspace to ensure Area E located southeast of MSP. This and effective September 15, 2012, which containment of these aircraft within new subarea would expand the eastern is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Class B airspace which would reduce boundary of the current Area F to the section 71.1. The Class B airspace area the potential for midair collisions in the GEP 158° radial, reduce the southern listed in this document would be terminal area. The amendment would boundary of the portion of current Area published subsequently in the Order. also reduce controller workload by E to the 24 NM arc from the I–MSP Regulatory Evaluation Summary reducing the number of Class B airspace DME, and lower the Class B airspace excursions. floor in the remaining portion of the Changes to Federal regulations must The proposed restructuring current Area E to match the Class B undergo several economic analyses. accommodates aircraft approaches on airspace floor in the current Area F. The First, Executive Order 12866 and flight paths that are currently close to new subarea would ensure containment Executive Order 13563 directs that each the Class B airspace boundaries, by of aircraft flying the Runway 35 Federal agency shall propose or adopt a proposing these boundaries be moved procedures and associated traffic regulation only upon a reasoned slightly. Also, since the last patterns, as well as the aircraft being re- determination that the benefits of the restructuring of the airspace, the fleet sequenced from Runway 35 to Runway intended regulation justify its costs. mix has changed from more rapidly 30L approaches, within Class B Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act descending aircraft to turbojets with airspace. of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires more ‘‘efficient wings’’ which require a Area I. Area I would include the agencies to analyze the economic longer time to descend. To better airspace extending upward from 7,000 impact of regulatory changes on small contain these new turbojets, the feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL between entities. Third, the Trade Agreements amendment proposes lowering the floor the GEP 170° radial clockwise to the Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies of the Class B airspace in the areas FCM 270° radial and the 20 NM to 30 from setting standards that create where arriving aircraft currently drop NM arcs from the I–MSP DME. This unnecessary obstacles to the foreign beneath the floor of Class B airspace so new subarea would be established in commerce of the United States. In they would be contained. Also, the existing Class B airspace contained in developing U.S. standards, the Trade original Class B airspace design does not the current Area E. Act requires agencies to consider contain a portion of one of the FACs Area J. Area J would include the international standards and, where within the existing Class B airspace and airspace extending upward from 6,000 appropriate, that they be the basis of consequently aircraft traveling along feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL between U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded this FAC exit Class B airspace for part the FCM 270° radial clockwise to the Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. of the descent. The rule proposes FCM 294° radial and the 20 NM to 30 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a moving the Class B boundary and NM arcs from the I–MSP DME. This written assessment of the costs, benefits, lowering the floor in this portion of the new subarea would lower a portion of and other effects of proposed or final airspace so that aircraft using this FAC existing Class B airspace contained in rules that include a Federal mandate would be contained within Class B the current Area E by 1,000 feet MSL to likely to result in the expenditure by airspace. ensure containment of aircraft that State, local, or tribal governments, in the The FAA expects these changes require a longer time/distance to aggregate, or by the private sector, of would have little impact on VFR traffic descend for sequence to closely spaced, $100 million or more annually (adjusted as VFR aircraft would have the adjacent instrument approaches to for inflation with base year of 1995). alternatives of flying under or over the Runways 12L and 12R within Class B This portion of the preamble redesigned Class B or through it with airspace. summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the clearance from air traffic control. Finally, this proposed action would economic impacts of this proposed rule. Although there was a comment update the Minneapolis-St. Paul Department of Transportation Order expressing concern that the proposed International (Wold-Chamberlain) DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and modifications would restrict general Airport reference point, the Gopher procedures for simplification, analysis, aviation flight around the Twin Cities VORTAC, the Flying Cloud VOR/DME, and review of regulations. If the area, in particular near Airlake Airport and the Minneapolis-St. Paul expected cost impact is so minimal that (LVN), the FAA notes that LVN is a International (Wold-Chamberlain) a proposed or final rule does not significant distance from the proposed Airport DME geographic coordinates warrant a full evaluation, this order modifications and there should be no (latitude/longitude) to reflect current permits that a statement to that effect impact to general aviation traffic in that NAS data is reflected in the and the basis for it be included in the area. Furthermore, the Ad Hoc Minneapolis Class B airspace area legal preamble if a full regulatory evaluation Committee which was formed to review description header. The geographic of the cost and benefits is not prepared. the Class B airspace proposal and coordinates in this proposal are stated Such a determination has been made for provide feedback to the FAA reported

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:13 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 10570 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules

most of the proposed changes would flexibility analysis as described in the a domestic impact and therefore no have little or no impact on the aviation RFA. effect on international trade. community they represented, including However, if an agency determines that Unfunded Mandates Assessment non-participating VFR aircraft, with the a rule is not expected to have a exception of the cutout near Stanton significant economic impact on a Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Airfield. The committee did however substantial number of small entities, Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) indicate the proposed modifications section 605(b) of the RFA provides that requires each Federal agency to prepare would impact the Minnesota Soaring the head of the agency may so certify a written statement assessing the effects Club and Stanton Sport Aviation and a regulatory flexibility analysis is of any Federal mandate in a proposed or operations and provided six not required. The certification must final agency rule that may result in an recommendations to alleviate the include a statement providing the expenditure of $100 million or more (in potential impact. Additionally, the FAA factual basis for this determination, and 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, held several fact finding informal the reasoning should be clear. local, and tribal governments, in the airspace meetings. As a result of the Ad The proposed rule is expected to aggregate, or by the private sector; such Hoc Committee and informal airspace improve safety by redefining Class B a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant meeting inputs, the FAA incorporated airspace boundaries and would impose regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently those recommendations and comments only minimal costs. It is expected to uses an inflation-adjusted value of that supported containment of IFR cause little impact on VFR traffic. VFR $143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. traffic within Class B airspace with an traffic that might be currently flying in This proposed rule does not contain expected minimal impact on non- airspace that would be re-designated as such a mandate; therefore, the participatory VFR operations. The FAA Class B airspace would continue to have requirements of Title II of the Act do not anticipates the proposed modifications the option of flying above or below the apply. proposed Class B airspace or obtaining would continue to allow sufficient Environmental Review airspace for VFR operations in the clearance to fly through. The proposed vicinity of the Minneapolis Class B amendment would not require updating This proposal will be subject to an airspace area. of materials outside the normal update environmental analysis in accordance cycle. Therefore, the expected outcome with FAA Order 1050.1E, The expected outcome would be a would be a minimal economic impact ‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and minimal impact with positive net on small entities affected by this Procedures,’’ prior to any FAA final benefits, and a regulatory evaluation rulemaking action. regulatory action. was not prepared. The FAA requests Therefore, the FAA certifies this comments with supporting justification proposed rule, if promulgated, would List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 about the FAA determination of not have a significant impact on a Airspace, Incorporation by reference, minimal impact. substantial number of small entities. Navigation (air). The FAA has, therefore, determined The FAA solicits comments regarding The Proposed Amendment that this proposed rule is not a this determination. Specifically, the ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as FAA requests comments on whether the In consideration of the foregoing, the defined in section 3(f) of Executive proposed rule creates any specific Federal Aviation Administration Order 12866, and is not ‘‘significant’’ as compliance costs unique to small proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies entities. Please provide detailed follows: and Procedures. economic analysis to support any cost claims. The FAA also invites comments PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, Initial Regulatory Flexibility B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR Determination regarding other small entity concerns with respect to the proposed rule. TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 REPORTING POINTS (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a International Trade Impact Assessment ■ principle of regulatory issuance that The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 1. The authority citation for part 71 agencies shall endeavor, consistent with (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the continues to read as follows: the objectives of the rule and of Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– informational requirements to the scale from establishing standards or engaging 1963 Comp., p.389. of the businesses, organizations, and in related activities that create § 71.1 [Amended] governmental jurisdictions subject to unnecessary obstacles to the foreign ■ 2. The incorporation by reference in regulation. To achieve this principle, commerce of the United States. 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation agencies are required to solicit and Pursuant to these Acts, the Administration Order 7400.9W, consider flexible regulatory proposals establishment of standards is not Airspace Designations and Reporting and to explain the rationale for their considered an unnecessary obstacle to Points, dated August 8, 2012, and actions to assure that such proposals are the foreign commerce of the United effective September 15, 2012, is given serious consideration.’’ The RFA States, so long as the standard has a amended as follows: covers a wide-range of small entities, legitimate domestic objective, such the including small businesses, not-for- protection of safety, and does not Paragraph 3000—Subpart B—Class B profit organizations, and small operate in a manner that excludes Airspace governmental jurisdictions. imports that meet this objective. The * * * * * Agencies must perform a review to statute also requires consideration of AGL MN B Minneapolis, MN [Amended] determine whether a rule will have a international standards and, where Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold- significant economic impact on a appropriate, that they be the basis for Chamberlain) Airport (Primary Airport) substantial number of small entities. If U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed (Lat. 44°52′55″ N., long. 93°13′18″ W.) the agency determines that it will, the the potential effect of this proposed rule Gopher VORTAC agency must prepare a regulatory and determined that it would have only (Lat. 45°08′44″ N., long. 93°22′23″ W.)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:13 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 10571

Flying Cloud VOR/DME VORTAC 301°T/295°M radial; thence arc of the I–MSP DME; thence (Lat. 44°49′31″ N., long. 93°26′34″ W.) clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold- DME to the Gopher VORTAC 358°T/352°M I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 164°T/ Chamberlain) Airport DME Antenna (I– radial; thence north along the Gopher 158°M radial; thence north along the Gopher ° ° MSP DME) VORTAC 358 T/352 M radial to the 30 NM VORTAC 164°T/158°M radial to the 24 NM ° ′ ″ ° ′ ″ (Lat. 44 52 27 N., long. 93 12 21 W.) arc of the I–MSP DME; thence arc of the I–MSP DME; thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the counterclockwise along the 24 NM arc of the Boundaries I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 301°T/ ° I–MSP DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME Area A. That airspace extending upward 295 M radial; thence southeast along the ° ° from the surface to and including 10,000 feet ° ° 124 T/123 M radial; thence northwest along Gopher VORTAC 301 T/295 M radial to the ° ° MSL within a 6 NM radius of I–MSP DME. point of beginning. the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124 T/123 M Area B. That airspace extending upward Area F. That airspace extending upward radial to the point of beginning. from 2,300 feet MSL to and including 10,000 from 7,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 Area I. That airspace extending upward feet MSL within an 8.5 NM radius of I–MSP feet MSL within an area bounded by a line from 7,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 DME, excluding Area A previously beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM feet MSL within an area bounded by a line described. arc of the I–MSP DME and the Gopher beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM Area C. That airspace extending upward VORTAC 091°T/085°M radial; thence arc of the I–MSP DME and the Gopher from 3,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP VORTAC 176°T/170°M radial; thence feet MSL within a 12 NM radius of I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 111°T/105°M clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME, excluding Area A and Area B radial; thence southeast along the Gopher DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 271°T/ ° ° previously described. VORTAC 111 T/105 M radial to the 30 NM 270°M radial; thence west along the Flying Area D. That airspace extending upward arc of the I–MSP DME; thence Cloud VOR/DME 271°T/270°M radial to the from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence feet MSL within an area bounded by a line I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 091°T/ ° counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM 085 M radial; thence west along the Gopher ° arc of the I–MSP DME and the Gopher ° ° I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 176 T/ VORTAC 091 T/085 M radial to the point of ° VORTAC 301°T/295°M radial; thence beginning. 170 M radial; thence north along the Gopher ° ° clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP Area G. That airspace extending upward VORTAC 176 T/170 M radial to the point of DME to the Gopher VORTAC 121°T/115°M from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 beginning. radial; thence southeast along the Gopher feet MSL within an area bounded by a line Area J. That airspace extending upward VORTAC 121°T/115°M radial to the 30 NM beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 arc of the I–MSP DME; thence clockwise arc of the I–MSP DME and the Gopher feet MSL within an area bounded by a line along the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to VORTAC 111°T/105°M radial; thence beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124°T/123°M clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP arc of the I–MSP DME and the Flying Cloud radial; thence northwest along the Flying DME to the Gopher VORTAC 121°T/115°M VOR/DME 271°T/270°M radial; thence Cloud VOR/DME 124°T/123°M radial to the radial; thence southeast along the Gopher clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP ° ° 20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence VORTAC 121 T/115 M radial to the 30 NM DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295°T/ clockwise along the 20 NM are of the I–MSP arc of the I–MSP DME; thence 294°M radial; thence northwest along the DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295°T/ counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the ° ° ° ° Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295 T/294 M radial 294 M radial; thence northwest along the I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 111 T/ to the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295°T/294°M radial 105°M radial; thence northwest along the counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the to the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence Gopher VORTAC 111°T/105°M radial to the I–MSP DME to the Flying Cloud 271°T/ clockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP point of beginning. ° ° ° 270 M radial; thence east along the Flying DME to the Gopher VORTAC 301 T/295 M Area H. That airspace extending upward ° ° radial; thence southeast along the Gopher from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 Cloud 271 T/270 M radial to the point of VORTAC 301°T/295°M radial to the point of feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning. beginning, excluding Area A, Area B, and beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM Issued in Washington, DC, on February 6, Area C previously described. arc of the I–MSP DME and the Flying Cloud 2013. VOR/DME 124°T/123°M radial; thence Area E. That airspace extending upward Gary A. Norek, from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP feet MSL within an area bounded by a line DME to the Gopher VORTAC 176°T/170°M Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM radial; thence south along the Gopher Procedures Group. arc of the I–MSP DME and the Gopher VORTAC 176°T/170°M radial to the 30 NM BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:13 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 10572 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules

[FR Doc. 2013–03465 Filed 2–13–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–C

VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:13 Feb 13, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\14FEP1.SGM 14FEP1 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS EP14FE13.013