Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 5429 

(2) Within 6 months, unless accomplished 

previously, and thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 12 months or 2,500 landings, 

whichever occurs first, determine the 

horizontal deflection of each crosstube from 

the centerline of the helicopter (BL 0.0) to the 

outside edge of each skid tube. Before further 

flight, replace any crosstube that exceeds any 

maximum allowable deflection limit 

contained in the maintenance manual. 

(3) Within 6 months, unless accomplished 

previously, and thereafter at intervals not to 

exceed 12 months or 2,500 landings, 

whichever occurs first: 

(i) Remove and disassemble the landing 

gear assembly to prepare each crosstube for 

a fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) by 

following the Accomplishment Instructions, 

Part I, paragraphs 1. through 9., of the ASB. 

Note 1: Abrasion strip, P/N 206–050–301– 

111; lower center support, P/N 412–050– 

007–101, with the incorporated Larson L101 

abrasion strip; and lower center support, 

P/N 604–026–003, if installed on any 

crosstube, P/N 412–050–045–105, or 

reworked crosstubes, P/N 412–050–011–101, 

–103, –105, or –107, are only removed if 

required by following the instructions in the 

ASB (see items 2, 5, and 6 in Figure 1 of the 

ASB). 

(ii) Clean and prepare the crosstube for the 

FPI by removing the sealant and paint in the 

area depicted in Figure 2 of the ASB by 

following the Accomplishment Instructions, 

Part I, ‘‘Cleaning and Preparation,’’ 

paragraphs 1. through 5., of the ASB. 

(iii) Perform an FPI of each crosstube and 

upper center support, P/N 412–050–006–101, 

for a crack, any corrosion, a nick, scratch, 

dent, or any other damage by following the 

Accomplishment Instructions, Part I, 

‘‘Inspection,’’ paragraphs 1. through 3. of the 

ASB. Use Table 2 in the ASB to determine 

the appropriate Inspection Criteria Table to 

use in the maintenance manual, which list 

the maximum repair damage limits for each 

crosstube P/N applicable to this AD. 

(iv) Repair the crosstube or upper center 

support if there is any corrosion, a nick, 

scratch, dent, or any other damage that is 

within the maximum repair damage limits, 

before further flight, or replace the crosstube 

with an airworthy crosstube. 

Note 2: The repair procedures are specified 

in the Component Repair and Overhaul 

Manual. 

(v) If there is a crack or other damage 

beyond any of the maximum repair damage 

limits, before further flight, replace the 

crosstube with an airworthy crosstube. 

(4) Before further flight, after completing 

paragraph (d)(3) of this AD, unless 

accomplished previously, rework each 

crosstube P/N 412–050–011–101, –103, –105, 

or –107 by applying the bonding procedures 

and abrasion strips on the under side of the 

crosstubes at BL 0.0 and BL 14 by following 

the Accomplishment Instructions, Part I, 

‘‘Rework of Crosstubes,’’ paragraphs 1. 

through 10. of the ASB. Record on the 

component history card or equivalent record 

an ‘‘FM’’ to the end of the part number 

sequence of each crosstube that has been 

reworked (for example, 412–050–011– 

107FM). Omit the Larson L101 abrasion strip 

at BL 0.0 on each crosstube when installing 

lower center support, P/N 604–026–003 (see 

item 6 in Figure 1 of the ASB). 

(e) Special Flight Permit 

Special flight permits for inspections only 

may be issued under 14 CFR 21.197 and 

21.199 to operate the helicopter to a location 

where the requirements of this AD can be 

accomplished. 

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOC) 

(1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Certification 

Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this 

AD. Send your proposal to: Michael Kohner, 

Aviation Safety Engineer, Rotorcraft 

Certification Office, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, 

Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222–5170; 

email mike.kohner@faa.gov. 

(2) For operations conducted under a Part 

119 operating certificate or under Part 91, 

Subpart K, we suggest that you notify your 

principal inspector, or lacking a principal 

inspector, the manager of the local flight 

standards district office or certificate holding 

district office before operating any aircraft 

complying with this AD through an AMOC. 

(g) Subject 

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) 

Code: 3210, Main Landing Gear. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 27, 

2012. 

Kim Smith, 

Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–2419 Filed 2–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1237; Airspace 

Docket No. 08–AWA–5] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Modification of the Atlanta 

Class B Airspace Area; GA 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

modify the Atlanta, GA, Class B airspace 

area to ensure the containment of 

aircraft within Class B airspace, reduce 

controller workload and enhance safety 

in the Atlanta, GA, terminal area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 3, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001; telephone: 

(202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2011–1237 and 

Airspace Docket No. 08–AWA–1, at the 

beginning of your comments. You may 

also submit comments through the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Gallant, Airspace, Regulations and ATC 

Procedures Group, Office of Airspace 

Services, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. Comments 

are specifically invited on the overall 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA– 

2011–1237 and Airspace Docket No. 08– 

AWA–5) and be submitted in triplicate 

to the Docket Management Facility (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number). You may also submit 

comments through the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this action must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket Nos. FAA–2011–1237 and 

Airspace Docket No. 08–AWA–5.’’ The 

postcard will be date/time stamped and 

returned to the commenter. 

All communications received on or 

before the specified closing date for 

comments will be considered before 

taking action on the proposed rule. The 

proposal contained in this action may 

be changed in light of comments 

received. All comments submitted will 

be available for examination in the 

public docket both before and after the 

closing date for comments. A report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerned 

with this rulemaking will be filed in the 

docket. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

5430 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. An informal docket 

may also be examined during normal 

business hours at the office of the 

Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Room 210, 1701 

Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337. 

Persons interested in being placed on 

a mailing list for future NPRMs should 

contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, 

(202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory 

Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking Distribution System, which 

describes the application procedure. 

Background 

The primary purpose of Class B 

airspace is to reduce the potential for 

midair collisions in the airspace 

surrounding airports with high density 

air traffic operations by providing an 

area in which all aircraft are subject to 

certain operating rules and equipment 

requirements. FAA directives require 

Class B airspace areas to be designed to 

contain all instrument procedures and 

that air traffic controllers vector aircraft 

as appropriate to remain within Class B 

airspace after entry. Controllers must 

inform the aircraft when leaving and 

entering Class B airspace if it becomes 

necessary to extend the flight path 

outside Class B airspace for spacing. 

However, in the interest of safety, FAA 

policy dictates that such extensions be 

the exception rather than the rule. 

Atlanta Class B Airspace History 

On May 21, 1970, the FAA issued a 

final rule that established the Atlanta, 

GA, Terminal Control Area (TCA) with 

an effective date of June 25, 1970 (35 FR 

7784). The TCA was modified several 

times during the 1970s to accommodate 

revised instrument procedures, the 

addition of a fourth parallel runway, 

and to ensure that the flight paths of 

large turbine-powered aircraft remain 

within the designated airspace. In 1993, 

as part of the Airspace Reclassification 

Final Rule (56 FR 65638), the term 

‘‘terminal control area’’ was replaced by 

‘‘Class B airspace area.’’ 

A fifth parallel runway became 

operational at the Hartsfield-Jackson 

Atlanta International Airport (ATL) in 

May 2006, enabling the implementation 

of Simultaneous Triple ILS operations 

as well as triple departure procedures. 

The new procedures added additional 

traffic and complexity to the ATL air 

traffic operation and the FAA found that 

not all aircraft could be contained 

within Class B airspace due to the 

existing design. To address this 

situation, the FAA issued a final rule in 

October 2006 (71 FR 60419) that 

lowered the floor of the Atlanta Class B 

airspace area from 6,000 feet MSL to 

5,000 feet MSL within two small areas 

(approximately 9 NM by 5 NM), one to 

the east and one to the west of the 

airport and between the 20 NM and 25 

NM arcs of the Atlanta VORTAC. The 

rule, however, was an interim measure 

that didn’t address all issues with the 

Class B design, and the FAA noted its 

intent to conduct a thorough review of 

the Atlanta Class B airspace design for 

possible future revisions. Except for the 

changes implemented in the 2006 rule, 

noted above, the configuration of the 

Atlanta Class B airspace area has 

remained largely unchanged since the 

1970s. 

Need for Modification 

Traffic at ATL has increased 

dramatically in the years since the 

airspace was originally designed. The 

airport has expanded from three parallel 

runways in the early 1980s to five 

parallel runways today. The operation 

has changed from a large contingent of 

propeller-driven aircraft to an almost all 

jet fleet today with a varied mix of 

aircraft types in the terminal area. The 

operational complexity at ATL also has 

increased dramatically with the 

addition of the fifth runway and the 

introduction of advanced navigation 

procedures (e.g., RNAV SIDs and 

STARs), which necessitates additional 

Class B airspace and more stringent 

procedures. In addition, there is a 

renewed safety emphasis on retaining 

all large turbine-powered aircraft within 

the Class B airspace to avoid mixing 

with other aircraft that are not in contact 

with ATC. The Atlanta operation has 

outgrown the 1970s airspace design and 

air traffic controllers often must vector 

aircraft on inefficient routes in an effort 

to keep them within Class B airspace. 

Keeping large jet aircraft within the 

existing Atlanta Class B airspace is not 

always possible. For example, arrivals 

are sometimes required to extend the 

downwind leg beyond the lateral limits 

of the existing Class B airspace before 

turning onto final due to traffic volume. 

On hot summer days, heavy aircraft on 

departure are sometimes unable to 

climb fast enough to stay above the 

rising floor of the Class B airspace. 

Clarification of Terms 

A review of comments received in 

response to the informal airspace 

meetings (see below) revealed some 

confusion over the meaning or 

application of several terms that apply 

to published VFR routes. Frequently, 

the terms are incorrectly used 

interchangeably. Since the terms are 

used in this NPRM, the following 

information is provided to explain the 

purpose of each type of route. 

A VFR Corridor is airspace through a 

Class B airspace area with defined 

vertical and lateral boundaries in which 

aircraft may operate without an ATC 

clearance or communication with ATC. 

The corridor is, in effect, a ‘‘tunnel’’ 

through Class B airspace. Due to heavy 

traffic volume and procedures necessary 

to manage the flow of traffic, it has not 

been possible to incorporate VFR 

corridors in Class B airspace areas in 

recent years. 

A VFR Flyway is a general flight path 

not defined as a specific course for use 

by pilots in planning flights into, out of, 

through or near complex terminal 

airspace to avoid Class B airspace. An 

ATC clearance is not required to fly 

these routes. Where established, VFR 

flyways are depicted on the reverse side 

of the VFR Terminal Area Chart (TAC), 

commonly referred to as ‘‘Class B 

charts.’’ They are designed to assist 

pilots in planning flights under or 

around busy Class B airspace without 

actually entering Class B airspace. 

A Class B airspace VFR transition 

route is a route depicted on a TAC to 

accommodate VFR traffic transiting 

through a specific Class B airspace area. 

The route includes a specific flight 

course and specific ATC-assigned 

altitudes. Pilots must obtain an ATC 

clearance prior to entering Class B 

airspace on the route. 

See the Aeronautical Information 

Manual (AIM) for more information 

about these routes. 

Pre-NPRM Public Input 

In October 2008, the FAA took action 

to form an Ad Hoc Committee to 

develop recommendations for the FAA 

to consider in designing a proposed 

modification to the Atlanta Class B 

airspace area. The Georgia Department 

of Transportation (GDOT) Aviation 

Programs Office headed the group, 

which consisted of representatives from 

airports that underlie the Atlanta Class 

B airspace area, national aviation 

organizations, and the ballooning and 

soaring communities. The Committee 

met three times between February 2009 

and April 2009. 

As announced in the Federal Register 

of December 4, 2009 (74 FR 63818), 

informal airspace meetings were held on 

February 22, 2010, in Kennesaw, GA; on 

February 25, 2010, in Covington, GA; on 

March 1, 2010, in Chamblee, GA; and on 

March 4, 2010, at Peachtree City Falcon 

Field, Peachtree City, GA. The purpose 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 5431 

of the meetings was to provide airspace 

users an opportunity to present their 

views and suggestions regarding 

modifications to the Atlanta Class B 

airspace area. 

Discussion of Ad Hoc Committee 

Recommendations and Comments 

As a starting point for discussions, a 

preliminary Class B design was 

presented to the Ad Hoc Committee for 

review. In general, the preliminary 

design consisted of lower Class B floors 

within a reduced radius of 30 NM from 

the ATL VORTAC as opposed to the 

current 35 NM radius. The preliminary 

design retained the extensions on the 

southwest and southeast corners as well 

as proposing new extensions on the 

northwest and northeast corners that 

extended out to a 40 NM radius in those 

areas. The Ad Hoc Committee submitted 

several recommendations to the FAA 

regarding the proposed modifications of 

the Atlanta Class B airspace area. 

The Committee raised three concerns 

related to the proposed lower Class B 

airspace floors, particularly in the 

airspace directly underlying the final 

approach courses at ATL. First, the 

Committee believed there would be 

increased congestion at lower altitudes 

due to VFR traffic trying to avoid flying 

in the Class B airspace area and leaving 

less room for VFR aircraft to transition 

the airspace. The Committee 

recommended the FAA establish 

transition routes for north and 

southbound traffic to assist VFR aircraft 

navigating through the area and to 

mitigate congestion below the Class B 

floor. 

The FAA understands the need for 

safe routes for VFR aircraft to transition 

through, around, and under the Class B 

airspace. The FAA originally considered 

proposing to lower the Class B floor in 

the airspace underlying the final 

approach courses at ATL from the 

current 3,500 feet MSL to 2,500 feet, 

which is the minimum vectoring 

altitude (MVA) in that area. Instead, the 

FAA proposed to set the floor at 3,000 

feet because that altitude would contain 

all operations that are not currently 

being contained with the existing 3,500 

foot floor. Aircraft executing a missed 

approach or a go-around from the 

southern-most runway are climbed to 

3,000 feet. This altitude is needed to 

deconflict traffic with other aircraft at 

4,000 feet. Aircraft at 3,000 feet 

routinely exit the existing Class B 

airspace, which conflicts with FAA 

procedures. The procedures cannot be 

changed due to the lack of available 

airspace to contain missed approaches. 

The 3,000 foot Class B floor provides 

adequate airspace for aircraft to safely 

transition under the Class B airspace 

and still maintain the required terrain 

and obstruction clearance. The FAA 

intends to establish VFR Waypoints and 

Reporting Points to assist VFR pilot 

navigation. The new VFR waypoints 

would be located over areas that can be 

easily identified visually. The FAA also 

plans to establish VFR routes that can be 

used to circumnavigate the Class B 

airspace when necessary to avoid 

aircraft operating within the Class B 

airspace. However, these routes would 

also be useful as a predetermined route 

through the Class B airspace when 

operations permit. In addition to these 

new VFR waypoints, the FAA intends to 

establish RNAV T-Routes within Class B 

airspace for transitioning over the top of 

ATL. The T-routes would be part of the 

low altitude IFR enroute structure, but 

could also serve as VFR transition 

routes through the Class B for suitably 

equipped aircraft. Since the routes 

would enter Class B airspace, an ATC 

clearance would be required to use the 

T-routes. Typically, VFR aircraft could 

be assigned either 4,500 feet or 5,500 

feet when transitioning along these 

routes. The new T-Routes would also 

make transitioning of IFR aircraft more 

safe and efficient. The VFR Flyway 

Planning Chart on the back of the 

Atlanta Terminal Area Chart would be 

updated to reflect the new routes and 

VFR waypoints. However, the FAA does 

not plan to establish a VFR Flyway or 

VFR corridor over the top of ATL 

because that airspace is too congested to 

accommodate such a flyway or corridor. 

Second, the Committee was 

concerned that the lower floors would 

result in commercial airline traffic 

flying at lower altitudes in closer 

proximity to the satellite airports in the 

ATL area. Therefore, the Committee 

contended that lower floors could 

decrease the efficiency of the satellite 

airports and create IFR delays for 

arriving and departing traffic at the 

satellite airports. 

The FAA looked at the Class B floors 

over the satellite airports. With the 

opening of the fifth runway at ATL, 

departure procedures had to be 

modified to reduce delays. One 

procedural modification was to separate 

the prop and turboprop traffic from 

traffic lanes used by faster jet aircraft. 

This resulted in more aircraft being 

turned north and south off of ATL. The 

routes that these aircraft take are already 

in existence and aircraft are already 

flying in the vicinity of Fulton county 

Airport-Brown Field (FTY) and DekalbPeachtree (PDK) airports, but below the 

floor of the existing Class B airspace. 

Lowering the floor of the Class B 

airspace over these airports would only 

ensure that this existing ATL departure 

traffic is contained within the Class B 

airspace as required by FAA directives. 

The change would not affect IFR traffic 

flows at either FTY or PDK. Also, the 

lower floor would not impose a lower 

initial altitude for aircraft departing 

these airports. Today, all aircraft 

departing all satellite airports are 

initially assigned 3,000 feet. Aircraft are 

then normally assigned 5,000 feet, or 

higher, upon initial contact with 

departure control. The assignment of 

higher altitudes is not dependent on the 

Class B airspace, but rather on the 

internal IFR airspace delegations within 

Atlanta TRACON (A80). This practice 

would not change because of the 

proposed modifications of the Class B 

airspace. There would be no expected 

increase in delays at satellite airports 

due to the lowering of the Class B floor. 

Regarding satellite airport VFR traffic, 

it is true that lowering the floor of the 

Class B airspace may affect altitudes 

that VFR aircraft can initially climb to 

and still remain outside of the proposed 

Class B airspace. For example, aircraft 

departing southbound from Atlanta 

Regional Airport-Falcon Field (FFC), 

Newnan Coweta County (CCO), Clayton 

County-Tara Field (4A7) and GriffinSpalding County (6A2) airports 

currently are able to climb to about 

7,500 feet and still remain outside of the 

Class B airspace. Lowering the floor 

would have an impact VFR aircraft 

departing those airports in that they 

would have to remain below 6,000 feet 

or 5,000 feet until clear of the Class B 

airspace boundary, or request Class B 

service from A80. With today’s Class B 

airspace configuration, large turbinepowered aircraft are allowed to mix 

with smaller aircraft departing the 

airports listed above. Containing large 

turbine-powered aircraft within Class B 

airspace, in compliance with FAA 

procedures, would increase safety in the 

area by minimizing the potential mixing 

of controlled and uncontrolled aircraft. 

The Committee’s third concern 

regarding the lower floors was the 

potential increase in noise complaints 

from surrounding communities. The 

FAA understands the concerns of the 

surrounding communities concerning 

noise and the effect of lowering the base 

of the Class B airspace. However, the 

Class B airspace changes under 

consideration are not associated with 

any changes of flight path or altitude. 

The FAA does not intend to change any 

existing instrument procedures in 

conjunction with the proposed Class B 

changes. As noted above, changes in the 

Class B airspace are being proposed 

purely to ensure that existing 

instrument procedures are contained 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

5432 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

within the designated Class B airspace. 

The FAA believes that the noise 

concerns result from the perception that 

aircraft would be flying lower if the 

Class B floor is lowered. Aircraft are 

already flying in those areas, and at 

those altitudes, utilizing current FAA 

procedures, but these aircraft are not 

presently contained within Class B 

airspace as required by FAA policy. 

This proposal is subject to an 

environmental analysis prior to any 

FAA final regulatory action. 

The Committee recommended that the 

FAA establish visual references to mark 

the Class B boundaries to assist VFR 

aircraft that have limited navigation 

equipment. The FAA agrees and would 

establish VFR Reporting Points at key 

points around the Class B airspace area 

to aid in navigation through and around 

the area, if this rule is adopted. 

The Committee recommended that the 

current 8,000 feet and 6,000 feet Class 

B airspace floors over PDK be retained, 

or kept as close to the current altitudes 

as possible, in order to maintain 

efficient operations at PDK. 

Due to the opening of the fifth runway 

at ATL, departure procedures had to be 

modified to reduce delays, as described 

above. Aircraft are already flying in the 

vicinity of PDK airport. Lowering the 

floor of the Class B airspace over the 

satellite airports would only contain the 

existing ATL departure traffic within 

the Class B airspace; it would not affect 

IFR traffic flows at PDK. 

The Committee also recommended 

that the Class B floor over Covington 

Municipal Airport (9A1) not be lowered 

from 8,000 feet to 4,000 feet as 

proposed, but that the airport be 

excluded (i.e., ‘‘cut out’’) from the Class 

B airspace. After reviewing this 

recommendation, the FAA found that 

the airspace over 9A1 could be excluded 

without an adverse impact to the ATL 

operation. The proposed Class B 

airspace boundary has been revised so 

that 9A1 would be completely outside 

of Class B airspace. 

In addition to the above 

recommendations, the Ad Hoc 

Committee report listed a number of 

other concerns about the preliminary 

design that were not directly tied to a 

recommendation. These concerns are 

discussed below. 

The Committee stated that lower IFR 

departure altitudes could force faster 

aircraft to mix with slower aircraft. 

The proposed design of the Class B 

would not result in lower IFR departure 

altitudes. IFR traffic flows would be the 

same with the proposed Class B airspace 

design as they are today. The initial 

departure altitude has been 3,000 feet 

for all satellite airports since the mid 

1970s. After initial departure, aircraft 

are normally assigned 5,000 feet until 

they are clear of other traffic landing at 

ATL. IFR aircraft are not restricted by 

the Class B airspace, but rather by other 

IFR traffic. Once the conflicting traffic is 

clear, aircraft are routinely cleared to 

climb into/through the Atlanta Class B 

airspace. There remains the possibility 

of faster and slower aircraft mixing at 

low altitudes outside of the Class B 

airspace. This, however, is not new and 

is more a function of satellite airport 

proximity to the ATL airport than of the 

Class B airspace. 

The Committee held that the FAA had 

not studied the effect of the proposed 

Class B design on VFR traffic flow. 

There are two areas where VFR flights 

would be most affected by the proposed 

change in the Class B airspace. The first 

area is below the new proposed 5,000 

foot MSL shelf north of ATL. In this 

area, pilots would have to choose 

between flying at a lower altitude, 

circumnavigating the area to the north, 

or requesting Class B service from A80. 

Likewise, the area that currently 

underlies the final approach courses for 

ATL is proposed to be lowered to 3,000 

feet MSL. Again, pilots must choose 

between flying lower, circumnavigating 

the area, or requesting Class B service 

from A80 to transition the area. Large 

turbine powered aircraft are routinely 

operating in both of these areas. Class B 

airspace is necessary in these areas to 

ensure the highest level of safety 

possible in the Atlanta terminal area. 

The Committee raised the issue of 

flight restrictions over the Atlanta Motor 

Speedway in Hampton, GA, during 

NASCAR races. The Committee believed 

that lowering the Class B floor from 

8,000 feet to 6,000 feet in that area 

would cause compression of traffic 

when a race was in progress. 

The flight restriction, currently 

described in FDC NOTAM number 9/ 

5151, prohibits flight within a 3 NM 

radius of the track, up to and including 

3,000 feet AGL, during the period from 

one hour before until one hour after the 

end of the event. While events subject 

to the restrictions of this NOTAM occur 

once a year at the Atlanta Motor 

Speedway, the restriction does not 

apply to other Speedway race events. 

Even when the restriction is in effect, 

the FAA does not believe that 

circumnavigating the area would be a 

significant impact to aircraft operating 

in the vicinity. As stated in the 

NOTAM, the restriction does not apply 

to aircraft authorized by, and in contact 

with, ATC for operational or safety of 

flight purposes. Furthermore, aircraft 

may operate in the restricted airspace to 

the extent necessary to arrive at or 

depart from an airport using standard 

air traffic control procedures. 

The Committee stated that 

compressing aircraft lower to the ground 

as a result of lower Class B floors places 

aircraft closer to obstacles and terrain, 

which limits the time pilots have to 

respond to a mechanical emergency. 

Pilots must plan their flights to take 

these potential situations into account. 

Today, aircraft routinely operate at or 

below 2,400 feet while transitioning 

under the existing Class B airspace. This 

altitude is 600 feet below the floor of the 

proposed Class B airspace in some 

areas. This altitude has routinely 

provided safe obstacle and terrain 

clearance for aircraft transitioning under 

the Class B airspace. 

Instead of lowering the Class B floor, 

one Committee member suggested that 

ATC should advise aircraft with poor 

climb performance that they are leaving 

the Class B airspace or publish a climb 

gradient that will allow aircraft to 

remain within the existing Class B 

airspace. 

The need for lower Class B airspace 

floors to the north and to the south of 

ATL is based on the requirement to fully 

contain existing instrument procedures 

within Class B airspace. These 

procedures are not fully contained by 

today’s Class B airspace configuration. 

Due to internal airspace delegations 

designed to segregate slower prop and 

turboprop traffic from turbojet traffic, 

prop and turboprop aircraft must fly at 

lower altitudes out to 20NM before they 

can initiate a climb. This allows enough 

room for turbojet aircraft to climb above 

the prop and turboprop aircraft. 

Additionally, merely advising the 

aircraft that they are leaving the Class B 

airspace is not an option. Retaining 

these aircraft within the Class B airspace 

is required by FAA policy and is a top 

safety issue. Since the existing airspace 

is inadequate, the Class B design needs 

to be modified. 

The Committee wrote that the new 

proposed Class B extensions on the 

northwest and northeast corners 

(referred to by commenters as the ‘‘ears’’ 

or ‘‘wings’’), as well as the existing 

southwest and southeast extensions, 

would be difficult to navigate around 

and that they are unnecessary. The FAA 

reevaluated this feature and concluded 

that all four ‘‘ears’’ can be deleted from 

the proposed design. 

The Committee believed that the 

lower Class B floors could impact 

sailplane operations at the MonroeWalton County Airport (D73) and the 

West Georgia Regional Airport-O. V. 

Gray Field (CTJ). It contended that the 

lower inbound traffic to ATL from the 

east and the west would infringe on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 5433 

airspace being used outside of the Class 

B airspace by sailplanes. 

Arrival traffic to ATL does not 

typically fly in the vicinity of those 

airports. ATL inbounds are routed from 

the four corners, northeast, northwest, 

southeast, and southwest. These arrival 

corridors are well clear of the two 

airports and are not changing due to the 

proposed the Class B airspace 

modifications. 

The Ad Hoc Committee report also 

included an alternative Class B design 

for FAA’s consideration. In part, this 

design consisted of higher Class B floors 

than those proposed by the FAA, such 

as retaining the current 8,000 foot floor 

north and south of ATL. Also, a large 

portion of the Class B would have a 

6,000 foot floor. A block of Class B 

airspace would be aligned along the 

extended centerlines, to the east and 

west of the airport, with a floor of 2,500 

feet from 7 NM to 12 NM, and a base 

of 3,500 feet MSL from 12 NM out to 20 

NM. Surrounding this section on all 

sides, the Class B floor would be 5,000 

feet MSL. The 5,000 foot area would 

provide for westbound VFR traffic at 

4,500 feet MSL north of the airport and 

eastbound VFR traffic at 3,500 feet MSL 

south of the airport. 

The Committee’s proposal would 

require changing ATC procedures to fit 

the proposed alternate airspace, instead 

of changing the airspace to fit the 

procedures. These procedures, adopted 

over many years, have proven to be the 

most efficient for handling the high 

volume of traffic serving ATL. The main 

points of the alternative design in the 

Committee’s report are discussed below. 

1. The FAA does not find that the 

6,000 foot area would be adequate to 

contain all large turbine powered 

aircraft departing ATL. It does not allow 

enough room for departures to clear 

internal airspace boundaries that protect 

ATL jet departures from satellite airport 

departures. Additionally, on the 

southeast and southwest corners of the 

airspace, it does not allow ATL arrival 

aircraft to get low enough to feed the 

south final. 

2. Raising the Class B airspace floor 

over the downtown area and the 

stadiums to 5,000 feet to allow traffic to 

overfly the FTY Class D airspace area 

and (when NOTAM 9/5151 is in effect) 

would be problematic. The current floor 

over the downtown area would not 

change in the FAA’s proposed Class B 

design. The floor of the Class B airspace 

over the downtown area has been 3,500 

feet since at least the mid-1970s and has 

provided adequate space for aircraft to 

transition that airspace. A 5,000-foot 

floor would not allow departures or 

missed approach aircraft to be contained 

within the Class B airspace. 

3. The Committee contended that 

turboprop departures should not be 

turned until they can comply with the 

5,000 foot floor. This is not 

operationally feasible because it would 

require the turboprops to be blended 

back in with the jets on departure and 

would greatly reduce departure capacity 

at ATL. 

4. The Committee suggested that ATL 

missed approaches should be flown as 

departures unless an emergency exists. 

This alternative procedure would not 

allow ATC enough options. The rules 

that apply to missed approaches in a 

terminal environment, where multiple 

runways are being used simultaneously 

for arrivals and departures, are very 

complex. They require ATC to retain the 

maximum flexibility in the operation to 

ensure that we can effectively separate 

missed approach and unplanned goarounds from departing aircraft. 

Sometimes, aircraft will be able to 

proceed outbound on the departure 

tracks. Other times aircraft must be 

turned immediately to avoid aircraft 

departing simultaneously from a 

parallel runway. 

5. The Committee also contended that 

long, low, finals are not needed. 

Currently, aircraft are turned on to 

parallel finals at ATL between 3,500 feet 

and 7,000 feet MSL. FAA Order JO 

7110.65 requires that aircraft being 

turned onto parallel finals be separated 

by 3 miles longitudinal or 1,000 feet 

vertical separation until they are 

established on final approach course. It 

is more efficient to turn the aircraft on 

final with vertical separation. Raising 

the altitude that aircraft are turned on to 

parallel finals would result in even 

longer finals and would require Class B 

extensions beyond 30NM. The FAA has 

been able to reduce the size of the 

proposed Class B on the east and west 

sides to less than 30 NM based on the 

existing procedures. 

Discussion of Informal Airspace 

Meeting Comments 

Over 150 comments were received in 

response to the informal airspace 

meetings. Two commenters wrote in 

support of the proposal, while the 

remaining comments opposed various 

aspects of the proposed Class B 

modifications. 

One commenter contended that the 

proposed Class B changes are premature 

since ATL flights declined in 2009 and 

could continue to do so over the next 

decade due to the U.S. economic 

downturn. According to the commenter, 

the current Class B should be left in 

place and reviewed again in five or ten 

years. 

While economic swings may happen 

periodically, the volume of traffic and 

passenger boardings at ATL remain 

extremely high. Passenger boardings at 

ATL declined by just over three percent 

from 2008 to 2009, but even so, 

boardings exceeded 42 million 

passengers (over eight times the 

threshold to qualify for Class B 

airspace). Calendar year 2010 data show 

a two percent rise in boardings from the 

previous year. Similarly, airport 

operations declined slightly from 2008 

to 2009, but still totaled over 970,000 

operations (more than three times the 

number to qualify for Class B airspace). 

The proposed airspace changes are 

necessary to ensure safety of flight. 

Nevertheless, the FAA would continue 

to periodically evaluate the airspace 

design and may propose changes in the 

future if circumstances dictate. 

Some commenters suggested that the 

ATL Class B airspace should be set up 

like that in Seattle, WA, but aligned 

along ATL’s east/west approaches and 

departures with fixes outbound so 

traffic is strung out over a larger area 

east- and west-bound. They contended 

that this alignment would leave the 

northern satellite airports free to 

expedite their arrivals/departures; while 

ATL missed approaches could fly 

straight out. 

Each Class B airspace area design is 

individually tailored to fit the 

operational needs of the primary airport. 

Atlanta’s airspace system could not be 

set up like Seattle due to the many 

differences between the two operations. 

West coast facilities are able to take 

advantage of the fact that the majority of 

the traffic arrives from the same 

direction (east) while Atlanta traffic 

arrives from all directions. The Seattle 

Class B design is influenced by high 

terrain to the east and northwest as well 

as special use airspace northwest and 

southwest of the area. Additionally, the 

Atlanta operation is much larger than 

Seattle, involving five runways versus 

three, and accommodating over three 

times the number of airport operations. 

Seattle’s Class B configuration simply 

would not provide sufficient airspace to 

contain Atlanta’s operations. Regarding 

missed approaches, ATL missed 

approach aircraft cannot always fly 

straight out because aircraft departing 

from other runways also occupy the 

same airspace. In the FAA’s proposed 

design, the size of the Atlanta Class B 

would be reduced so that all Class B 

airspace beyond 30 NM would be 

eliminated. 

One commenter wrote that the 

proposed ‘‘wings’’ in the four quadrants 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

5434 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

should be retained because eliminating 

the wings exposes arriving aircraft 

below 10,000 feet to transitory 

nonparticipating aircraft 

circumnavigating the Class B airspace. 

The FAA has reevaluated the 

proposed Class B extensions. The 

existing and proposed ‘‘wings’’ 

extended beyond the 30 NM Class B 

lateral limit as provided in FAA Order 

JO 7400.2H. The vertical and lateral 

limits of the area are designed to contain 

all instrument procedures within Class 

B airspace. In this proposal, the outer 

limits of the proposed Class B have been 

reduced to a maximum of 30 NM from 

ATL to meet FAA policy and to address 

Ad Hoc Committee comments that the 

‘‘wings’’ should be reduced or 

eliminated. 

One commenter contended that 

aircraft will be unable to identify the 

lateral boundaries on the ‘‘45s’’ (Note: 

the ‘‘45s’’ refers to those Class B 

boundary lines currently described by 

the ATL VORTAC 323°, 031°, 138° and 

218° radials) because they would no 

longer be based on ATL VORTAC 

radials. In addition, the east and west 

Class B boundaries would be difficult to 

identify because they are defined by 

longitude lines rather than DME. 

The FAA has found that, in the 

current Class B design, some of the 

boundaries that are defined by radials 

and DME are the same areas where 

aircraft are consistently leaving the 

Class B airspace. Due to the position of 

the ATL VORTAC, if radials were used 

to describe the proposed realigned 

‘‘45s,’’ it would result in the designation 

of more Class B airspace than is needed 

to contain current operations. An 

increasing number of general and 

business aviation users are now RNAV 

or RNAV GPS equipped. Additionally, 

pilots may request vectors to remain 

clear of Class B airspace. The Ad Hoc 

Committee concurred with the use of 

GPS in defining certain area boundaries. 

Many commenters were concerned 

about the perceived impacts of the 

proposed changes on VFR operations in 

the Atlanta terminal area. It was stated 

that the FAA did not fully determine the 

impact on VFR aircraft flying beneath 

the Class B airspace. In response, a new 

study was done, which found that, of 

the 7,123 flights observed in the vicinity 

of PDK, 141 were operating above 5,000 

feet MSL. With almost 98% of the 

aircraft flying in that area already 

operating below 5,000 feet MSL, 

lowering the floor of Class B airspace to 

5,000 feet MSL would not significantly 

impact VFR operations. 

However, many commenters echoed 

concerns also raised by the Ad Hoc 

Committee that the lower Class B floors 

would cause the compression of VFR 

traffic beneath the Class B and/or 

require pilots to fly further to deviate 

around the Class B airspace. 

Commenters said that the changes could 

increase the potential for midair 

collisions, reduce the airspace available 

for avoiding Class D airspace areas and 

obstructions in the ATL terminal area, 

and leave pilots with less time and 

altitude to react to inflight emergency 

situations or locate a suitable emergency 

landing site. 

The FAA acknowledges these 

concerns and recognizes that 

compression could occur for some VFR 

operations. However, with the existing 

Class B configuration, VFR aircraft that 

are not in communication with ATC are 

currently mixing with turbine-powered 

ATL traffic. The FAA weighed the 

impacts to VFR pilots flying lower or 

choosing to circumnavigate the Class B 

airspace against the safety of having 

large turbine-powered aircraft flying at 

altitudes that are not contained within 

Class B airspace. Considering the heavy 

concentration of operations by all types 

of aircraft in the Atlanta terminal area, 

we believe the operation of large 

turbine-powered aircraft outside the 

Class B airspace poses a greater safety 

risk. Lowering the floor of the Class B 

airspace increases safety by segregating 

large turbine-powered aircraft from 

aircraft that may not be in contact with 

ATC. As always, it is the pilot’s 

prerogative and responsibility to 

evaluate these factors and determine the 

safest course of action for any given 

flight. 

One commenter opposed the lowering 

of the Class B floor in the vicinity of 

PDK from 8,000 feet to 5,000 feet 

because it could cause compression of 

VFR aircraft given the fact that the PDK 

Class D airspace ceiling is 3,500 feet. 

The existing Class B floor above PDK 

is 8,000 feet, while immediately to the 

east and south of PDK, the existing floor 

is 6,000 feet. Under the proposed Class 

B changes, the floor of Class B airspace 

above the southern half of the PDK Class 

D airspace would be 5,000 feet; to the 

northeast, the floor would be 6,000 feet; 

and to the northwest, the floor would be 

7,000 feet. This would still give pilots 

room to navigate north of the PDK 

airport eastbound at 5,500 feet. It is true 

that the proposed change would 

eliminate the 5,500 foot VFR altitude 

over the southern half of the PDK Class 

D airspace. This may require the pilot to 

make a choice to fly eastbound below 

3,000 feet AGL or to fly further north in 

order to fly above 3,000 feet AGL and 

below the Class B airspace. 

Other commenters argued that the 

proposed 3,000 foot floor on the east 

and west sides of the area would make 

it more difficult for VFR aircraft to 

navigate around the city and get from 

north-to-south and vice versa. The 

commenters asked that more waypointdriven VFR routes be developed around 

the city, and that a ‘‘corridor’’ used by 

A80 to route aircraft over ATL be 

publicized and added to the Sectional 

Chart and be made a more routine 

choice for VFR pilots. 

Regarding the proposed 3,000 foot 

floor, the existing Class B floor in those 

areas is 3,500 feet MSL. Today, aircraft 

landing at ATL are intercepting the 

southern final approach course farther 

from the airport than needed to meet the 

present Class B separation criteria. 

During Triple ILS approaches, aircraft 

are required to maintain 1,000 feet 

vertical separation until established on 

the final approach courses. This 

mandates an aircraft final approach 

interception point that is two NM 

farther from the airport than would be 

required if the Class B floor was lowered 

to 3,000 feet. The proposed 3,000-foot 

floor would allow aircraft to be turned 

onto the final approach course closer to 

the airport which would increase 

efficiency, save fuel and reduce 

emissions. Additionally, lowering the 

floor to 3,000 feet would allow Visual 

Approaches to be conducted more often, 

which is the most efficient arrival 

operation at ATL. The proposed 3,000 

foot floor would produce a safer 

airspace environment for aircraft 

arriving at the world’s busiest airport. 

Flying VFR under the lowest floor of the 

Class B airspace always requires the 

pilot in command to evaluate traffic that 

may be flying overhead within the Class 

B as well as terrain, obstructions and 

emergency landing options and 

determine the best and safest course of 

action for the planned flight. Regarding 

waypoint-driven VFR routes, the 

Atlanta TAC would be revised to 

contain VFR flyways as well as GPS 

intersections/waypoints to assist VFR 

pilot navigation. 

In regard to the comment about A80’s 

‘‘corridor’’ over the top of Atlanta, this 

is not the same thing as a ‘‘VFR 

corridor’’ as described in the 

Clarification of Terms section, above. 

The A80 Satellite Sectors are assigned 

airspace within the Class B that can be 

used to transition aircraft north and 

south. This airspace delegation is 

adjusted based on the operational 

runway configuration in use at ATL. It 

is a 6 NM wide north/south airspace 

area that overlies the approach side of 

the arrival runways. Its primary use is 

to route IFR aircraft departing airports 

north of VOR Federal airway V–18 that 

are filed to destinations south of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 5435 

Atlanta area. It is also used when 

operationally advantageous to route 

some aircraft northbound that are 

landing at airports to the north and 

within A80’s airspace. This small, high 

traffic density ‘‘corridor,’’ encompassing 

5,000 to 6,000 feet, is used by air traffic 

controllers to efficiently flow and meter 

Atlanta satellite airport aircraft. Since 

the location of the ‘‘corridor’’ shifts 

based on the direction of operations at 

ATL, it would be impractical to publish 

the locations on aeronautical charts. 

Clearance into the area is based on 

traffic and the workload of the Satellite 

Controllers. It is intended for controller 

operational use. Pilots may request use 

of the ‘‘corridor’’ and controllers may 

approve the request when appropriate. 

VFR aircraft flying in this airspace are 

required to obtain a Class B clearance. 

Several commenters said that the FAA 

should have considered establishing 

VFR corridors through the Class B 

airspace to offset the issue of flying 

beneath the lower Class B floors. The 

FAA considered a VFR corridor, 

however, since a VFR corridor permits 

flight through Class B airspace without 

an ATC clearance or radio 

communications requirements, the idea 

was not adopted due to the high volume 

of traffic, the amount of airspace 

required to create a useful corridor, and 

the potential effects on safety 

considering weather and missed 

approach procedures. 

One commenter requested that the 

FAA establish ‘‘traffic dependent 

routes’’ that could be used to allow 

more direct routes to FTY and PDK 

when traffic, time and weather 

conditions permit. ‘‘Traffic dependent 

routes’’ are currently being discussed 

with A80 separately from this Class B 

proposal process. Class B airspace 

would have no effect on the 

implementation of ‘‘traffic dependent 

routes.’’ 

One commenter noted a lack of IFR 

arrival routes into the satellite airports 

for use by smaller, but technically 

advanced, aircraft. Currently, the DIFFI 

ONE, JRAMS TWO (RNAV) and the 

TRBOW EIGHT Standard Terminal 

Arrivals (STARs) are in effect. These 

STARs were designed to facilitate all 

types of aircraft inbound from the south 

of Atlanta that have filed to airports 

north of Atlanta that are within A80’s 

airspace. It is important to note that 

these STARs are also designed to keep 

aircraft that are not landing at the 

Atlanta Airport safely outside of the 

Atlanta base leg arrival traffic as well as 

Atlanta departing traffic. 

Several commenters suggested that 

lowering the Class B floors would result 

in increased IFR departure delays from 

satellite airports such as FTY and PDK. 

The existence of Class B airspace has no 

impact on delays from these airports. 

The determining factors for delays are 

normally traffic volume and weather. 

No additional IFR aircraft would be 

introduced into the airspace over these 

airports, so the traffic that flows through 

the affected airspace is already there. 

Where aircraft fly today in that area is 

where they would fly if the new 

airspace is implemented. The only 

difference is that, if the new Class B is 

implemented, those aircraft would be 

contained within the Class B airspace. 

IFR aircraft departing from satellite 

airports would not be artificially held 

down due to a change in the floor of the 

Class B airspace. Any IFR delays 

experienced by the satellite airports 

should be of the same frequency and 

magnitude as those experienced today. 

There is also a perception that IFR 

aircraft departing satellite airports are 

kept out of the Class B airspace. This is 

not the case. With the proposed Class B 

airspace, aircraft departing satellite 

airports would be worked within Class 

B airspace much more often. For 

example, a turbojet aircraft departing 

Runway 8 at FTY going eastbound is 

normally assigned 5,000 feet MSL 

shortly after takeoff. Today, that aircraft 

is outside Class B airspace. If the 

proposed Class B change is 

implemented, that same aircraft would 

still be assigned 5,000 feet but would be 

contained within Class B airspace. 

A pilot who flies out of Gwinnett 

County Airport-Briscoe Field (LZU) (in 

comparing his current operations below 

the existing 6,000 foot floor, to the north 

of Atlanta) stated that if the Class B floor 

is lowered to 5,000 feet in that area, he 

could not legally fly VFR at 3,000 feet 

AGL. Aircraft operating below Class B 

airspace north of Atlanta may transition 

west bound at 4,500 feet MSL and 

eastbound at 3,500 feet MSL. These 

altitudes ensure that VFR aircraft are 

outside of Class B airspace and will 

remain above the FTY Class D airspace 

area. In this instance, there are at least 

three options for VFR aircraft: 

1. Alter course to avoid the FTY, 

Dobbins ARB (MGE), DeKalb-Peachtree 

(PDK) and Cobb County-McCollum 

Field (RYY) Class D airspace areas at 

3,500 MSL; 

2. Ask for VFR Flight Following from 

A80. If VFR aircraft are receiving VFR 

Flight Following from A80, they can 

transit these Class D airspace areas 

without having to contact each 

individual control tower; or 

3. Fly just north of an east/west line 

over PDK which will put VFR aircraft in 

an area where the lower limit of Class 

B is either 6,000 or 7,000 MSL. This 

airspace can be transited at 5,500 feet 

MSL while remaining outside the Class 

B and Class D airspace areas. 

Another commenter said that 

extending the Class B airspace to LZU 

would require pilots on approach to 

Runway 7 to fly under the Class B shelf 

which could discourage access by light 

sport pilots and students. The 

commenter asked that the Class B 

boundary be moved farther from LZU to 

allow several miles for extended 

downwind. Since the existing Class B 

airspace extends out to 35 NM, today 

the LZU airport totally underlies a shelf 

of Class B airspace. With the proposed 

Class B design, LZU airport would be 

completely outside the Class B 

boundary. Aircraft approaching Runway 

7 may still need to fly under a 6,000 foot 

Class B floor, but this floor is well above 

traffic pattern altitude and leaves plenty 

of room for aircraft to maneuver. The 

proposed design would be much less 

restrictive to LZU airport operations 

than the existing airspace. 

One commenter believed that 

lowering the Class B floor would cause 

the existing VFR ‘‘corridors’’ to be 

within Class B airspace, thus defeating 

the purpose of the ‘‘corridors.’’ ATL 

does not have VFR corridors in either 

the current or proposed airspace design. 

The FAA believes that the commenter is 

referring, instead, to the charted VFR 

flyways depicted on the reverse side of 

the Atlanta VFR Terminal Area Chart. If 

the proposed airspace is implemented, 

these flyways will be amended based on 

the Class B changes. The FAA intends 

to develop additional flyways and to 

add GPS waypoints to the chart to assist 

pilots in navigating around the area. The 

FAA has no plans to develop a VFR 

corridor within the Atlanta Class B 

airspace area because the airspace is 

simply too congested. 

Over 90 comments concerned impacts 

of the proposal on the communities 

around PDK airport, including: 

Increased noise and air pollution; lower 

property values and inability to sell 

homes; detrimental effect on local 

businesses; reduced tax revenues; and 

decreased quality of life. Noise 

complaints were a recurring issue 

because many commenters believed that 

lowering the floor of the Class B 

airspace would cause aircraft to fly 

lower over residential areas resulting in 

increased noise for their communities. 

The FAA is not proposing to change 

existing air traffic procedures or flight 

paths, therefore, where aircraft fly today 

is where they would continue to fly if 

the proposed Class B changes are 

implemented. As stated previously, the 

reason for the proposed Class B change 

is to comply with agency policy to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

5436 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

contain large turbine-powered aircraft 

arriving and departing ATL within Class 

B airspace on the routes they are 

currently flying. Therefore, the Class B 

changes should not cause an increase of 

over-flight noise from what residents are 

experiencing today. 

Additionally, there is a perception 

that Hartsfield jets will begin flying 

lower over residential areas near PDK 

airport due to the lowering of the Class 

B floor. The FAA does not intend to 

change where aircraft fly today. ATL 

arrivals are operating in the area in 

question at 6,000 feet today and they 

will continue to operate at that altitude 

in the future. As previously discussed, 

the purpose of the proposed lowering of 

the Class B floor to 5,000 feet is to 

encompass ATL departures that are 

already operating in that area at 5,000 

feet underneath the arrivals (but outside 

the confines of Class B airspace). ATL 

arrival flows could not be lowered from 

6,000 feet to 5,000 feet without also 

lowering the departures down to 4,000 

feet in order to be below the arrivals 

with proper separation. This would 

require the Class B floor to be even 

lower at 4,000 feet, but that is not being 

considered. Since arrivals and 

departures to both ATL and PDK will 

continue to operate at the same altitudes 

as they do today, none of the above 

impacts would result from the proposed 

Class B changes. In fact, the vast 

majority of noise being experienced by 

residents is caused by aircraft at or 

below 3,000 feet MSL when taking off 

from, or landing at, PDK. These aircraft 

will continue to fly at those altitudes 

regardless of any changes made to the 

Atlanta Class B airspace. The proposed 

Class B changes would have no effect, 

positive or negative, on noise generated 

by aircraft arriving or departing PDK. 

Therefore, lowering the floor of Class B 

airspace to 5,000 feet MSL would not 

have an appreciable effect on the 

amount of noise experienced by 

residents in the neighborhoods 

surrounding PDK. 

Two commenters wrote that a new 

reliever airport should be constructed in 

the Atlanta area to support the growth 

of air travel and preclude the need for 

modifying the Class B airspace. This 

suggestion is outside the scope of this 

proposed rulemaking effort. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Atlanta 

Class B airspace area. This action 

(depicted on the attached chart) 

proposes to lower the floor of Class B 

airspace to ensure the containment of 

large turbine-powered aircraft, reduce 

the outer lateral dimensions of the area 

for more efficient airspace utilization, 

and update the Atlanta airport 

geographic position to reflect the 

current airport survey information. The 

Class B airspace ceiling would remain at 

12,500 feet MSL. The proposed 

revisions of the Atlanta Class B airspace 

area are outlined below. 

Area A. Area A is the surface area that 

extends from the ground up to 12,500 

feet MSL. The FAA is not proposing any 

changes to Area A. 

Area B. A revised Area B is proposed 

consisting of that airspace extending 

upward from 2,500 feet MSL east and 

west of the Atlanta airport. The revised 

Area B would combine two existing 

subareas, B and C. The existing area B 

consists of a small segment of airspace, 

east of the ATL airport that extends 

upward from 2,100 feet MSL between 

the 7 and 9-mile radii of the Atlanta 

VORTAC. The existing Area C includes 

that airspace extending upward from 

2,500 feet MSL, east and west of Atlanta 

airport between the 7 and 12 NM radius 

of the Atlanta VORTAC. With this 

change, the existing 2,100-foot floor of 

Class B airspace would be eliminated. 

Area C. Area C is redefined to include 

that airspace that extends upward from 

3,000 feet MSL (as described above, the 

existing Area C extends upward from 

2,500 feet MSL). The new Area C would 

lower the existing floor of Class B 

airspace from 3,500 feet MSL to 3,000 

feet MSL. Currently, Area D includes 

the airspace extending upward from 

3,500 feet MSL. With this proposal, 

most of the airspace now in Area D 

would be incorporated into the new 

Area C (with the lower 3,000-foot floor). 

Area D. This area would still consist 

of that airspace extending upward from 

3,500 feet MSL. However, it would be 

significantly reduced in size due to the 

modification of Area C, described above. 

The revised Area D would include only 

that airspace bounded on the south by 

a line 4 miles north of and parallel to 

the Runway 08L/26R localizer course, 

and on the north by a line 8 miles north 

of and parallel to the above mentioned 

localizer courses. The revised Area D 

would be bounded on the west by long. 

84°51′38′′ W., and on the east by long. 

84°00′32′′ W. 

Area E. This area would continue to 

include the airspace extending upward 

from 4,000 feet MSL, but it would be 

modified incorporating a small segment 

of Class B airspace, south of ATL that 

currently extends upward from 6,000 

feet MSL. In addition, Area E would 

incorporate the two segments, currently 

extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL 

that were added by the October 2006 

rule as discussed in the Background 

section, above. 

Area F. Area F consists of that 

airspace extending upward from 5,000 

feet MSL. The area currently is 

composed of four small segments, one 

southwest of ATL, one southeast and 

the two segments east and west of ATL 

that were designated in the October 

2006 rule. These four areas would be 

removed from Area F and incorporated 

into other subareas with lower floors. 

The modified Area F would be located 

north of ATL within the area bounded 

on the south by a line 8 miles north of 

and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R 

localizer courses, and on the north by a 

line 13.5 miles north of and parallel to 

the above mentioned localizer courses. 

On the east and west, Area F would be 

bounded approximately by the 30 NM 

radius of the Atlanta VORTAC. The 

effect of this change would be to lower 

the floor of Class B airspace from 6,000 

feet MSL to 5,000 feet MSL in the 

described area. 

Area G. Area G contains that airspace 

extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL. 

Currently, Area G consists of airspace 

north of ATL, which would largely be 

incorporated into the revised Area F. 

The revised Area G would consist of the 

airspace bounded approximately 

between the Atlanta VORTAC 30 NM 

radius on the south, and a line 12 miles 

south of and parallel to the Runway 10/ 

28 localizer courses. 

Area H. This area consists of two 

airspace segments that extend upward 

from 5,000 feet MSL, one located 

southwest and one located southeast of 

ATL. The Area H segments would be 

bounded on the north by a line 12 miles 

south of and parallel to the Runway 10/ 

28 localizer courses and on the south by 

the 30 NM radius of the Atlanta 

VORTAC, excluding the airspace within 

Area G as described above. 

Area I. Area I is redefined to consist 

of the airspace extending upward from 

7,000 feet MSL north of ATL. The 

revised Area I would be bounded on the 

north side by the 30 NM radius of the 

Atlanta VORTAC; on the south by a line 

13.5 NM north of and parallel to the 

Runway 08L/26R localizer courses; on 

the east by a line from lat. 33°52′25′′ N., 

long. 84°19′08′′ W. direct to lat. 

34°04′20′′ N., long. 84°09′24′′ W.; and on 

the west by a line from lat 33°53′28′′ N., 

long. 84°36′07′′ W. This change would 

lower the floor of Class B airspace from 

8,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL in the 

defined area. 

Area J. Area J would be a new subarea 

to describe that airspace extending 

upward from 6,000 feet MSL in two 

segments, one northwest and one 

northeast, of ATL. One segment would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 5437 

abut the west side of Area I and the 

other segment would abut the east side 

of Area I. The two segments would abut 

the northern boundary of Area F, with 

the 30 NM radius of the Atlanta 

VORTAC defining their northern edges. 

Area J would lower part of the Class B 

airspace floor from 8,000 feet MSL to 

6,000 feet MSL in the northwest and 

northeast sections of the area. 

If the above proposed changes are 

implemented, all existing Class B 

airspace that lies outside the 30 NM 

radius of the Atlanta VORTAC would be 

eliminated. These changes are being 

proposed to ensure the containment of 

large turbine-powered aircraft within 

Class B airspace as required by FAA 

directives to enhance safety and the 

efficient management of air traffic in the 

Atlanta, GA terminal area. 

The geographic coordinates in this 

proposal are stated in degrees, minutes 

and seconds based on North American 

Datum 83. 

Class B airspace areas are published 

in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order 

7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and 

effective September 15, 2011, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class B airspace area proposed 

in this document would be published 

subsequently in the Order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined that there is no new 

information collection requirement 

associated with this final rule. 

Regulatory Evaluation Summary 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 directs 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 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 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 proposed rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows: 

This action proposes to modify the 

Atlanta, GA, Class B airspace area to 

ensure the containment of aircraft 

within Class B airspace, reduce 

controller workload and enhance safety 

in the Atlanta, GA, terminal area. It 

lowers the Class B Airspace in some 

sections to encompass existing IFR 

traffic. Lowering the floor of the Class B 

airspace would increase safety by 

segregating large turbine-powered 

aircraft from aircraft that may not be in 

contact with ATC. It would also 

increase safety and reduce air traffic 

controller workload by reducing the 

number of radio communications that 

air traffic controllers must use to inform 

IFR aircraft when they are leaving and 

re-entering Class B airspace. This would 

reduce the amount of distraction that air 

traffic controllers face in issuing these 

communications and free radio time for 

more important control instructions. IFR 

traffic would not be rerouted as a result 

of this proposal. 

The change may cause some VFR 

pilots to have to choose between flying 

lower, circumnavigating the area, or 

requesting Class B service from A80 to 

transition the area. This has the 

potential of increasing costs to VFR 

pilots if the alternative routes are longer, 

take more time and burn more fuel. The 

FAA believes, however, that there 

would be minimal impact to VFR 

aircraft operating where the Class B 

floor would be lowered. Where the floor 

would be lowered to 5,000 feet, an FAA 

sampling of VFR traffic found that 98 

percent of 7123 VFR flights were 

already operating below 5,000 feet. 

Where the floor would be lowered to 

3,000 feet, we believe there is sufficient 

airspace to allow safe flight below the 

Class B airspace. The minimum 

vectoring altitude (based in part on 

obstruction clearance) under most of the 

proposed 3,000-foot floor is 2,500 feet. 

VFR aircraft can and do fly safely at 

2,000 feet under the existing Class B 

floor. Recognizing that some VFR 

aircraft may elect to circumnavigate 

instead of flying lower, it is only a short 

deviation in distance and time would be 

needed to place the aircraft beneath a 

higher Class B floor. 

The FAA intends to take actions that 

would increase the alternatives 

available to VFR pilots. For instance, if 

this proposal is adopted, the FAA 

intends to establish VFR Waypoints and 

Reporting Points to assist VFR pilot 

navigation, and to establish VFR routes 

that can be used to circumnavigate the 

Class B airspace or used as a 

predetermined route through the Class B 

airspace when operations permit. In 

addition to these new VFR waypoints, 

the FAA would establish RNAV T– 

Routes within Class B airspace for 

transitioning over the top of ATL 

airports. These various alternatives 

should provide pilots with options that 

would assist them in navigating around 

or beneath the Class B and/or to request 

ATC clearance to cut through the Class 

B. The FAA believes that no more than 

a small percent of VFR traffic would 

choose to travel longer, less efficient or 

more costly routes because safe flight 

would still be possible beneath most of 

the Class B airspace, A80 would 

continue to provide VFR services to 

assist pilots in transiting the area, and 

only short course deviations would be 

needed if pilots decide to avoid the 

areas with lower Class B floors. 

The FAA would have to update maps 

and charts to indicate the airspace 

modifications, but these documents are 

updated regularly. These modifications 

would be made within the normal 

updating process and therefore would 

not contribute to the cost of the rule 

since the updates would be as 

scheduled. 

The proposed rule redefines Class B 

airspace boundaries to improve safety, 

would not require updating of materials 

outside the normal update cycle, would 

not require rerouting of IFR traffic, and 

is expected to possibly cause some VFR 

traffic to travel alternative routes which 

are not expected to be appreciably 

longer than with the current airspace 

design. The expected outcome would be 

a minimal impact with positive net 

benefits, and a regulatory evaluation 

was not prepared. The FAA requests 

comments with supporting justification 

about the FAA determination of 

minimal impact. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

5438 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

FAA has, therefore, determined that 

this proposed 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. 

Initial 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-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

The proposed rule is expected to 

improve safety by redefining Class B 

airspace boundaries and would impose 

only minimal costs because it would not 

require rerouting of IFR traffic, could 

possibly cause some VFR traffic to travel 

alternative routes that are not expected 

to be appreciably longer than with the 

current airspace design, and would not 

require updating of materials outside 

the normal update cycle. Therefore, the 

expected outcome would be a minimal 

economic impact on small entities 

affected by this rulemaking action. 

Therefore, the FAA certifies this 

proposed rule, if promulgated, would 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The FAA solicits comments regarding 

this determination. Specifically, the 

FAA requests comments on whether the 

proposed rule creates any specific 

compliance costs unique to small 

entities. Please provide detailed 

economic analysis to support any cost 

claims. The FAA also invites comments 

regarding other small entity concerns 

with respect to the proposed rule. 

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 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 proposed rule 

and determined that it would have only 

a domestic impact and therefore no 

affect on international trade 

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 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Act do not 

apply. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures,’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 9, 2011, and effective 

September 15, 2011, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B—Class B 

Airspace 

* * * * * 

ASO GA B Atlanta, GA [Revised] 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International 

Airport (Primary Airport) 

(Lat. 33°38′12′′ N., long. 84°25′41′′ W.) 

Atlanta VORTAC 

(Lat. 33°37′45′′ N., long. 84°26′06′′ W.) 

Boundaries 

Area A. That airspace extending upward 

from the surface to and including 12,500 feet 

MSL, bounded on the east and west by a 7- 

mile radius of the Atlanta VORTAC, on the 

south by a line 4 miles south of and parallel 

to the Runway 10/28 localizer courses, and 

on the north by a line 4 miles north of and 

parallel to the Runway 08L/26R localizer 

courses; excluding the Atlanta Fulton County 

Airport-Brown Field, GA, Class D airspace 

area. 

Area B. That airspace extending upward 

from 2,500 feet MSL to and including 12,500 

feet MSL, bounded on the east and west by 

a 12-mile radius of the Atlanta VORTAC, on 

the south by a line 4 miles south of and 

parallel to the Runway 10/28 localizer 

courses, and on the north by a line 4 miles 

north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R 

localizer courses; excluding the Atlanta 

Fulton County Airport-Brown Field, GA, 

Class D airspace area and that airspace 

contained in Area A. 

Area C. That airspace extending upward 

from 3,000 feet MSL to and including 12,500 

feet MSL, bounded on the east by long. 

84°00′32′′ W., on the west by long. 84°51′38′′ 

W., on the south by a line 8 miles south of 

and parallel to the Runway 10/28 localizer 

courses, and on the north by a line 4 miles 

north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R 

localizer courses; excluding that airspace 

contained in Areas A and B. 

Area D. That airspace extending upward 

from 3,500 feet MSL to and including 12,500 

feet MSL, bounded on the east by long. 

84°00′32′′ W., on the west by long. 84°51′38′′ 

W., on the south by a line 4 miles north of 

and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R localizer 

courses, and on the north by a line 8 miles 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 5439 

north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R 

localizer courses. 

Area E. That airspace extending upward 

from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 12,500 

feet MSL, bounded on the east by long. 

83°54′04′′ W., on the west by long. 84°57′41′′ 

W., on the south by a line 12 miles south of 

and parallel to the Runway 10/28 localizer 

courses and on the north by a line 8 miles 

north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R 

localizer courses; excluding that airspace 

contained in Areas A, B, C, and D. 

Area F. That airspace extending upward 

from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 12,500 

feet MSL, within a 30-mile radius of the 

Atlanta VORTAC and bounded on the east by 

long. 83°54′04′′ W., on the south by a line 8 

miles north of and parallel to the Runway 

08L/26R localizer courses, on the west by 

long. 84°57′41′′ W., and on the north by a line 

13.5 miles north of and parallel to the 

Runway 08L/26R localizer courses. 

Area G. That airspace extending upward 

from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 12,500 

feet MSL bounded on the north by a line 12 

miles south of and parallel to the Runway 10/ 

28 localizer courses, on the east by a line 

from lat. 33°25′20′′ N., long. 84°16′49′′ W. 

direct to lat. 33°15′33′′ N., long. 84°01′55′′ W., 

on the south by a 30-mile radius of the 

Atlanta VORTAC, and on the west by a line 

from lat. 33°25′25′′ N., long. 84°33′32′′ W. 

direct to lat. 33°18′26′′ N., long. 84°42′56′′ W., 

thence south via long. 84°42′56′′ W. 

Area H. That airspace extending upward 

from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 12,500 

feet MSL, within a 30-mile radius of the 

Atlanta VORTAC south of a line 12 miles 

south of and parallel to the Runway 10/28 

localizer courses, bounded on the west by 

long 84°57′41′′ W. and on the east by long. 

83°54′04′′ W.; excluding that airspace within 

the lateral limits of area G. 

Area I. That airspace extending upward 

from 7,000 feet MSL to and including 12,500 

feet MSL bounded on the north by the 30- 

mile radius of the Atlanta VORTAC, on the 

east by a line from lat. 33°52′25′′ N., long. 

84°19′08′′ W. direct to lat. 34°04′20′′ N., long. 

84°09′24′′ W., on the south by a line 13.5 

miles north of and parallel to the Runway 

08L/26R localizer courses, and on the west 

by a line from lat. 33°52′28′′ N., long. 

84°36′07′′ W. direct to lat. 34°01′40′′ N., long. 

84°47′55′′ W. 

Area J. That airspace extending upward 

from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 12,500 

feet MSL within a 30-mile radius of the 

Atlanta VORTAC north of a line 13.5 miles 

north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R 

localizer courses; excluding that airspace 

within the lateral limits of area I. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 19, 

2012. 

Gary A. Norek, 

Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and 

ATC Procedures Group. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

5440 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 23 / Friday, February 3, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

[FR Doc. 2012–2072 Filed 2–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

15 CFR Part 336 

19 CFR Part 357 

RIN 0625–AA90 

Withdrawal of Regulations Pertaining 

to Imports of Cotton Woven Fabric and 

Short Supply Procedures; Opportunity 

for Public Comment 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Import Administration (‘‘IA’’) 

issues this proposed rule for the 

purpose of withdrawing regulations 

pertaining to imports of cotton woven 

fabric and short supply procedures. 

Both sets of regulations are obsolete. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, 

comments must be received no later 

than April 3, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this proposal to withdraw these 

regulations by one of the two following 

methods: 

Electronic Submission: All comments 

must be submitted through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. ITA– 

2011–0004, unless the commenter does 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP03FE12.001</GPH>