Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52905 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

12, 2011. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–21668 Filed 8–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0438; Airspace 

Docket No. 11–AWA–4] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Amendment to Class B 

Airspace; Salt Lake City, UT 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

modify Salt Lake City, UT, Class B 

airspace to contain aircraft conducting 

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) 

instrument approach procedures to Salt 

Lake City International Airport (SCL), 

Salt Lake City, UT. The FAA is taking 

this action to improve the flow of air 

traffic, enhance safety, and reduce the 

potential for midair collision, while 

accommodating the concerns of airspace 

users. Further, this effort supports the 

FAA’s national airspace redesign goal of 

optimizing terminal and en route 

airspace to reduce aircraft delays and 

improve system capacity. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 24, 2011. 

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–2011–0438 and 

Airspace Docket No. 11–AWA–4 at the 

beginning of your comments. You may 

also submit comments through the 

Internet at http: 

//www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colby Abbott, 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– 

2011–0438 and Airspace Docket No. 11– 

AWA–4) 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–2011–0438 and 

Airspace Docket No. 11–AWA–4.’’ 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. 

Recently published rulemaking 

documents can also be accessed through 

the FAA’s Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/recently_published/. 

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 

Western Service Center, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind 

Ave., SW., Renton, WA 98057. 

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 

In 1989, the FAA issued a final rule 

establishing the Salt Lake City, UT, 

Terminal Control Area (54 FR 43786). 

As a result of the Airspace 

Reclassification final rule (56 FR 65638), 

which became effective in 1993, the 

terms ‘‘terminal control area’’ and 

‘‘airport radar service area’’ were 

replaced by ‘‘Class B airspace area’’ and 

‘‘Class C airspace area,’’ respectively. 

The primary purpose of a Class B 

airspace area 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. 

The SLC Class B airspace area was 

last modified in 1995 (60 FR 48350) 

using air traffic activity levels from the 

1990s, and has not been modified since. 

In recent years, Salt Lake City has 

completed construction projects to 

modernize, enhance safety, and provide 

for increased capacity at SLC. These 

projects included the construction of a 

new Runway 16 R/34 L at SLC. The new 

west runway places departures closer to 

the Oquirrh Mountains southwest of 

SLC, and these departures need to climb 

to 10,000 feet to safely clear the terrain. 

This requires downwind traffic to level 

at 11,000 feet to remain above 

departures, which leaves the arrival 

aircraft outside the Class B airspace. 

Since the SLC Class B airspace area 

was established, SLC has experienced 

increased traffic levels, a considerably 

different fleet mix, and airport 

infrastructure improvements enabling 

simultaneous instrument approach 

procedures. For calendar year 2009, SLC 

documented 328,508 total operations 

and was rated 24th among all 

Commercial Service Airports with 

9,903,821 passenger enplanements. 

Under the current Class B airspace 

configuration, aircraft routinely enter, 

exit, and then reenter Class B airspace 

while flying published instrument 

approach procedures, which is contrary 

to FAA Orders. Modeling of existing 

traffic flows has shown that the 

proposed expanded Class B airspace 

would enhance safety by containing all 

instrument approach procedures, and 

associated traffic patterns, within the 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
52906 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

confines of Class B airspace and better 

segregate IFR aircraft arriving/departing 

SLC and Visual Flight Rules (VFR) 

aircraft operating in the vicinity of the 

SLC Class B airspace area. The proposed 

Class B airspace modifications 

described in this NPRM are intended to 

address these issues. 

Pre-NPRM Public Input 

In 2009, the FAA initiated action to 

form an Ad Hoc Committee to provide 

comments and recommendations 

regarding the planned modifications to 

the SLC Class B airspace area. 

Participants in the committee included 

representatives from National Business 

Aviation Association (NBAA), Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), 

Delta and Sky West Airlines, Soaring 

Society of America (SSA), Utah Hang 

Gliding and Paragliding Association, 

Utah General Aviation Association, 

local flight schools, and individuals 

impacted by SLC Class B airspace. 

The Ad Hoc Committee recommended 

several charting changes for the SLC 

VFR Flyway Chart in order to have 

fewer ‘‘blue arrow’’ routes. This would 

eliminate clutter and draw more 

attention to the safety issue associated 

with paraglider and hang glider activity 

located east of Interstate 15 (I–15) at 

Point of the Mountain. The Ad Hoc 

Committee agreed that one ‘‘blue arrow’’ 

would suggest a north-south route on 

the east side of the Salt Lake Valley; and 

at the south end, the arrow would bend 

around Point of the Mountain. This 

would encourage pilots to fly around 

the hang gliding/paragliding area. The 

arrow would recommend northbound at 

6,500 feet and southbound at 7,500 feet. 

Additionally, the Ad Hoc Committee 

suggested a bold note warning aircraft of 

the potential for hang gliding/ 

paragliding activity east of I–15 at Point 

of the Mountain. A second ‘‘blue arrow’’ 

would suggest a route between the 

Garfield Stack at the north end of the 

Oquirrh Mountains and Point of the 

Mountain. The committee also 

suggested placing a ‘‘blue arrow’’ south 

and west of Hill Air Force Base. Since 

the F–16 aircraft depart southwest from 

Hill Air Force Base and climb rapidly to 

6,500 feet, it would be safer for VFR 

aircraft to be at or below 6,000 feet 

when transitioning through this area. 

The Ad Hoc Committee requested a 

high altitude VFR transition route over 

I–80 be published. The appropriate Air 

Traffic Control (ATC) frequency would 

be published with a suggested 

eastbound altitude of 11,500 feet and 

westbound altitude of 10,500 feet. Salt 

Lake TRACON would prefer to have 

more flexibility with the VFR over 

flights, and added ‘‘expect’’ to the 

routing description to indicate 

flexibility in route or altitude 

assignment. 

As announced in the Federal Register 

(75 FR 73983), informal airspace 

meetings were held on January 26, 2011, 

at the Ogden Conference Room, Ogden 

Hinckley Airport Terminal; on February 

1, 2011, at the Conference Room in the 

Executive Terminal, West Salt Lake 

City, UT; and on February 3, 2011, at 

the Utah Valley University Aviation 

Flight Center, Provo, UT. These 

meetings provided interested airspace 

users with an opportunity to present 

their views and offer suggestions 

regarding the planned modification of 

the SLC Class B airspace. All comments 

received as a result of the informal 

airspace meetings, along with the 

recommendations made by the Ad Hoc 

Committee, were considered in 

developing this proposal. 

Informal Airspace Meeting Comments 

Numerous commenters representing 

the glider community expressed 

concern with the proposed floor of area 

L. The glider pilots requested that the 

floor of proposed area L be raised to 

10,500 feet to allow safer glider 

operations below Class B airspace along 

the ridgeline of the Wasatch Mountains. 

One commenter, not associated with 

the glider community and regularly 

transitions through this area, stated that 

it was unsafe for him to cross the 

ridgeline of the Wasatch Mountains 

below the proposed Class B floor of 

10,000 feet. 

After review of the flight tracks 

through proposed Area L, the FAA 

agrees that the floor of Class B airspace 

can be raised to 10,500 feet in this area 

and still safely contain instrument 

procedures. 

One commenter requested that the 

ceiling of Class B airspace remain at 

10,000 feet along the eastern edge of 

Area B over and east of U.S. Highway 

89 to allow hang glider operations to 

remain at 10,000 feet and fly over the 

strong canyon winds associated with 

Weber Canyon. 

The FAA does not agree. A review of 

Salt Lake City’s flight tracks shows 

numerous departures below 12,000 feet 

in this area. A Class B ceiling of 10,000 

feet would expose these departures to 

VFR aircraft transitioning through this 

area west of the Wasatch Mountains. In 

addition, keeping one portion of the 

Class B airspace at 10,000 feet would 

necessitate adding a new area to the 

proposed airspace. Designing the Class 

B airspace with multiple ceiling 

altitudes increases the complexity of the 

airspace design, especially when it is 

only used in one small area. In the 

interest of reduced complexity, the 

Class B airspace should keep a 

consistent ceiling altitude of 12,000 feet. 

One commenter requested that the 

floor of Area E be raised to 7,000 feet. 

The commenter stated that there is 

terrain in the area that is difficult to 

pass over below 6,500 feet, and that 

there is no logical reason for the air 

carriers to pass over this area below 

7,500 feet. 

The FAA does not agree. After 

conducting a thorough review of Area E, 

the FAA determined that raising the 

floor of Class B airspace to 7,000 feet 

does not safely contain Salt Lake City 

departure and arrival traffic. 

One commenter requested the 

identification of some visual reporting 

points to help identify Class B airspace 

northwest of South Valley Regional 

Airport (U42). 

The FAA was able to locate 

landmarks to identify the boundary 

between the proposed Class B surface 

area (Area A) and Area E, including the 

Usana Amphitheatre, the intersection of 

State Route 201 and S. 8000 West St., 

and Interstate 15 (I–15). The western 

boundary is located over the foothills of 

the Oquirrh Mountains and there are no 

good ground references in this area. The 

FAA used the Wasatch VOR (TCH) 12- 

mile DME arc to define the Area E 

boundary northwest of U42, arcing 

northwest until intercepting the Union 

Pacific railroad, then following the 

railroad westbound. Other than the 

western boundary of Area E due west of 

U42, Class B airspace should be easy to 

identify using landmarks and DME. 

Two commenters were concerned 

with the airspace around Point of the 

Mountain. One commenter requested 

that the Class B airspace over restricted 

area R–6412 be raised to 8,100 feet to 

avoid congestion east of R–6412 and 

Point of the Mountain. The other 

commenter stated that VFR aircraft are 

already funneled into a narrow space 

and that the new proposal will only 

make the situation worse. 

The FAA does not agree. The airspace 

around Point of the Mountain is a 

congested area. The finals for runways 

34R and 35 at SLC pass approximately 

one mile west of Point of the Mountain. 

Aircraft on final for runway 34L are at, 

or descending to, 8,000 feet in this area, 

and why the 8,000-foot floor is proposed 

for Area G. With the current Class B 

design, the floor of Class B airspace is 

9,000 feet to the south/southwest of 

Point of the Mountain and 7,000 feet to 

the west/northwest. The proposal does 

lower the Class B airspace west/ 

southwest of the Point of the Mountain 

area from 9,000 feet to 8,000 feet, but 

raises the floor of Class B airspace south 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52907 

of Point of the Mountain from 9,000 feet 

to 10,000 feet, and the airspace to the 

west/northwest from 7,000 feet to 8,000 

feet. The proposed design allows northand south-bound VFR aircraft along I– 

15 and Point of the Mountain to remain 

1,000 feet higher, at all times, than the 

present Class B design allows. 

AOPA and three individuals objected 

to the east to west transitioning through 

the proposed Class B airspace and one 

individual requested the FAA establish 

a VFR corridor. AOPA also requested 

published recommended altitudes, 

frequencies, and route of flight on the 

Salt Lake City VFR Flyway chart. 

The FAA does not agree. Salt Lake 

City’s traffic flows and altitudes make 

an established VFR corridor impractical. 

Salt Lake City has only one downwind 

leg that passes west of the airport, and 

approximately 50 percent of Salt Lake 

City’s traffic also departs to the west. 

These departures would conflict with 

any VFR corridor design that passed 

over the airport. As recommended by 

AOPA and the Ad Hoc Committee, Salt 

Lake City will publish frequencies, 

altitudes, and routes on the VFR Flyway 

chart to mitigate impacts to VFR aircraft. 

VFR aircraft, in contact with air traffic 

controllers, will continue to be able to 

transition through Class B airspace after 

receiving a clearance. 

One commenter stated that with 

parachute jump operations at the Ogden 

airport (OGD), there would be delays in 

receiving approval for a jump through 

Class B airspace and delays for the jump 

aircraft climbing or descending through 

the proposed Area N. 

The FAA does not agree. The 

parachute operation currently requests 

permission to jump in this area and the 

request is approved or denied based on 

traffic below the jump aircraft. If Area 

N is added to the Class B airspace as 

proposed, there would be no change to 

the current procedures. The jump 

aircraft can receive a Class B clearance 

at the same time the jumpers receive 

permission for the jump, and there will 

be no increased delay for the jump 

aircraft. 

One commenter questioned why it is 

necessary to have the floor of Class B 

airspace at 9,000 feet in Area H, 

especially in the southern portion. 

When Salt Lake City is in a north 

flow, IFR arrival traffic is regularly at 

9,000 feet in this area when aircraft are 

on downwind, base, and final during 

their approaches. The VFR transition 

routes referenced are departure and 

arrival routes for VFR aircraft operating 

to and from Salt Lake City International 

Airport. These routes are contained 

within the Class B surface area. They 

cross the arrival end of the runways, 

then pass under the downwind 

westbound. A modification of Class B 

airspace in these areas is not possible. 

These VFR routes exist to benefit VFR 

aircraft and are designed to provide a 

shorter route to the west. If a pilot does 

not want to use these routes, he or she 

can always choose to avoid crossing 

over the water and depart north or south 

along I–15 enroute to the west practice 

area. 

One commenter stated that local law 

enforcement has a tracking program that 

currently operates over the top of Class 

B airspace at 10,500 feet and that it 

would make it difficult or impossible to 

continue the tracking program above 

12,000 feet. The individual also 

contends that the sensitivity of the 

equipment does not allow two-way 

radio communication. 

The FAA does not agree. Salt Lake 

City Tower and Approach control has 

numerous Letters of Agreement with 

local law enforcement and welcomes 

discussions about creating a new Letter 

of Agreement to support the telemetrytracking program. The area in which 

these operations occur has numerous 

aircraft climbing and descending 

through 10,500 feet, which reinforces 

the need for the raised ceiling of class 

B airspace. 

One commenter argued that the Mode 

C veil has greatly reduced general 

aviation at Cedar Valley Airport (UT10). 

The FAA does not agree. UT10 is 

located approximately 26 miles south of 

Salt Lake City International and is 

within the 30 mile Mode C veil. The 

current Class B design has a floor of 

9,000 feet, as does the proposed design. 

The UT10 elevation is approximately 

5,000 feet and should be easily 

accessible below the 9,000 foot Class B 

shelf, without requiring a Class B 

clearance. The proposed Class B 

airspace design, and the current Mode C 

veil, do not limit any aircraft operations 

at UT10 below 9,000 feet. 

Two commenters proposed splitting 

the proposed Area O into two sectors, 

north and south, with a 6,500 feet area 

to the north and a 7,000 feet area to the 

south. The individuals are concerned 

about commercial aircraft in a 

continuous flow over their houses. 

The FAA does not agree. FAA Order 

7400.2 provides that Class B airspace is 

to be designed to contain all instrument 

procedures. At the southern edge of 

proposed Area O, there are two fixes on 

the runway 34L and 34R ILS 

approaches, DUNLP and SCOER. After 

arrivals cross these two fixes, they 

descend to 6,100 feet to meet the next 

crossing restriction on the arrival. The 

instrument approaches IFR aircraft are 

flying will not change and raising the 

floor of Class B airspace above 6,000 feet 

in this area will not contain these two 

instrument procedures as required. 

AOPA contends that raising the 

ceiling of Class B airspace to 12,000 feet 

provides no clear operational safety 

benefits for any specific user, but will 

have a detrimental impact on general 

aviation safety and efficiency. 

The FAA does not agree. There are 

approximately 1,000 IFR operations a 

day that operate at and below 12,000 

feet within 30 miles of SLC. The Ad Hoc 

Committee extensively discussed raising 

the ceiling to 12,000 feet and a 

consensus of that group supported the 

change. The general aviation members 

of the committee endorsed raising the 

ceiling to 12,000 feet, and they are the 

group most familiar with VFR flight in 

the area. 

It should be noted that FAA Order 

7400.2 provides that, ‘‘The outer limits 

of the airspace shall not exceed a 30- 

nautical mile (NM) radius from the 

primary airport. This 30-NM radius 

generally will be divided into three 

concentric circles. The floor of the area 

between 20 NM and 30 NM shall be at 

an altitude consistent with approach 

control arrival and departure 

procedures. It is expected that this floor 

would normally be between 5,000 and 

6,000 feet above airport elevation.’’ 

Using this criterion, the floor of the Salt 

Lake City Class B airspace between 20 

and 30 miles should be between 9,227 

feet and 10,227 feet. Presently the 

ceiling of the Salt Lake City Class B 

airspace is 10,000 feet, and does not 

contain existing arrival and departure 

procedures as required. Of the 30 

airports with Class B airspace in the 

United States, SLC has the second 

highest field elevation. The current 

height of Salt Lake City Class B airspace 

rises 5,773 feet above ground level, the 

lowest of any in the nation. With the 

requirement to climb departures to 

10,000 feet, this leaves ATC with no 

available altitudes to contain downwind 

arrivals in Class B airspace. An increase 

to 12,000 feet would increase the Class 

B airspace to 7,773 feet above ground 

level, which is still lower than the 

national average of 8,373 feet. 

Commenters from the Soaring Society 

of America (SSA) stated that the vertical 

extension would require more IFR 

traffic to exit the side of controlled 

airspace and that the FAA should 

mandate that all IFR aircraft enter and 

exit through the top of Class B airspace, 

referencing FAA Order 7210.3, section 

11–1–5. This section states that arrivals 

and departures should enter and exit the 

top of Class B airspace, not shall enter 

and exit through the top of Class B 

airspace. A further examination of FAA 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
52908 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Order 7210.3 defines the terms 

‘‘should’’ and ‘‘shall’’. Shall indicates a 

procedure is mandatory, should 

indicates a procedure is recommended. 

FAA Order 7210.3, section 11–1–5 

also states that, ‘‘* * * each Class B 

airspace shall reflect the most efficient 

and reasonable configuration to contain 

large turbine powered aircraft while 

achieving a higher level of safety.’’ A 

further examination of the arrival traffic 

on January 1, 2011, showed that of the 

119 arrivals that were at or below 12,000 

feet, 74 were large turbine-powered 

aircraft, or 21 percent. 

Commenters from the SSA also stated 

that even a modest increase in the 

ceiling height of the SLC Class B 

airspace will result in a reduction in the 

number of sailplane flights that are able 

to transition above the Class B airspace. 

The FAA analyzed actual Salt Lake 

City arrival and departure tracks for July 

16, 2010, as it was the hottest day of 

2010 at 102 degrees. The FAA selected 

that date since aircraft climb slower on 

hot days and this would represent the 

worst-case departure scenario. Of the 

510 departures on that day, 31 

departures exited the side of the 

proposed Class B airspace, which is 6 

percent of all departures. The FAA also 

analyzed January 1, 2011, which was 

the coldest winter day in 2010/2011 

with an average daily temperature of 

37.2 degrees. Of the 354 arrivals on that 

day, 119 arrivals were at or below 

12,000 feet before they were contained 

in the lateral confines of the proposed 

SLC Class B airspace, which is 32 

percent of all arrivals. 

Raising the ceiling of Class B airspace 

to 12,000 feet means that 83 percent of 

all IFR operations, including large 

turbine powered and smaller aircraft 

will depart and arrive through the 

ceiling of Class B airspace. Raising the 

ceiling to 12,000 feet is the most 

efficient and reasonable configuration 

for Salt Lake’s Class B airspace. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify 

the SLC Class B airspace area. This 

action (depicted on the attached chart) 

would raise the existing ceiling from 

10,000 feet to 12,000 feet in order to 

provide additional airspace that is 

needed to contain aircraft conducting 

instrument approach operations within 

the confines of Class B airspace. 

Additionally, the proposed 

modifications would better segregate 

IFR aircraft arriving/departing SLC and 

VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of 

the Salt Lake Class B airspace area. The 

proposed modifications to the SLC Class 

B airspace area are: 

Area A. Area A would be redefined 

from the surface to 12,000 feet. The 

northern boundary would be moved 

south an average of 2 miles. This would 

allow VFR aircraft to transition 

westbound sooner than is currently 

available and will relieve some 

congestion between the Hill Air Force 

Base (AFB) Class D airspace and Salt 

Lake City’s Class B surface area 

airspace. As recommended by the Ad 

Hoc Committee, the surface area north 

of the Skypark Airport (BTF) would 

move to the west to relieve congestion 

between the Class B surface area 

airspace and the Wasatch Mountains to 

the east. Also, the surface area east of 

South Valley Regional Airport (U42) 

would be removed and combined with 

the 6,000-foot shelf over and to the 

southeast of U42. IFR arrivals and 

departures at Salt Lake airport are above 

6,100 feet in this area and would be 

contained by a 6,000-foot shelf (see Area 

D). 

Area B. Area B would incorporate 

portions of existing Areas B and J, with 

a floor at 7,800 feet and the ceiling 

raised to 12,000 feet. The western 

boundary would change from the I–BNT 

25-mile DME arc to the TCH 20-mile 

DME arc. Raising the floor of existing 

Area B from 7,600 feet to 7,800 feet 

matches the existing Class B airspace 

area over Hill AFB, and allows VFR 

aircraft operating in the area to climb 

sooner than is currently possible. 

Area C. Area C would be a new area 

in existing Class B airspace, with the 

ceiling raised to 12,000 feet, to reduce 

congestion in the airspace between the 

Hill AFB Class D airspace area and the 

SLC Class B surface area airspace. This 

area would incorporate a portion of 

existing Area A, with the floor raised 

from the surface to 6,000 feet, to allow 

VFR aircraft easier access to transit 

north of SLC below the Class B airspace 

area. 

Area D. Area D would remain similar 

to the existing Area D; expanded 

laterally into existing Class B airspace 

with the ceiling raised to 12,000 feet. 

This area would incorporate a portion of 

existing Area A, raising the floor from 

the surface to 6,000 feet, to allow VFR 

aircraft easier access to and from U42. 

The southern boundary would ensure 

aircraft are fully contained within Class 

B airspace while flying Instrument 

Landing System (ILS) approaches to 

runways 34L and 34R. 

The Salt Lake Valley has several areas 

along the west side where the terrain 

penetrates the floor of existing Class B 

airspace, making the airspace in those 

areas unuseable by IFR traffic. As such, 

the western boundary of the Class B 

airspace in those areas could be moved 

to the east without compromising flight 

safety. The following descriptions of 

proposed areas E, F, G and H reflect this 

boundary shift to the east. Since there 

are not convenient visual landmarks in 

this area, the western boundaries of the 

proposed Class B airspace sub-areas are 

best defined using longitude 112°07′00′′ 

W. 

Area E. Area E would combine two 

existing Class B airspace sub-areas 

(Areas C and K) into one with the floor 

established at 6,500 feet and the ceiling 

raised to 12,000 feet. The southern 

boundary would extend south slightly 

using the TCH 16-mile DME arc. The 

southwest portion of Class B airspace 

boundary would be relocated east 

slightly using the TCH 12-mile DME arc 

to eliminate terrain penetrating the floor 

of Class B airspace. The western 

boundary defined by the TCH 13.5-mile 

DME arc instead of the I–BNT 13-mile 

DME arc, to the to contain IFR 

departures. 

Area F. Area F would be a new area 

in existing Class B airspace (Area E), 

with the ceiling raised to 12,000 feet 

and the northern boundary defined by 

the TCH 16-mile DME arc instead of the 

I–BNT 11 DME arc. The southern 

boundary would move south slightly to 

fully contain the runway 34L and 34R 

ILS approaches. 

Area G. Area G would combine the 

current Areas F and G into one with the 

floor established at 8,000 feet and the 

ceiling raised to 12,000 feet. The 

southern boundary would be 

established approximately four miles 

south of the existing southern boundary 

of existing Areas F and G to allow IFR 

traffic during Simultaneous 

Independent ILS approaches to join 

final closer to the airport and improve 

efficiency. The terrain in this area is 

mostly below 7,000 feet and shouldn’t 

restrict VFR aircraft from climbing south 

bound below the Class B airspace area. 

Area H. Area H would remain similar 

to the current Area H with the floor at 

9,000 feet, but the ceiling raised to 

12,000 feet. This area would also 

expand slightly to the west to use the 

same longitude for its boundary as is 

used in Area G description, for 

simplicity, and would redefine the 

southern boundary further north by 

using the TCH VOR 33 DME arc. 

Area I. Area I would be a new area 

east of area H, with a floor of 10,000 feet 

and a ceiling of 12,000 feet, designed to 

capture arrivals from the southeast. This 

would be a commonly used corridor for 

north arrivals, and would aid air traffic 

control in sequencing. 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52909 

Area J. Area J would be a new area 

over the north end of the Oquirrh 

Mountains with the floor established at 

11,000 feet and the ceiling at 12,000 

feet. This area would contain IFR 

departure traffic climbing southbound, 

as well as contain arrival traffic being 

vectored to the downwind. 

Area K. Area K would be a new area 

redefining a portion of the current Area 

B. This area would raise the floor of 

Class B airspace to 8,600 feet and raise 

the ceiling to 12,000 feet to provide 

more altitudes for VFR aircraft. 

Area L. Area L would redefine a 

portion of the current Area I to allow for 

north-flow departures from SLC to 

climb and turn eastbound on course. 

Area L would be established with a floor 

raised to 10,500 feet and the ceiling 

raised to 12,000 feet. Currently, there 

are two geographically separate airspace 

areas, 9,000 feet to 10,000 feet, that 

collectively comprise area I. One area is 

located northeast of SLC Airport, and 

the other area is located to the 

southeast. Both of these existing Class B 

airspace areas have terrain that 

penetrates the floor of the areas, with 

the southeastern area actually having 

terrain that extends through the ceiling 

of the area as well. Since the southern 

portion of existing Area I is only 

occasionally used for IFR aircraft, and is 

almost never used for large turbo jet 

aircraft, this portion of Area I would be 

deleted completely without impact to 

flight safety. Additionally, the eastern 

boundary of this new area would be 

moved to the west along the ridgeline of 

the Wasatch Mountains and still contain 

IFR departures turning eastbound. 

Area M. Area M would remain similar 

to the existing Area M, with the floor 

lowered to 9,000 feet and the ceiling 

raised to 12,000 feet. The lateral 

boundaries would extend slightly with 

the northern boundary extended north 

to the TCH 26-mile DME arc and the 

western boundary extended west one 

mile to ensure the runway 16L/1R 

downwind is contained within Class B 

airspace during Simultaneous 

Independent ILS approaches. 

Area N. Area N would be a new area, 

with the floor established at 10,000 feet 

and the ceiling at 12,000 feet, intended 

to contain aircraft flying instrument 

approaches to SLC runway 17. Runway 

17 is used extensively, often designated 

as a main arrival or departure runway, 

in the various SLC runway use plans. 

Aircraft are regularly established on a 

runway 17 final 30 miles from the 

airport and descending through 12,000 

feet in this area. 

Area O. Area O would be a new 

subarea description that would lower a 

portion of existing Class B airspace in 

this area from 7,600 feet to 7,500 feet. 

Lowering the Class B airspace area floor 

in this area would allow aircraft flying 

the runway 16R and 16L ILS approaches 

to descend to 7,500 feet and provide 

containment for them throughout the 

instrument approach procedures. Area 

O would also incorporate airspace north 

and east of SLC, currently Area L. 

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 proposed rule. 

Economic Summary 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this proposed rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this Order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this proposed rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows: 

After consultation with a diverse 

cross-section of stakeholders that 

participated in the Ad Hoc Committee 

to develop the recommendations 

contained in this proposal, and a review 

of the recommendations and comments, 

the FAA expects that this proposed rule 

would result in minimal cost. The FAA 

is taking this action to improve the flow 

of air traffic, enhance safety, and reduce 

the potential for midair collision in the 

SLC Class B airspace. 

This NPRM would enhance safety, 

reduce the potential for a midair 

collision in the SLC area and would 

improve the flow of air traffic. As such, 

we estimate a minimal impact with 

substantial positive net benefits. The 

FAA requests comments with 

supporting justification about the FAA 

determination of minimal impact. 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. 

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. 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
52910 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

The FAA believes the proposal would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

as the economic impact is expected to 

be minimal. We request comments from 

the potentially affected small 

businesses. Therefore, the FAA certifies 

that this proposed rule would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such 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 enhance 

safety and is not considered an 

unnecessary obstacle to 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 

$140.8 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. 

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 7400.9U, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 18, 2010, and 

effective September 15, 2010, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B—Class B 

Airspace. 

* * * * * 

ANM UT B Salt Lake City, UT [Modified] 

Salt Lake City International Airport (Primary 

Airport) 

(Lat. 40°47′18′′ N., long. 111°58′40′′ W.) 

Salt Lake City VORTAC, (TCH) 

(Lat. 40°51′01′′ N., long. 111°58′55′′ W.) 

Hill AFB (HIF) 

(Lat. 41°07′26′′ N., long. 111°58′23′′ W.) 

Boundaries 

Area A. That area extending upward from 

the surface to and including 12,000 MSL, 

within an area bounded by a line beginning 

at the TCH 20°(T)/004°(M) radial 6.6-mile 

DME at lat. 40°57′14′′ N., long. 111°55′54′′ W.; 

thence south to the intersection of Redwood 

Rd. and W. 500 South St. at the TCH 

VORTAC 049°(T)/033°(M) radial 3.1-mile 

DME at lat. 40°53′02′′ N., long. 111°55′48′′ W.; 

thence south to intercept Center St. at the 

TCH 102°(T)/086°(M) radial 2.3-mile DME at 

lat. 40°50’32′′ N., long. 111°55′57′′ W.; thence 

east along Center St. to intercept the 4.3-mile 

DME radius of the Salt Lake City 

International Airport and Interstate 15 (I–15) 

at the TCH 099°(T)/083°(M) radial 3-mile 

DME at lat. 40°50’32′′ N., long. 111°54′56′′ 

W.; thence clockwise along the 4.3-mile DME 

radius of the Salt Lake City International 

Airport to intercept I–15 at the TCH 151°(T)/ 

135°(M) radial 7.3-mile DME at lat. 40°44′37′′ 

N., long. 111°54′15′′ W.; thence south on I– 

15 to intercept W. 5300 South St. at the TCH 

163°(T)/148°(M) radial 12.3-mile DME at lat. 

40°39′17′′ N., long. 111°54′06′′ W.; thence 

west to Usana Amphitheatre at the TCH 

192°(T)/176°(M) radial 11.8-mile DME at lat 

40°39′26′′ N., long. 112°02′14′′ W.; thence 

northwest to the intersection of State Route 

201 (SR–201) and S. 8000 West St. at the 

TCH 210°(T)/194°(M) radial 9.1-mile DME at 

lat. 40°43′06′′ N., long. 112°04′56′′ W.; thence 

northwest to intercept Interstate 80 (I–80) at 

the TCH 239°(T)/223°(M) radial 9-mile DME 

at lat. 40°46′22′′ N., long. 112°09′04′′ W.; 

thence north to a point southeast of Seagull 

Point on Antelope Island at the TCH 304°(T)/ 

288°(M) radial 9.3-mile DME at lat. 40°56′12′′ 

N., long. 112°09′03′′ W.; thence east to the 

point of beginning. 

Area B. That airspace extending upward 

from 7,800 feet MSL to and including 12,000 

feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the TCH 265°(T)/249°(M) radial 

12-mile DME at lat. 40°49′57′′ N., long 

112°14′40′′ W.; thence west along the TCH 

265°(T)/249°(M) radial to the 20-mile DME 

arc at lat. 40°49′13′′ N., long. 112°25′09′′ W.; 

thence clockwise along the TCH 20-mile 

DME arc to intercept the 4.3-mile DME radius 

of Hill AFB at the TCH 009°(T)/354°(M) 

radial 20-mile DME at lat. 41°10’47′′ N., long 

111°54′48′′ W.; thence clockwise along the 

4.3-mile DME radius of Hill AFB to intercept 

W. 1700 South St. at the TCH 347°(T)/ 

331°(M) radial 14.7-mile DME at lat. 

41°05′21′′ N., long. 112°03′22′′ W.; thence 

west on W. 1700 South St. to a point at the 

TCH 329°(T)/313°(M) radial 16.8-mile DME 

at lat. 41°05′22′′ N., long. 112°10’20′′ W.; 

thence south to a point at the TCH 316°(T)/ 

300°(M) radial 11.6-mile DME at lat. 

40°59′22N., long. 112°09′27′′ W.; thence 

south to a point southeast of Seagull Point on 

Antelope Island at the TCH 304°(T)/288°(M) 

radial 9.3-mile DME at lat. 40°56′12′′ N., long. 

112°09′03′′ W.; thence southwest to the point 

of beginning. 

Area C. That airspace extending upward 

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

feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the TCH 316°(T)/300°(M) radial 

11.6-mile DME at lat. 40°59′22 N., long. 

112°09′27′ W.; thence east to intercept I–15 

at the TCH 013°(T)/357°(M) radial 9.8-mile 

DME at lat. 41°00’32′′ N., long. 111°55′59′′ 

W.; thence south to the TCH 020°(T)/004°(M) 

radial 6.6-mile DME at lat. 40°57′14′′ N., long 

111°55′54′′ W.; thence west to a point 

southeast of Seagull Point on Antelope Island 

at the TCH 304°(T)/288°(M) radial 9.3-mile 

DME at lat. 40°56′12′′ N., long. 112°09′03′′ W.; 

thence north to the point of beginning. 

Area D. That airspace extending upward 

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

feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the Usana Amphitheatre at the 

TCH 192°(T)/176°(M) radial 11.8-mile DME, 

lat. 40°39′26′′ N., long. 112°02′14′′ W.; thence 

east to the intersection of I–15 and W. 5300 

South St. at the TCH 163°(T)/147°(M) radial 

12.3-mile DME at lat. 40°39′17′′ N., long. 

111°54′06′′ W.’ thence south along I–15 to the 

TCH 169°(T)/153°(M) radial 20.7-mile DME 

at lat. 40°30’43′′ N., long. 111°53′31′′ W.; 

thence west to the TCH 184°(T)/168°(M) 

radial 20.4-mile DME at lat. 40°30’38′′ N., 

long. 112°00’33′′ W.; thence north to the TCH 

184°(T)/168°(M) radial 16-mile DME at lat. 

40°35′03′′ N., long. 112°00’33′′ W.; thence 

clockwise along the TCH 16-mile DME arc to 

intercept State Route 48 (SR–48) at the TCH 

189°(T)/173°(M) radial at lat. 40°35′13′′ N., 

long. 112°02′18′′ W.; thence north to the 

point of beginning. 

Area E. That airspace extending upward 

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

feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of SR–48 and 

the TCH 16-mile DME arc at the TCH 

189°(T)/173°(M) radial 16-mile DME at lat. 

40°35′13′′ N., long. 112°02′18′′ W., thence 

clockwise along the TCH 16-mile DME arc to 

intercept the TCH 203°(T)187°(M) radial at 

lat. 40°36′14′′ N., long. 112°07′00′′ W., thence 

north along long. 112°07′00′′ W. to intercept 

the TCH 12-mile DME arc at the TCH 

211°(T)/195°(M) radial 12-mile DME at lat. 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52911 

40°40’42′′ N., long. 112°07′00′′ W., thence 

clockwise along the TCH 12-mile DME arc to 

intercept the railroad tracks at the TCH 

233°(T)/217°(M) radial 12-mile DME at lat. 

40°43′43′′ N., long. 112°11′27′′ W.thence west 

along the railroad tracks to intercept the TCH 

13.5-mile DME arc at the TCH 236°(T)/ 

220°(M) radial 13.5-mile DME at lat. 

40°43′27′′ N., long. 112°13′38′′ W., thence 

clockwise along the TCH 13.5-mile DME arc 

to intercept the TCH 265°(T)/249°(M) radial 

at lat. 40°49′49′′ N., long. 112°16′38′′ W.; 

thence east along the TCH VORTAC 265°(T)/ 

249°(M) radial to the TCH 265°(T)/249°(M) 

radial 12-mile DME at lat. 40°49′57′′ N., long. 

112°14′40′′ W.; thence northeast to a point 

southeast of Seagull Point on Antelope Island 

at the TCH 304°(T)/288°(M) radial 9.3-mile 

DME at lat. 40°56′12′′ N., long. 112°09′03′′ W.; 

thence south to I–80 at the TCH 239°(T)/ 

223°(M) radial 9-mile DME at lat. 40°46′22′′ 

N., long. 112°09′04′′ W.; thence southeast to 

the intersection of SR–201 and S. 8000 West 

St. at the TCH 210°(T)/194°(M) radial 9.1- 

mile DME at lat. 40°43′06′′ N., long. 

112°04′56′′ W.; thence southeast to Usana 

Amphitheatre at the TCH 192°(T)/176°(M) 

radial 11.8-mile DME at lat 40°39′26′′ N., 

long. 112°02′14′′ W.; thence south to the 

point of beginning. 

Area F. That airspace extending upward 

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

feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the TCH 184°(T)/168°(M) radial 

16-mile DME at lat. 40°35′03′′ N., long. 

112°00’33′′ W.; thence clockwise along the 

TCH 16-mile DME arc to intercept the TCH 

203°(T)/187°(M) radial at lat. 40°36′14′′ N., 

long. 112°07′00′′ W.; thence south along long. 

112°07′00′′ W. to a point at the TCH 197°(T)/ 

181°(M) radial 21.4-mile DME at lat. 

40°30’55′′ N., long. 112°07′00′′ W.; thence 

east to a point at the TCH 184°(T)/168°(M) 

radial 20.4-mile DME at lat.40°30’38′′ N., 

long. 112°00’33′′ W.; thence north to the 

point of beginning. 

Area G. That airspace extending upward 

from 8,000 feet MSL to and including 12,000 

feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at a point on I–15 at the TCH 

169°(T)/153°(M) radial 20.7-mile DME at lat. 

40°30′43′′ N., long. 111°53′31′′ W.; thence 

south along I–15 to intercept the TCH 

173°(T)/157°(M) radial 24.1-mile DME at lat. 

40°27′05′′ N., long. 111°54′51′′ W.; thence 

south along the TCH 173°(T)/157°(M) radial 

to a point at the TCH 173°(T)/157°(M) radial 

27-mile DME at lat. 40°24′12′′ N., long. 

111°54′36′′ W.; thence west to a point at the 

TCH 193°(T)/177°(M) radial 27.6-mile DME 

at lat. 40°24′07′′ N., long. 112°7′00′′ W.; 

thence north to a point at the TCH VORTAC 

197°(T)/181°(M) radial 21-mile DME at lat. 

40°30′55′′ N., long. 112°07′00′′ W.; thence east 

to the point of beginning. Excluding R–6412, 

when active. 

Area H. That airspace extending upward 

from 9,000 feet MSL to and including 12,000 

feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at a point at the TCH 193°(T)/ 

177°(M) radial 27.6-mile DME at lat. 

40°27′07′′ N., long. 112°07′00′′ W.; thence 

south along long. 112°07′00′′ W. to intercept 

the TCH 33-mile DME arc at the TCH 

191°(T)/175°(M) radial 33-mile DME at lat. 

40°18′35′′ N., long. 112°07′00′′ W., thence 

counter clockwise along the TCH 33-mile 

DME arc to a point at the TCH 173°(T)/ 

157°(M) radial 33-mile DME at lat. 40°18′14′′ 

N., long. 111°53′40′′ W.; thence north to a 

point at the TCH 173°(T)157°(M) radial 27- 

mile DME at lat. 40°24′12′′ N., long. 

111°54′36′′ W.; thence west to the point of 

beginning. Excluding R–6412, when active. 

Area I. That airspace extending upward 

from 10,000 feet MSL to and including 

12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by 

a line beginning on I–15 at the TCH 173°(T)/ 

157°(M) radial 24.1-mile DME at lat. 

40°27′05′′ N., long. 111°54′51′′ W.; thence 

south along I–15 to intercept the TCH 33- 

mile DME arc at the TCH 160°(T)/144°(M) 

radial 33-mile DME at lat. 40°19′54′′ N., long. 

111°44′26′′ W.; thence clockwise along the 

TCH 33-mile DME arc to the TCH 173°(T)/ 

157°(M) radial at lat. 40°18′14′′ N., long. 

111°53′40′′ W.; thence north along the TCH 

173°(T)/157°(M) radial to the point of 

beginning. 

Area J. That airspace extending upward 

from 11,000 feet MSL to and including 

12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by 

a line beginning at a point where the TCH 20- 

mile DME arc intercepts railroad tracks at the 

TCH 238°(T)/222°(M) radial 20-mile DME at 

lat. 40°40′ 22′′ N., long. 112°21′12′′ W.; thence 

east along the railroad tracks to intercept the 

TCH 12-mile DME arc at the TCH 233°(T)/ 

217°(M) radial 12-mile DME at lat. 40°43′43′′ 

N., long. 112°11′27′′ W.; thence counter 

clockwise along the TCH 12-mile DME arc to 

a point at the TCH 211°(T)/195°(M) radial 12- 

mile DME at lat. 40°40′ 42′′ N., long. 

112°07′00′′ W.; thence south along long. 

112°07′00′′ W. to intercept a point at the TCH 

20-mile DME arc at the TCH 198°(T)/182°(M) 

radial 20-mile DME at lat. 40°31′59′′ N., long. 

112°07′00′′ W.; thence clockwise along the 

TCH 20-mile DME arc to the point of 

beginning. 

Area K. That airspace extending upward 

from 8,600 feet MSL to and including 12,000 

feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at a point at the TCH 265°(T)/ 

249°(M) radial 13.5-mile DME at lat. 

40°49′49′′ N., long. 112°16′38′′ W.; thence 

west along the TCH 265°(T)/249°(M) radial to 

intercept the TCH 20-mile DME arc at lat. 

40°49′13′′ N., long. 112°25′09′′ W.; thence 

counter clockwise along the TCH 20-mile 

DME arc to intercept the railroad tracks at the 

TCH 238°(T)/222°(M) radial 20-mile DME at 

lat. 40°40′22′′ N., long. 112°21′12′′ W.; thence 

east along the railroad tracks to intercept the 

TCH 13.5-mile DME arc at the TCH 236°(T)/ 

220°(M) radial 13.5-mile DME at lat. 

40°43′27′′ N., long. 112°13′38′′ W.; thence 

clockwise along the TCH 13.5-mile DME arc 

to the point of beginning. 

Area L. That airspace extending upward 

from 10,500 feet MSL to and including 

12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by 

a line beginning at the intersection of the 

ridge line of the Wasatch Mountains and 

Interstate 84 (I–84) at the TCH 016°(T)/ 

360°(M) radial 18-mile DME at lat. 41°08′17′′ 

N., long. 111°52′18′′ W.; thence west along I– 

84 to intercept the 4.3-mile radius of Hill 

AFB at the TCH 015°(T)/359°(M) radial 17.9- 

mile DME at lat. 41°08′16′′ N., long. 

111°52′48′′ W.; thence clockwise along the 

4.3-mile radius of Hill AFB to intercept U.S. 

Highway 89 at the TCH 014°(T)/358°(M) 

radial 13.6-mile DME at lat. 41°04′11′′ N., 

long. 111°54′39′′ W.; thence south along U.S. 

Highway 89 to intercept I–15 at the TCH 

024°(T)/008°(M) radial 9-mile DME at lat. 

40°59′14′′ N., long. 111°54′05′′ W.; thence 

south along I–15 to a point at the TCH 

072°(T)/056°(M) radial 4-mile DME at lat. 

40°52′16′′ N., long. 111°53′50′′ W.; thence east 

along lat. 40°52′16′′ N. to a point at the TCH 

081°(T)/065°(M) radial 8-mile DME at lat. 

40°52′16′′ N., long. 111°48′30′′ W.; thence 

north along long. 111°48′30′′ W. to intercept 

the ridge line of the Wasatch Mountains at 

the TCH 059°(T)/043°(M) radial 9.2-mile 

DME at lat. 40°55′45′′ N., long. 111°48′30′′ W.; 

thence north along the ridge line of the 

Wasatch Mountains to the point of beginning. 

Area M. That airspace extending upward 

from 9,000 feet MSL to and including 12,000 

feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of I–15 and the 

TCH 26-mile DME arc at the TCH 356°(T)/ 

340°(M) radial 26-mile DME at lat. 41°16′58′′ 

N., long. 112°01′33′′ W.; thence counter 

clockwise along the TCH 26-mile DME arc to 

a point at the TCH 338°(T)322°(M) radial 26- 

mile DME, lat. 41°15′07′′ N., long. 112°11′50′′ 

W.; thence south to intercept the TCH 20- 

mile DME arc at the TCH 333°(T)/317°(M) 

radial 20-mile DME at lat. 41°08′50′′ N., long. 

112°10′56′′ W.; thence clockwise along the 

TCH 20-mile DME arc to intercept I–15 at the 

TCH 356°(T)/340°(M) radial 20-mile DME at 

lat. 41°11′00′′ N., long. 112°00′49′′ W.; thence 

north along I–15 to the point of beginning. 

Area N. That airspace extending upward 

from 10,000 feet MSL to and including 

12,000 feet MSL, within an area bounded by 

a line beginning at the intersection of I–15 

and the TCH 26-mile DME arc at the TCH 

356°(T)/340°(M) radial 26-mile DME at lat 

41°16′58′′ N., long. 112°01′33′′ W.; thence 

clockwise to intercept North Mountain Rd. at 

the TCH 003°(T)/347°(M) radial 26-mile DME 

at lat. 41°16′59′′ N., long. 111°56′57′′ W.; 

thence south on North Mountain Rd., which 

turns into Harrison Blvd., to intercept the 

TCH 20-mile DME arc at the TCH 004°(T)/ 

348°(M) radial 20-mile DME at lat. 41°11′00′′ 

N., long. 111°56′56′′ W.; thence counter 

clockwise to intercept 1–15 at the TCH 

356°(T)/340°(M) radial 20-mile DME at lat. 

41°11′00′′ N., long. 112°00′49′′ W.; thence 

north along I–15 to the point of beginning. 

Area O. That airspace extending upward 

from 7,500 feet M5L to and including 12,000 

feet MSL, within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway 

89 and a 4.3-mile radius from Hill AFB at the 

TCH 014°(T)/358°(M) radial 13.6-mile DME 

at lat. 41°04′11′′ N., long. 111°54′39′′ W.; 

thence clockwise along 4.3-mile radius from 

Hill AFB to intercept 1700 So. St. at the TCH 

347°(T)/331°(M) radial 14.8-mile DME at lat. 

41°05′21′′ N., long. 112°03′22′′ W.; thence 

west along W. 1700 South St. to a point at 

the TCH 329°(T)/313°(M) radial 16.8-mile 

DME at lat. 41°05′22′′ N., long. 112°10′20′′ W.; 

thence south to a point at the TCH 316°(T)/ 

300°(M) radial 11.6-mile DME at lat. 

40°59′22′′ N., long. 112°09′27′′ W.; thence east 

to intercept I–15 at the TCH 013°(T)/357°(M) 

radial 9.8-mile DME at lat. 41°00′32′′ N., long. 

111°55′59′′ W.; thence south to a point at the 

TCH 020°(T)/004°(M) radial 6.6-mile DME at 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
52912 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

lat. 40°57′14′′ N., long. 111°55′54′′ W.; thence 

south to the intersection of Redwood Rd. and 

W. 500 South St. at the TCH 049°(T)/033°(M) 

radial 3.1-mile DME at lat. 40°53′02′′ N., long. 

111°55′48′′ W.; thence south to intercept 

Center St. at the TCH 102°(T)/086°(M) radial 

2.3-mile DME at lat. 40°50′32′′ N., long. 

111°55′57′′ W.; thence east along Center St. 

to intercept the 4.3-mile DME radius of the 

Salt Lake City International Airport and I–15 

at the TCH 099°(T)/083°(M) radial 3-mile 

DME at lat. 40°50′32′′ N., long. 111°54′56′′ W.; 

thence north along I–15 to intercept U.S. 

Highway 89 at the TCH 024°(T)/008°(M) 

radial 9-mile DME at lat. 40°59′14′′ N., long. 

111°54′05′′ W.; thence north along U.S. 

Highway 89 to the point of beginning. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 15, 

2011. 

Gary Norek, 

Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and 

ATC Procedures Group. 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP24AU11.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules 52913 

[FR Doc. 2011–21293 Filed 8–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau 

27 CFR Parts 40, 41, 44, 45, and 46 

[Docket No. TTB–2010–0004; Notice No. 

120; re: Notice No. 106] 

RIN 1513–AB78 

Standards for Pipe Tobacco and RollYour-Own Tobacco; Request for Public 

Comment 

AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, Treasury. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; reopening of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau (TTB) is reopening 

the comment period for Notice No. 106, 

which requested public comments on 

standards to distinguish between pipe 

tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco for 

Federal excise tax purposes based on 

certain physical characteristics of the 

two products. This reopening of the 

comment period solicits comments from 

the public on certain issues that were 

raised in public comments received in 

response to Notice No. 106. This notice 

also sets forth for possible public 

comment the results of preliminary 

laboratory analyses conducted by TTB. 

DATES: We must receive written 

comments on or before October 24, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments on 

this notice to one of the following 

addresses: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Use the 

comment form for Notice No. 106 as 

posted within Docket No. TTB–2010– 

0004 on ‘‘Regulations.gov,’’ the Federal 

e-rulemaking portal, to submit 

comments via the Internet; 

• Mail: Director, Regulations and 

Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco 

Tax and Trade Bureau, P.O. Box 14412, 

Washington, DC 20044–4412. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier in Lieu of 

Mail: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street, NW., Suite 

200–E, Washington, DC 20005. 

See the Public Participation section of 

this notice for specific instructions and 

requirements for submitting comments, 

and for information on how to request 

a public hearing. 

You may view copies of all published 

notices, selected supporting materials, 

and the comments received about this 

proposal within Docket No. TTB–2010– 

0004 at http://www.regulations.gov. A 

link to this Regulations.gov docket is 

posted on the TTB Web site at http:// 

www.ttb.gov/regulations_laws/ 

all_rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 

106. You also may view copies of all 

published notices, all supporting 

materials, and any comments we receive 

about this proposal by appointment at 

the TTB Information Resource Center, 

1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20220. Please call 202–453–2270 to 

make an appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher M. Thiemann, Regulations 

and Rulings Division, Alcohol and 

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G 

Street, NW., Suite 200E, Washington, 

DC 20220; telephone 202–453–1039, 

Ext. 138. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

TTB Authority 

Chapter 52 of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986 (IRC) sets forth the Federal 

excise tax and related provisions that 

apply to tobacco products and 

processed tobacco manufactured, or 

imported into, the United States. 

Section 5702(c) of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 

5702(c)) defines the term ‘‘tobacco 

products’’ as ‘‘cigars, cigarettes, 

smokeless tobacco, pipe tobacco, and 

roll-your-own tobacco.’’ Each of these 

terms is also separately defined in 

section 5702. Section 5702(p) states that 

a manufacturer of processed tobacco is 

‘‘any person who processes any tobacco 

other than tobacco products’’ and that 

‘‘the processing of tobacco shall not 

include the farming or growing of 

tobacco or the handling of tobacco 

solely for sale, shipment, or delivery to 

a manufacturer of tobacco products or 

processed tobacco.’’ 

Regulations implementing the 

provisions of chapter 52 of the IRC are 

contained in 27 CFR parts 40 

(Manufacture of tobacco products, 

cigarette papers and tubes, and 

processed tobacco), 41 (Importation of 

tobacco products, cigarette papers and 

tubes, and processed tobacco), 44 

(Exportation of tobacco products and 

cigarette papers and tubes, without 

payment of tax, or with drawback of 

tax), 45 (Removal of tobacco products 

and cigarette papers and tubes, without 

payment of tax, for use of the United 

States), and 46 (Miscellaneous 

regulations relating to tobacco products 

and cigarette papers and tubes). These 

statutory and regulatory provisions are 

administered by the Alcohol and 

Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). 

Publication of Notice No. 106 

On July 22, 2010, TTB published in 

the Federal Register (75 FR 42659) an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking, 

Notice No. 106, in response to changes 

made to the IRC tobacco provisions by 

sections 701 and 702 of the Children’s 

Health Insurance Program 

Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA). 

These changes to the IRC included an 

expansion of the definition of ‘‘rollyour-own tobacco’’ and an increase in 

the tax rate applicable to pipe tobacco 

and roll-your-own tobacco that resulted 

in a significant difference in the tax 

rates applicable to the two groups of 

products. In Notice No. 106, TTB 

described the heightened need for more 

regulatory detail to clarify the difference 

between pipe tobacco and roll-your-own 

tobacco as a result of the tax rate 

changes adopted by CHIPRA. In that 

notice, TTB also described and 

requested comments on six written 

submissions concerning the distinctions 

between pipe tobacco and roll-your-own 

tobacco that it had received in response 

to earlier rulemaking action regarding 

CHIPRA. 

Comments Received 

TTB received 24 comments from 

groups and individuals in response to 

Notice No. 106. Commenters provided 

input on the distinctions between pipe 

tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco 

based on physical characteristics as 

described by the original six 

submissions noted above. Commenters 

also provided suggestions on other 

characteristics which would be useful 

for distinguishing between pipe tobacco 

and roll-your-own tobacco, and made 

other substantive comments about the 

issues involved in the rulemaking. One 

of the 24 comments was withdrawn by 

the commenter after the close of the 

comment period, and two of the 

comments were not suitable for public 

posting because they did not address the 

issues presented for public comment. 

The remaining 21 comments may be 

viewed at the Regulations.gov Web site 

referred to in the ADDRESSES section of 

this document. 

After the close of the Notice No. 106 

comment period, TTB received a request 

to meet with attorneys from Patton 

Boggs LLP and their client, Liggett 

Vector Brands LLC. At this meeting, 

which took place on June 13, 2011, 

Liggett Vector’s chief executive officer 

and other company representatives 

presented TTB with a proposal to use 

certain physical characteristics to 

distinguish between pipe tobacco and 

roll-your-own tobacco that differ from 

the standards proposed by other 


wreier-aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS