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

Paragraph 6011 United States Area 

Navigation Routes 

* * * * * 

T–291 LOUIE, MD to Harrisburg (HAR), PA [New] 

LOUIE, MD Fix (Lat. 38°36′44′′ N., long. 076°18′04′′ W.) 

MORTY, MD WP (Lat. 39°19′51′′ N., long. 076°24′41′′ W.) 

Harrisburg, PA 

(HAR) 

VORTAC (Lat. 40°18′08′′ N., long. 077°04′10′′ W.) 

T–295 LOUIE, MD to Lancaster (LRP), PA [New] 

LOUIE, MD Fix (Lat. 38°36′44′′ N., long. 076°18′04′′ W.) 

MORTY, MD WP (Lat. 39°19′51′′ N., long. 076°24′41′′ W.) 

Lancaster, PA (LRP) VORTAC (Lat. 40°07′12′′ N., long. 076°17′29′′ W.) 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 8, 

2013. 

Gary A. Norek, 

Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC 

Procedures Group. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03462 Filed 2–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–1296; Airspace 

Docket No. 09–AWA–1] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Modification of Class B 

Airspace; Minneapolis, MN 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

modify the Minneapolis, MN, Class B 

airspace area to contain large turbinepowered aircraft conducting published 

instrument procedures at the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul International 

Airport (MSP), MN, within Class B 

airspace. The FAA is proposing this 

action to ensure containment of aircraft 

being vectored to and conducting 

Simultaneous Instrument Landing 

System (SILS) approaches to parallel 

Runways 12L/R and 30L/R, aircraft 

being vectored to and conducting 

approaches to Runway 35, and aircraft 

being re-sequenced from approaches to 

Runway 35 to approaches to Runway 

30L. This action would further support 

the FAA’s national airspace redesign 

goal of optimizing terminal and en route 

airspace areas to enhance safety, 

improving the flow of air traffic, and 

reducing the potential for near midair 

collision in the terminal area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 15, 2013. 

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–2012–1296 and 

Airspace Docket No. 09–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: 

Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and ATC 

Procedures, 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– 

2012–1296 and Airspace Docket No. 09– 

AWA–1) 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–2012–1296 and 

Airspace Docket No. 09–AWA–1.’’ 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. 

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 9:00 a.m. and 

5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. An informal 

docket may also be examined during 

normal business hours at the office of 

the Central Service Center, Operations 

Support Group, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 2601 Meacham Blvd. 

Fort Worth, TX 76137. 

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 1974, the FAA issued a final rule 

which established the Minneapolis, MN, 

Terminal Control Area (TCA) (38 FR 

34991). 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 10565 

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 be designed to 

contain all instrument procedures, and 

that air traffic controllers vector aircraft 

as appropriate to remain within Class B 

airspace after entry. 

The Minneapolis Class B airspace area 

has only been amended once, in 2006, 

since being established to address the 

significant growth in aircraft operations 

and the construction of Runway 17/35 

to accommodate the increased 

operations at that time. That 

amendment action modified the Class B 

airspace to (1) accommodate aircraft 

conducting SILS approaches to parallel 

Runways 12L/R and 30L/R, and (2) 

provide protection for aircraft 

conducting instrument approaches to 

MSP’s new Runway 35. 

Since the 2006 Minneapolis Class B 

airspace amendment action, changes to 

MSP vector patterns (traffic flows) and 

aircraft descent profiles, and the 

realization of a miscalculated Class B 

airspace boundary configuration have 

resulted in unanticipated and 

unintended Class B airspace exits. There 

are two areas in the existing 

Minneapolis Class B airspace extensions 

located northwest and southeast of MSP 

where aircraft on south downwind flight 

paths to MSP Runways 12R and 30L 

operate on, or in close proximity to, the 

existing Class B airspace boundaries. 

These downwind ‘‘legs’’ must be far 

enough away from the associated final 

approach course (FAC) to ensure that 

aircraft have enough airspace to execute 

a standard rate turn from the downwind 

leg to a point at which they are 

established on a 30° FAC intercept 

heading. This 30° intercept heading 

must be achieved at least three miles 

from the FAC. On the north side of the 

final approach areas (for Runways 12L 

and 30R), the downwind legs are more 

than 1.5 nautical miles (NM) from the 

Class B airspace boundary; however, on 

the south side of the final approach 

areas (for Runways 12R and 30L), the 

downwind legs are less than 0.65 NM 

from the Class B airspace boundary. The 

southern boundaries of the existing 

Class B airspace extensions located 

northwest and southeast of MSP require 

a one NM expansion further south, at a 

minimum, to ensure large turbinepowered aircraft flying the downwind 

legs of the southern traffic patterns 

supporting Runways 12R and 30L 

instrument procedures are safely 

contained within Class B airspace. 

Also, there are three areas of the 

Minneapolis Class B airspace where 

arriving aircraft ‘‘drop’’ beneath the 

floor of Class B airspace while 

descending for sequencing to closelyspaced, adjacent approaches at MSP. 

Since 2006, the fleet mix of aircraft 

operating at MSP has shifted from 

mostly rapidly descending DC–9s and 

B727s, to A320s, B757s, and other 

turbojet aircraft with more ‘‘efficient 

wings’’ that require a longer time to 

descend. As a result, the distance at 

which these slower descending aircraft 

must start a descent is located farther 

from MSP because the points at which 

air traffic control (ATC) must ensure the 

arriving aircraft reach 4,000 feet or 5,000 

feet mean sea level (MSL), in order to 

commence the various instrument 

approach procedures, has not changed. 

This requirement to descend arriving 

large turbine-powered aircraft earlier 

often results in aircraft exiting the floor 

of existing Class B airspace. 

Finally, a portion of the Runway 35 

FAC, extended, is not contained entirely 

within the existing Class B airspace. 

Between 20 NM and 25 NM from the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul International 

(Wold-Chamberlain) Airport DME 

Antenna (I–MSP DME), the Runway 35 

FAC is outside the boundary of existing 

Class B airspace; whereas, between 25 

NM and 30 NM from the I–MSP DME, 

the Runway 35 FAC is inside the 

boundary of existing Class B airspace. 

As a result, aircraft turned on to the 

Runway 35 FAC, extended, at 6,000 feet 

MSL will be within Class B airspace 

between 25 NM and 30 NM from the I– 

MSP DME, but will be outside Class B 

airspace, beneath the existing 7,000-foot 

Class B airspace floor in that area 

between 20 NM and 25 NM from the I– 

MSP DME. Similarly, aircraft that are 

initially positioned for an approach to 

Runway 35, but then re-sequenced to 

Runway 30L, are also at risk of exiting 

the Class B airspace area. In this case, 

the typical flight path for aircraft being 

re-sequenced from Runway 35 to 

Runway 30L passes under the existing 

Class B airspace where, currently, the 

floor of the existing Class B airspace 

subarea is 7,000 feet MSL. 

The proposed Minneapolis Class B 

airspace modifications described in this 

NPRM are intended to address these 

issues. For calendar year 2011, MSP 

ranked number 12 in the list of the ‘‘50 

Busiest FAA Airport Traffic Control 

Towers,’’ with over 435,000 total airport 

operations. Additionally, the calendar 

year 2011 passenger enplanement data 

ranked MSP as number 16 among 

Commercial Service Airports, with 

15,895,653 passenger enplanements (an 

increase of 2.47% from the previous 

year). 

Pre-NPRM Public Input 

An Ad Hoc Committee, formed in 

2010, reviewed the Minneapolis Class B 

airspace and provided 

recommendations to the FAA about the 

proposed design. The Ad Hoc 

Committee was chaired by the 

Minnesota Soaring Club representative 

with participants representing aviation 

interests in the greater Twin Cities area 

including representatives of air carrier, 

seaplane, ultralight, parachute, 

aerobatic, sailplane, experimental 

aircraft, and general aviation interests. 

The Ad Hoc Committee met three times; 

May 15, 2010; June 15, 2010; and July 

13, 2010. 

In addition, as announced in the 

Federal Register of January 5, 2011 (76 

FR 489), four fact-finding informal 

airspace meetings were held; the first on 

March 18, 2011, at the Metropolitan 

Airports Commission in Minneapolis, 

MN; the second on March 19, 2011, at 

the In Flight Pilot Training, LLC., in 

Eden Prairie, MN; the third on March 

21, 2011, at the Minnesota Army 

National Guard, Aviation Facility, in St. 

Paul, MN; and the fourth on March 22, 

2011, at the Metropolitan Airports 

Commission in Minneapolis, MN. These 

meetings provided interested airspace 

users with an opportunity to present 

their views and offer suggestions 

regarding the planned modifications to 

the Minneapolis Class B airspace area. 

The navigation aid radial information 

contained in the Ad Hoc Committee 

recommendations, the informal airspace 

meeting comments, and the proposal 

discussions that follow is presented 

relative to Magnetic North for ease of 

understanding. However, the navigation 

aid radial information contained in the 

regulatory text legal description is 

presented relative to both True North 

and Magnetic North. 

All substantive airspace 

recommendations made by the Ad Hoc 

Committee and public comments 

received as a result of the informal 

airspace meetings were considered in 

developing this proposal. 

Discussion of Ad Hoc Committee 

Recommendations 

The FAA prepared a preliminary 

design of the proposed Minneapolis 

Class B airspace modifications to 

illustrate the need for change and to 

serve as a basis for the Ad Hoc 

Committee’s review. In general, the 

preliminary design featured a proposal 

to expand the southern boundaries of 

the existing Class B airspace extensions 

located northwest and southeast of MSP 

by approximately one NM to the south; 

lower the floor of portions of existing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

10566 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Class B airspace abeam both sides of the 

existing Class B airspace extensions by 

1,000 feet MSL; combine the existing 

Class B airspace subareas located south 

and southeast of MSP into one subarea, 

and; expand the boundary of existing 

Class B airspace south of MSP from the 

Gopher VHF omnidirectional range 

(VOR)/tactical air navigation (VORTAC) 

antenna (GEP) 160° radial to the GEP 

157° radial. 

The Ad Hoc Committee reported that 

most of the proposed Minneapolis Class 

B airspace area changes had little or no 

impact on the aviation community 

represented by the Ad Hoc Committee; 

however, they felt that the proposed 

modifications near the Stanton Airfield 

(SYN) would impact the Minnesota 

Soaring Club and Stanton Sport 

Aviation operations. The Ad Hoc 

Committee’s report provided to the FAA 

contained six recommendations for 

consideration regarding the FAA’s 

proposed modification of the 

Minneapolis Class B airspace area. 

The Ad Hoc Committee recommended 

limiting the expansion of the existing 

Class B airspace located south of MSP, 

between 25 NM and 30 NM from the I– 

MSP DME, by defining the boundary 

using the GEP 158° radial instead of the 

initially proposed GEP 157° radial. They 

believed this change would better align 

the Class B airspace boundary with 

easily identifiable road junctions on the 

visual flight rules (VFR) charts and 

allow pilots of glider and powered 

aircraft, which are not Global 

Positioning System (GPS) equipped, to 

identify the Class B airspace boundary 

visually. 

The FAA incorporated the Ad Hoc 

Committee’s recommendation and 

defined the portion of the proposed 

Class B airspace boundary addressed 

above (proposed Area H) using the GEP 

158° radial. Defining this portion of the 

proposed boundary from the GEP 157° 

radial to the GEP 158° radial would 

reduce the Class B airspace subarea by 

0.8 NM laterally, but still provide 

containment of large turbine-powered 

aircraft within Class B airspace between 

20 NM and 30 NM from the I–MSP 

DME. 

The Ad Hoc Committee further 

recommended the FAA consider using a 

north-south aligned boundary to define 

the proposed GEP 158° radial boundary 

of the Class B airspace located south of 

MSP, between 25 NM and 30 NM from 

the I–MSP DME, in lieu of the 

discussion above. They thought this 

would more effectively shape the Class 

B airspace subarea boundary and 

minimize the Class B airspace 

expansion towards Stanton Airfield 

(SYN), as compared to the boundary 

being aligned using GEP radials. They 

noted this change would naturally 

shape the proposed Class B airspace 

wider towards MSP and minimize the 

movement of the southern portion of the 

boundary towards SYN. 

The FAA notes that there are no 

navigation aids available in the MSP 

terminal area whose position would 

provide a significantly improved northsouth alignment of the proposed 

boundary under discussion. Absent 

prominent landmarks being available 

where needed, to define a north-south 

aligned boundary, the FAA also 

considered using geographic references 

(latitude/longitude) to define the 

boundary. This alternative was also 

discounted because pilots of glider and 

powered aircraft, which are not GPS 

equipped, operating at SYN would not 

be able to easily identify the Class B 

airspace boundary and would risk 

further airspace incursions. Therefore, 

this proposal would define the 

boundary being discussed for the 

proposed Class B airspace Area H using 

the GEP 158° radial. 

The Ad Hoc Committee also 

recommended the FAA consider moving 

the western boundary of the existing 

Class B airspace, located south of MSP, 

two degrees east by using the GEP 168° 

radial to define the boundary. The 

committee stated the two degree 

boundary movement would reduce the 

amount of Class B airspace with a 6,000- 

foot MSL floor that gliders operating out 

of SYN would have to stay below to 

clear. 

This recommendation to change the 

existing GEP 170° radial to the GEP 168° 

radial to define the existing boundary of 

Class B airspace located south of MSP 

would affect two air traffic flows for 

Runway 35 arrivals and result in large 

turbine-powered aircraft not being 

contained within Class B airspace as 

they are today. If the committee’s 

change was incorporated, the large 

turbine-powered aircraft inbound to 

MSP flying the TWOLF Standard 

Terminal Arrival (STAR) procedure 

from the south/southwest would fly, on 

average, an additional three miles in the 

very same airspace that nonparticipating 

VFR aircraft are flying in before they 

entered the protection of the Class B 

airspace area. Additionally, the large 

turbine-powered aircraft already 

contained in Class B airspace, flying a 

left downwind (southbound) traffic 

pattern to intercept Runway 35 

approach procedures, would exit Class 

B airspace when the downwind leg of 

the traffic pattern extended beyond 20 

NM from the I–MSP DME. The 

downwind leg of the traffic pattern to 

Runway 35 is typically five to seven 

miles west of the FAC, but the GEP 168° 

radial is only 4 miles west of the FAC. 

When an aircraft flying at 6,000 feet 

MSL on a left downwind to Runway 35 

extends beyond 20 NM from the I–MSP 

DME, it would exit Class B airspace 

beneath the existing Class B airspace 

subarea with a 7,000-foot MSL floor, 

and again be flying in the same airspace 

used by nonparticipating VFR aircraft 

before re-entering Class B airspace after 

being turned-on to the base leg of the 

traffic pattern in preparation of 

intercepting the Runway 35 FAC, 

extended. Both scenarios highlight the 

unintended consequences that would 

result from moving the western 

boundary of the existing Class B 

airspace subarea located south of MSP 

two degrees to the east and the 

counterproductive result to this 

proposed action. 

The Ad Hoc Committee was 

concerned about the availability of 

airspace north of SYN. They 

recommended the FAA establish only 

the portion of the proposed Class B 

airspace located south of MSP, west of 

the GEP 158° radial, with a 6,000-foot 

MSL floor and retain the existing 7,000- 

foot MSL floor in the remainder of the 

existing Class B airspace north of SYN. 

They further recommended that if more 

Class B airspace was required north of 

SYN, the FAA lower the portion of 

existing Class B airspace from 7,000 feet 

MSL to 6,000 feet MSL in the area 

necessary in the Class B airspace cutout 

north of SYN. The committee wanted to 

retain the majority of airspace available 

north of SYN with a 7,000-foot MSL 

ceiling. 

The FAA evaluated this 

recommendation and determined the 

proposed Class B airspace located south 

of MSP and north of SYN (proposed 

Area H) is necessary with a 6,000-foot 

MSL floor. Aircraft that are inbound to 

Runway 35, but then re-sequenced to 

Runway 30L, are often vectored 

northeastward through the proposed 

Class B airspace Area H subarea at 6,000 

feet MSL or higher, depending on traffic 

volume. Typically, aircraft arrivals 

inbound from the south are resequenced to Runway 30L when the 

traffic flows from the north and 

southwest saturate the Runway 35 FAC. 

As the number of aircraft sequenced to 

Runway 35 increases, the point at which 

aircraft from the south must be resequenced and turned to Runway 30L 

extends farther to the south; requiring 

the availability of Class B airspace with 

a 6,000-foot MSL floor. The proposed 

modification to establish the new Class 

B airspace Area H with a 6,000-foot 

MSL floor would ensure inbound 

aircraft that are at or descending to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 10567 

6,000 feet MSL do not exit Class B 

airspace when transitioning from a 

Runway 35 arrival to a Runway 30L 

arrival. 

However, in response to the second 

part of the Ad Hoc Committee’s 

recommendation to minimize the 

amount of Class B airspace north of SYN 

being lowered, the initially proposed 25 

NM boundary of Class B airspace being 

lowered to 6,000 feet MSL could be 

reduced to the 24 NM arc from the I– 

MSP DME with the floor of the 

remaining portion of existing Class B 

airspace between the 24 NM and 25 NM 

arcs from the I–MSP DME retained at 

7,000 feet MSL. The net effect would be 

to limit the amount of proposed Class B 

airspace north of SYN being lowered to 

6,000 feet MSL by moving the proposed 

boundary of that subarea one NM 

further north of SYN. This change to the 

proposal would still provide the Class B 

airspace necessary to contain large 

turbine-powered aircraft within Class B 

airspace when being re-sequenced from 

Runway 35 to Runway 30L, but leaves 

the Class B airspace overhead SYN 

unchanged. 

The Ad Hoc Committee’s final 

recommendation to the FAA was to 

consider moving the existing Class B 

airspace boundary over SYN north or 

eliminating the current 7,000-foot MSL 

Class B airspace floor altogether. It felt 

that flight track data shown to it 

indicated that the floor at the 25 NM 

line over SYN could be either moved 

northward or perhaps eliminated. 

In this proposal, the FAA moved the 

25 NM boundary of proposed Class B 

airspace to be lowered to 6,000 feet MSL 

one NM north to the 24 NM arc from the 

I–MSP DME in accordance with the Ad 

Hoc Committee’s previous 

recommendation. The existing Class B 

airspace north of SYN that falls outside 

24 NM from the I–MSP DME would 

remain unchanged. The FAA believes 

the minimal number of flight tracks 

documented below the existing Class B 

airspace between 24 NM and 25 NM 

from the I–MSP DME below 7,000 feet 

MSL can be managed with ATCassigned course changes. 

Discussion of Informal Airspace 

Meeting Comments 

The FAA received written comments 

from thirteen individuals and 

organizations as a result of the informal 

airspace meetings. Seven commenters 

found the FAA’s presentation helpful in 

understanding the requirement and 

issues, and clearly demonstrated an 

understanding of all stakeholders’ 

views. The remaining commenters 

provided comments opposing various 

aspects of the proposed Minneapolis 

Class B airspace area modification. The 

following discussion addresses the 

substantive comments received. 

One commenter questioned the reason 

for the proposed Class B airspace 

modification and submitted that the 

proposed modifications would further 

restrict General Aviation (GA) freedom 

of flight around the Twin Cities area, 

especially near Airlake Airport (LVN). 

He stated that the new airspace design 

might cause confusion and more 

airspace incursion violations, suggesting 

that the FAA ‘‘keep things the same’’ 

and have fewer regulations. 

The FAA is proposing this action to 

ensure aircraft being vectored and 

conducting SILS approaches to MSP 

parallel Runways 12L/R and 30L/R, 

aircraft being vectored to and 

conducting approaches to Runway 35, 

and aircraft being re-sequenced from 

approach procedures for Runway 35 to 

approach procedures for Runway 30L 

are contained within Class B airspace. 

The FAA does not agree with the 

commenter that the proposed 

modification will further restrict GA 

freedom of flight, especially near LVN. 

The closest proposed Class B airspace 

modification to LVN by this action is 

approximately six miles southeast of the 

airport; the proposed lowering of Class 

B airspace (proposed Area H) from 7,000 

feet MSL to 6,000 feet MSL. LVN is 

located approximately 14 NM south of 

the I–MSP DME, between the 12 NM 

and 20 NM I–MSP DME arcs where the 

Class B airspace floor would remain 

unchanged at 4,000 feet MSL. 

Additionally, the navigation aids that 

currently define the various Class B 

airspace boundaries would continue to 

define the modified boundaries. The 

FAA believes the proposed Class B 

airspace modifications have been clearly 

developed to prevent confusion, and 

would not contribute to unintentional 

airspace incursion violations. 

One commenter expressed concern 

with the regulations that allow aircraft 

without transponders (sailplanes and 

gliders) to operate within the 30 NM 

Mode C veil around MSP, outside the 

Minneapolis Class B airspace area, 

because ATC may not be able to see the 

sailplanes and gliders on radar or advise 

other aircraft operating in the same area 

of their presence. The commenter stated 

that in the interest of safety, the FAA 

should look very seriously at the notransponder exception allowing aircraft 

without a transponder to operate near 

congested Class B airspace areas. 

The commenter is seeking a change to 

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR) section 91.215, ATC transponder 

and altitude reporting equipment and 

use. This regulation, in part, provides an 

‘‘exception’’ to the transponder 

requirement for aircraft not originally 

certified with an engine-driven 

electrical system to conduct operations 

within the 30 NM Mode C veil around 

Class B airspace primary airports, 

outside Class B airspace without a 

transponder. This suggestion is beyond 

the scope of this action. The MSP 

Terminal Radar Approach Control 

(TRACON) controllers are aware that 

gliders and sailplanes are operating near 

SYN without transponders and will 

continue to provide traffic advisories, to 

the extent possible, to VFR aircraft 

under their control that are operating 

near SYN. 

One commenter stated that the Class 

B airspace modifications presented in 

the March 22, 2011, meeting offered 

some relief for SYN glider flights 

compared to previous versions, but that 

there was increased and unnecessary 

complexity created with the 24 NM to 

25 NM Class B airspace subarea retained 

with a 7,000-foot MSL floor. A second 

commenter argued the same point, 

stating that the proposed modification 

creates an alleyway of airspace that will 

confuse pilots and may result in 

inadvertent airspace incursions. The 

commenters suggested that the 

Minneapolis Class B airspace should 

either end at 24 NM between the GEP 

158° radial and the Flying Cloud VOR/ 

DME navigation aid (FCM) 123° radial 

to simplify navigation for most gliders, 

or utilize a more consistent Class B 

airspace floor in this area preserving the 

7,000-foot MSL floor directly over SYN. 

The first commenter also mentioned 

that the flight path summaries briefed at 

the informal airspace meetings did not 

show or take into account the nontransponder equipped gliders operating 

in the vicinity of SYN adjacent to the 

current MSP Class B airspace. 

The FAA reviewed the Class B 

airspace subarea with a 7,000-foot MSL 

floor located between 24 NM and 25 NM 

from the I–MSP DME, from the GEP 

158° radial to the FCM 123° radial, 

addressed by the commenters and 

incorporated their suggestion to remove 

it from the proposal to reduce the 

perceived airspace complexity and 

confusion for users in the area north of 

SYN. As a result, inbound aircraft 

transitioning from Runway 35 to 

Runway 30L will be issued ATCassigned headings to keep them within 

the proposed Class B airspace Area H 

between 20 NM and 24 NM from the I– 

MSP DME. 

Additionally, the FAA acknowledges 

that the flight path summaries presented 

at the informal airspace meetings did 

not include non-transponder equipped 

aircraft (gliders) since track recording 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

10568 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

are only possible on transponderequipped aircraft. This limitation 

underscores the need and importance 

for Minneapolis Class B airspace to be 

designed in such a way that it not only 

contains large turbine-powered aircraft 

arriving and departing MSP or 

nonparticipating VFR aircraft cleared 

into the Class B airspace by the MSP 

TRACON, but also segregates aircraft 

operating within the Class B airspace 

and those operating outside the Class B 

airspace, especially those not visible to 

ATC radar. 

One commenter suggested that 

lowering the Class B airspace located 

north of SYN, from 7,000 feet MSL to 

6,000 feet MSL, should be limited to the 

airspace west of the GEP 158° radial and 

the remainder of the Class B airspace 

subarea left unchanged with a 7,000-foot 

MSL floor. The commenter argued that 

this would allow continued upwind 

operations of glider training flights 

north of SYN. 

As mentioned previously, the 

proposed Class B airspace located north 

of SYN between 20 NM and 24 NM from 

the I–MSP DME is necessary with a 

6,000-foot MSL floor to ensure aircraft 

inbound to Runway 35, but then resequenced to Runway 30L are contained 

within Class B airspace. The proposed 

Class B airspace Area H would ensure 

aircraft that are at or descending to 

6,000 feet MSL do not exit Class B 

airspace when transitioning from a 

Runway 35 arrival to a Runway 30L 

arrival. However, this action also 

proposes to return the Class B airspace 

located north of SYN outside 24 NM 

from the I–MSP DME between the GEP 

158° and FCM 123° radials to the NAS. 

This airspace return is expected to 

continue supporting upwind operations 

of glider training flights north of SYN, 

as well as other nonparticipating VFR 

aircraft flying in the vicinity of SYN. 

One commenter suggested that the 

FAA change nine of the Minneapolis 

Class B airspace boundary segments to 

align them with prominent geographic 

landmarks such as rivers and freeways, 

rather than the existing DME distance 

and VOR radials. A list of specific 

boundary changes were recommended 

and provided for the airspace 

boundaries located within a short 

distance (less than one mile) of available 

landmarks, and where the realignments 

would keep MSP traffic contained 

within Class B airspace. The commenter 

argued that the recommended changes 

would enhance safety by improving 

situational awareness for VFR traffic 

operating below Class B airspace 

subareas; stating that eliminating the 

need [for pilots] to keep eyes inside the 

cockpit would improve traffic scans and 

would reduce the risk of mid-air 

collisions. 

Using prominent geographic features 

(landmarks), when they are easily 

identifiable and coincide with proposed 

airspace configuration modifications, 

help identify Class B airspace 

boundaries and enhances the situational 

awareness for VFR pilots flying in the 

vicinity of Class B airspace areas. The 

scope of this proposed modification is 

to modify the Minneapolis Class B 

airspace areas where aircraft 

containment has been compromised so 

as to minimize airspace impacts on 

nonparticipating VFR aircraft operating 

in the vicinity of the Class B airspace. 

There are not any easily identifiable 

landmarks available that coincide with 

the proposed Class B airspace 

boundaries needed to contain the large 

turbine-powered aircraft arriving/ 

departing MSP, without expanding the 

proposed Class B airspace subareas 

beyond what is required to match 

existing landmarks. Since there have not 

been any containment problems in the 

areas where the commenter suggested 

boundary changes, the FAA has opted to 

retain the existing boundaries and limit 

the scope of this action as mentioned 

previously. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations 

(14 CFR) part 71 to modify the 

Minneapolis Class B airspace area. This 

action (depicted on the attached chart) 

proposes to expand the southern 

boundary of the existing Area D 

extensions by approximately 1 NM to 

the south, lower the floor of portions of 

existing Class B airspace Area E abeam 

both sides of the existing Area D 

extensions by 1,000 feet MSL, reduce 

the southern boundary of existing Area 

E located southeast of MSP by 1 NM and 

combine the remaining airspace of that 

portion of Area E with existing Area F, 

and move the eastern boundary of 

existing Area F from the GEP 160° radial 

to the GEP 158° radial between 24 NM 

and 30 NM from the I–MSP DME 

navigation aid. These proposed 

modifications would provide the 

minimum additional airspace needed to 

contain large turbine-powered aircraft 

conducting instrument procedures 

within the confines of Class B airspace. 

Except for Areas A, B, and C, the 

proposed descriptions of all other 

Minneapolis Class B airspace subareas 

would be reconfigured, re-described, 

and realigned by geographic position in 

relation to the I–MSP DME antenna 

rather than the previous practice of 

combining geographically separate areas 

that share common Class B airspace 

altitude floors into one large, complex 

subarea description. The current MSP 

Class B airspace area consists of six 

subareas (A through F) whereas the 

proposed configuration would consist of 

ten subareas (A through J). The 

proposed revisions to the Minneapolis 

Class B airspace area, by subarea, are 

outlined below. 

Area A. Area A is the surface area that 

extends upward from the surface to 

10,000 feet MSL in the Class B airspace 

contained in the current Area A. The 

FAA is not proposing any changes to 

Area A. 

Area B. Area B extends upward from 

2,300 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL in 

the Class B airspace contained in the 

current Area B. The FAA is not 

proposing any changes to Area B. 

Area C. Area C extends upward from 

3,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL in 

the Class B airspace contained in the 

current Area C. The FAA is not 

proposing any changes to Area C. 

Area D. Area D would be revised to 

include the airspace extending upward 

from 4,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL 

in the Class B airspace contained in the 

current Area D with the southern 

boundary of the Class B airspace 

extensions moved approximately 1 NM 

to the south. The expanded southern 

boundary of the new Area D extensions 

would ensure containment of aircraft 

flying the southern traffic pattern 

downwind legs for Runway 12R and 

30L instrument procedures within Class 

B airspace. 

Area E. Area E would be revised to 

include the airspace extending upward 

from 6,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL 

between the GEP 295° radial clockwise 

to the GEP 352° radial and the 20 NM 

to 30 NM arcs from the I–MSP DME. 

This new subarea would lower a portion 

of existing Class B airspace contained in 

the current Area E by 1,000 feet MSL to 

ensure containment of aircraft that 

require a longer time/distance to 

descend for sequence to closely spaced, 

adjacent instrument approaches to 

Runways 12L and 12R within Class B 

airspace. 

Area F. Area F would include the 

airspace extending upward from 7,000 

feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL between 

the GEP 085° radial clockwise to the 

GEP 105° radial and the 20 NM to 30 

NM arcs from the I–MSP DME. This 

new subarea would be established in 

existing Class B airspace contained in 

the current Area E. 

Area G. Area G would include the 

airspace extending upward from 6,000 

feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL between 

the GEP 105° radial clockwise to the 

GEP 115° radial and the 20 NM to 30 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 10569 

NM arcs from the I–MSP DME. This 

new subarea would lower a portion of 

existing Class B airspace contained in 

the current Area E by 1,000 feet MSL to 

ensure containment of aircraft that 

require a longer time/distance to 

descend for sequence to closely spaced, 

adjacent instrument approaches to 

Runways 30L and 30R within Class B 

airspace. 

Area H. Area H would include the 

airspace extending upward from 6,000 

feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL in the 

existing Class B airspace contained in 

current Area F and a portion of current 

Area E located southeast of MSP. This 

new subarea would expand the eastern 

boundary of the current Area F to the 

GEP 158° radial, reduce the southern 

boundary of the portion of current Area 

E to the 24 NM arc from the I–MSP 

DME, and lower the Class B airspace 

floor in the remaining portion of the 

current Area E to match the Class B 

airspace floor in the current Area F. The 

new subarea would ensure containment 

of aircraft flying the Runway 35 

procedures and associated traffic 

patterns, as well as the aircraft being resequenced from Runway 35 to Runway 

30L approaches, within Class B 

airspace. 

Area I. Area I would include the 

airspace extending upward from 7,000 

feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL between 

the GEP 170° radial clockwise to the 

FCM 270° radial and the 20 NM to 30 

NM arcs from the I–MSP DME. This 

new subarea would be established in 

existing Class B airspace contained in 

the current Area E. 

Area J. Area J would include the 

airspace extending upward from 6,000 

feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL between 

the FCM 270° radial clockwise to the 

FCM 294° radial and the 20 NM to 30 

NM arcs from the I–MSP DME. This 

new subarea would lower a portion of 

existing Class B airspace contained in 

the current Area E by 1,000 feet MSL to 

ensure containment of aircraft that 

require a longer time/distance to 

descend for sequence to closely spaced, 

adjacent instrument approaches to 

Runways 12L and 12R within Class B 

airspace. 

Finally, this proposed action would 

update the Minneapolis-St. Paul 

International (Wold-Chamberlain) 

Airport reference point, the Gopher 

VORTAC, the Flying Cloud VOR/DME, 

and the Minneapolis-St. Paul 

International (Wold-Chamberlain) 

Airport DME geographic coordinates 

(latitude/longitude) to reflect current 

NAS data is reflected in the 

Minneapolis Class B airspace area legal 

description header. The geographic 

coordinates in this proposal are stated 

in degrees, minutes, and seconds based 

on North American Datum 83. 

Implementation of these proposed 

modifications to the Minneapolis Class 

B airspace area would ensure 

containment of large turbine-powered 

aircraft within Class B airspace as 

required by FAA directive to enhance 

safety and the efficient management of 

aircraft operations in the Minneapolis, 

MN, terminal area. 

Class B airspace areas are published 

in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order 

7400.9W, Airspace Designations and 

Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, 

and effective September 15, 2012, which 

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

section 71.1. The Class B airspace area 

listed in this document would be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

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 

Minneapolis, MN, Class B airspace area 

to contain large turbine-powered aircraft 

conducting published instrument 

procedures within Class B airspace, and 

reduce the potential for midair 

collisions. Given the current boundaries 

and changes in MSP traffic flows and 

aircraft descent profiles since the last 

restructuring, instrument flight rules 

(IFR) flights are not contained within 

Class B airspace. This amendment 

would restructure the airspace to ensure 

containment of these aircraft within 

Class B airspace which would reduce 

the potential for midair collisions in the 

terminal area. The amendment would 

also reduce controller workload by 

reducing the number of Class B airspace 

excursions. 

The proposed restructuring 

accommodates aircraft approaches on 

flight paths that are currently close to 

the Class B airspace boundaries, by 

proposing these boundaries be moved 

slightly. Also, since the last 

restructuring of the airspace, the fleet 

mix has changed from more rapidly 

descending aircraft to turbojets with 

more ‘‘efficient wings’’ which require a 

longer time to descend. To better 

contain these new turbojets, the 

amendment proposes lowering the floor 

of the Class B airspace in the areas 

where arriving aircraft currently drop 

beneath the floor of Class B airspace so 

they would be contained. Also, the 

original Class B airspace design does not 

contain a portion of one of the FACs 

within the existing Class B airspace and 

consequently aircraft traveling along 

this FAC exit Class B airspace for part 

of the descent. The rule proposes 

moving the Class B boundary and 

lowering the floor in this portion of the 

airspace so that aircraft using this FAC 

would be contained within Class B 

airspace. 

The FAA expects these changes 

would have little impact on VFR traffic 

as VFR aircraft would have the 

alternatives of flying under or over the 

redesigned Class B or through it with 

clearance from air traffic control. 

Although there was a comment 

expressing concern that the proposed 

modifications would restrict general 

aviation flight around the Twin Cities 

area, in particular near Airlake Airport 

(LVN), the FAA notes that LVN is a 

significant distance from the proposed 

modifications and there should be no 

impact to general aviation traffic in that 

area. Furthermore, the Ad Hoc 

Committee which was formed to review 

the Class B airspace proposal and 

provide feedback to the FAA reported 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

10570 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

most of the proposed changes would 

have little or no impact on the aviation 

community they represented, including 

non-participating VFR aircraft, with the 

exception of the cutout near Stanton 

Airfield. The committee did however 

indicate the proposed modifications 

would impact the Minnesota Soaring 

Club and Stanton Sport Aviation 

operations and provided six 

recommendations to alleviate the 

potential impact. Additionally, the FAA 

held several fact finding informal 

airspace meetings. As a result of the Ad 

Hoc Committee and informal airspace 

meeting inputs, the FAA incorporated 

those recommendations and comments 

that supported containment of IFR 

traffic within Class B airspace with an 

expected minimal impact on nonparticipatory VFR operations. The FAA 

anticipates the proposed modifications 

would continue to allow sufficient 

airspace for VFR operations in the 

vicinity of the Minneapolis Class B 

airspace area. 

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. 

The 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. It is expected to 

cause little impact on VFR traffic. VFR 

traffic that might be currently flying in 

airspace that would be re-designated as 

Class B airspace would continue to have 

the option of flying above or below the 

proposed Class B airspace or obtaining 

clearance to fly through. The proposed 

amendment 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 

effect 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 7400.9W, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 8, 2012, and 

effective September 15, 2012, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 3000—Subpart B—Class B 

Airspace 

* * * * * 

AGL MN B Minneapolis, MN [Amended] 

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (WoldChamberlain) Airport (Primary Airport) 

(Lat. 44°52′55′′ N., long. 93°13′18′′ W.) 

Gopher VORTAC 

(Lat. 45°08′44′′ N., long. 93°22′23′′ W.) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 10571 

Flying Cloud VOR/DME 

(Lat. 44°49′31′′ N., long. 93°26′34′′ W.) 

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (WoldChamberlain) Airport DME Antenna (I– 

MSP DME) 

(Lat. 44°52′27′′ N., long. 93°12′21′′ W.) 

Boundaries 

Area A. That airspace extending upward 

from the surface to and including 10,000 feet 

MSL within a 6 NM radius of I–MSP DME. 

Area B. That airspace extending upward 

from 2,300 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL within an 8.5 NM radius of I–MSP 

DME, excluding Area A previously 

described. 

Area C. That airspace extending upward 

from 3,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL within a 12 NM radius of I–MSP 

DME, excluding Area A and Area B 

previously described. 

Area D. That airspace extending upward 

from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM 

arc of the I–MSP DME and the Gopher 

VORTAC 301°T/295°M radial; thence 

clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP 

DME to the Gopher VORTAC 121°T/115°M 

radial; thence southeast along the Gopher 

VORTAC 121°T/115°M radial to the 30 NM 

arc of the I–MSP DME; thence clockwise 

along the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME to 

the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124°T/123°M 

radial; thence northwest along the Flying 

Cloud VOR/DME 124°T/123°M radial to the 

20 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence 

clockwise along the 20 NM are of the I–MSP 

DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295°T/ 

294°M radial; thence northwest along the 

Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295°T/294°M radial 

to the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence 

clockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP 

DME to the Gopher VORTAC 301°T/295°M 

radial; thence southeast along the Gopher 

VORTAC 301°T/295°M radial to the point of 

beginning, excluding Area A, Area B, and 

Area C previously described. 

Area E. That airspace extending upward 

from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM 

arc of the I–MSP DME and the Gopher 

VORTAC 301°T/295°M radial; thence 

clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP 

DME to the Gopher VORTAC 358°T/352°M 

radial; thence north along the Gopher 

VORTAC 358°T/352°M radial to the 30 NM 

arc of the I–MSP DME; thence 

counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the 

I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 301°T/ 

295°M radial; thence southeast along the 

Gopher VORTAC 301°T/295°M radial to the 

point of beginning. 

Area F. That airspace extending upward 

from 7,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM 

arc of the I–MSP DME and the Gopher 

VORTAC 091°T/085°M radial; thence 

clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP 

DME to the Gopher VORTAC 111°T/105°M 

radial; thence southeast along the Gopher 

VORTAC 111°T/105°M radial to the 30 NM 

arc of the I–MSP DME; thence 

counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the 

I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 091°T/ 

085°M radial; thence west along the Gopher 

VORTAC 091°T/085°M radial to the point of 

beginning. 

Area G. That airspace extending upward 

from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM 

arc of the I–MSP DME and the Gopher 

VORTAC 111°T/105°M radial; thence 

clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP 

DME to the Gopher VORTAC 121°T/115°M 

radial; thence southeast along the Gopher 

VORTAC 121°T/115°M radial to the 30 NM 

arc of the I–MSP DME; thence 

counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the 

I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 111°T/ 

105°M radial; thence northwest along the 

Gopher VORTAC 111°T/105°M radial to the 

point of beginning. 

Area H. That airspace extending upward 

from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM 

arc of the I–MSP DME and the Flying Cloud 

VOR/DME 124°T/123°M radial; thence 

clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP 

DME to the Gopher VORTAC 176°T/170°M 

radial; thence south along the Gopher 

VORTAC 176°T/170°M radial to the 30 NM 

arc of the I–MSP DME; thence 

counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the 

I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 164°T/ 

158°M radial; thence north along the Gopher 

VORTAC 164°T/158°M radial to the 24 NM 

arc of the I–MSP DME; thence 

counterclockwise along the 24 NM arc of the 

I–MSP DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 

124°T/123°M radial; thence northwest along 

the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124°T/123°M 

radial to the point of beginning. 

Area I. That airspace extending upward 

from 7,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM 

arc of the I–MSP DME and the Gopher 

VORTAC 176°T/170°M radial; thence 

clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP 

DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 271°T/ 

270°M radial; thence west along the Flying 

Cloud VOR/DME 271°T/270°M radial to the 

30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence 

counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the 

I–MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 176°T/ 

170°M radial; thence north along the Gopher 

VORTAC 176°T/170°M radial to the point of 

beginning. 

Area J. That airspace extending upward 

from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM 

arc of the I–MSP DME and the Flying Cloud 

VOR/DME 271°T/270°M radial; thence 

clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I–MSP 

DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295°T/ 

294°M radial; thence northwest along the 

Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295°T/294°M radial 

to the 30 NM arc of the I–MSP DME; thence 

counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the 

I–MSP DME to the Flying Cloud 271°T/ 

270°M radial; thence east along the Flying 

Cloud 271°T/270°M radial to the point of 

beginning. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 6, 

2013. 

Gary A. Norek, 

Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC 

Procedures Group. 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

10572 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP14FE13.013</GPH>