1742 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(4) You may view this service information 

at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, 

Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., 

Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at the FAA, call (817) 222–5110. 

(5) You may view this service information 

that is incorporated by reference at the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For information on 

the availability of this material at NARA, call 

(202) 741–6030, or go to: http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 

20, 2012. 

Kim Smith, 

Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31682 Filed 1–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1237; Airspace 

Docket No. 08–AWA–5] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Amendment to Class B Airspace; 

Atlanta, GA 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action modifies the 

Atlanta, GA, Class B airspace area to 

ensure the containment of large turbinepowered aircraft operating to and from 

the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta 

International Airport (ATL). The FAA is 

taking this action to enhance safety and 

reduce the potential for midair collision 

in the Atlanta, GA, terminal area. 

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, March 

7, 2013. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference action under 1 CFR part 51, 

subject to the annual revision of FAA 

Order 7400.9 and publication of 

conforming amendments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Gallant, Airspace Policy and ATC 

Procedures Group, Office of Airspace 

Services, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

On February 3, 2012, the FAA 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

to modify the Atlanta, GA, Class B 

airspace area (77 FR 5429). Interested 

parties were invited to participate in 

this rulemaking effort by submitting 

written comments on the proposal. A 

total of 159 commenters responded to 

the NPRM. The FAA considered all 

comments received before making a 

determination on this final rule. 

Discussion of Comments 

Of the 159 responses received, 135 

concerned the airspace in the vicinity of 

Dekalb-Peachtree Airport (PDK). All of 

these commenters opposed the Class B 

modification in the vicinity of PDK 

contending that it would result in lower 

flight paths for ATL arrivals, and PDK 

arrivals and departures, thus leading to 

various adverse impacts, such as: 

increased noise, increased air pollution 

and health problems, lower property 

values, detrimental effect on local 

businesses, decreased tax revenues due 

to lower property value and decreased 

commerce, inability to sell homes and 

decreased quality of life. 

The above perceived impacts appear 

to be based on the belief that the Class 

B change would lead to IFR flights 

operating at lower altitudes than they do 

today. This is incorrect. The Class B 

modifications, including those in the 

PDK area, are based on the need to 

contain IFR aircraft that are now 

operating below Class B airspace. It is 

important to note that existing IFR 

operating altitudes will not change. 

Noise concerns were a recurring 

theme in the PDK-related comments, in 

that the main concern was that lowering 

the floor of the Class B airspace would 

allow more aircraft to fly lower over 

residential areas. The vast majority of 

the noise experienced by these residents 

is caused by aircraft flying at or below 

3,000 feet MSL during takeoff and/or 

landing operations at the PDK airport. 

Those aircraft will continue to fly at 

those altitudes regardless of any changes 

made in the Atlanta Class B airspace. In 

addition, an FAA study done in 

response to comments at the Informal 

Airspace Meetings, held in 2010, shows 

that almost 98 percent of the aircraft 

that fly in the vicinity of PDK are 

already operating below 5,000 feet MSL. 

Therefore, lowering the floor of the 

Class B airspace will not have an 

appreciable effect on the amount of 

noise experienced by the residents in 

neighborhoods surrounding PDK. 

Further, the FAA is not changing air 

traffic procedures. Where IFR aircraft fly 

today is where they will continue to fly 

after implementation of the Class B 

modification. This rule addresses the 

issue that these aircraft are currently 

operating at altitudes that are below the 

floor of the existing Class B airspace. In 

order to minimize the potential for 

midair collisions in the Atlanta terminal 

area, FAA directives require that large 

turbine powered aircraft arriving at and 

departing from the primary airport (in 

this case, ATL) be contained within 

Class B airspace. Since the routes and 

altitudes that ATL IFR arrivals and 

departures are currently flying will not 

change, there will not be an increase of 

over-flights or noise from what residents 

in the PDK area are already 

experiencing today. Aircraft operating to 

and from Hartsfield will not begin flying 

lower over residential areas near PDK 

Airport due to lowering the Class B 

floor. 

The commenters also contend that the 

Class B changes would increase IFR 

delays for PDK departures and arrivals, 

resulting in wasted fuel and increased 

operating costs as well as causing PDK 

IFR arrivals to circle over the 

neighborhoods while waiting to land. 

The FAA does not agree. Today, PDK 

IFR departures are initially cleared to 

climb to the highest available altitude, 

typically 5,000 feet MSL, but sometimes 

lower based on other traffic. These 

aircraft climb at their normal rate until 

reaching their assigned altitude, so even 

if an aircraft is cleared to 4,000 feet 

instead of 5,000 feet, its initial rate of 

climb would be the same and there 

would be no increased impact on the 

ground that might be caused by a slower 

climb rate. Lowering the floor of the 

Class B in the vicinity of PDK will not 

alter this practice, since 5,000 feet will 

continue to be assigned by the satellite 

controller. PDK IFR arrivals operate on 

final approach at minimum altitudes 

that are based on obstacle clearance 

criteria and descent profiles defined by 

instrument procedure design standards. 

These IFR procedure altitudes cannot be 

lowered. Additionally, the established 

VFR traffic patterns at the satellite 

airports are not changing due to this 

rule. 

ATL arrivals currently fly in the PDK 

area at 6,000 feet today and they will 

continue to operate at that altitude after 

the Class B change. The purpose of 

lowering the floor to 5,000 feet in the 

PDK area is to contain, within Class B 

airspace, the ATL departures that are 

now flying at 5,000 feet underneath the 

arrivals. Since arrivals and departures at 

both ATL and PDK will continue to 

operate at the same altitudes as they do 

today, none of the above listed impacts 

would occur as a result of the Class B 

airspace modification. 

However, in view of the large number 

of comments received, and the Ad Hoc 

Committee recommendation concerning 

the Class B changes near PDK, we 

explored the possibility of modifying 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 1743 

the Class B airspace design in that area. 

We determined that we can move the 

proposed north boundary of the 5000 

foot area (Area F) to the south of PDK, 

and move the proposed boundary of the 

6000 foot area (Area J—located 

northeast of PDK) to the east by 2 miles. 

This design change will lower the Class 

B floor over PDK from the current 8,000 

feet to 7,000 feet instead of 5,000 feet as 

proposed in the NPRM. We believe that 

this accommodation will not 

compromise safety. The reduced size of 

the 5,000 foot area will still contain ATL 

departures operating beneath the 

arrivals as well as provide a higher Class 

B floor above PDK. 

In addition to the PDK comments 

discussed above, 24 commenters stated 

that lowering the floor of the Class B 

airspace would cause increased IFR 

departure delays out of both Fulton 

County Airport-Brown Field (FTY) and 

PDK. 

The FAA does not agree. The 

existence of Class B airspace has no 

impact on IFR delays from these 

airports. The determining factors for IFR 

delays are normally traffic volume and 

weather. Traffic volume delays exist 

today from time to time. Lowering the 

floor of the Class B airspace does not 

equate to an increase in traffic volume. 

The traffic that flows through the 

affected airspace is already there—the 

only difference is that the aircraft that 

are currently operating below Class B 

airspace will now be contained within 

the Class B airspace, which increases 

the margin of safety. There is also an 

incorrect perception that IFR aircraft 

departing satellite airports are kept out 

of the Class B. This is not true. With the 

modified Class B, aircraft departing 

satellite airports will be worked within 

Class B airspace more frequently. For 

example, a turbojet aircraft departing 

Runway 8 at FTY, going eastbound, is 

normally assigned 5,000 feet MSL 

shortly after take-off. Today, that aircraft 

is outside Class B airspace. With the 

modified Class B floor, that same 

aircraft will still be assigned 5,000 feet 

MSL but will now be contained within 

Class B airspace. 

Many commenters asserted that there 

would be a decrease in safety margins 

for flights due to compression of VFR 

traffic into less airspace beneath the 

new Class B floors. Considering terrain 

and obstacles in the area, the 

commenters stated that there could be a 

higher risk of collision and less time for 

pilots to react to an in-flight emergency. 

The commenters argued that 

compressing a significant amount of 

traffic into an even smaller amount of 

airspace would cause safety concerns 

and inefficient operation of aircraft. In 

addition, the commenters contend that 

the lower floors could create unsafe 

operating conditions for pilots transiting 

above the Class D airspace areas that 

underlie the new Class B floor. 

The FAA acknowledges that pilots 

electing to fly below the floor of Class 

B airspace may be compressed. 

However, the lower floors are necessary 

to segregate those aircraft operations 

from the large turbine-powered aircraft 

arriving and departing ATL. The Atlanta 

terminal area encompasses not only the 

world’s busiest airport (with over 

920,000 airport operations in CY 2011), 

but also PDK & FTY airports in close 

proximity, with their combined airport 

operations total that exceeded 212,000 

in CY 2011. Plus, numerous other 

airports are situated in and around the 

Atlanta terminal area. These factors 

create a complex, high density airspace 

environment containing a highly diverse 

mix of aircraft types and aviation 

activities. Currently, large turbinepowered aircraft and VFR aircraft are 

flying simultaneously in the same 

airspace. It is essential to segregate the 

ATL traffic from nonparticipating 

aircraft that may not be in 

communication with ATC. 

Consequently, some nonparticipating 

VFR aircraft may have to fly further, or 

at different altitudes, in order to remain 

clear of the modified Class B. 

Ultimately, it is the pilot’s responsibility 

to evaluate all factors that could affect 

a planned flight and determine the 

safest course of action whether it is 

circumnavigating the Class B, flying 

beneath the area, utilizing a charted 

VFR flyway, or requesting Class B 

clearance from Atlanta TRACON. 

One commenter stated that the new 

6,000 foot floor in the southern portion 

of the Class B is not prudent for safe 

operation of small airplanes in the area. 

The commenter said less maneuvering 

room would be available for avoiding 

obstructions, clouds and turbulence, 

and for training activities such as 

practice stalls. 

It is a pilot responsibility to determine 

if there is enough altitude/airspace 

available to conduct training 

maneuvers. If a pilot believes that there 

is not enough airspace to conduct a 

particular maneuver, it is his/her 

responsibility to conduct the operation 

in appropriate airspace. The FAA finds 

that the new 6,000-floor still provides 

sufficient space for safe operations in 

this area. While this may result in some 

inconvenience to non-participating 

aircraft operating outside/under the 

Class B airspace, it is necessary to 

ensure the safety of the system overall. 

Another commenter stated that lower 

Class B floors are not necessary because 

airlines prefer to stay high and perform 

idle descents. This commenter 

discussed arrivals only, even though 

many of the Class B floors are being 

lowered due to the requirement to 

contain ATL departures within the Class 

B airspace. 

Another commenter claimed that the 

FAA did not adopt any suggestions from 

the Ad hoc Committee and did not 

consider the Committee’s proposed 

alternative design. 

The FAA does not agree. The FAA 

fully considered the Ad Hoc 

Committee’s recommendations and 

alternative design. In fact, a number of 

Committee suggestions were 

incorporated, such as removing 

Covington Municipal Airport (9A1) 

from beneath the proposed Class B; 

eliminating the existing and proposed 

‘‘wings’’ at the four corners of the Class 

B; and developing T-routes and VFR 

reporting points at key points around 

the Class B to aid VFR navigation. The 

NPRM also explained specific reasons 

why the Committee’s alternative design 

could not be adopted, including that the 

alternative design did not ensure the 

containment of large turbine powered 

aircraft in certain sections and/or would 

require changing ATC procedures to fit 

the proposal instead of amending the 

airspace to fit the procedures. 

Another commenter said that, 

although the NPRM mentioned the 

possibility of new T-routes and VFR 

flyways, the FAA has done no work on 

defining them. Additionally the 

commenter related that obtaining 

clearance through the Class B is the 

exception and not the rule. 

With regard to T-Routes, the FAA is 

currently designing T-Routes in the ATL 

terminal area. The effective date of the 

T-Routes will coincide with the 

implementation of procedural changes 

that are currently being developed as 

part of the Atlanta Metroplex Project. As 

noted in the NPRM, the FAA will 

establish additional VFR reporting 

points and VFR waypoints that will be 

depicted on the Atlanta Terminal Area 

Chart. With regard to clearance into or 

through the Atlanta Class B airspace, the 

commenter is correct; clearance into or 

through the Class B airspace is the 

exception and not the rule. This is due 

to the traffic volume surrounding the 

world’s busiest airport. However, it 

remains the policy of Atlanta TRACON 

to authorize aircraft to transition 

through the Class B airspace to the 

maximum extent practical based on 

operational demands. 

Some commenters stated that the 

Class B floors to the north and south do 

not need to be lowered at all, and that 

the FAA instead should consider having 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1744 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

jet traffic intercept the glideslope at a 

higher altitude. The commenters 

contend that this would be more fuel 

efficient and would lower the noise 

impact since the traffic would be higher 

and that aircraft excluded from the Class 

B would not be as compressed into the 

small remaining airspace. 

The FAA does not agree. With regard 

to intercepting the glide slope at a 

higher altitude, the comments do not 

account for the fact that ATL conducts 

simultaneous triple ILS approaches. As 

described in the NPRM, this procedure 

requires that aircraft being turned onto 

parallel final approach courses be 

separated by 3 miles longitudinally, or 

1,000 feet vertically until they are 

established on the final approach 

course. As a result, lower floors to the 

north and south of ATL are required to 

provide Class B airspace to contain 

those operations. That, combined with 

the 3-degree ILS glideslope, results in a 

long, low final approach course. For 

aircraft to intercept the glideslope 

higher than they do today (e.g., 7,000 

feet on the center final) would force the 

Class B to be even bigger, the finals to 

be longer, and extend the pattern 

outside of the service volume of the ILS 

NAVAID. Additionally, ATL utilizes 

triple departure procedures which 

further add to the need for modifying 

the Class B airspace. It should be noted 

that ATL is not unique in this regard. 

Other locations conducting 

simultaneous triple ILS approaches, 

such as Chicago O’Hare International 

and Charlotte/Douglas International, 

have similar Class B airspace 

considerations. 

Several commenters criticized the 

modified Class B design contending that 

it can only be identified with an RNAVquality mapping device. They argue that 

this is not practical in pleasure aircraft 

and would require the purchase of 

additional equipment. Furthermore, 

they state that the lateral limits of the 

airspace are best defined by radials and 

distances unless landmarks clearly 

visible in both daylight and darkness 

can be used. 

The FAA does not agree that the rule 

requires the purchase of additional 

equipment. Some boundaries in the 

ATL Class B design are not based on 

NAVAID radials and distances. 

Although that is the preferred method, 

it was found that to define all 

boundaries based on NAVAID 

references, and still achieve the required 

containment of ATL operations, it 

would be necessary to move the new 

boundaries in such a way that the Class 

B airspace would be expanded beyond 

FAA requirements and the Class B 

would be larger than that defined in this 

rule. This would impact 

nonparticipating aircraft to an 

unnecessary degree. Therefore, 

identifying the new boundaries cannot 

always be accomplished solely with 

reference to conventional navigation 

instruments. A variety of means may be 

required including VORTAC, RNAV 

and/or by visual reference using the 

sectional chart or TAC depictions. This 

situation is not unique. There are other 

Class B airspace areas and many 

military special use airspace areas 

depicted on sectional charts that are not 

defined by NAVAID radials, and where 

pilots must avoid the airspace or receive 

clearance for entry. As noted in the 

NPRM, the FAA is establishing new 

VFR reporting points and waypoints to 

assist VFR pilot navigation in the 

Atlanta terminal area. These points will 

be located over areas that can be easily 

identified visually. The FAA is also 

establishing VFR routes that can be used 

to circumnavigate the Class B airspace 

when necessary. The VFR Flyway 

Planning Chart, on the back of the 

Atlanta Terminal Area Chart, will be 

updated to reflect these new features. In 

addition, the FAA has recently 

introduced a new product called ‘‘VFR 

Class B Enhancement Graphics.’’ The 

new graphics show the geographic 

coordinates of each Class B boundary 

intersection, as well as a NAVAID 

radial/DME fix for each point and the 

length (in nautical miles) of each 

straight-line Class B boundary segment. 

The new graphics are designed to 

increase safety and aid pilots in gaining 

situational awareness within or around 

the Class B area. A graphic will be 

produced depicting the modified 

Atlanta Class B airspace to coincide 

with the effective date of the Class B 

changes. This will provide pilots a way 

to use the ATL VORTAC to identify the 

Class B boundaries. Therefore, it is not 

necessary for pilots to purchase 

additional equipment in order to 

navigate around the Atlanta Class B 

airspace area. 

A commenter stated that the Class B 

changes will not save airline fuel. Since 

airlines favor longer, idle power 

descents and uninterrupted climbs to 

more fuel efficient altitudes, lowering 

the Class B floors only gives more 

opportunity for unwanted level 

segments. 

The FAA does not agree. The Atlanta 

Class B is designed to accommodate 

both arriving and departing aircraft 

operations. Some Class B airspace floors 

are designed to contain ATL departures, 

including those aircraft that do not have 

a sufficient climb rate capability to 

remain within the existing Class B 

airspace during departure. Although 

these aircraft may be cleared for an 

unrestricted climb, their limited climb 

capability is insufficient to remain 

within the rising Class B floors of the 

current airspace configuration. 

A commenter contended that the 

addition of the fifth runway and new 

RNAV procedures at ATL have 

decreased the need for expanded Class 

B airspace. The commenter asserted that 

the fifth runway has been open since 

2006 with excellent results in the 

existing Class B and the new RNAV 

procedures at ATL actually increase 

navigational accuracy and require less 

airspace, not more. 

The current Class B airspace is not 

adequate. Atlanta TRACON has 

documented hundreds of aircraft that 

exit the existing Class B airspace on a 

daily basis. Simulations have been run 

to validate the proposed Class B 

airspace design and virtually every 

aircraft that exited the existing Class B 

airspace would have been contained 

within the new Class B airspace design. 

Several commenters stated that the 

ATL Class B should not be changed 

based on the reason specified in the 

NPRM that air traffic controller 

workload is increased because they are 

required to notify aircraft leaving the 

Class B when they exit, and again, when 

they reenter the airspace. The 

commenters said that this requirement 

is obsolete and should be eliminated 

rather than changing the Class B 

airspace to reduce the workload. 

FAA orders require large turbinepowered aircraft to be retained within 

Class B airspace to the maximum extent 

possible. Containment of these aircraft 

within Class B airspace is a major item 

of interest of the FAA’s Office of 

Aviation Safety Oversight. The main 

reason for this rulemaking action is not 

the advisory to aircraft that they are 

leaving or re-entering the Class B, but 

rather that aircraft cannot routinely be 

contained within the existing Class B 

airspace due to the existing airspace 

design. This is a safety issue, and the 

fundamental reason for the change. The 

Class B modifications will have the 

added benefit of reducing controller 

workload because the need to issue such 

advisories will be significantly reduced. 

This will allow controllers to devote 

attention to aircraft separation 

responsibilities. 

One commenter suggested that the 

FAA publish ‘‘ATC climb rates,’’ in 

addition to the minimum rate required 

for obstacle clearance for heavy aircraft 

departures during summertime 

operations that are unable to climb into 

the existing Class B. Pilots would 

understand that if they can meet the 

obstacle rate, but not the ATC rate, they 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 1745 

may notify ATC prior to takeoff and 

request relief. This would reduce the 

number of aircraft inadvertently outside 

the Class B while giving ATC sufficient 

time to anticipate when those situations 

might occur. 

Atlanta TRACON researched the 

possibility of implementing published 

‘‘ATC climb rates.’’ Unfortunately, the 

current criteria for the development of 

Area Navigation Standard Instrument 

Departures (RNAV SIDs) does not allow 

a procedure to be designed that would 

retain all departing aircraft within the 

existing Class B airspace on their 

current routes. Also, this would not 

satisfy the requirement to contain 

aircraft within Class B airspace to the 

maximum extent. 

Another commented that lower floors 

to the north and south of ATL do not 

improve satellite airport safety. 

The FAA does not agree. The 

justification for lowering the Class B 

floors is to contain all existing large 

turbine-powered aircraft departing from 

and arriving at the primary airport 

(ATL) within the Class B airspace. This 

enhances the safety of satellite airport 

operations by segregating the large 

turbine-powered aircraft from other 

aircraft that are not in communication 

with ATC. 

A commenter questioned the rationale 

in the NPRM regarding the need to keep 

all Missed Approach Procedures (MAP) 

within Class B. The commenter said it 

is well known that ATC rarely uses the 

published MAP, and instead controllers 

offer vectors or alternate instructions; 

the charted MAP is for emergencies or 

loss of communications purposes. The 

commenter said that normally aircraft 

conducting a missed approach would be 

directed to remain within Class B and 

the use of the published MAP is 

extremely rare. The commenter objected 

to a major airspace change for such 

infrequent occurrences. 

The FAA disagrees. The commenter 

interpreted statements in the NPRM 

concerning MAP as meaning only the 

published MAPs. Although the 

published MAPs are also a concern, the 

aircraft that are vectored following a 

missed approach must remain at 3,000 

feet south of the airport. This is required 

procedurally to vertically separate 

missed approach aircraft off of runways 

10/28 from aircraft missing approach off 

runways 9R/27L that are climbing to 

4,000 feet on the same tracks. This 

procedure has been in place since the 

fifth runway opened at ATL in May 

2006, and causes aircraft to exit the 

existing Class B airspace configuration. 

Climbing aircraft higher is not an option 

due to the corridor over the top of the 

Atlanta Airport that serves general 

aviation satellite airport departures and 

arrivals at 5,000 and 6,000 feet. 

One commenter objected to the Class 

B change for cost reasons. The 

commenter stated that the current 

airspace has served well since 2006 and 

increased efficiency has been gained 

since then with GPS and RNAV 

procedures. Considering the vast 

number of products that would need 

updating, the commenter said this 

project should be abandoned. 

The problems with the Class B 

configuration since 2006 were 

addressed in a previous comment. 

Regarding the costs of updating various 

products to reflect the airspace changes, 

FAA charts and related aeronautical 

products are continually updated to 

reflect current aeronautical, terrain and 

other information. Charts and other 

products are published on a regular 

cycle to accommodate these changes. As 

an example, new editions of the VFR 

Terminal Area Charts are published 

twice a year. An average of 100 chart 

changes are incorporated in each new 

edition. These changes are considered 

part of the ordinary cost of chart 

revision, and therefore, the FAA will 

not incur any additional costs due to the 

Class B changes. 

A commenter alleged that there is no 

need to modify the airspace in Atlanta 

because there are no current conflicts 

between commercial carriers and 

private flights and that changing the 

airspace would only impact private 

flights, making access into and out of 

the ATL Class B more difficult. 

The commenter is incorrect regarding 

the mix of aircraft in the Atlanta 

terminal area. There are sections where 

Atlanta IFR large turbine-powered 

aircraft and nonparticipating VFR 

aircraft share the same airspace. 

However, incidents between these IFR 

and VFR aircraft do not occur because 

controllers routinely take action to 

prevent them. The Class B modification 

is required to provide Class B 

containment to ensure that those 

operations continue to be safe without 

the need for controller intervention. 

Regarding the comment that the change 

will make access to the Class B more 

difficult, the FAA agrees that access to 

the Atlanta Class B airspace is limited. 

However, such access is based on the 

traffic situation. The overall size of the 

Class B airspace is being reduced from 

a maximum of 42 miles down to 30 

miles which frees up many cubic miles 

of airspace and converts it from Class B 

to Class E airspace. There is no 

permission needed from ATC to operate 

in Class E airspace. As discussed above, 

the FAA is taking a number of steps to 

enhance VFR navigation in the ATL 

terminal area. 

A few commenters stated that 

modifying the Class B would not 

improve the flow of traffic into ATL, but 

would have the effect of ‘‘compacting’’ 

general aviation aircraft into lower 

altitudes. 

The commenters are correct, changing 

the Class B airspace will not, in and of 

itself, improve the traffic flows into 

Atlanta, but it will ensure that current 

traffic flows are contained within the 

Class B airspace. The purpose of this 

change is not specifically to improve 

traffic flow, but to ensure safety in the 

Atlanta terminal area. The issue of 

compression of VFR traffic is addressed 

previously. 

Two pilots that fly IFR in the Atlanta 

area were concerned about the amount 

of time they are held below the present 

Class B airspace, resulting in 

inefficiency and added fuel costs. 

IFR flights are restricted to lower 

altitudes when necessary to ensure 

separation from other traffic, not 

because of the Class B airspace. The 

initial altitudes assigned IFR aircraft 

departing the satellite airports around 

Atlanta will not change due to this Class 

B change. Efforts are underway as part 

of the Atlanta Metroplex Project to find 

ways of climbing satellite jet departures 

to higher altitudes as soon as possible. 

Class B airspace will not affect that ongoing project. 

A commenter said there is no need to 

expand the Class B airspace because the 

construction of the fifth runway at ATL, 

along with the decreased traffic count in 

recent years, has reduced the need for 

additional airspace. 

The FAA does not agree. Regarding 

the addition of the fifth runway, the 

commenter did not consider the fact 

that ATL conducts simultaneous triple 

ILS approaches. As described in an 

earlier response (see above), this 

procedure requires that aircraft being 

turned onto parallel final approach 

courses be separated by 3 miles 

longitudinally, or 1,000 feet vertically 

until they are established on the final 

approach course. This is one of several 

reasons for modifying the Class B 

airspace. Regarding the decreased traffic 

count, the commenter is correct that 

ATL’s traffic count has decreased since 

2008 (as has traffic system-wide) 

reflecting the general U.S. economic 

downturn. However, ATL’s traffic 

figures are still 3 times more than the 

threshold required qualifying for Class B 

airspace. In addition, the latest 

validated passenger enplanements for 

ATL (CY 2011) are more than 8 times 

the threshold requirement for Class B 

airspace and reflect nearly a 3 percent 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1746 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

rise from the previous year. As the 

economy improves, Atlanta traffic 

volume is expected to increase to 

exceed the 2008 level. Even at the 

current volume, containment of Atlanta 

traffic is the issue that needs to be 

addressed for safety reasons. 

A commenter supported the FAA’s 

plan to establish VFR waypoints, VFR 

reporting points, VFR routes, and RNAV 

T-Routes for transitioning through or 

around the Class B airspace, but is 

concerned that these would not be in 

place and charted when the airspace 

changes become effective. This 

commenter also suggested that the FAA 

develop specific VFR arrival and 

departure routes for PDK. 

The FAA will publish the abovementioned VFR points concurrent with 

the publication of the new Class B 

charts. The RNAV T-routes will be 

published once they have been 

developed and implemented through a 

separate rulemaking action. Regarding 

PDK VFR routes, the FAA is developing 

suggested VFR flyways to be published 

on the Atlanta Terminal Area Chart. 

Several commenters argued that the 

12,500-foot MSL ceiling of ATL Class B 

area is unnecessarily high and prevents 

unpressurized VFR aircraft from 

transitioning the area at higher altitudes. 

They cited examples where most other 

Class B locations have ceilings at or 

below 10,000 feet MSL. 

Although other locations have Class B 

ceilings lower than ATL, all Class B 

airspace dimensions are individually 

tailored to meet site-specific 

requirements. The 12,500 foot Class B 

ceiling encompasses ATL’s transition 

altitudes. Within this airspace, jet 

aircraft departing ATL are initially 

climbed to 10,000 feet; while jet aircraft 

arriving ATL are initially descended to 

12,000 feet. Within 30 miles of the ATL 

airport is where all of these aircraft 

transition between 10,000 and 12,000 

feet. The arrivals begin their descent to 

land and, once the departures are clear 

of the arrivals, the departures begin 

climbing to cruise altitude. Having VFR 

aircraft that are not in communication 

with ATC operating in this airspace 

reduces the margin of safety in the high 

volume airspace surrounding the 

world’s busiest airport. The current 

12,500 foot ceiling has been in existence 

since 1975 and has provided an 

excellent safety record. This ceiling 

provides adequate protection to arrivals 

and departures as they transition to and 

from the en route structure. For those 

reasons, the FAA did not propose a 

change to the existing Class B airspace 

ceiling. 

Lastly, a commenter submitted an 

alternative Class B diagram for the FAA 

to consider that proposed a different 

altitude structure than was contained in 

the NPRM. The suggested Class B floors 

were the same as the FAA’s proposal in 

areas A through E, but were 

significantly higher in the other areas to 

the north and south of ATL. In addition, 

a 10,000 foot MSL ceiling was suggested 

to replace the existing 12,500-foot 

ceiling. 

The FAA reviewed the proposal but 

did not adopt it because it does not meet 

the requirements to contain all of ATL’s 

existing arrival and departure flows 

within Class B airspace as required by 

FAA directives. Many aircraft do not 

have a sufficient climb capability to 

remain within the Class B floors 

suggested in the commenter’s proposal. 

Differences From the NPRM 

The descriptions of subareas F, I and 

J have been modified from that 

proposed in the NPRM. In light of 

public and Ad Hoc Committee inputs, 

the FAA reevaluated the Class B design 

in the vicinity of PDK and determined 

that the proposed 5,000-foot Class B 

floor airspace over PDK could be raised 

to 7,000 feet. This is accomplished by 

moving the northern boundary of Area 

F, and the southern boundary of Area I, 

to the south of PDK; and by moving the 

west boundary of the section of Area J 

(that lies northeast of PDK) to the east 

by two miles. The revised subarea 

descriptions are listed in the ‘‘Adoption 

of the Amendment’’ section, below. 

Additionally, a correction of one second 

of longitude is made to the HartsfieldJackson Atlanta International Airport 

reference point to reflect the latest FAA 

database values. 

The Rule 

The FAA is amending Title 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

part 71 to modify the Atlanta, GA, Class 

B airspace area. This action (depicted on 

the attached chart) reduces the overall 

lateral boundaries of the airspace and 

expands the vertical boundaries by 

lowering the floors of some subareas. 

These modifications are necessary to 

provide the additional Class B airspace 

needed to contain large turbine-powered 

aircraft operating to and from ATL. The 

modifications to the ATL Class B 

airspace area are summarized below. 

The following areas extend upward 

from the specified altitudes to 12,500 

feet MSL: 

Area A. Area A is the surface area that 

extends from the ground up to 12,500 

feet MSL. The FAA is not making any 

changes to Area A. 

Area B. The revised area consists of 

that airspace extending upward from 

2,500 feet MSL east and west of the 

Atlanta airport. It combines two existing 

subareas, B and C. The existing area B 

consists of a small segment of airspace, 

east of the ATL airport that extends 

upward from 2,100 feet MSL between 

the 7- and 9-NM radii of the Atlanta 

VORTAC. The existing Area C includes 

that airspace extending upward from 

2,500 feet MSL, east and west of Atlanta 

airport between the 7- and 12-NM radii 

of the Atlanta VORTAC. With this 

change, the existing 2,100-foot floor of 

Class B airspace is eliminated. 

Area C. The area is redefined to 

include that airspace that extends 

upward from 3,000 feet MSL (as 

described above, the existing Area C 

extends upward from 2,500 feet MSL). 

The new Area C lowers the existing 

floor of Class B airspace from 3,500 feet 

MSL to 3,000 feet MSL. Currently, Area 

D includes the airspace extending 

upward from 3,500 feet MSL. With this 

change, most of the airspace now in 

Area D is incorporated into the new 

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

Area D. This area consists of that 

airspace extending upward from 3,500 

feet MSL. However, it is significantly 

reduced in size due to the modification 

of Area C, described above. The revised 

Area D includes only that airspace 

bounded on the south by a line 4 miles 

north of and parallel to the Runway 

08L/26R localizer course, and on the 

north by a line 8 miles north of and 

parallel to the above mentioned 

localizer courses. The revised Area D is 

bounded on the west by long. 84°51′38′′ 

W., and on the east by long. 84°00′32′′ 

W. 

Area E. This area continues to include 

the airspace extending upward from 

4,000 feet MSL, but it is modified by 

incorporating a small segment of Class 

B airspace south of ATL that currently 

extends upward from 6,000 feet MSL. In 

addition, Area E incorporates the two 

segments, currently extending upward 

from 5,000 feet MSL that were added by 

the October 2006 rule as discussed in 

the NPRM. 

Area F. Area F consists of that 

airspace extending upward from 5,000 

feet MSL. The area currently is 

composed of four small segments, one 

southwest of ATL, one southeast of 

ATL, and the two segments east and 

west of ATL that were designated in the 

October 2006 rule. These four areas 

would be removed from Area F and 

incorporated into other subareas with 

lower floors. The modified Area F is 

located north of ATL within the area 

bounded on the south by a line 8 miles 

north of and parallel to the Runway 

08L/26R localizer courses, and on the 

north by a line 12 miles north of and 

parallel to the above mentioned 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 1747 

localizer courses. On the east and west, 

Area F is bounded by long. 83°54′04′′ 

W.; and long. 84°57′41′′ W., 

respectively. The effect of this change is 

to lower the floor of Class B airspace 

from 6,000 feet MSL to 5,000 feet MSL 

in the described area. 

Area G. Area G contains that airspace 

extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL. 

Currently, Area G consists of airspace 

north of ATL, which is largely 

incorporated into the revised Area F. 

The revised Area G consists of the 

airspace bounded approximately 

between the Atlanta VORTAC 30 NM 

radius on the south, and a line 12 miles 

south of and parallel to the Runway 10/ 

28 localizer courses. 

Area H. This area consists of two 

airspace segments that extend upward 

from 5,000 feet MSL, one located 

southwest and one located southeast of 

ATL. The Area H segments are bounded 

on the north by a line 12 miles south of 

and parallel to the Runway 10/28 

localizer courses and on the south by 

the 30 NM radius of the Atlanta 

VORTAC, excluding the airspace within 

Area G as described above. 

Area I. Area I is redefined to consist 

of the airspace extending upward from 

7,000 feet MSL north of ATL. The 

revised Area I is bounded on the north 

side by the 30 NM radius of the Atlanta 

VORTAC; on the south by a line 12 NM 

north of and parallel to the Runway 

08L/26R localizer courses; on the east 

by a line drawn from lat. 33°50′59′′ N., 

long. 84°16′38′′ W., direct to lat. 

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

the west by a line from lat. 33°50′59′′ N., 

long. 84°34′14′′ W. direct to lat. 

34°01′40′′ N., long. 84°47′55′′ W. This 

change would lower the floor of Class B 

airspace from 8,000 feet MSL to 7,000 

feet MSL in the defined area. 

Area J. Area J is a new subarea to 

describe that airspace extending upward 

from 6,000 feet MSL in two segments, 

one northwest and one northeast, of 

ATL. One segment abuts the west side 

of Area I and the other segment abuts 

the east side of Area I. The two 

segments also abut the northern 

boundary of Area F, with the 30 NM 

radius of the Atlanta VORTAC defining 

their northern edges. Area J lowers part 

of the Class B airspace floor from 8,000 

feet MSL to 6,000 feet MSL in the 

northwest and northeast sections of the 

area. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has determined that this 

action qualifies for categorical exclusion 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act in accordance with FAA 

Order 1050.1E, ‘‘Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ 

paragraph 311a. This airspace action is 

not expected to cause any potentially 

significant environmental impacts, and 

no extraordinary circumstances exist 

that warrant preparation of an 

environmental assessment. 

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 rule. 

Regulatory Evaluation Summary 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 directs that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

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

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final 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 final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows: 

This action modifies the Atlanta, GA, 

Class B airspace area to ensure the 

containment of aircraft within Class B 

airspace, reduce controller workload 

and enhance safety in the Atlanta, GA, 

terminal area. It lowers the Class B 

airspace in some sections to encompass 

existing IFR traffic. Lowering the floor 

of the Class B airspace will increase 

safety by segregating large turbinepowered aircraft from aircraft that may 

not be in contact with ATC. It also 

increases safety and reduces air traffic 

controller workload by reducing the 

number of radio communications that 

air traffic controllers must use to inform 

IFR aircraft when they are leaving and 

re-entering Class B airspace. This 

reduces the amount of distraction that 

air traffic controllers face in issuing 

these communications and frees radio 

time for more important control 

instructions. IFR traffic will not be 

rerouted as a result of this proposal. 

The change may cause some VFR 

pilots to have to choose between flying 

lower, circumnavigating the area, or 

requesting Class B service from A80 to 

transition the area. This has the 

potential of increasing costs to VFR 

pilots if the alternative routes are longer, 

take more time and burn more fuel. The 

FAA believes, however, that there will 

be minimal impact to VFR aircraft 

operating where the Class B floor will be 

lowered. Commenters did not offer 

specific comments on increased fuel 

consumption for VFR flights if the pilot 

of these flights chose alternative routes. 

An FAA sampling of VFR traffic found 

that 98 percent of 7123 VFR flights were 

already operating below the 5,000-foot 

floor proposed in the NPRM. Since the 

final rule raises a portion of this floor, 

we can still conclude that an estimated 

98% of VFR flights based on this sample 

will operate below the redesigned Class 

B floor. Where the floor will be lowered 

to 3,000 feet, we believe there is 

sufficient airspace to allow safe flight 

below the Class B airspace. The 

minimum vectoring altitude (based in 

part on obstruction clearance) under 

most of the 3,000 foot floor is 2,500 feet. 

VFR aircraft can and do fly safely at 

2,000 feet under the existing Class B 

floor. Recognizing that some VFR 

aircraft may elect to circumnavigate 

instead of flying lower, only a short 

deviation in distance and time will be 

needed to place the aircraft beneath a 

higher Class B floor. 

The FAA intends to take actions that 

will increase the alternatives available 

to VFR pilots. For instance, the FAA 

intends to establish VFR Waypoints and 

Reporting Points to assist VFR pilot 

navigation, and to establish VFR routes 

that can be used to circumnavigate the 

Class B airspace or used as a 

predetermined route through the Class B 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1748 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

airspace when operations permit. In 

addition to these new VFR waypoints, 

the FAA will establish RNAV T-Routes 

within Class B airspace for transitioning 

over the top of ATL airports. These 

various alternatives should provide 

pilots with options that will assist them 

in navigating around or beneath the 

Class B and/or to request ATC clearance 

to cut through the Class B. The FAA 

believes that no more than a small 

percent of VFR traffic will choose to 

travel longer, less efficient or more 

costly routes because safe flight will still 

be possible beneath most of the Class B 

airspace, A80 would continue to 

provide VFR services to assist pilots in 

transiting the area, and only short 

course deviations would be needed if 

pilots decide to avoid the areas with 

lower Class B floors. 

The FAA has made changes relative to 

the NPRM by raising the floor of the 

proposed Class B in the vicinity of PDK 

from 5,000 feet to 7,000 feet. This may 

be relieving in that additional airspace 

will be available for GA operations 

relative to the proposal. 

The FAA will have to update maps 

and charts to indicate the airspace 

modifications, but these documents are 

updated regularly. These modifications 

will be made within the normal 

updating process and therefore will not 

contribute to the cost of the rule since 

the updates would be as scheduled. 

The rule redefines Class B airspace 

boundaries to improve safety, will not 

require updating of materials outside 

the normal update cycle, will not 

require rerouting of IFR traffic, and is 

expected to possibly cause some VFR 

traffic to travel alternative routes which 

are not expected to be appreciably 

longer than with the current airspace 

design. The expected outcome will be a 

minimal impact with positive net 

benefits, and a regulatory evaluation 

was not prepared. 

FAA has, therefore, determined that 

this final 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. 

The rule is expected to improve safety 

by redefining Class B airspace 

boundaries and will impose only 

minimal costs because it will not 

require rerouting of IFR traffic, could 

possibly cause some VFR traffic to travel 

alternative routes that are not expected 

to be appreciably longer than with the 

current airspace design, and will not 

require updating of materials outside 

the normal update cycle. The FAA 

reviewed the comments and did not 

find any comments that would lead us 

to conclude that there would be an 

impact on small businesses. Therefore, 

the expected outcome will be a minimal 

economic impact on small entities 

affected by this rulemaking action. 

Therefore as the acting FAA 

Administrator, I certify that this rule 

will 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 as 

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 final rule and 

determined that it will 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 final 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). 

Adoption of the Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 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. 

* * * * * 

ASO GA B Atlanta, GA [Amended] 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International 

Airport (Primary Airport) 

(Lat. 33°38′12′′ N., long. 84°25′40′′ W.) 

Atlanta VORTAC 

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

Boundaries 

Area A. That airspace extending upward 

from the surface to and including 12,500 feet 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 1749 

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

mile radius of the Atlanta VORTAC, on the 

south by a line 4 miles south of and parallel 

to the Runway 10/28 localizer courses, and 

on the north by a line 4 miles north of and 

parallel to the Runway 08L/26R localizer 

courses; excluding the Atlanta Fulton County 

Airport-Brown Field, GA, Class D airspace 

area. 

Area B. That airspace extending upward 

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

feet MSL, bounded on the east and west by 

a 12-mile radius of the Atlanta VORTAC, on 

the south by a line 4 miles south of and 

parallel to the Runway 10/28 localizer 

courses, and on the north by a line 4 miles 

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

localizer courses; excluding the Atlanta 

Fulton County Airport-Brown Field, GA, 

Class D airspace area and that airspace 

contained in Area A. 

Area C. That airspace extending upward 

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

feet MSL, bounded on the east by long. 

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

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

and parallel to the Runway 10/28 localizer 

courses, and on the north by a line 4 miles 

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

localizer courses; excluding that airspace 

contained in Areas A and B. 

Area D. That airspace extending upward 

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

feet MSL, bounded on the east by long. 

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

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

and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R localizer 

courses, and on the north by a line 8 miles 

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

localizer courses. 

Area E. That airspace extending upward 

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

feet MSL, bounded on the east by long. 

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

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

and parallel to the Runway 10/28 localizer 

courses and on the north by a line 8 miles 

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

localizer courses; excluding that airspace 

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

Area F. That airspace extending upward 

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

feet MSL, within a 30-mile radius of the 

Atlanta VORTAC and bounded on the east by 

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

miles north of and parallel to the Runway 

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

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

12 miles north of and parallel to the Runway 

08L/26R localizer courses. 

Area G. That airspace extending upward 

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

feet MSL bounded on the north by a line 12 

miles south of and parallel to the Runway 10/ 

28 localizer courses, on the east by a line 

from lat. 33°25′21′′ N., long. 84°16′49′′ W. 

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

on the south by a 30-mile radius of the 

Atlanta VORTAC, and on the west by a line 

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

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

and thence south via long. 84°42′56′′ W. 

Area H. That airspace extending upward 

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

feet MSL, within a 30-mile radius of the 

Atlanta VORTAC south of a line 12 miles 

south of and parallel to the Runway 10/28 

localizer courses, bounded on the west by 

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

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

the lateral limits of area G. 

Area I. That airspace extending upward 

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

feet MSL bounded on the north by the 30- 

mile radius of the Atlanta VORTAC, on the 

east by a line from lat. 33°50′59′′ N., long. 

84°16′38′′ W. direct to lat. 34°04′20′′ N., long. 

84°09′24′′ W., on the south by a line 12 miles 

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

localizer courses, and on the west by a line 

from lat. 33°50′59′′ N., long. 84°34′14′′ W. 

direct to lat. 34°01′40′′ N., long. 84°47′55′′ W. 

Area J. That airspace extending upward 

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

feet MSL bounded on the north by a 30-mile 

radius of the Atlanta VORTAC, on the east 

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

12 miles north of and parallel to the Runway 

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

by long. 84°57′41′′ W., excluding that 

airspace within the lateral limits of area I. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 6, 

2012. 

Gary A. Norek, 

Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC 

Procedures Group. 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1750 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. 2013–00287 Filed 1–7–13; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1444; Airspace 

Docket No. 11–ASO–46] 

Establishment of Class E Airspace; 

Princeton, KY 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class 

E Airspace at Princeton, KY, to 

accommodate the new Area Navigation 

(RNAV) Global Positioning System 

(GPS) Standard Instrument Approach 

Procedures serving Princeton-Caldwell 

County Airport. This action enhances 

the safety and airspace management of 

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations 

within the National Airspace System. 

This action also makes a minor 

adjustment to the geographic 

coordinates of the airport. 

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, March 7, 

2013. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference action under title 1, Code of 

Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to 

the annual revision of FAA Order 

7400.9 and publication of conforming 

amendments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Fornito, Operations Support Group, 

Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation 

Administration, P.O. Box 20636, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 

305–6364. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

On October 24, 2012, the FAA 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of proposed rulemaking to 

establish Class E airspace at Princeton, 

KY (77 FR 64919) Docket No. FAA– 

2011–1444. Subsequent to publication, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with ER09JA13.001</GPH>