48476 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

identified in the applicable documents 

specified in paragraphs (i)(3), (i)(4), and (i)(5) 

of this AD, accomplish the applicable 

corrective actions before further flight. If any 

discrepancy is found and there is no 

corrective action specified in the applicable 

documents specified in paragraphs (i)(3), 

(i)(4), and (i)(5) of this AD: Before further 

flight contact the Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, or the European Aviation 

Safety Agency (EASA) (or its delegated 

agent), for approved corrective actions, and 

accomplish those actions before further 

flight. 

(k) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or 

CDCCLs 

After accomplishing the revision required 

by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative 

actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, or 

CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, 

intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as an 

alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in 

accordance with the procedures specified in 

paragraph (n)(1) of this AD. 

(l) Terminating Action 

Accomplishing the actions specified in 

paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. 

(m) Method of Compliance With AD 2008– 

06–20, Amendment 39–15432 (73 FR 14661, 

March 19, 2008) 

Accomplishing the actions specified in 

paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the 

requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) through 

(f)(5) of AD 2008–06–20, Amendment 39– 

15432 (73 FR 14661, March 19, 2008). 

(n) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the International Branch, send it to Attn: 

Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, Washington 98057–3356; 

telephone (425) 227–1137; fax (425) 227– 

1149. Information may be emailed to: 9- 

ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. 

Before using any approved AMOC, notify 

your appropriate principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(o) Related Information 

(1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 2012–0049, dated March 27, 2012, 

and the service information specified in 

paragraphs (o)(1)(i), (o)(1)(ii), and (o)(1)(iii)2q 

of this AD, for related information. 

(i) Fokker Report SE–473, ‘‘Fokker 70/100 

Certification Maintenance Requirements,’’ 

Issue 9, released January 11, 2012. 

(ii) Fokker Report SE–623, ‘‘Fokker 70/100 

Airworthiness Limitation Items and Safe Life 

Items,’’ Issue 8, released March 17, 2011. 

(iii) Fokker Report SE–672, ‘‘Fokker 70/100 

Fuel Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI) 

and Critical Design Configuration Control 

Limitations (CDCCL),’’ Issue 3, released 

January 4, 2012. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Fokker Services B.V., 

Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 

2130 EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; 

telephone +31 (0)88–6280–350; fax +31 

(0)88–6280–111; email 

technicalservices@fokker.com; Internet 

http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may 

review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 

3, 2012. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19888 Filed 8–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0661; Airspace 

Docket No. 09–AWA–4] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Amendment to Class B 

Airspace; Detroit, MI 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

modify the Detroit, MI, Class B airspace 

area to contain aircraft conducting 

published instrument procedures at 

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 

Airport (DTW), Detroit, MI, within Class 

B airspace. The FAA is taking this 

action to support all three existing 

Simultaneous Instrument Landing 

System (SILS) configurations today, 

runways 22/21, runways 4⁄3 and 

runways 27L/27R, as well as support 

aircraft containment for triple SILS 

operations planned for the very near 

future for runways 4L/4R/3R and 

runways 21L/22L/22R. This action 

would enhance safety, improve the flow 

of air traffic, and reduce the potential 

for midair collisions in the DTW 

terminal area, while accommodating the 

concerns of airspace users. Further, this 

effort supports the FAA’s national 

airspace redesign goal of optimizing 

terminal and enroute airspace areas to 

reduce aircraft delays and improve 

system capacity. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 15, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001; telephone: 

(202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2012–0661 and 

Airspace Docket No. 09–AWA–4 at the 

beginning of your comments. You may 

also submit comments through the 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations and 

ATC Procedures, 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– 

2012–0661 and Airspace Docket No. 09– 

AWA–4) and be submitted in triplicate 

to the Docket Management Facility (see 

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ section for address and 

phone number). You may also submit 

comments through the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this action must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket Nos. FAA–2012–0661 and 

Airspace Docket No. 09–AWA–4.’’ The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 48477 

postcard will be date/time stamped and 

returned to the commenter. 

All communications received on or 

before the specified closing date for 

comments will be considered before 

taking action on the proposed rule. The 

proposal contained in this action may 

be changed in light of comments 

received. All comments submitted will 

be available for examination in the 

public docket both before and after the 

closing date for comments. A report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerned 

with this rulemaking will be filed in the 

docket. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

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

Recently published rulemaking 

documents can also be accessed through 

the FAA’s Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/recently_published/. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office (see 

‘‘ADDRESSES’’ section for address and 

phone number) between 9:00 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 Detroit, MI 

(Metropolitan Wayne County Airport), 

Terminal Control Area (TCA) (39 FR 

11085). The Detroit TCA airspace, 

renamed Class B airspace in 1993, has 

been altered three times since being 

established. The first modification was 

in 1975 (40 FR 12253) to redefine 

certain lateral boundaries and floor 

altitudes in the vicinity of the Detroit 

River. The second modification was in 

1985 (50 FR 37994) to redefine lateral 

boundaries for containing aircraft 

conducting SILS approaches as a result 

of the addition of Runway 3R/21L. And 

the last modification was accomplished 

in 1987 (52 FR 4893) to redefine lateral 

boundaries for containing aircraft 

conducting instrument approaches to 

Runway 21R and two instrument 

approaches to Runway 27. There have 

been no airspace modifications to the 

Detroit Class B airspace since 1987. 

As a result of the Airspace 

Reclassification final rule (56 FR 65638), 

which became effective in 1993, the 

terms ‘‘terminal control area’’ and 

‘‘airport radar service area’’ were 

replaced by ‘‘Class B airspace area,’’ and 

‘‘Class C airspace area,’’ respectively. 

The primary purpose of a Class B 

airspace area is to reduce the potential 

for midair collisions in the airspace 

surrounding airports with high density 

air traffic operations by providing an 

area in which all aircraft are subject to 

certain operating rules and equipment 

requirements. 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. 

In 1985, the Detroit TCA airspace was 

modified to accommodate SILS 

procedures as the primary instrument 

approach configuration to meet demand 

at that time. These procedures today 

require that the aircraft be established 

on final approach course no less than 17 

miles from the runway. This forces the 

traffic pattern out of the lateral limits of 

the Class B airspace to the northeast, 

when landing runways 22/21, and to the 

southwest, when landing runways 4⁄3, 

by a minimum of five miles in both 

directions. 

In 1987, the last modification to the 

Detroit TCA airspace was accomplished 

to contain aircraft flying instrument 

approaches to runway 21R and runway 

27. In 1993, runway 27L opened at DTW 

allowing SILS approaches to be flown 

when on a west flow. The associated 

traffic patterns for the SILS approaches 

once again extended 5 to 10 miles 

beyond the lateral limits of today’s Class 

B airspace design. In 2001, runway 22R 

was opened at DTW with no 

modification to the Class B airspace for 

containing aircraft flying the new final 

approach courses extending beyond the 

Class B airspace boundary to the west. 

As a result of opening runway 22R and 

creating a third parallel Instrument 

Landing System (ILS) approach, the 

associated SILS procedures required 

aircraft to be established on final 

approach course between 19 and 21 

miles from the runways. The new 

runway procedures caused the 

associated traffic patterns to be 

extended further as well. 

Since the Detroit Class B airspace area 

was last modified in 1987, DTW has 

experienced increased traffic levels, 

expanding operational requirements, a 

considerably different fleet mix, and 

airport infrastructure improvements 

enabling simultaneous instrument 

approach procedures to multiple 

parallel runway combinations. For 

calendar year 2010, DTW ranked 

number 12 in the list of the ‘‘50 Busiest 

FAA Airport Traffic Control Towers,’’ 

with 453,000 operations (an increase of 

20,000 from the previous year), and 

number 18 in the list of the ‘‘50 Busiest 

Radar Approach Control Facilities,’’ 

with 590,000 instrument operations (an 

increase of 30,000 from the previous 

year). Additionally, the calendar year 

2010 passenger enplanement data 

ranked DTW as number A14 among 

Commercial Service Airports, with 

A14,643,890 passenger enplanements 

(an increase of 2.84% from the previous 

year). 

The FAA has determined that it is not 

possible to modify current procedures to 

contain arrival aircraft conducting 

simultaneous instrument approaches to 

the existing parallel runways within the 

Detroit Class B airspace area. As the 

capacity increases, the number of 

aircraft exiting the Class B airspace also 

increases. With the current Class B 

airspace configuration, arriving aircraft 

routinely enter, exit, and then reenter 

Class B airspace while flying published 

instrument approach procedures, 

contrary to FAA directives. The 

procedural requirements for establishing 

aircraft on the final approach course to 

conduct simultaneous approaches to the 

existing parallel runways has resulted in 

aircraft exceeding the lateral boundaries 

of the Class B airspace by up to 5 to 10 

miles during moderate levels of air 

traffic. Modeling of existing and 

projected traffic flows has shown that 

the proposed expanded Class B airspace 

would enhance flight safety by 

containing all instrument approach 

procedures and associated traffic 

patterns within the boundaries of the 

Class B airspace, support increased 

operations to the current and planned 

parallel runways, and better segregate 

the IFR aircraft arriving/departing DTW 

and the VFR aircraft operating in the 

vicinity of the Detroit Class B airspace. 

The proposed Class B airspace 

modifications described in this NPRM 

are intended to address these issues. 

Pre-NPRM Public Input 

In 2009, the FAA took action to form 

an Ad hoc Committee to provide 

recommendations for the FAA to 

consider in designing a proposed 

modification to the Detroit Class B 

airspace area. The Michigan Department 

of Transportation Aviation Programs 

Office chaired the group with 

participants including representatives 

from Eastern Michigan University, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48478 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Monroe Aviation, University of 

Michigan Flyers, Wayne County Airport 

Authority, U.S. Coast Guard Air Station 

Detroit, OAM CBP Detroit, Plymouth 

Mettetal Airport, Dearborn Flying Club, 

Civil Air Patrol, 127th Wing Selfridge 

ANGB, Dawn Patrol Flying Club— 

Mettetal Airport, Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association (AOPA), Michigan 

Business Aircraft Association, Skydive 

Tecumseh, Adrian Soaring Club, and 

Kalitta Charters. The Airlines Pilots 

Association (ALPA) was inadvertently 

left off the invitation, but was able to 

provide input later. Three Ad hoc 

Committee meetings were held on 

November 12, 2009; December 10, 2009; 

and February 19, 2010. Although the Ad 

hoc Committee did not reach consensus 

on any airspace design 

recommendations, the participants 

offered a number of comments for 

consideration. 

In addition, as announced in the 

Federal Register of May 13, 2010 (75 FR 

11496), three informal airspace meetings 

were held; the first on July 20, 2010, at 

the Troy, MI, Holiday Inn; the second 

on July 21, 2010, at the Ypsilanti, MI, 

campus of the Eastern Michigan 

University; and the third on July 22, 

2010, at the Monroe, MI, Holiday Inn 

Express. These meetings provided 

interested airspace users with an 

opportunity to present their views and 

offer suggestions regarding the planned 

modifications to the Detroit Class B 

airspace area. All substantive comments 

received as a result of the informal 

airspace meetings, along with the 

comments and recommendations 

offered by the Ad hoc Committee were 

considered in developing this proposal. 

Discussion of Ad Hoc Committee 

Recommendations and Comments 

As a starting point for discussions, a 

preliminary Class B design was 

presented to the Ad hoc Committee for 

review. In general, the preliminary 

design consisted of lower Class B floors 

within portions of existing Class B 

airspace and expansion of the Class B 

airspace area to a 30 nautical mile (NM) 

radius of the Detroit (DXO) VOR/DME 

antenna as opposed to the current 20 

NM configuration centered on the 

Detroit ILS Localizer runway 4R 

(I–DTW) antenna. 

The Ad hoc Committee agreed the 

current configuration of Detroit Class B 

airspace is antiquated and in need of 

revision to accommodate new runways, 

new approach procedures, and 

increased traffic. The Ad hoc 

Committee’s report provided to the FAA 

for consideration regarding the 

proposed modification of the Detroit 

Class B airspace area contained 

numerous recommendations related to 

the Class B airspace design, raised by 

the committee participants. 

The Ad hoc Committee recommended 

the ceiling of the Detroit Class B 

airspace remain at 8,000 feet MSL, 

arguing that raising the ceiling to 10,000 

feet MSL would be more restrictive to 

aircraft overflying the Class B airspace 

area. They further offered there was no 

evidence provided that there are safety 

problems with the upper limit of the 

existing Detroit Class B. 

The FAA believes raising the ceiling 

of the Class B airspace would enhance 

flight safety for all by better segregating 

the large turbine-powered aircraft and 

non-participating VFR aircraft that are 

currently operating in the vicinity of the 

Detroit Class B airspace area. Nonparticipating VFR aircraft would 

continue to have their choice of flying 

above or below the Class B airspace, or 

circumnavigating it, to remain clear 

should they decide not to contact 

Detroit Terminal Radar Approach 

Control (D21) to receive Class B 

services. When simultaneous triple ILS 

approaches are implemented in the 

future, aircraft assigned the middle 

runway would be held above the traffic 

going to the outboard runways. These 

aircraft would be vectored and delivered 

to the final controller at 9,000 feet MSL 

on downwind and at 8,000 feet MSL on 

base legs of the pattern to final 

approaches. 

A portion of the Detroit Class B 

airspace configuration extends into 

Canadian airspace. For that portion of 

airspace, the U.S. Class B airspace 

equivalent would be established by 

NAV CANADA as Canadian ‘‘Class C’’ 

airspace to ensure the same ATC 

services and procedures are provided. 

NAV CANADA usually designates their 

Class C airspace with a ceiling at 12,500 

feet MSL, and supports raising the 

Detroit Class B/Class C airspace ceiling 

to 10,000 feet MSL, but objects to 

keeping the ceiling at 8,000 feet MSL. 

Canadian regulations do not have an 

equivalent requirement to the FAA’s 

Mode C veil (Mode C transponder use 

required within 30 NM of Class B 

primary airports); however, Canadian 

regulations do require transponder use 

above 10,000 feet MSL in radar 

controlled airspace. As such, NAV 

CANADA strongly advocates against a 

modified Class B/Class C airspace 

configuration that would leave a 2,000- 

foot gap in transponder requirements 

between the ceiling of the Class B/Class 

C configuration and the 10,000 feet MSL 

regulatory transponder requirement in 

Canada. 

The Ad hoc Committee recommended 

that the outer boundaries of the Class B 

airspace area should be limited to 25 

NM and only to the north-northeast 

(NNE) and south-southwest (SSW) of 

Detroit where such extensions are 

necessary for containing the parallel 

SILS approaches and associated base leg 

and traffic pattern radar vectoring 

airspace. 

The recommendation to limit the 

outer boundaries of the Class B proposal 

to 25 NM and then only to the NNE and 

SSW was not adopted. The proposed 

Class B airspace modifications were 

designed to ensure containment of 

current and future instrument 

procedures within Class B airspace with 

the minimum amount of airspace 

essential to control IFR aircraft arriving 

from multiple arrival streams being 

sequenced for SILS procedures into 

DTW. Aircraft conducting SILS 

approaches cannot be assigned the same 

altitude when being turned on to any of 

the three parallel final approach 

courses; they must be assigned altitudes 

that differ by a minimum of 1,000 feet. 

This, combined with straight flight 

requirements prior to final approach 

course interception, results in traffic 

patterns that are expected to routinely 

extend beyond 21 miles from the 

runway, at altitudes as low as 4,000 feet 

MSL in ideal conditions. During daily 

periods of greater than moderate air 

traffic demand, the patterns would 

extend beyond the suggested 25 NM 

boundary limit. Additionally, when 

DTW begins utilizing triple Precision 

Runway Monitoring (PRM) SILS 

approaches, the associated traffic 

patterns are expected to extend beyond 

a 25 NM boundary also. The traffic 

demand requirements for conducting 

SILS approaches; containing aircraft 

flying instrument procedures within 

Class B airspace, once entered; and 

realizing the safety benefits with 

segregating large turbine-powered 

aircraft and non-participating VFR 

aircraft operating in the vicinity of the 

Detroit Class B airspace necessitate 

expanding the Class B airspace as 

proposed. 

The Ad hoc Committee noted that 

extending the Class B boundaries to 30 

NM in all quadrants, as originally 

proposed, would have an adverse safety 

and economic impact on the outlying 

airports, glider activities, and 

parachuting operations. They 

recommended the western boundary of 

the Class B airspace area remain 

basically the same as the current Class 

B boundary. Also, if an extension at 

4,000 feet MSL to the northeast was 

necessary, the Ad hoc Committee 

contends it should be evaluated for its 

effect on the Oakland-Troy Airport 

(VLL), Troy, MI. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 48479 

In consideration of the 

recommendation, the FAA proposed a 

western boundary similar to that of 

today in part, but not in total, to enable 

arriving/departing aircraft to enter/exit 

the Class B airspace through the ceiling. 

The proposed Class B airspace area from 

the DXO 333° radial counterclockwise 

to the SVM 217° radial, west of the Ann 

Arbor (ARB) and Willow Run (YIP) 

airports, was removed from the original 

airspace configuration, and a proposed 

Class B airspace shelf between 25 NM 

and 30 NM southwest of DTW, was 

terminated east of the Tecumseh/ 

Meyers-Divers (3TE) airport. While not 

strictly similar to the boundary of today, 

the change is responsive to the 

recommendation. Additionally, the FAA 

has determined the 4,000-foot MSL shelf 

proposed northeast of DTW is necessary 

and does not affect VLL operations 

occurring under the Class B airspace 

shelf. The proposed Class B airspace 

area represents the minimum airspace 

prudent to contain arriving/departing 

IFR aircraft while minimizing impact on 

other airspace users in the area, and 

enhancing flight safety to all by 

segregating large turbine-powered 

aircraft and the non-participating VFR 

aircraft operating in close proximity to 

DTW. 

The Ad hoc Committee also 

recommended that Class B airspace 

floors overlying Class D airspace areas 

should only have one altitude and not 

reflect two different Class B floor 

altitudes overhead as was presented in 

the FAA’s original Class B proposal over 

the Coleman A. Young Municipal 

Airport (DET), Detroit, MI, Class D 

airspace area. They stated a split 

altitude configuration could lead to 

confusion and potential violations. 

The recommendation to establish a 

single Class B airspace floor altitude 

above Class D airspace was adopted at 

Ann Arbor Airport (ARB) (not 

mentioned by the Ad hoc Committee), 

but not adopted at DET. In response to 

the Ad hoc Committee’s 

recommendation, the FAA reviewed the 

original Class B airspace design and 

modified the airspace design in the 

vicinity of ARB and DET airports. The 

portion of Class B airspace overhead 

ARB is proposed with a single 3,500- 

foot MSL floor. The Class B airspace 

overhead DET was redesigned so it does 

not encroach on the DET Class D 

airspace, and has a 3,500-foot MSL floor 

over the southwest half of the Class D 

airspace area and a 4,000-foot MSL floor 

over the northeast half of the Class D 

airspace area. The FAA believes that the 

amended proposal removes confusion 

and inadvertent incursions that could 

result from the infringement of Class B 

on Class D airspace. 

The Ad hoc Committee noted the 

airspace along the Detroit River and the 

Lake Erie coastline west and south of 

Grosse Ile, below existing Class B 

airspace, provides a valuable uncharted 

VFR flyway for aircraft transiting the 

area northeast and southwest, as well as 

arriving and departing Grosse Ile (ONZ) 

airport. It recommended protecting that 

flyway with a 3,000-foot MSL ceiling by 

terminating the proposed boundary of 

the 2,500-foot MSL Class B airspace 

shelf closer to DTW. It also 

recommended the western boundary of 

the 3,000-foot MSL Class B airspace 

shelf located east of DTW be defined 

using Fort Street, the railroad tracks, or 

the highway as visual references 

(similar to the current Class B 

configuration) to maintain the ability to 

fly practice approaches at ONZ without 

the need for a Class B clearance, and to 

extend the area further west in the 

vicinity of the Ford Headquarters 

building. Lastly, the Ad hoc Committee 

recommended the FAA work with local 

pilots to establish VFR waypoints for 

this uncharted VFR flyway. 

The FAA adopted the suggestion to 

terminate the 2,500-foot Class B airspace 

shelf closer to DTW. In fact, the 

southern radius of the 2,500-foot MSL 

shelf was reduced to a 10 NM arc of I– 

DTW, keeping the southern boundary of 

the proposed 2,500-foot MSL Class B 

airspace shelf near where it exists today. 

At the same time, the proposed radius 

of the Class B surface area south of DTW 

was reduced to an 8 NM arc of I–DTW. 

These adjustments allow easier access at 

the southern end of the river and allow 

practice approaches at ONZ to be flown 

without the need for a Class B clearance. 

The recommendation to retain I–75 as 

the western boundary of the 3,000-foot 

shelf in that area was not pursued 

because the FAA believes that sufficient 

visual references remain. Nonparticipating VFR aircraft transiting the 

uncharted flyway noted by the Ad hoc 

Committee may do so with visual 

reference to the eastern edge of ONZ 

and the western-most mainland 

shoreline at Wyandotte, MI. The FAA 

also agreed with the recommendation to 

extend the 3,000-foot MSL shelf north of 

ONZ, as well as further west in the 

vicinity of the Ford World Headquarters 

building, using visual reference (I–94) 

and DXO radial and distance 

information. The FAA will continue to 

work with local pilots to establish and 

chart VFR waypoints independent of 

this airspace action. 

The Ad hoc Committee recommended 

the FAA maximize the efficiency of the 

airspace around DTW with a 

streamlined airspace design that does 

not envelop the large volume of airspace 

that was contained in the original 

modification configuration. For 

example, instead of 20-mile diameter 

circular areas around the airport, the 

FAA could consider ‘‘V’’ shaped 

corridors running northeast and 

southwest, funneling to the runways in 

both directions. 

The FAA did not pursue the 

recommendation for establishing ‘‘V’’ 

shaped corridors extending northeast 

and southwest from DTW because there 

are departure and arrival flow 

configurations that run in an east and 

west alignment as well that would not 

be captured. To accommodate all the air 

traffic flows and associated downwind 

patterns for the various runway 

configurations, a ‘‘V’’ shaped 

configuration is not practical. 

Additionally, the air traffic control 

procedures necessary for safely breaking 

aircraft off final approach courses, when 

simultaneous approaches are in use, 

will require aircraft vectoring that 

would exceed the suggested design 

boundaries for containing large turbinepowered aircraft flying the approaches 

within Class B airspace. 

The Ad hoc Committee recommended 

that the FAA make effective use of 

landmarks, like the interstate highways, 

to assist VFR pilots in non-GPS 

equipped aircraft to easily determine 

their position relative the Class B 

airspace boundaries. 

The FAA agrees with the Ad hoc 

Committee’s recommendation of using 

landmarks to assist VFR pilots in nonGPS equipped aircraft when there are 

easily identifiable landmarks that 

coincide with the proposed airspace 

configuration. In the cases where no 

easily identifiable landmarks are 

available or coincide with the 

configuration, the FAA uses groundbased navigation aid radials and 

distances. Fortunately, there are 

numerous landmarks depicted on the 

Detroit Terminal Area Chart that will be 

retained to assist VFR pilots. As noted 

previously, the FAA will continue to 

work with local pilots to define, 

establish, and chart appropriate VFR 

waypoints, independent of this airspace 

action. 

The Ad hoc Committee commented 

that defining the Class B airspace 

configuration using a radial distance 

from a DME antenna from one of the 

DTW ILS systems in the initial 

modification proposal was unworkable 

for aircraft not specifically going into 

DTW. It recommended the airspace be 

defined by radial and distance 

information from the DTW airport 

reference point loaded in all Global 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48480 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Positioning System (GPS) and Long 

Range Navigation (LORAN) databases. 

The FAA does not agree with the 

recommendation to use the DTW airport 

reference point as the center point for 

determining radial/distance design of 

the DTW Class B airspace area; opting, 

instead, to describe the airspace area 

using a navigation aid as reference 

consistent with FAA regulatory 

guidance. The proposed DTW Class B 

airspace area reference point was 

changed from using an ILS DME 

antenna, as originally presented to the 

Ad hoc Committee, to using the DTW 

VOR/DME antenna. This change better 

supports airspace users in the DTW area 

by providing radial and distance 

information for navigation aid (nonGPS) equipped aircraft, as well as the 

geographic coordinate position (lat./ 

long.) reference information for GPSequipped aircraft. 

The Ad hoc Committee was 

concerned about the reduced volume of 

airspace proposed north of DTW in the 

vicinity of the highways squeezed 

between the Class B airspace shelf floor, 

the obstructions along I–696, and 

aircraft flying in and out of VLL. It 

recommended the FAA establish a 

Common Traffic Advisory Frequency 

(CTAF) for the four quadrants around 

DTW to enable communication amongst 

transient traffic as they navigated in the 

vicinity of the proposed Class B 

airspace. 

The establishment of a CTAF to assist 

pilots in the exchange of position 

reporting, as recommended, is a 

misapplication of a CTAF and outside 

the scope of this Class B airspace 

modification action. A CTAF is a 

designated frequency for the purpose of 

carrying out airport advisory practices 

while operating to or from an airport 

that does not have a control tower or an 

airport where the control tower is not 

operational. To overcome the reduced 

volume of airspace impact concerns 

noted by the Ad hoc Committee, the 

FAA raised the originally proposed 

Class B airspace shelf floor (Area E) 

from 3,000 feet MSL to 3,500 feet MSL 

along the entire length of I–696 in this 

proposed action. 

The Ad hoc Committee urged 

consideration of unintended 

consequences associated with the FAA’s 

suggested Class B airspace 

modifications, such as the concentration 

of VFR aircraft training west of DTW. It 

recommended D21 establish (a) 

position(s) dedicated to providing ATC 

advisory service to VFR pilots, 

especially in areas where intensive 

flight training is conducted. 

The FAA believes the proposed 

Detroit Class B modification will have 

no impact on the concentration of VFR 

aircraft training west of DTW. The FAA 

acknowledges that the proposed Class B 

airspace west of DTW extends overhead 

approximately three quarters of one 

training area, with 3,500-foot MSL, 

4,000-foot MSL, and 6,000-foot MSL 

Class B airspace shelf floors; however, 

the training activities conducted in that 

training area today could continue 

under the proposed Class B airspace 

areas or within the proposed Class B 

airspace with the appropriate clearance. 

Should VFR training aircraft opt to 

relocate away from their current training 

areas, instead of flying under Class B 

airspace or obtaining a Class B airspace 

clearance, they are expected to move 

further west and north outside the 

lateral boundary of the proposed Class 

B airspace altogether. The FAA does not 

expect a substantive change to the 

concentration of VFR aircraft training 

west of DTW, and therefore the 

establishment of (a) dedicated VFR 

advisory position(s) is unwarranted. 

Although (a) dedicated VFR advisory 

position(s) is not considered warranted, 

the FAA will continue working with 

local flight training schools to discuss 

and pursue training program, 

scheduling, and airspace alternatives, as 

needed, independent of this proposed 

Class B airspace modification. 

In addition to the above 

recommendations, the Ad hoc 

Committee report listed a number of 

other concerns about the preliminary 

design that were not directly tied to a 

recommendation. These concerns are 

discussed below. 

The Ad hoc Committee expressed 

concern that the original Class B 

airspace configuration proposal would 

render the Eastern Michigan University 

(EMU) flight school practice area, 

located south of ARB, unusable. They 

further offered this would likely 

concentrate more training aircraft into 

another existing EMU practice area 

north of ARB, resulting in congestion 

and an increasing risk of an in-flight 

collision. 

The FAA believes that these concerns 

are related to a desire to operate up to 

6,000 feet MSL in the training area 

south of ARB while conducting certain 

practice maneuvers. As noted 

previously, the proposed Class B 

airspace, west of DTW, extends 

overhead approximately half of EMU’s 

training area south of ARB at 3,500 feet 

and 4,000 feet MSL. However, the 

training activities conducted in that 

portion of the training area today could 

continue under the proposed Class B 

airspace areas and within the proposed 

Class B airspace, with the appropriate 

clearance. The other half of EMU’s 

training area remains completely 

useable; either under a proposed Class 

B airspace shelf with a 6,000-foot MSL 

floor or outside the lateral boundary of 

the proposed Class B airspace area 

altogether. Other committee 

recommendations were adopted that 

further minimize training or operating 

impacts to EMU’s training areas noted. 

Specifically, the airspace area from the 

DXO 333° radial counterclockwise to 

the SVM 217° radial west of the ARB 

and YIP airports was completely 

removed from the proposed Class B 

airspace configuration, and the 

proposed Class B airspace shelf located 

25 NM to 30 NM southwest of DTW was 

terminated east of 3TE. These 

mitigations allow for the effective 

containment of aircraft conducting 

instrument procedures in the Class B 

airspace once they have entered it, 

while minimizing purported impacts to 

the EMU training areas. The FAA does 

not agree, therefore, that the proposed 

Class B airspace area would render the 

EMU training area south of ARB 

unusable or force a concentration of 

VFR training aircraft in EMU’s north 

training area. 

The Ad hoc Committee raised concern 

that a proposed 6,000-foot MSL Class B 

airspace shelf extending 30 miles west 

of DTW, as contained in the original 

configuration proposal, would cut 

significantly through a highly trafficked 

area of glider activity and soaring 

operations; where gliders regularly 

reach 7,000 feet MSL and above 

altitudes. It also shared a general 

statement that the broad reaching Class 

B airspace modification proposal seems 

excessive, and unnecessarily impacts 

many facets of general aviation and 

other commercial operations beyond 

those of the soaring community. 

Upon review, the FAA acknowledges 

unintended impacts to the soaring and 

glider activities operating west of DTW 

would have been created by the original 

Class B modification configuration, and 

removed the airspace area from the DXO 

333° radial counterclockwise to the 

SVM 217° radial west of the ARB and 

YIP airports from the proposed airspace 

action. Additionally, the proposed Class 

B airspace shelf located 25 NM to 30 

NM southwest of DTW was terminated 

east of 3TE. Two portions of the Class 

B airspace area the Ad hoc Committee 

commented on (west of the Pontiac VOR 

in the proposed 6,000-foot MSL shelf 

north of DTW, and west of Michigan 

State Highway 23 in the proposed 4,000- 

foot and 6,000-foot MSL shelves southsouthwest of DTW) remain within the 

proposed Class B airspace area. Those 

portions of the proposed Class B 

airspace area are necessary to contain 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 48481 

the base and downwind traffic patterns 

for large turbine-powered aircraft being 

vectored for instrument approaches to 

DTW. Given the volume of airspace that 

was removed from the original proposal 

configuration in response to soaring and 

glider activities, the FAA believes the 

Class B airspace area proposed in this 

action addresses the Ad hoc 

Committee’s concerns. 

The Ad hoc Committee shared 

concerns relating to the parachuting 

operations conducted from 3TE by 

Skydive Tecumseh. The airport is not 

currently under the Detroit Class B 

airspace, but would fall under the 6,000- 

foot MSL Class B airspace shelf 

southwest of DTW, as proposed in the 

original Class B airspace configuration. 

Although the possibility of a Letter of 

Agreement between the FAA and 

Skydive Tecumseh was discussed 

during Ad hoc Committee meetings, the 

committee did not find this a 

sufficiently comprehensive solution, 

preferring to stay outside Class B 

airspace and retain the existing 

relationship with ATC. 

In consideration of this concern, and 

other concerns raised about the western 

boundary of the Class B airspace 

proposed, the area from the DXO 333° 

radial, counterclockwise, to the SVM 

217° radial west of the ARB and YIP 

airports was removed from the proposed 

Class B airspace configuration. 

Additionally, the Class B airspace shelf 

located 25 NM to 30 NM southwest of 

DTW was terminated east of 3TE. The 

Class B airspace proposal no longer 

impacts parachute activities, and allows 

Skydive Tecumseh to operate much as 

they do today. The amended proposal 

will continue to allow for the effective 

containment of aircraft in the Class B 

airspace area once they have entered it, 

and thereby effectively segregate the 

large turbine-powered aircraft and the 

non-participating VFR aircraft operating 

in the vicinity of the Detroit Class B 

airspace area. 

The Ad hoc Committee, recognizing 

and supporting the need to modify the 

Detroit Class B airspace, expressed 

concern that an increased number of 

requests for access to Class B airspace 

from VFR pilots would overload the 

controllers providing ATC services. 

The FAA remains committed to 

providing Class B services in a manner 

that keeps the area safe for all users. 

Based on historical data and forecast 

trends, D21 is staffed to provide 

National Airspace System (NAS) users 

with high quality Class B airspace 

services. When traffic demand 

increases, D21 has sufficient staffing to 

enable additional positions to be opened 

as necessary to maintain that high level 

of service. Many times, denial of VFR 

aircraft requests for Class B clearances 

or services are due to traffic volume and 

airspace capacity, not due to controller 

workload issues. When the traffic 

volume and airspace capacity allow for 

the safe application, D21 provides Class 

B airspace clearances and services to 

VFR aircraft requesting access into and 

through the Detroit Class B airspace. 

Discussion of Informal Airspace 

Meeting Comments 

The FAA received comments from 29 

individuals as a result of the informal 

airspace meetings. One commenter 

wrote in support of the Detroit Class B 

airspace modification proposal, with the 

remaining commenters providing 

comments opposing various aspects of 

the proposed Class B modification. The 

following information addresses the 

substantive comments received. 

Six commenters asserted that the 

Class B airspace is effectively an 

‘exclusion zone’ if one is not landing or 

departing from DTW and that D21 rarely 

grants clearances through the Class B 

airspace. 

The FAA does not agree. The primary 

purpose of a Class B airspace area is to 

reduce the potential for midair 

collisions in the airspace surrounding 

airports with high density air traffic 

operations by providing an area in 

which all aircraft are subject to certain 

operating rules and equipment 

requirements. FAA directives require 

Class B airspace areas to be designed to 

contain all instrument procedures and 

that air traffic controllers vector aircraft 

as appropriate to remain within Class B 

airspace after entry. D21 routinely 

provides Class B airspace clearances 

and services to VFR aircraft requesting 

access into and through the Detroit 

Class B airspace when traffic volume 

and conditions enable safely doing so. 

The FAA remains committed to 

providing Class B services in a manner 

that keeps the area safe for all users. 

Six commenters noted the lack of, 

impact to, or need for additional VFR 

corridors running through the Detroit 

Class B airspace area in a north and 

south, and an east and west, direction. 

The FAA does not agree. A VFR 

flyway is a general flight path, not 

defined as a specific course, for use by 

pilots in planning flights into, out of, 

through or near, complex terminal 

airspace to avoid Class B airspace. An 

ATC clearance is not required to fly 

these routes. Where established, VFR 

flyways are depicted on the reverse side 

of the VFR Terminal Area Chart (TAC), 

commonly referred to as ‘‘Class B 

charts.’’ They are designed to assist 

pilots in planning flight under or 

around busy Class B airspace without 

actually entering Class B airspace. 

Currently there are four VFR flyways 

depicted on the Detroit TAC. Three 

flyways will remain unchanged: The 

first runs north and south (with an east 

and west spur) and is located west of 

DTW, the second runs north and south 

and is located east of DTW, and the 

third runs east and west and is located 

north of DTW. The fourth flyway, which 

runs east and west (with a north and 

south spur) and is located south of 

DTW, will remain with a 1,000-foot 

reduction of the suggested altitude, from 

below 4,000 to below 3,000, for a 

portion of the flyway. The FAA believes 

that these existing VFR flyway options 

are sufficient to continue supporting the 

VFR aircraft flying in the vicinity of 

DTW. 

Seven comments suggested the need 

for a VFR corridor east of Detroit Metro 

along the Detroit River (a popular visual 

route to fly between Lake St Clair and 

Lake Erie, and is coincident with the 

border between the United States and 

Canada.). An eighth commenter 

expressed a general concern for the 

reduction of corridors for VFR aircraft in 

the vicinity of ONZ. 

The FAA does not agree with the need 

for a VFR corridor east of Detroit. In 

response to an Ad hoc Committee 

recommendation addressing access of 

an uncharted VFR flyway along the 

Detroit River, noted previously in the 

preamble, the FAA adopted the Ad hoc 

Committee’s recommendation. 

Specifically, the FAA is proposing the 

boundary of the Class B airspace surface 

area east of DTW as an 8-mile arc of the 

DXO VOR–DME and the floor of the 

Class B airspace shelf beyond that, to 

the 10-mile arc of the DXO VOR–DME, 

as 2,500 feet MSL. However, the FAA 

lowered the floor of the Class B airspace 

shelf proposed north and east of River 

Rouge to downtown Detroit by 500 feet 

to 3,500 feet MSL to accommodate the 

containment requirements for base leg 

altitudes and turns to the final approach 

courses when DTW is landing runways 

21R/L and 22R/L. This proposed 

configuration keeps the Class B airspace 

in the area very near where it exists 

today and retains access for VFR aircraft 

to the uncharted VFR flyway along the 

Detroit River, as well as allows practice 

approaches at Grosse Ile airport to be 

flown without the need for a Class B 

clearance. 

Additionally, two of the above 

commenters cited post 9/11 constraints 

on international border crossings for 

VFR aircraft as creating a requirement 

for D21 to provide a VFR corridor 

running north and south located east of 

DTW, in U.S. territory, with published 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48482 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

altitudes between 2,000 feet and 5,000 

feet MSL. 

The FAA believes the issue cited was 

generated by security measures 

implemented in response to U.S. 

Customs and Border Patrol requirements 

and is not within the scope of this Class 

B airspace modification action. The 

primary purpose of a Class B airspace 

area is to reduce the potential for midair 

collisions in the airspace surrounding 

airports with high density air traffic 

operations by providing an area in 

which all aircraft are subject to certain 

operating rules and equipment 

requirements. Additionally, the 

proximity of DTW to the border and the 

layout of the runways and final 

approach courses precludes such a 

corridor. As noted above, the FAA made 

adjustments to the proposed Class B 

airspace at both ends of the Detroit 

River to provide as much access as 

possible for VFR aircraft to transit north 

and south inside U.S. airspace without 

crossing the U.S./Canadian border or 

compromising safety to the large 

turbine-powered aircraft flying in the 

DTW traffic patterns. 

Two commenters suggested that the 

eastern edge of the 2,500-foot MSL Class 

B airspace shelf located southwest of 

DTW be retained as is, identified by 

parallel railroad tracks and I–75, instead 

of the 10-mile arc of the DXO VOR– 

DME. The issues cited were retention of 

current visual references and a 

minimum of a 1,000-foot altitude buffer 

from the ONZ 1,600 feet MSL traffic 

pattern. 

The FAA acknowledges that there 

will be a loss of some currently used 

visual references (the cited railroad 

tracks and I–75) for VFR pilots to 

determine the Class B airspace as a 

result of the proposed southeast 

boundary of Area B being defined by the 

10-mile arc of the DXO VOR–DME. 

However, the FAA believes that 

sufficient visual references remain for 

identifying the new proposed boundary. 

As noted by another commenter, aircraft 

transiting the narrowest point between 

the eastern edge of the current DTW 

Class B airspace 2,500-foot MSL shelf 

and Canadian airspace do so using 

visual references to the eastern edge of 

ONZ and the western-most mainland 

shoreline at Wyandotte, MI. Use of these 

visual references would support the 

proposed boundary, as well as provide 

VFR pilots the ability to remain at least 

1,000 feet above the Grosse Ile airport 

traffic pattern. 

Two individuals commented that the 

air traffic control procedures for turning 

landing traffic onto the final approach 

course for the DTW ILS approaches at 

a point more than 18 NM from the 

runway are illegal. They cited the limits 

described in the FAA Instrument Flying 

Handbook and the Aeronautical 

Information Manual. 

The FAA does not agree. The standard 

service volume for an ILS Localizer is 18 

NM, as established by FAA Order 

8260.19, titled Flight Procedures and 

Airspace. However, the DTW ILS 

Localizers, except for the runway 4L 

antenna, are approved and flight 

inspected for an expanded service 

volume capability with signal coverage 

out to 25 NM or 30 NM, depending on 

the localizer. The certification and flight 

inspection information for each ILS at 

DTW is contained in the FAA’s 

aeronautical database. As such, the ILS 

approaches and associated patterns, 

except to runway 4L, are not limited to 

18 NM as argued by the commenters. 

Seven commenters stated that the 

DTW traffic volume, and air travel in 

general, is decreasing and, as such, a 

Class B airspace area modification is 

unnecessary. 

The FAA does not agree. For calendar 

year 2010, DTW was ranked number 12 

in the list of the ‘‘50 Busiest FAA 

Airport Traffic Control Towers,’’ with 

453,000 operations (an increase of 

20,000 from the previous year), and 

number 18 in the list of the ‘‘50 Busiest 

Radar Approach Control Facilities,’’ 

with 590,000 instrument operations (an 

increase of 30,000 operations from the 

previous year). Additionally, the 

calendar year 2010 passenger 

enplanement data ranked DTW as 

number 15 among Commercial Service 

Airports, with 15,643,890 passenger 

enplanements (an increase of 2.84% 

from the previous year). The proposed 

Class B airspace modification is being 

considered to ensure the large turbinepowered aircraft conducting instrument 

procedures at DTW are contained 

within Class B airspace once they enter 

it. Currently, nearly every DTW arrival 

conducting instrument arrival 

procedures enters, exits, and then reenters DTW’s Class B airspace. This 

proposed airspace action corrects that 

lack of containment and enhances the 

flight safety of the increasing traffic 

volume and operations in the DTW 

terminal airspace area. 

Two commenters stated that in-trail 

aircraft separation provided on the DTW 

final approach courses routinely 

extends to 7 NM or greater. These 

commenters assert that arriving aircraft 

operations would be contained within 

the current Class B airspace if the 

minimum allowable separation 

standards were utilized. 

The FAA does not agree. The 

requirements for conducting 

simultaneous parallel instrument 

approaches, independent of in-trail 

spacing, necessitates traffic patterns and 

separation between aircraft staggered on 

parallel final approach courses such that 

aircraft flying instrument approach 

procedures are not contained within 

Class B airspace once they have entered. 

When SILS approaches are being 

conducted, the minimum point at which 

arrival aircraft are required to be 

established on the final approach course 

is approximately one NM inside the 

current Class B boundary for dual ILS 

approaches. Reducing separation or 

spacing on final approach courses does 

not alter that. 

Six commenters objected to raising 

the ceiling of the Detroit Class B 

airspace area to 10,000 feet MSL. They 

asserted that the change will make VFR 

flight and/or over flights of the proposed 

area more restrictive; other busy airports 

operate with a lower Class B airspace 

ceiling and Detroit does not need a 

higher ceiling; and the reasons 

advanced by the FAA are not sufficient 

to warrant the airspace change from a 

safety or containment standpoint. An 

additional commenter expressed general 

opposition to the proposed Class B 

airspace ceiling stating that the vertical 

expansion appeared excessive and 

unnecessary. 

The FAA acknowledges and 

recognizes that some restrictions could 

occur for some VFR operators. However, 

with the existing Class B configuration, 

VFR aircraft that may not be in 

communication with air traffic control 

are currently mixing with turbinepowered DTW arrival traffic. The FAA 

weighed the impacts to VFR pilots 

flying lower or choosing to 

circumnavigate the Class B airspace 

against the safety of having large 

turbine-powered aircraft flying at 

altitudes that are not contained within 

Class B airspace. Considering the 

concentration of operations by all types 

of aircraft in the DTW terminal area, the 

FAA finds the operation of large 

turbine-powered aircraft outside the 

Class B airspace poses a greater safety 

risk. Raising the ceiling of the Class B 

airspace increases safety by segregating 

the large turbine-powered aircraft 

inbound to DTW from the VFR aircraft 

flying in the vicinity of DTW. VFR 

aircraft wanting to avoid 

communication with ATC while flying 

above 8,000 and up to 10,000 feet will 

be required to adjust their route and/or 

altitude. 

The FAA believes that raising the 

ceiling of the Class B is necessary to 

enhancing flight safety for all by better 

segregating the large turbine-powered 

aircraft and the non-participating VFR 

aircraft from operating in the same 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 48483 

volume of airspace overhead DTW. 

When the DTW Class B airspace was 

designed in the mid 1970s, traffic 

entered the terminal area at 8,000 feet 

MSL. Traffic now enters the terminal 

area at 12,000 feet, and enters the traffic 

patterns abeam DTW descending out of 

11,000 feet. When simultaneous triple 

parallel ILS approaches are 

implemented, arrival aircraft assigned 

the middle runway will be held above 

the traffic going to the outboard 

runways. These aircraft will be vectored 

to the final controller at 9,000 feet MSL 

on downwind and at 8,000 feet MSL on 

base legs of the pattern to final 

approaches. 

Lastly, the commenters’ argument 

comparing the DTW Class B airspace to 

other Class B airspace is not germane 

since each Class B airspace area design 

is individually tailored to fit the 

operation needs of the primary airport. 

Four commenters noted inconsistent 

navigation aid radials were being used 

by the FAA to define various sub-area 

boundaries of the proposed DTW Class 

B airspace area. Specifically, they cited 

inconsistent use of the Salem VORTAC 

(SVM) and Detroit VOR (DXO) radials. 

Upon review, the FAA verified the 

inconsistent use of the SVM and DXO 

radials and incorporated four changes to 

the proposed DTW Class B airspace area 

to correct this issue. The western 

boundary of the proposed 2,500-foot 

MSL Class B airspace shelf south of 

DTW (Area B), as well as the far southeastern boundary of the proposed 3,500- 

foot MSL Class B airspace shelf that 

overlies ARB (Area D), are now 

identified by the DXO 240° (M) radial. 

The western boundary of the proposed 

2,500-foot MSL Class B airspace shelf 

north of DTW (Area B) is now identified 

by the DXO 360° (M) radial. Finally, a 

small change was made to the western 

boundary of the proposed 6,000-foot 

Class B airspace shelf southwest of DTW 

(Area G); the northern endpoint of that 

boundary has been relocated to 

terminate at the SVM 219° radial, which 

was an existing boundary point already 

defined on the 25-mile arc of the DXO 

VOR–DME. The southern endpoint of 

that boundary remains identifiable to 

VFR aircraft, not VOR/GPS equipped, by 

the town of Blissfield, MI. 

Four commenters indicated that the 

proposed airspace would, or appeared 

to, hinder glider, sailplane, or parachute 

operations in the western quadrant of 

DTW. A fifth commenter asserted that 

cross country glider flights from the 

Adrian/Lenawee County airport to the 

northeast would also be seriously 

restricted; referencing the Tecumseh/ 

Meyers-Divers (3TE), Rossettie (75G) 

and New Hudson/Oakland Southwest 

(Y47) airports that would be 

encompassed by the proposed Class B 

airspace area. 

The FAA does not agree and believes 

that all of these comments are based on 

the initially proposed airspace 

configuration presented to and 

commented on by the Ad hoc 

Committee, and not the proposed 

airspace configuration contained in this 

NPRM. The FAA, in response to the Ad 

hoc Committee’s concerns and 

recommendations, adopted many of the 

committee’s recommendations in the 

airspace area at issue; significantly 

changing the proposed Class B airspace 

in that area. The airspace area from the 

DXO 333° (M) radial, counterclockwise 

to the SVM 229° (M) radial, west of the 

ARB and YIP airports, was completely 

removed from the proposed Class B 

airspace. Additionally, the proposed 

Class B airspace shelf southwest of DTW 

between the 25-mile to 30-mile arcs of 

the DXO VOR–DME was terminated east 

of 3TE. The proposed Class B airspace 

area contained in this NPRM no longer 

impacts parachute jump activity at that 

airport. Further, 75G lies more than nine 

miles west of the proposed Class B 

airspace boundaries, and Y47, although 

at the edge of the proposed Class B 

airspace area, is no longer encompassed 

by it; thus, eliminating the cited impact 

to cross country glider flights. 

Five commenters stated concerns over 

impacts to IFR routes in and around an 

expanded Class B airspace area. 

The purpose for the proposed DTW 

Class B airspace modification is to 

contain aircraft conducting instrument 

procedures at DTW within Class B 

airspace once they have entered, and to 

better segregate the large turbinepowered aircraft and the nonparticipating VFR aircraft operating in 

the vicinity of the Detroit Class B 

airspace area. The IFR routes and 

procedures, fleet mix, and altitudes 

flown by IFR aircraft would not change 

as a result of the proposed airspace 

modification. The proposed action 

would establish Class B airspace around 

the existing instrument procedures and 

associated traffic flows and traffic 

patterns supporting those procedures to 

contain the large turbine-powered 

aircraft flying the instrument procedures 

within Class B airspace. The proposed 

modification represents the minimum 

airspace needed to reasonably 

accommodate current and future 

operations and flight tracks at DTW. IFR 

arrival, departure, or over flight aircraft 

are vectored within Class B airspace 

dependent on the IFR traffic patterns in 

use, which is, in turn, dependent on the 

runways in use and the DTW landing 

configuration. The existing IFR routes, 

traffic patterns, and runway utilizations 

would not be affected by the proposed 

DTW Class B modification. 

Three comments asserted that the 

proposed DTW Class B modification 

was an effort to standardize Detroit 

Class B airspace with that of other 

locations around the country; referring 

to both the proposed airspace 

boundaries and altitudes. They cited a 

general concern that the airspace 

enlargement held no demonstrable 

value and that FAA guidance stated, 

‘‘each Class B airspace area is 

individually tailored.’’ 

The FAA does not agree with the 

commenters’ assertion of a standardized 

DTW Class B airspace configuration, 

and asserts that the proposed Class B 

airspace modification is tailored to the 

operational requirements observed at 

DTW and within its terminal area. The 

proposed Class B airspace modification 

is focused on containing all instrument 

procedures and associated patterns and 

traffic flows at DTW within Class B 

airspace; containing the large turbinepowered aircraft conducting instrument 

procedures within Class B airspace once 

they’ve entered, as well as enhancing 

flight safety by segregating the large 

turbine-powered aircraft and the 

nonparticipating VFR aircraft. The 

proposed DTW Class B airspace design 

configuration is influenced by the VFR 

aircraft training areas and activities west 

of DTW; protection of the uncharted 

VFR flyway above the Detroit River; the 

glider, parachute, and ultra-light 

operations located around DTW; and the 

geographic location and proximity of 

satellite airports all around DTW. The 

proposed Class B airspace area 

boundaries, and the proposed altitude of 

the airspace area, are shaped by the 

operational requirements of aviation 

users at and around DTW; the DTW 

terminal airspace environment; and 

geographic, operational, and procedural 

factors specific to DTW. 

Eight commenters stated that the 

proposed vertical and lateral expansion 

of Class B airspace would increase icing 

risks. Their issues included increased 

communication with ATC resulting in 

delays in altitude change clearances; a 

general concern that the modified 

airspace will force GA aircraft into more 

dangerous icing altitudes; and IFR flight 

restriction impacts to aircraft not 

landing or departing DTW (typically 

restricted to a maximum of 4,000 feet). 

The FAA does not agree. The 

proposed Class B airspace modifications 

would not expose VFR aircraft and 

operators to any higher icing risks than 

they face today. The FAA expects VFR 

pilots, after receiving the appropriate 

weather briefings, to plan their flights so 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48484 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

as to avoid conditions of known or 

forecasted icing. In the event they 

encounter unexpected icing conditions, 

upon contacting ATC, D21 would 

continue to respond to all contingencies 

with the same operational and 

procedural sense of urgency as they do 

today. As mentioned previously, IFR 

aircraft would not be impacted by the 

proposed changes. Altitude assignment 

and route of flight is dependent on IFR 

traffic volume, traffic flows and 

patterns, and landing runway 

configurations, not the design of Class B 

airspace. 

One commenter stated that the Class 

B modification should not include two 

different floor altitudes (3,500 feet and 

4,000 feet MSL) above ARB, the city of 

Ann Arbor, and the township of 

Pittsfield. The issue cited is that of 

confusion and potential inadvertent 

airspace violations by nonparticipating 

aircraft. 

The FAA adopted a recommendation 

from the Ad hoc Committee that 

changed the floor of the proposed Class 

B airspace shelf (Area D) in the vicinity 

of ARB, the City of Ann Arbor, and the 

Township of Pittsfield to a single 3,500- 

foot MSL altitude that is 200 feet above 

the ceiling of the ARB Class D airspace 

area. Although this proposed Class B 

airspace shelf (Area D) overlaps 

approximately the southwest half of the 

ARB Class D airspace area, the other 

half of the ARB Class D airspace area 

falls outside the proposed DTW Class B 

airspace boundary. Specific to the issue 

of confusion and potential inadvertent 

airspace violations raised by the 

commenter, the FAA notes that VFR 

pilots are safely operating in the vicinity 

of current DTW Class B airspace areas, 

with its differing floor altitudes, as well 

as at other Class B airspace areas across 

the country. The FAA expects VFR 

pilots to be able to continue flying in the 

vicinity of the proposed DTW Class B 

airspace area without incursions into 

Class B airspace, as they do today. 

Seven commenters raised concerns 

about impacts to the airspace areas in 

which flight training activities take 

place outside of the current Class B 

airspace area. Six of these commenters 

cited a general loss of practice areas to 

the south and west; one commenter 

stated the proposed modifications 

would cause overcrowding in that 

airspace used by flight schools based at 

the ARB and YIP airports. 

The FAA disagrees with the assertion 

that the proposed DTW Class B airspace 

would result in a loss of VFR practice 

areas. D21 is unaware of any practice 

area that would be lost due to the 

modified design. The FAA does 

acknowledge, however, that the floor of 

the proposed Class B airspace could 

impact the available altitudes in some 

areas. As a result of adopting a number 

of the Ad hoc Committee’s 

recommendations, the FAA adjusted the 

proposed airspace modification to 

alleviate many practice area impacts. 

The result is that the areas west and 

north of Ann Arbor would be 

unaffected. While not specifically 

included in the public comments, the 

FAA believes the practice areas around 

Pontiac Oakland County (PTK) airport 

are unaffected also. The FAA notes that 

the practice area near the General 

Motors Proving Ground, southwest of 

PTK, is not completely outside the 

proposed Class B airspace area; 

however, flight operations above 6,000 

feet MSL are not normally accomplished 

there and the proposed Class B airspace 

floor of 6,000 feet MSL would have 

negligible impact. The greatest impact is 

to the southeastern quadrant of the 

Eastern Michigan Aviation South 

Practice Area; a point at which the floor 

of the proposed Class B airspace is 4,000 

feet MSL. The proposed Class B airspace 

shelf in that area is necessary to contain 

arriving large turbine-powered aircraft 

flying instrument procedures within 

Class B airspace, and would enhance 

flight safety to all by segregating the 

large turbine-powered aircraft and the 

non-participating VFR aircraft operating 

in the vicinity of the proposed DTW 

Class B airspace. 

One commenter stated that there is no 

need to extend the Class B to contain 

aircraft on the finals for runways 27L 

and 27R. 

The FAA does not agree and notes 

that modifications that occur in 

Canadian airspace are regulated by NAV 

CANADA. Further, where control 

responsibility within Canadian airspace 

has been formally delegated to the FAA, 

as it has over the Windsor peninsula, an 

agreement was established that requires 

the application of FAA procedures (i.e. 

containing all instrument procedures 

within Class B airspace so that large 

turbine-powered aircraft will remain 

within Class B airspace, and Canadian 

Class C airspace supporting DTW, once 

they have entered). 

Two commenters expressed concern 

for helicopter operations based on the 

proposed increase of the surface area 

boundary of client facilities south and 

southeast of DTW, and that it would 

create increased VFR communication 

with ATC and inaccessibility problems 

in poor weather. The commenters 

suggested keeping the current surface 

area with a 1,500-foot shelf between the 

current and proposed surface area 

because lower Class B floors may cause 

GA pilots to drop into ‘‘helicopter 

airspace.’’ One of the commenters 

indicated that ATC personnel were very 

good at accommodating their needs. 

The FAA acknowledges that any 

expansion of the Class B airspace 

surface area will require 

communications with ATC for Class B 

services in that expanded airspace, and 

that delays during poor weather could 

occur. However, the FAA remains 

committed to providing Class B services 

to users operating in the airspace 

surrounding DTW in a manner that 

keeps the area safe for all users. The 

FAA has considered and made several 

changes to the proposed Class B design 

south of DTW, including moving the 

proposed surface area boundary from a 

10-mile arc of the DXO VOR–DME to an 

8-mile arc of the DXO VOR–DME. The 

FAA has determined that the proposed 

Class B surface area boundary is the 

minimum airspace area that is prudent 

to contain arriving IFR aircraft, and will 

enhance flight safety by segregating the 

large turbine-powered aircraft flying 

instrument procedures and the nonparticipating VFR aircraft operating in 

close proximity to DTW. Though not 

specifically described where by the 

commenter, the FAA does not believe 

the proposed Class B airspace 

modification in this action would cause 

GA aircraft to drop into ‘‘helicopter 

airspace.’’ 

Six commenters stated that current 

advanced equipment capabilities, or 

proposed NextGen capabilities, or both, 

if utilized, would negate the need for a 

larger Class B airspace area. 

The FAA does not agree. Existing 

equipment capabilities and procedures 

do not alter the requirements for SILS 

approaches, and have no impact on 

overcoming the existing Class B airspace 

containment issues being experienced 

regularly with large turbine-powered 

aircraft entering, exiting, and re-entering 

Class B airspace while flying instrument 

approach procedures. The FAA remains 

committed to achieving NextGen 

capabilities in the future, but is also 

aware that the airspace requirements for 

containing turbine-powered aircraft 

flying instrument procedures within 

Class B airspace, once they have 

entered, cannot be resolved through 

equipage alternatives only. 

Three commenters stated that the 

FAA lacks any demonstrated safety 

reasons for changing the Detroit Class B 

airspace because there were no reported 

TCAS events, no reported ‘‘loss of 

separation’’ incidents, no accidents, and 

no analysis suggesting a reduction of 

these same items following a Class B 

airspace modification. 

The FAA does not agree. While the 

primary purpose of Class B airspace 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 48485 

areas is to reduce the potential for 

midair collisions in the airspace 

surrounding airports with high density 

air traffic operations, this action 

proposes to modify the DTW Class B 

airspace area to contain aircraft 

conducting published instrument 

procedures at DTW within Class B 

airspace once they enter it. The FAA is 

proposing this action to support all 

three existing SILS configurations today; 

runways 22/21, runways 4⁄3 and 

runways 27L/27R, as well as support 

aircraft containment for triple SILS 

operations planned for the future for 

runways 4L/4R/3R and runways 21L/ 

22L/22R. This proposed action would 

enhance flight safety in the vicinity of 

DTW by segregating the large turbinepower aircraft conducting instrument 

procedures from the VFR aircraft 

operating in the vicinity of DTW, 

improve the flow of air traffic, and 

reduce the potential for midair 

collisions in the DTW terminal area, 

while accommodating airspace access 

concerns of airspace users in the area 

One commenter objected to the FAA 

contracting with Lockheed-Martin for 

providing support activities since the 

FAA considered proposing a DTW Class 

B airspace modification action. The 

commenter argued there was a conflict 

of interest in favor of the Air Traffic 

Organization at the expense of local 

governments and users; 

misrepresentation of the Ad hoc 

Committee recommendations; and a 

general statement that many users from 

areas north, northeast and east of DTW 

were discouraged from providing input 

on the Class B airspace area. 

The FAA does not agree, and noted 

that the commenter did not provide any 

substantive support for the allegations. 

Contract support is used throughout the 

FAA to supplement workload 

management in a cost effective way, and 

in this case, the contractor fulfilled the 

duties and responsibilities defined by 

the FAA professionally with no bias 

noted. Local government 

representatives, as well as interested 

local area airspace users and aviation 

organizations, were invited and 

accepted to become Ad hoc Committee 

members charged with providing inputs 

and recommendations to the FAA 

regarding the proposed DTW Class B 

airspace modification action, and they 

provided those inputs and 

recommendations in a formal report 

directly to the FAA. With respect to the 

claim of users being discouraged from 

providing input to the FAA’s proposed 

airspace modification, the FAA mailed 

A14,852 informal airspace meeting 

notification letters to all registered 

pilots within all counties in Michigan, 

Indiana, and Ohio, that were within 100 

miles of DTW and actively solicited 

comments from those individuals and 

organizations that attended. 

Seven commenters stated that safety 

would be compromised by compressing 

VFR traffic outside of the Class B 

airspace area. Five of these commenters 

cited the issue of increased midair 

collision risk for general aviation (GA) 

aircraft landing or departing Oakland 

County airports by forcing all VFR GA 

aircraft to remain under the proposed 

DTW Class B airspace shelf (Area H) 

with a 6,000-foot MSL floor. Two of the 

commenters cited the increased 

potential for collision; stating that a 

larger population of non-DTW traffic 

and or non-participating VFR aircraft 

will be concentrated on the edges of the 

modified Class B. An eighth commenter 

argued a possible increase in pilot 

violations of a redesigned airspace with 

increased ‘‘safety issues.’’ 

The FAA does not agree. The FAA is 

taking action to modify the current Class 

B airspace to contain all instrument 

procedures at DTW and the aircraft 

flying those procedures within Class B 

airspace, once they have entered it, to 

overcome the IFR aircraft entering, 

exiting, and re-entering Class B airspace 

while flying the published instrument 

approaches and associated traffic 

patterns. The FAA acknowledges that 

some compression will occur and that 

non-participating VFR traffic will have 

to fly above, below or circumnavigate 

the proposed DTW Class B airspace in 

order to remain clear of it should they 

decide not to contact D21 to seek Class 

B airspace services. All aircraft 

operating beneath or in the vicinity of 

Area H are expected to continue to 

comply with the regulatory 

requirements of Title 14 of the Code of 

Federal Regulation (14 CFR) § 91.111, 

titled Operating Near Other Aircraft, to 

avoid creating a collision hazard with 

other aircraft operating in the same 

airspace. Additionally, all aircraft 

operating in the same areas noted above 

are expected to continue complying 

with 14 CFR § 91.113, titled Right-ofWay Rules: Except Water Operations, to 

‘‘see and avoid’’ other aircraft as well. 

The FAA believes that continued GA 

pilot compliance with established flight 

rules regulatory requirements, and these 

two regulations specifically, will 

overcome the mid-air collision concerns 

raised by the commenters. 

Eleven commenters stated that either 

efficiency or negative economic impacts 

would result. The issues cited included: 

Increased avoidance and 

circumnavigation time; longer, less 

direct routings for VFR and IFR aircraft; 

increased cost of flight training; loss of 

fuel efficiency to IFR GA aircraft that 

will be held to lower altitudes for longer 

periods of time; economic impacts to 

communities where flight schools or sky 

diving businesses may be forced to 

close; or, due to a lower available 

altitude when flying over Lake Erie in 

conjunction with Canadian border 

restrictions, a reluctance to fly into 

ONZ. 

The FAA recognizes that the proposed 

Class B airspace modification could 

increase fuel burn for non-participating 

VFR aircraft. In order to remain clear of 

the Detroit Class B airspace area, nonparticipating VFR pilots who decide not 

to contact D21 for Class B services may 

end up flying at lower altitudes or 

further west of DTW. However, this 

proposed action is necessary to separate 

them from the large turbine-powered 

aircraft being contained within the Class 

B airspace while flying instrument 

procedures. While some aircraft will opt 

to fly additional distances or different 

altitudes to circumnavigate the 

proposed Class B airspace, the FAA 

believes any increase in fuel would be 

minimal and is justified by the increase 

in overall safety. The modified Class B 

airspace area would have no impact to 

the routes or altitudes assigned to IFR 

aircraft in the vicinity of the Detroit 

Class B airspace area. As noted 

previously in the preamble, the 

proposed Class B airspace design 

incorporated the Ad hoc Committee’s 

recommendations to prevent impacts, 

operationally and economically, to the 

known sky diving activities at 3TE, as 

well as to the soaring activities located 

west of DTW. Additionally, there were 

no practice areas lost as a result of the 

proposed airspace modification and 

there remain numerous unaffected 

practice areas for use by the local area 

flight training schools. The FAA does 

not expect any sky diving operation, 

soaring club or flight training activity to 

relocate; thus, averting the financial 

impacts to any local community. In 

addition to the alternate overland routes 

available for non-participating aircraft 

concerned about an approach to ONZ, 

D21 remains committed to providing 

Class B services to all NAS users 

operating in the airspace surrounding 

DTW in a manner that keeps the area 

safe for all users. 

One commenter cited a lack of 

specificity in the number and source of 

users who have complained about the 

lack of containment in the current Class 

B airspace area; suggesting that perhaps 

the complaints in this regard came from 

union air traffic controllers. 

The FAA is proposing to modify the 

current DTW Class B airspace area to 

contain all instrument procedures at 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48486 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

DTW and the aircraft flying those 

instrument procedures to and from 

DTW within Class B airspace, consistent 

with FAA directives and based on the 

instrument procedures in place today. 

Currently, large turbine-powered aircraft 

vectored to DTW are not contained in 

the Class B airspace area and operate in 

the same airspace as non-participating 

VFR aircraft. This proposed action 

overcomes IFR aircraft entering, exiting, 

and reentering DTW Class B airspace 

while flying published instrument 

approach procedures and the associated 

traffic patterns during arrival. 

Additionally, the action further 

enhances flight safety by segregating IFR 

aircraft flying the instrument procedures 

into DTW and VFR aircraft operating in 

the vicinity of the DTW Class B 

airspace. The proposed Class B 

modifications in this NPRM represent 

the minimum airspace needed to 

reasonably accommodate the current 

operations, fleet mix, and existing flight 

tracks at DTW. 

One commenter asserted that the FAA 

did not allow real comments from the 

public, or recording of those comments 

to be made, and suggested that the 

informal airspace meetings that were 

held were done so to placate the public. 

It is FAA policy to hold, if at all 

practicable, informal airspace meetings 

to inform the affected users of planned 

airspace changes. The purpose of these 

informal meetings, which are mandated 

for Class B airspace actions, is to gather 

facts and information relevant to 

proposed airspace actions being 

considered or studied. The FAA 

recognizes the benefits associated with 

hosting informal airspace meetings and 

seeking input on airspace actions from 

the public; requiring notices of informal 

airspace meetings be sent to all known 

licensed pilots, state aviation agencies, 

airport managers/operators, and 

operators of parachute, sailplane, ultralight, and balloon clubs within a 100- 

mile radius of the primary airport for 

Class B airspace actions. The FAA is 

committed to providing all interested 

aviation-related organizations and 

persons the opportunity to participate in 

airspace regulatory actions under 

consideration; soliciting interested 

parties to provide verbal and/or written 

comments for consideration by the FAA 

as it seeks to balance the needs and 

requirements of all NAS users. Although 

official transcripts or minutes of 

informal airspace meetings are not taken 

or prepared, a meeting summary, listing 

attendees and a digest of the discussions 

held, must be recorded, considered, and 

retained. Further, written statements 

received from attendees during and after 

the informal airspace meetings must be 

considered and addressed in NPRM and 

final rule determinations, as well as 

retained in the administrative record of 

airspace actions taken by the FAA. 

Informal airspace meetings and the 

public’s opportunity to comment on 

airspace actions being considered by the 

FAA are not held simply to placate the 

public. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that the modification of the Class B 

airspace area is to contain the vector 

pattern for arriving aircraft when the 

charted instrument approach procedure 

is fully contained in the current Class B 

airspace area; suggesting that since 

controllers only need to use radar 

vectors in ‘‘certain situations,’’ it is the 

procedures, not the airspace, that 

require review. 

The FAA does not agree. Radar 

vectors are not used by air traffic 

controllers only under certain, limited 

situations; they are used to vector 

aircraft to intercept the final instrument 

approach procedure course for virtually 

every aircraft that lands at DTW. While 

it is true that the Class B must be 

designed to contain all instrument 

procedures within it, it must also 

contain the supported traffic patterns, 

and aircraft traffic flows for those 

instrument procedures. The Class B 

airspace area must allow for an orderly 

traffic management within the area. As 

noted previously, the requirements for 

simultaneous parallel instrument 

approach procedures, and the associated 

traffic flow and traffic patterns 

supporting the instrument procedures, 

collectively necessitate this proposed 

DTW Class B airspace area modification. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify 

the Detroit Class B airspace area. This 

action (depicted on the attached chart) 

proposes to lower the floor of Class B 

airspace in some portions of the existing 

Class B airspace; extend Class B 

airspace out to 30 NM to the north, east 

(designated Class C airspace in Canada), 

and south of DTW; and raise the ceiling 

of the entire Class B airspace area from 

8,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. 

These proposed modifications would 

provide the additional airspace needed 

to contain large turbine-powered aircraft 

conducting instrument procedures 

within the confines of Class B airspace, 

especially when dual and triple SILS 

approaches are utilized. Additionally, 

the proposed modifications would 

ensure efficient airspace utilization and 

enhance safety by better segregating the 

large turbine-powered IFR aircraft 

arriving/departing DTW and the VFR 

aircraft operating in the vicinity of the 

Detroit Class B airspace area. The 

current Detroit Class B airspace area 

consists of four subareas (A through D) 

while the proposed configuration would 

consist of nine subareas (A through I). 

The proposed revisions of the Detroit 

Class B airspace area are outlined 

below. 

Area A. Area A is the surface area that 

would extend from the ground upward 

to 10,000 feet MSL, centered on the 

Detroit VOR/DME antenna. The 

southern boundary would arc 

approximately 2.5 NM further south 

into the current Area B, lowering the 

existing floor of Class B airspace from 

2,500 feet MSL to the surface in that 

area. 

Area B. A revised Area B would 

include the airspace extending upward 

from 2,500 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. 

The new Area B boundary would 

incorporate two small segments of the 

current Area C; one located southeast of 

DTW and the other arcing 

counterclockwise from the east of DTW 

to the north of DTW. The new Area B 

would lower the existing floor of Class 

B airspace in those segments of the 

current Area C from 3,000 feet MSL to 

2,500 feet MSL. 

Area C. This area would continue to 

surround Areas A and B, and would 

include the airspace extending upward 

from 3,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. 

The revised Area C would expand to 

incorporate most of the current Area D 

located south of DTW and almost half 

of the current Area D located north of 

DTW, as well as include segments of 

airspace to the west, south, and 

southeast of DTW that is outside the 

current Detroit Class B airspace area. 

The new Area C would lower the floor 

of Class B airspace in the portions of the 

current Area D from 4,000 feet MSL to 

3,000 feet MSL and establish a floor of 

Class B airspace at 3,000 feet MSL in the 

airspace that falls outside of the current 

Class B airspace. 

Area D. Area D is redefined to include 

the airspace extending upward from 

3,500 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. The 

new Area D would include the portion 

of the current Area D south of Detroit 

that was not incorporated into the new 

Area C and a portion of airspace west 

of DTW that is outside the current Class 

B airspace area. The portion of airspace 

west of DTW, outside the current Class 

B airspace area, would also overlay the 

southeastern half of the Ann Arbor Class 

D airspace area ceiling. The revised 

Area D would lower the floor of Class 

B airspace in the portion of the current 

Area D from 4,000 feet MSL to 3,500 feet 

MSL and establish a floor of Class B 

airspace at 3,500 feet MSL in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 48487 

airspace that falls outside of the current 

Class B airspace. 

Area E. Area E would be a new 

subarea to describe that airspace 

extending upward from 3,500 feet MSL 

to 10,000 feet MSL. The new Area E 

would include the portion of the current 

Area D north of DTW that was not 

incorporated into the new Area C and 

two slivers of airspace, one north and 

one northeast of DTW, that is outside 

the current Class B airspace area 

currently. The new area would lower 

the floor of Class B airspace in the 

portion of the current Area D from 4,000 

feet MSL to 3,500 feet MSL and 

establish a floor of Class B airspace at 

3,500 feet MSL in the airspace that falls 

outside of the current Class B airspace. 

Area F. The proposed Area F would 

be a new subarea to describe that 

airspace extending upward from 4,000 

feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. This new 

area would be established outside the 

current Detroit Class B airspace area 

between the 20 NM and 25 NM arcs of 

the Detroit VOR/DME antenna from the 

SVM 044° radial (north of DTW), 

clockwise, to the SVM 214° radial 

(southwest of Detroit). The new area 

would also incorporate a small piece of 

the current Area C east of Detroit. The 

new Area F would raise the floor of 

Class B airspace for the portion of the 

current Area C incorporated from 3,000 

feet MSL to 4,000 feet MSL and 

establish a floor of Class B airspace at 

4,000 feet MSL in the airspace that falls 

outside of the current Class B airspace. 

Area G. The proposed Area G would 

be a new subarea to describe that 

airspace extending upward from 6,000 

feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. This new 

area would be established outside the 

current Detroit Class B airspace area, 

southwest of DTW, between the 25 NM 

and 30 NM arcs of the Detroit VOR/DME 

antenna. This area would abut to the 

new Area F and I (described below) and 

establish a floor of Class B airspace at 

6,000 feet MSL in airspace that falls 

outside of the current Class B airspace. 

Area H. The proposed Area H would 

also be a new subarea to describe that 

airspace extending upward from 6,000 

feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. The area 

would be established outside the 

current Class B airspace area, between 

the 25 NM and 30 NM arcs of the Detroit 

VOR/DME antenna from southeast of 

DTW, counterclockwise, to the Detroit 

VOR/DME 327° radial. This area would 

abut the new Areas C, E, F and I 

(described below) and establish a floor 

of Class B airspace at 6,000 feet MSL in 

airspace that falls outside of the current 

Class B airspace. 

Area I. The proposed Area I would be 

a new subarea to describe that airspace 

extending upward from 9,000 feet MSL 

to 10,000 feet MSL. This new area 

would be established south of DTW, 

outside the current Class B airspace 

area, from the 25 NM (approximately) 

and 30 NM arcs of the Detroit VOR/DME 

antenna between the new Areas G and 

H, and abutting the new Area F. This 

area would establish a floor of Class B 

airspace at 9,000 feet MSL in airspace 

that falls outside of the current Class B 

airspace. 

Finally, this proposed action would 

update the DTW airport reference point 

coordinates to reflect current NAS data, 

include in the Detroit Class B airspace 

area legal description header all airports 

and navigation aids, with geographic 

coordinates, used to describe the Detroit 

Class B airspace, and describe the 

Detroit Class B airspace area centered on 

the Detroit VOR/DME (DXO) antenna. 

Implementation of these proposed 

modifications to the Detroit Class B 

airspace area would enhance the 

efficient use of the airspace for the 

safety and management of aircraft 

operations in the Cleveland terminal 

area. 

Class B airspace areas are published 

in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order 

7400.9V, Airspace Designations and 

Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, 

and effective September A14, 2011, 

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: 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined that this proposed rule: 

(1) Imposes minimal incremental 

costs and provides benefits; 

(2) Is not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866; 

(3) Is not significant as defined in 

DOT’s Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures; 

(4) Would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities; 

(5) Would not have a significant effect 

on international trade; and 

(6) Would not impose an unfunded 

mandate on state, local, or tribal 

governments, or on the private sector by 

exceeding the monetary threshold 

identified. 

These analyses are summarized 

below. 

The Proposed Action 

This action proposes to modify the 

Detroit, MI, Class B airspace to contain 

aircraft conducting published 

instrument procedures at Detroit 

Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW), 

Detroit, MI, within Class B airspace. The 

FAA is taking this action to support all 

three existing Simultaneous Instrument 

Landing System (SILS) configurations 

today; runways 22/21, runways 4/3 and 

runways 27L/27R, as well as support 

containment for triple SILS operations 

planned for the future for runways 4L/ 

4R/3R and runways 21L/22L/22R. 

Benefits of the Proposed Action 

The benefits of this action are that it 

would enhance safety, improve the flow 

of air traffic, and reduce the potential 

for midair collisions in the DTW 

terminal area. In addition this action 

would support the FAA’s national 

airspace redesign goal of optimizing 

terminal and enroute airspace areas to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48488 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

reduce aircraft delays and improve 

system capacity. 

Costs of the Proposed Action 

Possible costs of this proposal would 

include the costs of general aviation 

aircraft that might have to fly further if 

this proposal were adopted. However, 

the FAA believes that any such costs 

would be minimal because the FAA 

designed the proposal to minimize the 

effect on aviation users who would not 

fly in the Class B airspace. In addition 

the FAA held a series of meetings to 

solicit comments from people who 

thought that they might be affected by 

the proposal. Wherever possible the 

FAA included the comments from these 

meetings in the proposal. 

Expected Outcome of the Proposal 

The expected outcome of the proposal 

would be a minimal impact with 

positive net benefits, therefore a 

regulatory evaluation was not prepared. 

The FAA requests comments with 

supporting justification about the FAA 

determination of minimal impact. 

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 objective of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the business, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle, 

the RFA requires agencies to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of 

small entities, including small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

and small governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a proposed or final 

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 Act. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a proposed or final rule is not expected 

to have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 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 proposal is expected to improve 

safety by redefining Class B airspace 

boundaries and is expected to impose 

only minimal costs. The expected 

outcome would be a minimal economic 

impact on small entities affected by this 

rulemaking action. 

Therefore, the FAA certifies that this 

proposed rule, if promulgated, would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. The FAA requests comments on 

this determination. Specifically, the 

FAA requests comments on whether the 

proposal 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 proposal. 

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 proposed rule and 

determined that it would encourage 

international cooperation between the 

United States and Canada because the 

proposal affects airspace in both these 

countries. 

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 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

1 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 

proposal does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore the requirements of 

Title II do not apply. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subject to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures,’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as 

follows: 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

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

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

1963 Comp., p.389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 9, 2011, and effective 

September A14, 2011, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 3000—Subpart B—Class B 

Airspace 

* * * * * 

AGL MI B Detroit, MI 

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, 

MI (Primary Airport) 

(Lat. 42°12′45′′ N., long. 83°21′12′′ W.) 

Detroit, Willow Run Airport, MI 

(Lat. 42°14′21′′ N., long. 83°31′51′′ W.) 

Ann Arbor Municipal Airport, MI 

(Lat. 42°13′23′′ N., long. 83°44′44′′ W.) 

Coleman A. Young Municipal Airport, MI 

(Lat. 42°24′33′′ N., long. 83°00′36′′ W.) 

Detroit (DXO) VOR-DME 

(Lat. 42°12′47′′ N., long. 83°22′00′′ W.) 

Salem (SVM) VORTAC 

(Lat. 42°24′32′′ N., long. 83°35′39′′ W.) 

Area A. That airspace extending upward 

from the surface to and including 10,000 feet 

MSL within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at lat. 42°17′18′′ N., long. 83°27′27′′ 

W.; thence northeast to lat. 42°20′47′′ N., 

long. 83°22′12′′ W. on the 8-mile arc of the 

Detroit (DXO) VOR-DME; thence clockwise 

along the 8-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME 

to intercept the 4.4-mile radius of the Detroit 

Willow Run Airport at lat. 42°09′57′′ N., long. 

83°32′04′′ W.; thence counterclockwise along 

the 4.4-mile radius of the Detroit Willow Run 

Airport to lat. 42°12′08′′ N., long. 83°26′44′′ 

W.; thence north to lat. 42°5′17′′ N., long. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 48489 

83°26′04′′ W. on the 4.4-mile radius of the 

Detroit Willow Run Airport; thence 

counterclockwise along the 4.4-mile radius of 

the Detroit Willow Run Airport to the point 

of beginning. 

Area B. That airspace extending upward 

from 2,500 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of the DXO 

VOR-DME 354°T/360°M radial and the 

Detroit, Willow Run Airport 047°T/054°M 

bearing; thence north along the DXO VORDME 354°T/360°M radial to intercept the 10- 

mile arc of the DXO VOR-;DME; thence 

clockwise along the 10-mile arc of the DXO 

VOR-DME to intercept the DXO VOR-DME 

234°T/240°M radial; thence northeast along 

the DXO VOR-DME 234°T/240°M radial to 

intercept the 8-mile arc of the DXO VORDME; thence counterclockwise along the 8- 

mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME arc to lat. 

42°20′47′′ N., long. 83°22′12′′ W.; thence 

southwest to the point of beginning. 

Area C. That airspace extending upward 

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

feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of the 5-mile arc 

of the SVM VORTAC and the 5-mile arc of 

the DXO VOR-DME at lat. 42°26′42′′ N., long. 

83°29′34′′ W.; thence clockwise along the 5- 

mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME to intercept 

the DXO VOR-DME 063°T/069°M radial; 

thence northeast along the DXO VOR-DME 

063°T/069°M radial to intercept the 4.1-mile 

radius of the Coleman A. Young Municipal 

Airport at lat. 42°20′30′′ N., long. 83°01′31′′ 

W.; thence counterclockwise along the 4.1- 

mile radius of the Coleman A. Young 

Municipal Airport to intercept the 20-mile 

arc of the DXO VOR-DME at lat. 42°21′09′′ N., 

long. 82°57′31′′ W.; thence clockwise along 

the DXO 20-DME arc to intercept the DXO 

VOR-DME 234°T/240°M radial; thence 

northeast along the DXO 234°T/240°M radial 

to intercept the 5-mile arc of the DXO VORDME; thence clockwise along the 5-mile arc 

of the DXO VOR-DME to intercept the 4.4- 

mile radius of the Ann Arbor Municipal 

Airport at lat. 42°09′36′′ N., long. 83°41′43′′ 

W.; thence counterclockwise around the 4.4- 

mile radius of the Ann Arbor Municipal 

Airport to intercept the SVM VORTAC 

214°T/217°M radial at lat. 42°17′21′′ N., long. 

83°42′10′′ W.; thence northeast along the 

SVM VORTAC 214°T/217°M radial to 

intercept the 5-mile arc of the SVM VORTAC 

at lat. 42°20′23′′ N., long. 83°39′25′′ W.; 

thence counterclockwise along the 5-mile arc 

of the SVM VORTAC to the point of 

beginning, excluding Areas A and B 

previously described. 

Area D. That airspace extending upward 

from 3,500 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of the SVM 

VORTAC 214°T/217°M radial and the 20- 

mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME; thence 

counterclockwise along the 20-mile arc of the 

DXO VOR-ME to intercept the DXO VORDME 234°T/240°M radial; thence northeast 

along the DXO VOR-DME 234°T/240°M 

radial to intercept the 5-mile arc of the DXO 

VOR-DME at lat. 42°03′57′′ N., long. 

83°38′18′′ W.; thence clockwise along the 5- 

mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME to intercept 

the 4.4-mile radius of the Ann Arbor 

Municipal Airport at lat. 42°9′36′′ N., long. 

83°41′43′′ W.; thence counterclockwise 

around the 4.4-mile radius of the Ann Arbor 

Municipal Airport to intercept the SVM 

VORTAC 214°T/217°M radial at lat. 

42°17′21′′ N., long. 83°42′10′′ W.; thence 

southwest the point of beginning. 

Area E. That airspace extending upward 

from 3,500 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of the 5-mile arc 

of the SVM VORTAC and the 5-mile arc of 

the DXO VOR-DME at lat. 42°26′42′′ N., long. 

83°29′34′′ W.; thence clockwise along the 5- 

mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME to intercept 

the DXO VOR-DME 063°T/069°M radial; 

thence northeast along the DXO VOR-DME 

063°T/069°M radial to intercept the 4.1-mile 

radius of the Coleman A. Young Municipal 

Airport at lat. 42°20′30′′ N., long. 83°01′31′′ 

W.; thence counterclockwise along the 4.1- 

mile radius of the Coleman A. Young 

Municipal Airport to intercept the 20-mile 

arc of the DXO VOR-DME at lat. 42°21′09′′ N., 

long. 82°57′31′′ W.; thence counterclockwise 

along the 20-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME 

to intercept the SVM VORTAC 044°T/047°M 

radial; thence southwest along the SVM 

VORTAC 044°T/047°M radial to intercept the 

5-mile arc of the SVM VORTAC at lat. 

42°28′08′′ N., long. 83°30′58′′ W.; thence 

clockwise along the 5-mile arc of the SVM 

VORTAC to the point of beginning. 

Area F. 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 SVM 

VORTAC 044°T/047°M radial and the 25- 

mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME; thence 

clockwise along the 25-mile arc of the DXO 

VOR-DME to lat. 41°48′32′′ N., long. 

83°13′49′′ W.; thence west to intercept the 25- 

mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME at lat. 

41°48′11′′ N., long. 83°28′00′′ W.; thence 

clockwise along the 25-mile arc of the DXO 

VOR-DME to intercept the SVM VORTAC 

214°T/217°M radial; thence northeast along 

the SVM VORTAC 214°T/217°M radial to 

intercept the 20-mile arc of the DXO VORDME at lat. 42°10′10′′ N., long. 83°48′40′′ W.; 

thence counterclockwise along the 20-mile 

arc of the DXO VOR-DME to intercept the 

SVM VORTAC 044°T/047°M radial; thence 

northeast 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 SVM 

VORTAC 214°T/217°M radial and the 25- 

mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME at lat. 

42°04′33′′ N., long. 83°53′44′′ W.; thence 

counterclockwise along the 25-mile arc of the 

DXO VOR-DME to lat. 41°48′11′′ N., long. 

83°28′00′′ W.; thence west to intercept the 30- 

mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME at lat. 

41°47′43′′ N., long. 83°44′08′′ W.; thence 

clockwise along the 30-mile arc of the DXO 

VOR-DME to lat. 41°51′00′′ N., long. 

83°49′42′′ W.; thence north 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 lat. 42°37′56′′ N., long. 83°44′08′′ 

W. on the DXO VOR-DME 327°T/333°M 

radial; thence clockwise along the 30-mile 

arc of the DXO VOR-DME to lat. 41°46′30′′ N., 

long. 83°02′36′′ W.; thence northwest to lat. 

41°48′44′′ N., long. 83°05′28′′ W.; thence west 

to intercept the 25-mile arc of the DXO VORDME at lat. 41°48′32′′ N., long. 83°13′49′′ W.; 

thence counterclockwise along the 25-mile 

arc of the DXO VOR-DME until intercepting 

the SVM VORTAC 044°T/047°M radial; 

thence southwest along the SVM VORTAC 

044°T/047°M radial until intercepting the 5- 

mile arc of the SVM VORTAC; thence 

clockwise along the 5-mile arc of the SVM 

VORTAC to intercept the DXO VOR-DME 

327°T/333°M radial at lat. 42°21′52′′ N., long. 

83°29′57′′ W.; thence northwest to the point 

of beginning. 

Area I. That airspace extending upward 

from 9,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at lat. 41°47′43′′ N., long. 83°44′08′′ 

W. on the 30-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME; 

thence counterclockwise along the 30-mile 

arc of the DXO VOR-DME to lat. 41°46′30′′ N., 

long. 83°02′36′′ W.; thence northwest to lat. 

41° 48′ 44′′ N., long. 83°05′28′′ W.; thence 

west to the point of beginning. 

Note: The Canadian airspace depicted in 

Areas C, F, and H above are included in the 

legal description for the Detroit Class B to 

accommodate charting. This accommodation 

reflects airspace established by Transport 

Canada to complete the Detroit Class B 

airspace area. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 8, 

2012. 

Gary A. Norek, 

Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC 

Procedures Group. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
48490 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP14AU12.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 157 / Tuesday, August 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 48491 

1See http://www.hl7.org for system description. 

2See http://www.cdisc.org for system description. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19902 Filed 8–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE C 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Chapter I 

[Docket No. FDA–2012–N–0780] 

Regulatory New Drug Review: 

Solutions for Study Data Exchange 

Standards; Notice of Meeting; Request 

for Comments 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS 

ACTION: Announcement of meeting, 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is announcing a 

meeting entitled ‘‘Regulatory New Drug 

Review: Solutions for Study Data 

Exchange Standards’’ the purpose of 

which is to solicit input from industry, 

technology vendors, and other members 

of the public regarding the advantages 

and disadvantages of current and 

emerging open, consensus-based 

standards for the exchange of regulated 

study data. FDA also seeks input from 

stakeholders and other members of the 

public on this topic and a set of 

premeeting questions discussed below. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

November 5, 2012, from 10 a.m. to 4 

p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New 

Hampshire Ave., Building 31 

Conference Center, the Great Room (rm. 

1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002. 

Entrance for the public meeting 

participants (non-FDA employees) is 

through Building 1 where routine 

security check procedures will be 

performed. For parking and security 

information, please refer to http:// 

www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ 

WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/ 

WhiteOakCampusInformation/ 

ucm241740.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Fitzmartin, Office of Planning & 

Informatics, Center for Drug Evaluation 

and Research, Food and Drug 

Administration, 10903 New Hampshire 

Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 1160, Silver Spring, 

MD 20993, 301–796–5333, FAX: 301– 

847–8443, email: 

CDERDataStandards@hhs.fda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments: Regardless of attendance 

at the public workshop, interested 

persons may submit either electronic or 

written comments regarding this 

document. Given that time will be 

limited at the public meeting, FDA 

encourages all interested persons to 

comment in writing to ensure that their 

comments are considered. The deadline 

for submitting responses regarding the 

premeeting questions is October 5, 2012. 

Submit electronic responses to the 

premeeting questions to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submit written 

comments to the Division of Dockets 

Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug 

Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 

1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify 

comments with the docket number 

found in brackets in the heading of this 

document. 

Registration: Registration is required 

in advance and participation will be 

limited. Send registration information 

(including name, title, firm name, 

country of citizenship, address, 

telephone and fax number, and email 

address) to Fatima Elnigoumi, Center for 

Drug Evaluation and Research, 10903 

New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 

1195, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301– 

796- 4863, email: 

CDERDataStandards@hhs.fda.gov. 

Registrations will be accepted in the 

order that they are received with a limit 

of 300. If you need special 

accommodations due to a disability, 

please contact Fatima Elnigoumi at least 

7 days in advance. 

I. Background 

The current study data exchange 

format supported by FDA is the ASCIIbased SAS Transport (XPORT) version 5 

file format. Although XPORT has been 

an exchange format for many years, it is 

not an extensible modern technology. 

Moreover, it is not supported and 

maintained by an open, consensusbased standards development 

organization. 

FDA would like to discuss the current 

and emerging open study data exchange 

standards that will support 

interoperability. Currently, the use of 

XPORT can be described as an example 

of the exchange of study data between 

two or more systems using a specified 

file format (e.g., XML, SQL, ASCII). 

However, the desired path forward is to 

achieve interoperability with other 

systems where the exchange of data 

between systems can be reviewed, 

analyzed, and reported with minimal 

need for data integration. 

Based on feedback from this meeting 

and other information, an evaluation of 

the cost-benefit of a migration to a new 

study data exchange standard—on both 

FDA and regulated industry—will be 

conducted to inform next steps, which 

will include an action plan. 

II. Premeeting Questions to 

Stakeholders 

FDA seeks input from stakeholders 

and other members of the public on the 

following premeeting questions: 

1. What are the most pressing 

challenges that industry faces with 

regard to study data management? 

Please address each of the following 

areas: (a) Study design/set-up, (b) 

capture, (c) integration, (d) analysis, (e) 

reporting, and (f) regulatory submission. 

What opportunities/solutions exist to 

meet each challenge? 

2. How could FDA’s regulatory 

requirements make the study data 

management process more efficient? 

3. What does industry need to make 

clinical trials data management more 

effective and efficient? Please describe 

the tools, techniques, and processes that 

would help as well as the regulatory 

guidance documents that would be 

useful in this area. 

4. What data standards are you 

currently using for the conduct of 

regulated research studies? 

5. Would Health Level Seven v3 1

(e.g., messages, structured documents 

and Clinical Data Architecture) be a 

viable study data exchange standard? 

Please explain advantages and 

disadvantages. What would be the 

impact (e.g., financial, technical, or in 

terms of implementation or change in 

business processes)? 

6. Would CDISC Operational Data 

Model 2 be a viable study data exchange 

standard? Please explain advantages and 

disadvantages. What would be the 

impact (e.g., financial, technical, or in 

terms of implementation or change in 

business processes)? 

7. Are there other open data exchange 

standards that should be evaluated? 

Please explain advantages and 

disadvantages. What would be the 

impact (e.g., financial, technical, or in 

terms of implementation or change in 

business processes)? 

8. What would be a reasonable phased 

implementation period for each 

recommended exchange standard? And 

should supporting multiple, concurrent 

study data exchange standards be 

evaluated (please explain advantages 

and disadvantages of this approach)? 

What can FDA do to help industry to be 

more prepared for, or reduce burden of, 

a migration to a new study data 

exchange standard? 

9. FDA encourages sponsors to design 

study data collection systems so that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS