This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

36907 

Vol. 77, No. 119 

Wednesday, June 20, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 73 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0117; Airspace 

Docket No. 09–AGL–31] 

Establishment of Restricted Areas 

R–5402, R–5403A, R–5403B, R–5403C, 

R–5403D, R–5403E, and R–5403F; 

Devils Lake, ND 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action establishes 

restricted area airspace within the 

Devils Lake Military Operations Area 

(MOA), overlying Camp Grafton Range, 

in the vicinity of Devils Lake, ND. The 

new restricted areas permit realistic 

training in modern tactics to be 

conducted at Camp Grafton Range while 

ensuring the safe and efficient use of the 

National Airspace System (NAS) in the 

Devils Lake, ND, area. Unlike restricted 

areas which are designated under Title 

14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

part 73, MOAs are not regulatory 

airspace. However, since the restricted 

areas overlap the Devils Lake East MOA, 

the FAA is including a description of 

the Devils Lake East MOA change in 

this rule. The MOA change described 

herein will be published in the National 

Flight Data Digest (NFDD). 

DATES: Effective Dates: Effective date 

0901 UTC, July 26, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations and 

ATC Procedures Group, Office of 

Airspace Services, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

History 

On November 28, 2011, the FAA 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

to establish Restricted Areas R–5402, 

R–5403A, R–5403B, R–5403C, R–5403D, 

R–5403E, and R–5403F in the vicinity of 

Devils Lake, ND (76 FR 72869). 

Interested parties were invited to 

participate in this rulemaking effort by 

submitting written comments on the 

proposal. In response to public request, 

the FAA extended the comment period 

for 30 additional days (77 FR 1656; 

January 11, 2012). There were 43 

comments received in response to the 

NPRM with 42 opposing various aspects 

of the proposal and one comment 

supporting the proposal as published. 

All comments received were considered 

before making a determination on this 

final rule. The following is a discussion 

of the substantive comments received 

and the agency’s response. 

Discussion of Comments 

One commenter contended that the 

500 feet above ground level (AGL) base 

for R–5402 would impact low level, 

aerial operations such as crop dusters, 

wildlife and agricultural surveys, and 

emergency medical access. The FAA 

recognizes that when active, R–5402 

would restrict nonparticipating aircraft 

from operating within its boundaries. To 

mitigate impacts to the aviation 

activities described above, the United 

States Air Force (USAF) has agreed to 

implement scheduling coordination 

measures to de-conflict laser operations 

and accommodate access by local 

farming, ranching, survey, and medical 

aviation interests when they need to fly 

in or through R–5402, when it is active. 

Another commenter noted that VFR 

traffic would have to circumnavigate 

active restricted airspace resulting in 

increased time and distances flown. The 

FAA acknowledges restricted area 

airspace segregates nonparticipating 

aircraft from hazardous activities 

occurring inside the restricted area and 

that, on occasion, nonparticipating 

aircraft affected by the restricted area 

will have to deviate from preferred 

routings to remain clear. The lateral 

boundaries and altitudes of the 

restricted area complex were defined to 

minimize impacts to nonparticipant 

aircraft, yet still support the military in 

accomplishing its training mission. The 

subdivided configuration of the 

restricted area complex, the altitude 

stratifications, and the entire restricted 

area complex designated as ‘‘joint use,’’ 

affords nonparticipant aircraft access to 

the portions of restricted area airspace 

not in use by the military to the greatest 

extent possible. 

One commenter expressed concern 

that segregating airspace for new types 

of aircraft sets a dangerous precedent. 

The FAA agrees and maintains its 

policy to establish restricted area 

airspace when determined necessary to 

confine or segregate activities 

considered hazardous to 

nonparticipating aircraft. The FAA 

considers UAS operations to be nonhazardous. However, the FAA 

recognizes that some UAS platforms 

have the ability to employ hazardous 

ordnance or sensors. Since the MQ–1 

Predator [UAS] laser is non-eye safe and 

will be used during training sorties 

flown by the military, its use constitutes 

a hazardous activity that must be 

confined within restricted area airspace 

to protect nonparticipating aircraft. 

Two commenters suggested that 

Special Use Airspace (SUA) should be 

ceded back to civil control when not in 

use. The FAA proposed that the 

restricted areas be designated as ‘‘joint 

use’’ airspace, specifically to afford the 

highest level of access to NAS users and 

limit this access only when necessary. 

This rule provides that when the 

restricted areas are not needed by the 

using agency, the airspace will be 

returned to the controlling agency, 

Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control 

Center, for access by other NAS users. 

Another commenter recommended 

that the proposed restricted area 

airspace be developed for concurrent 

use. The FAA considered the 

commenters use of ‘‘concurrent use’’ to 

mean ‘‘sharing the same airspace, at the 

same time, between participating and 

nonparticipating aircraft.’’ As noted 

previously, restricted areas are 

established to confine or segregate 

activities considered hazardous to 

nonparticipating aircraft; such as 

dropping bombs, firing guns/missiles/ 

rockets, or lasing with a non-eye safe 

laser. Concurrent use, as described 

above, would not be prudent in such an 

environment as it constitutes an 

unacceptable risk to nonparticipating 

aircraft. 

Twenty-two commenters stated that 

the proposed restricted areas should 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
36908 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

have been developed in conjunction 

with the North Dakota Airspace 

Integration Team (NDAIT), a group 

formed to find solutions to UAS 

integration into the NAS, as well as 

coordinate UAS activities state-wide. To 

clarify, the focus of this proposed action 

is consideration of establishing 

restricted areas to support hazardous 

military training activities, not UAS 

integration into the NAS. The FAA 

notes that the NDAIT was not 

established until after the USAF 

airspace proposal was submitted to the 

FAA and many of the NDAIT members 

took the opportunity to submit 

comments on the proposal. 

One commenter stated that the 

proposed airspace should be 

environmentally assessed for the broad 

array of military aircraft that would be 

expected to employ in conjunction with 

UAS. The FAA agrees and has 

confirmed that the Environmental 

Impact Statement for the bed down of 

the MQ–1 Predator at Grand Forks Air 

Force Base (AFB) addresses other 

aircraft that would likely train with the 

UAS in the proposed restricted area 

airspace complex. 

Another commenter stated that the 

proposed restricted area airspace would 

eventually be activated almost full time 

as is the current Temporary Flight 

Restriction (TFR) over Grand Forks 

AFB. The TFR referred to by the 

commenter is contained in the Special 

Security Instruction authorized under 

14 CFR 99.7 for Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) UAS operations 

conducted from Grand Forks AFB. 

Although the TFR is active while the 

CBP UAS is flying, it allows airspace 

access by non-participant aircraft using 

procedural separation rules. The 

restricted areas proposed by this action 

are being established with specific times 

of designation, to support the hazardous 

non-eye safe laser training conducted by 

the USAF. The times are described by 

‘‘core hours’’ and also may be activated 

by NOTAM to allow for training periods 

outside the core hours, i.e. at night. 

Twenty commenters argued that the 

proposal is contrary to FAA policy, in 

that it is designed for the sole purpose 

of separating non-hazardous types of 

VFR aircraft. The FAA has established 

this restricted area airspace to confine 

the MQ–1 Predator employment of a 

non-eye safe targeting laser, which is 

hazardous to nonparticipating pilots. 

This laser training for UAS pilots must 

be contained in restricted areas to 

confine the hazardous activity, as well 

as protect non-participating aircraft 

flying in the vicinity of the restricted 

areas. Even though the Predator 

operations in the restricted areas will 

normally occur in Visual Meteorological 

Conditions (VMC), the UAS will be on 

an IFR flight plan in accordance with 

U.S. Air Force requirements. 

Two commenters requested that the 

FAA establish a formal, annual review 

process and public report on the use 

and impacts of any designated airspace 

associated with UAS activity in Grand 

Forks, ND. The request to establish a 

formal annual review process with 

public reporting on use and impacts 

falls outside the scope of this proposed 

action. However, the FAA has a 

Restricted Area Annual Utilization 

reporting program already established to 

assist the FAA in managing special use 

airspace areas established throughout 

the NAS. These annual utilization 

reports provide objective information 

regarding the types of activities being 

conducted, as well as the times 

scheduled, activated, and actual use, 

which the FAA uses to assess the 

appropriate use of the restricted areas. 

Nineteen commenters recommended 

that proposed restricted airspace have a 

‘‘sunset’’ date. The restricted areas are 

established to confine hazardous noneye safe laser training, which will 

continue as long as the Predator UAS 

are operating from Grand Forks AFB. 

Technology developments to integrate 

UAS into the NAS with manned aircraft, 

as well as military Tactics, Techniques 

and Procedures (TTP) maturation may 

provide an opportunity to reconfigure 

the restricted area airspace at a future 

date, but the requirement for restricted 

area airspace will exist as long as the 

non-eye safe laser training is conducted. 

One commenter recommended a 

requirement for equipping the UAS with 

forward viewing sensors that would 

enable the UAS to comply with 14 CFR 

part 91 see-and-avoid rules. While the 

FAA is working with the industry to 

develop see-and-avoid solutions for the 

safe and eventual seamless integration 

of UAS into the NAS, this suggestion is 

outside the scope of this action. 

One commenter asked that the 

proposal be tabled until the FAA 

publishes its final Order/Advisory 

Circular regarding UAS operations in 

the NAS. The Order/Advisory Circular 

address the integration of UAS in the 

NAS, which is separate from the action 

of establishing restricted area airspace to 

confine hazardous non-eye safe laser 

training activities. This action is 

necessary to support the military’s 

training requirement beginning this 

summer. The FAA is completing this 

airspace action separate from its UAS 

NAS integration guidance development 

efforts. 

Several commenters recommended 

that instead of creating new SUA for 

these activities that the USAF use 

existing restricted areas or the airspace 

subject to flight restrictions under § 99.7 

SSI and used by the Customs & Border 

Protection Agency (CBP) at Grand Forks 

AFB. The FAA advocates the use of 

existing SUA and requires proponents 

to examine all reasonable alternatives, 

prior to considering the need to 

establish new SUA. In this case, the 

USAF conducted an extensive analysis 

of alternatives and considered criteria 

including proximity to Grand Forks 

AFB, existence of a suitable air-toground range for laser targeting, and air 

traffic density both en route and at the 

training complex. The Beaver MOA in 

north central Minnesota is 

approximately three times as far as the 

proposed airspace, has much heavier air 

traffic density, and has no air-to-ground 

gunnery range. The Tiger MOAs in 

north central North Dakota are the same 

distance as the proposed airspace, have 

favorable air traffic density, but have no 

air-to-ground gunnery range. The 

airspace in the vicinity of the existing 

CBP § 99.7 SSI flight restriction would 

be closer, but has much higher traffic 

density and complexity, and has no airto-ground range. Additionally, there 

were no useable restricted areas within 

reasonable distance of Grand Forks AFB 

for consideration. The FAA believes the 

USAF considered and analyzed the 

alternatives to this action and that 

establishing new SUA is the only 

reasonable option. 

One commenter suggested that the 

restricted area complex be moved north 

of Devils Lake. The FAA notes that the 

USAF studied an alternative of 

establishing restricted areas in the Tiger 

North and Tiger South MOAs, located 

north of Devils Lake, ND. While 

proximity to Grand Forks AFB and the 

air traffic density compared favorably to 

the proposed airspace area, the lack of 

an air-to-ground gunnery range suitable 

for hazardous laser training made this 

option operationally unfeasible. The 

FAA accepted the USAF’s consideration 

and analysis of this alternative and 

proposed establishing the restricted 

areas set forth in this action. 

One commenter recommended that 

the proposed airspace be moved to 

another state as it would impact flying 

training in the vicinity of Grand Forks. 

This airspace proposal resulted from 

Congress’ Base Realignment and Closure 

Commission of 2005 decision to retain 

Grand Forks Air Force Base in North 

Dakota for an emerging UAS mission. 

As addressed previously, Beaver MOA 

in north central Minnesota is the nearest 

SUA outside of North Dakota. It was 

approximately three times the distance 

from Grand Forks AFB, has much higher 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 36909 

air traffic density airspace, and has no 

air-to-ground gunnery range for 

hazardous laser training. The FAA 

recognizes the proposed restricted areas 

could impact civil flight training, largely 

conducted by the University of North 

Dakota and east of the proposed 

complex. Additionally, nearly all civil 

flight training activity that currently 

occurs in the vicinity of the restricted 

areas would take place below the 

proposed R–5403 footprint. Whereas the 

floor of R–5402 goes down to 500 feet 

above ground level (AGL), its cylinder 

footprint was reduced to a 7 NM radius 

around R–5401 and the Camp Grafton 

Range to mitigate impacts to these civil 

operations. This airspace action 

provides a reasonable balance between 

military training requirements and 

accommodation of non-participant flight 

training. 

Three commenters stated that the vast 

size of the restricted area complex is not 

necessary. The restricted areas being 

established by this action provide the 

minimum vertical and lateral tactical 

maneuvering airspace required for UAS 

operators to accomplish target 

acquisition prior to attack, and then 

contain the non-eye safe laser during 

firing. The restricted area complex was 

configured to confine two UAS 

operating on independent mission 

profiles at the same time, while 

minimizing airspace impacts to nonparticipating aircraft. As the UAS 

training flight transitions from one 

phase of the mission profiles to another, 

unused segments will be deactivated 

and returned to the NAS consistent with 

the FAA’s Joint Use Airspace policy. 

The subdivided and stratified 

configuration of the restricted area 

complex enables the USAF to only 

activate the restricted areas needed for 

their training sorties while leaving the 

rest of the complex inactive and 

available for NAS users. The FAA 

believes the segmentation and 

stratification of the complex will 

enhance civil access to those parts of the 

complex not activated for USAF training 

requirements. Actual procedures for 

restricted area activation and 

deactivation will be defined in a Letter 

of Procedure between the using and 

controlling agencies. 

Two commenters asked if the USAF 

could find a less cluttered area with 

more suitable weather for MQ–1 

Predator operations. The FAA 

acknowledges that weather challenges 

will exist for the MQ–1 Predator 

operations at Grand Forks AFB. The 

decision to base Predator UAS at Grand 

Forks AFB, however, was mandated by 

Congress. The restricted areas proposed 

by this action were situated and 

proposed in the only location that met 

the USAF’s operational requirements of 

proximity to launch/recovery base, low 

air traffic density, and availability of an 

existing air-to-ground gunnery range 

suitable for the hazardous non-eye safe 

laser training activities. 

One commenter contended that Alert 

Areas are more appropriate for UAS 

training activity. Alert Areas are 

designated to inform nonparticipating 

pilots of areas that contain a high 

volume of pilot training operations, or 

an unusual type of aeronautical activity, 

that they might not otherwise expect to 

encounter. However, only those 

activities that do not pose a hazard to 

other aircraft may be conducted in an 

Alert Area. Since employment of the 

non-eye safe laser carried by the MQ–1 

Predator UAS is an activity hazardous to 

non-participants, an Alert Area is not an 

appropriate airspace solution. 

Two commenters stated that the Air 

Force is proposing restricted areas as a 

means to mitigate for lack of see-andavoid capability for UAS operations. 

They noted, correctly, that the Air Force 

could use ground-based or airborne 

assets to provide see-and-avoid 

compliance instead. FAA policy dictates 

that restricted areas are established to 

confine activities considered hazardous 

to non-participating aircraft. As 

mentioned previously, the focus of this 

action is establishing restricted areas to 

support hazardous military training 

activities, not UAS integration into the 

NAS. As such, the FAA does not 

support establishing restricted areas as a 

solution to overcome UAS inability to 

comply with 14 CFR Part 91 see-andavoid requirements. The FAA is 

establishing the restricted areas 

addressed in this action to confine the 

hazardous non-eye safe laser training 

activities conducted by the USAF. 

One commenter stated that new 

restricted airspace should be offset by 

reallocation of unused SUA elsewhere 

in the NAS. The proposed restricted 

areas fall almost entirely within the 

existing Devils Lake East MOA. When 

activated, the new restricted areas will 

be, in effect, replacing existing SUA. 

Although the regulatory and nonregulatory process for establishing SUA 

is not directly linked to the restricted 

area and MOA annual utilization 

reporting process, the FAA does review 

restricted area and MOA utilization 

annually. If candidate SUA areas are 

identified, the FAA works with the 

military service to appropriately return 

that airspace to the NAS. 

Seventeen commenters stated that 

Predator pilots can get the same training 

through simulation. The FAA cannot 

determine for the USAF the value of 

simulated UAS operator training over 

actual flying activities. The USAF is 

heavily investing in Live, Virtual, and 

Constructive (LVC) training options. As 

the commenters infer, the migration to 

a virtual training environment would be 

expected to reduce the demand for 

activating R–5402 and R–5403A–F. 

However, actual employment of the 

non-eye safe laser will still be required 

for both training proficiency and 

equipment validation. This action 

balances the training airspace 

requirements identified by the USAF as 

it matures its UAS capabilities with the 

airspace access requirements of other 

NAS users. 

Twenty commenters addressed the 

increased collision hazard due to air 

traffic compression at lower altitudes 

and around the periphery of the 

proposed complex. The FAA recognizes 

that compression could occur when the 

restricted areas are active; however, the 

actual impact will be minimal. The FAA 

produced traffic counts for the 5 busiest 

summer days and 5 busiest winter days 

of 2011 during the proposed times of 

designation (0700–2200L) from 8,000 

feet MSL to 14,000 feet MSL. Totals for 

all IFR and known VFR aircraft ranged 

between 4 and 22 aircraft over the 17- 

hour span. Volumes such as this are 

easily managed by standard ATC 

procedures. To enhance non-radar 

service in the far western part of the 

proposed complex, the FAA is 

considering a separate rulemaking 

action to modify V–170 so that it will 

remain clear of R–5402 to the west. On 

average, four aircraft file V–170 over a 

24-hour day. Lastly, the FAA is nearing 

completion of a project to add three 

terminal radar feeds, from Bismarck, 

Fargo, and Minot AFB, covering the 

restricted area airspace area into 

Minneapolis ARTCC. These feeds will 

improve low altitude radar surveillance 

and enhance flight safety around the 

proposed restricted areas. 

One commenter argued that the 

proposed airspace should be limited to 

daylight hours only. While daytime 

flying is usually safer in a visual seeand-avoid environment; when it comes 

to the military training for combat 

operations, darkness provides a 

significant tactical advantage and UAS 

must be capable of operating both day 

and night. While the USAF has a valid 

and recurring requirement to train 

during hours of darkness, the USAF was 

able to accept a 2-hour reduction in the 

published times of designation core 

hours from ‘‘0700–2200 daily, by 

NOTAM 6 hours in advance,’’ to ‘‘0700– 

2000 daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in 

advance.’’ 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
36910 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Another commenter sought details on 

the UAS lost link plan. Although the 

lost link plan is not within the scope of 

this action, the FAA does require 

detailed procedures for UAS lost link 

situations for all UAS operations. These 

procedures will be similar to those in 

place today for UAS operations across 

the NAS. The servicing ATC facility and 

UAS operators closely coordinate lost 

link procedures and will incorporate 

them into the implementing Letters of 

Procedure (LOP) for the restricted areas 

established in this rule. 

Two commenters commented that the 

proposed restricted area complex 

stratification and segmentation was 

confusing and would lead to SUA 

airspace incursions. The FAA promotes 

stratifications and segmentation of large 

SUA complexes to maximize the safety 

and efficiency of the NAS and to enable 

more joint use opportunities to access 

the same airspace by non-participating 

aircraft. Sub-dividing the complex 

permits activation of a small percentage 

of the overall complex at any one time 

while still providing for a diverse set of 

training profiles during UAS sorties, 

which is especially well-suited for long 

duration UAS training missions. 

Additionally, enhanced joint use access 

eases compression of air traffic in the 

local area; thus, increasing flight safety. 

Nineteen commenters noted that UAS 

will not be able to see-and-avoid large 

flocks of birds using migratory flyways, 

which could create a hazard for 

personnel on the ground. Both Grand 

Forks AFB and the University of North 

Dakota flight school, located at the 

Grand Forks International Airport, have 

conducted extensive research into bird 

strike potential and prevention. Their 

research found that more than 90 

percent of bird strikes occur below 

3,500 feet AGL and that there are 

predictable windows for migratory bird 

activity, which are adjusted year-to-year 

based on historical and forecast weather 

patterns. Also, bird strikes are nearly 

twice as likely to occur at night 

compared to the day. The USAF has 

long standing bird strike avoidance 

procedures specifically customized for 

Grand Forks AFB, which will be 

optimized for UAS operations. Other 

mitigations include having the bases of 

the restricted airspace well above most 

bird activity, conducting most training 

during daylight hours, and adjusting 

UAS operations during seasonal 

migratory activity. These mitigations 

conform to both civil and military 

standard bird strike avoidance measures 

that are in place across the NAS. 

Eighteen commenters contended that 

persons and property under the 

proposed airspace would not be 

protected from the non-eye safe laser 

training. The USAF conducted a laser 

safety study in 2009 for the Camp 

Grafton Air-to-Ground Range. This 

range, where the laser targets will be 

placed, lies within the existing R–5401. 

The study examined laser and aircraft 

characteristics, topography, target 

composition, and employment 

parameters, and determined that the 

proposed airspace would adequately 

protect persons and property outside the 

footprint of R–5401. Personnel working 

at the range will use proper protective 

gear should they need to access the 

target areas during laser employment 

periods. The FAA has reviewed and 

accepts the USAF’s laser safety study. 

The restricted areas established by this 

action are designed to allow laser 

employment without hazard to persons 

and property in the vicinity of R–5401. 

Two commenters stated that it is 

dangerous to mix UAS with visual flight 

rules (VFR) air traffic. UAS are 

permitted to fly outside restricted area 

airspace in the NAS today and in the 

vicinity of VFR aircraft, under FAA 

approved Certificate of Waiver or 

Authorization (COA). Specific to this 

action, UAS operations will be 

occurring inside restricted area airspace 

that is established to confine the 

hazardous non-eye safe laser training 

activities; thus, segregated from 

nonparticipating aircraft. 

One commenter said that VFR pilot 

violations will increase and those less 

informed will pose a safety hazard. The 

FAA interpreted the commenters use 

‘‘violations’’ to mean SUA airspace 

incursions. VFR pilots must conduct 

thorough pre-flight planning and are 

encouraged to seek airborne updates 

from ATC on the status of SUA. The 

FAA finds that the restricted areas 

established by this action pose no more 

risk of incursion or safety hazard than 

other restricted areas that exist in the 

NAS. 

Two commenters observed that the 

NPRM failed to identify how UAS 

would transit from Grand Forks AFB to 

the proposed restricted areas. The FAA 

considers UAS transit and climb 

activities to be non-hazardous; 

therefore, establishing new restricted 

areas for transit and climb purposes is 

inappropriate. While UAS transit and 

climb activities are non-hazardous, they 

are presently atypical. Therefore, 

specifics on transit and climb ground 

tracks, corridor altitudes and widths, 

and activation procedures will be 

accomplished procedurally and 

consistent with existing COA mitigation 

alternatives available today. The 

establishment of restricted areas 

airspace is focused on the hazardous 

non-eye safe laser training activities. 

Twenty four commenters noted that 

the proposed restricted areas would 

block V–170 & V–55 and impact V–169 

& V–561. The FAA acknowledges that 

the proposed restricted area complex 

will have a minimal impact on three of 

the four Victor airways mentioned, 

depending on the restricted areas 

activated. The airway analysis began 

with V–170, which runs between Devils 

Lake, ND, and Jamestown, ND, with a 

Minimum En route Altitude (MEA) of 

3,500 feet MSL along the effected 

segment of the airway. An average of 

four aircraft per day filed for V–170. R– 

5402, when active, impacts V–170 from 

1200 feet AGL to 10,000 feet MSL. The 

FAA is considering a separate 

rulemaking action to modify V–170 by 

creating a slight ‘‘dogleg’’ to the west, 

which would allow unimpeded use of 

V–170 below 8,000 feet MSL regardless 

of the status of R–5402. Impacts to V– 

170 above 8,000 feet MSL are dependent 

upon which restricted areas are active. 

V–55 runs between Grand Forks, ND, 

and Bismarck, ND, with an MEA of 

8,000 feet MSL along the affected 

segment of the airway. An average of 7 

aircraft per day filed for V–55. 

Activation of R–5402, R–5403A, R– 

5403B, or R–5403C would have no 

impact on V–55. The FAA raised the 

floor of R–5403D to 10,000 feet MSL and 

reduced the blocks for R–5403D and R– 

5403E to 2,000 feet each to allow ATC 

more flexibility to climb/descend IFR 

traffic on V–55. The FAA is also 

considering establishing a Global 

Positioning Satellite MEA along the 

affected segment of V–55 to allow 

properly equipped non-participating 

aircraft to fly the V–55 ground track, but 

at a lower altitude. 

V–561 runs between Grand Forks, ND, 

and Jamestown, ND, with an MEA of 

4,000 feet MSL along this segment of the 

airway. An average of two aircraft per 

day filed for V–561. When activated, the 

southeast corner of R–5403D, R–5403E, 

and R–5403F encroach upon V–561 

from 10,000 feet MSL–11,999 feet MSL, 

12,000 feet MSL–13,999 feet MSL, or 

14,000 feet MSL–17,999 feet MSL, 

respectively. 

V–169 runs between Devils Lake, ND, 

and Bismarck, ND, with an MEA of 

3,500 feet MSL along this segment. The 

nearest point of any restricted area is 5 

nautical miles (NM) from the centerline 

of V–169. Since Victor airways are 4 NM 

wide; the restricted areas do not 

encumber the use of V–169. 

The FAA acknowledges potential 

impacts to users on Victor airways V– 

55, V–170, and V–651 by the restricted 

areas established in this action. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 36911 

However, based on the 13 total average 

daily flights filing for V–55, V–170, and 

V–651 in the same airspace as the 

proposed restricted area complex (V– 

169 is not affected by the proposed 

airspace), the impacts of the restricted 

areas on the three affected airways is 

considered minimal. These aircraft have 

air traffic control procedural alternatives 

available to include vectoring, altitude 

change, or re-routing as appropriate. 

Nineteen commenters found that 

transcontinental and local area flights 

would be forced to deviate around 

restricted areas, increasing cost and 

flight time. The FAA understands that 

when the restricted areas are active, 

non-participation aircraft will have to 

accomplish course deviations or altitude 

changes for avoidance, which can 

increase distances flown and costs 

incurred. For this action, the FAA and 

USAF worked together to define the 

minimum airspace volume necessary to 

meet USAF training mission 

requirements and maximize airspace 

access to other users of the NAS. 

Reducing the overall size and internally 

segmenting and stratifying the complex 

have reduced course deviation distances 

and altitude changes required by nonparticipants to avoid active restricted 

areas. Additionally, the USAF as agreed 

to temporarily release active restricted 

airspace back to ZMP for nonparticipant transit during non-routine/ 

contingency events (i.e. due to weather, 

icing, aircraft malfunction, etc.). Air 

traffic in this part of the NAS is 

relatively light and the level of impact 

associated with establishing the 

restricted areas in this action is 

considered minimal when balanced 

against valid military training 

requirements. 

Twenty-four comments were received 

stating that four hours prior notice is 

insufficient lead time for activation by 

NOTAM, with most recommending that 

the prior notification time be increased 

to six hours. The FAA recognizes that 

many aircraft today have flight 

durations long enough that flight 

planning before takeoff may occur 

outside of the 4-hour window. 

Restricted areas provide protected 

airspace for hazardous operations with 

no option to transit when active, so 

changes in airspace status after flight 

planning would have an impact on 

routing or altitude. These impacts could 

be reduced by increasing the NOTAM 

notification time; therefore the proposed 

time of designation for R–5402 and R– 

5403A–F is amended to ‘‘0700–2000 

daily, by NOTAM 6 hours in advance; 

other times by NOTAM.’’ 

One commenter stated that the SUA 

should be limited to published times of 

designation or times that can be 

obtained through an Automated Flight 

Service Station (AFSS) or ZMP. The 

times of designation for the restricted 

areas conforms to FAA policy and 

provides military users the operational 

flexibility to adjust for unpredictable, 

yet expected events, such as poor 

weather conditions or aircraft 

maintenance delays. By establishing the 

restricted areas with a ‘‘By NOTAM’’ 

provision for activations, the AFSS will 

receive scheduled activation times at 

least 6 hours in advance and can 

provide activation information when 

requested. Additionally, ZMP can 

provide the most current restricted areas 

status to airborne aircraft, workload 

permitting, as an additional service to 

any requesting IFR or VFR aircraft. 

Nineteen commenters contended that 

local and transient pilots would avoid 

the restricted areas regardless of the 

activation status. The FAA understands 

that some pilots may opt to avoid the 

vicinity of this proposed airspace 

complex; however, pilots have multiple 

ways to obtain SUA schedule 

information during preflight planning 

and while airborne to aid their 

situational awareness. Daily SUA 

schedules will be available on the 

sua.faa.gov Web site, NOTAMs will be 

issued at least 6 hours prior to activating 

the restricted areas, and AFSS will brief 

SUA NOTAMS upon request. Airborne 

updates will also be available through 

ZMP or AFSS. Lastly, the USAF will 

provide a toll-free phone number for 

inclusion on aeronautical charts that 

will enable NAS users to contact the 

scheduling agency for SUA status 

information; similar to what is in place 

for the Adirondack SUA complex in 

New York. 

Two commenters requested that the 

FAA chart an ATC frequency for 

updates on the restricted areas. The 

FAA has frequencies listed on both the 

L–14 IFR Enroute Low Altitude Chart 

and the Twin Cities Sectional 

Aeronautical Chart already. Upon 

review, the VHF frequency listed on the 

IFR Enroute Low Altitude Chart near 

where R–5402 and R–5403A–F 

restricted areas will be established was 

found to be different than the frequency 

listed on the Sectional Aeronautical 

Chart listing of SUA for the existing R– 

5401 (which R–5402 and R–5403A–F 

will overlay). The FAA is taking action 

to correct the discrepancy so that 

matching frequencies are charted. 

Seventeen commenters stated that the 

NOTAM system is generally inadequate 

to inform users of SUA status, and the 

number of components to this restricted 

airspace would lead to intricate and 

confusing NOTAMs. The restricted area 

complex is comprised of 7 individual 

areas and structured to minimize 

complexity and maximize 

nonparticipant access when not 

required for military use during certain 

phases of a training mission. The overall 

complex configuration, with seven sub 

areas, is a reasonable balance between 

efficiency, complexity, and military 

requirements. The NOTAM system is 

designed to disseminate many types of 

aeronautical information, including 

restricted area status when activation is 

‘‘By NOTAM’’ or outside published 

times of designation. Because of the ‘‘By 

NOTAM’’ provision in the legal 

description times of designation, 

activation NOTAMs for R–5402 and R– 

5403A–F will be included in verbal 

briefings from AFSS, upon pilot request. 

The Rule 

The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 73 

to expand the vertical and lateral limits 

of restricted area airspace over the Camp 

Grafton Range to contain hazardous 

non-eye safe laser training operations 

being conducted by the emerging UAS 

mission at Grand Forks Air Force Base 

(AFB); thus, transforming the range into 

a viable non-eye safe laser training 

location. Camp Grafton Range is 

currently surrounded by R–5401; 

however, the lateral boundaries and 

altitude are insufficient to contain the 

laser training mission profiles and 

tactics flown in combat operations 

today. This action supplements R–5401 

by establishing additional restricted 

areas, R–5402, R–5403A, R–5403B, R– 

5403C, R–5403D, R–5403E, and R– 

5403F, to provide the vertical and 

lateral tactical maneuver airspace 

needed for UAS target acquisition prior 

to attack, and to contain the non-eye 

safe laser during laser target designation 

training operations from medium to 

high altitudes. 

The restricted area R–5402 is defined 

by a 7 nautical mile (NM) radius around 

the center of R–5401, with the northern 

boundary adjusted to lie along the 

47°45′00′′ N latitude. The restricted area 

altitude is upward from 500 feet above 

ground level to, but not including 

10,000 feet MSL. This new restricted 

area provides a pathway for the non-eye 

safe laser beam to transit from R–5403A, 

R–5403B, and R–5403C (described 

below) through the existing R–5401 and 

onto Camp Grafton Range. 

The restricted areas R–5403A, R– 

5403B, and R–5403C share the same 

lateral boundaries, overlying R–5402 

and layered in ascending order. The 

northern boundary of these R–5403 

areas, as described in the regulatory 

text, share the same northern boundary 

as R–5402, the 47°45′00′′ N latitude. The 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
36912 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

western boundary lies approximately 14 

NM west of R–5402 along the 99°15′00′′ 

W longitude and the eastern boundary 

lies approximately 7 NM east of R–5402 

along the 98°15′00′′ W longitude. 

Finally, the southern boundary is 

established to remain north of the 

protected airspace for V–55. The 

restricted area altitudes, in ascending 

order, are defined upward from 8,000 

feet MSL to, but not including 10,000 

feet MSL for R–5403A; upward from 

10,000 feet MSL to, but not including 

14,000 feet MSL for R–5403B; and 

upward from 14,000 feet MSL to, but 

not including Flight Level (FL) 180 for 

R–5403C. The additional lateral and 

vertical dimensions provided by these 

restricted areas, in conjunction with R– 

5401, R–5402, R–5403D, R–5403E, R– 

5403F, establish the maneuvering 

airspace needed for UAS aircraft to 

practice the tactical maneuvering and 

standoff target acquisition training 

requirements necessary for the combat 

tactics and mission profiles flown today 

and to contain the hazardous non-eye 

safe laser, when employed, completely 

within restricted airspace. 

The areas R–5403D, R–5403E, and R– 

5403F also share the same lateral 

boundaries, adjacent to and southeast of 

R–5403A, R–5403B, and R–5403C, and 

are also layered in ascending order. The 

northern boundary of these R–5403 

areas, as described in the regulatory 

text, shares the southern boundary of R– 

5403A, R–5403B, and R–5403C. The 

western boundary point reaches to the 

99°15′00′′ W longitude and the eastern 

boundary lies along the 98°15′00′′ W 

longitude. Finally, the southern 

boundary is established to lie along the 

47°15′00′′ N latitude. The restricted area 

altitudes, in ascending order, are 

defined upward from 10,000 feet MSL 

to, but not including 12,000 feet MSL 

for R–5403D; upward from 12,000 feet 

MSL to, but not including 14,000 feet 

MSL for R–5403E; and upward from 

14,000 feet MSL to, but not including 

Flight Level (FL) 180 for R–5403F. The 

additional lateral and vertical 

dimensions provided by these restricted 

areas, in conjunction with R–5401, R– 

5402, R–5403A, R–5403B, R–5403C, and 

the Camp Grafton Range, establish the 

maneuvering airspace, standoff target 

acquisition, and hazardous non-eye safe 

laser employment training completely 

within restricted airspace, as noted 

above. 

During the NPRM public comment 

period, it was realized that the proposal 

section of the NPRM preamble 

described the southern boundary for the 

proposed R–5403D, R–5403E, and R– 

5403F to lay along the 47°30′00′′ N 

latitude, in error. However, the 

regulatory text in the NPRM correctly 

described the southern boundary for 

these proposed restricted areas to lie 

along the 47°15′00′′ N latitude. This 

action confirms the southern boundary 

for R–5403D, R–5403E, and R–5403F is 

along the 47°15′00′′ N latitude. 

Restricted areas R–5402, R–5403A, R– 

5403B, R–5403C, R–5403D, R–5403E, 

and R–5403F are all designated as 

‘‘joint-use’’ airspace. This means that, 

during periods when any of the 

restricted airspace areas are not needed 

by the using agency for its designated 

purposes, the airspace will be returned 

to the controlling agency for access by 

other NAS users. The Minneapolis Air 

Route Traffic Control Center is the 

controlling agency for the restricted 

areas. 

Lastly, to prevent confusion and 

conflict by establishing the new 

restricted areas in an existing MOA, and 

having both SUA areas active in the 

same volume of airspace at the same 

time, the Devils Lake East MOA legal 

description is being amended in the 

NFDD. The Devils Lake East MOA 

amendment will exclude R–5401, R– 

5402, R–5403A, R–5403B, R–5403C, R– 

5403D, R–5403E, and R–5403F when 

the restricted areas are active. The intent 

is to exclude the restricted areas in 

Devils Lake East MOA individually as 

they are activated. This MOA 

amendment will prevent airspace 

conflict with overlapping special use 

airspace areas. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

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

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, the Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. 

Department of Transportation Order 

DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and 

procedures for simplification, analysis, 

and review of regulations. If the 

expected cost impact is so minimal that 

a proposed or final rule does not 

warrant a full evaluation, this order 

permits that a statement to that effect 

and the basis for it to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this final rule. The reasoning for this 

determination follows: 

As presented in the discussion of 

comments section of this preamble, 

commenters stated that there could be 

the following potential adverse 

economic impacts from implementing 

this final rule: the rule will block V–170 

and V–55 and limit the use of V–169 

and V–561; VFR and local area flights 

will be forced to deviate around 

restricted areas, increasing cost and 

flight time; and the 500 feet AGL floor 

for R–5402 will affect low level aerial 

operations such as crop dusters, wildlife 

and agricultural surveys, and emergency 

medical access. 

With respect to the first potential 

impact, as discussed in the preamble, 

the FAA acknowledges that users of 

Victor airways V–55, V–170, and V–561 

could be potentially affected when the 

restricted areas established in this 

action are active; however users of V– 

169 will not be affected at all. Users of 

V–170 from 1200 feet AGL to 8,000 feet 

MSL would be affected only when R– 

5402 is active. The FAA’s has 

determined that there is an average of 4 

flights per day between Devils Lake, ND, 

and Jamestown, ND. Of these flights, 90 

percent are general aviation flights 

(many of them University of North 

Dakota training flights) and 10 percent 

are military or air taxi flights. The 

potential effect on users of V–170 could 

be offset by several actions. One action 

would be to modify V–170 by creating 

a slight ‘‘dogleg’’ further west of R–5402 

to allow unimpeded use of V–170 below 

8,000 feet MSL regardless of the status 

of R–5402. The FAA estimates that this 

‘‘dogleg’’ would add about 5 miles to the 

length of the flight between Devils Lake 

and Jamestown. Another action would 

be for air traffic control to either vector 

the aircraft west of R–5402 or climb the 

aircraft to 8,000 feet MSL to avoid R– 

5402. V–170 above 8,000 feet MSL, V– 

55, and V–561 can still be used by the 

public, even during military training 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 36913 

operations, if the nonparticipant aircraft 

flies at a different altitude than the 

altitudes the military is using at that 

time. The FAA has determined that 

these adjustments will result in minimal 

cost to the affected operators. 

With respect to the second potential 

impact, with the exception of R–5402, 

the public will not be required to 

deviate around the restricted areas, even 

during military operations, as long as 

the nonparticipating aircraft flies at an 

altitude above or below the altitudes 

that the military is using at that time. 

The FAA has determined that these 

altitude adjustments will have a 

minimal effect on cost. 

With respect to the third potential 

impact, the USAF has agreed to 

implement scheduling coordination 

measures for R–5402 that will 

accommodate access by local farming, 

ranching, survey, and medical aviation 

interests. Further, when any of the 

restricted areas are not needed by the 

USAF for its intended purposes, the 

airspace will be returned to the 

controlling agency, Minneapolis Air 

Route Traffic Control Center, for access 

by other NAS users; providing 

considerable time for these interests to 

perform most of their aviation activities 

in a timely manner. The FAA has 

determined that these potential 

disruptions in public aviation will have 

a minimal effect on cost. 

The FAA has, therefore, determined 

that this final rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

The FAA received two comments 

from small business owners and a 

comment from the North Dakota 

Agricultural Aviation Association 

(NDAAA), representing agricultural 

aviation operators. The comments from 

the business owners expressed concerns 

about the availability of airspace and 

that they would be diverted from their 

normal flight plans, thereby increasing 

their costs. As previously stated in this 

preamble, however, these routes will 

not be closed even during military 

operations—they can be flown by 

nonparticipant aircraft so long as those 

aircraft are not at the altitudes being 

used by the military. The NDAAA 

comment that agricultural aircraft are 

frequently ferried at altitudes greater 

than 500 feet applies only to those 

aircraft in R–5402—not in any of the 

other areas. As previously noted, the 

agreement with the USAF and the fact 

that there are no restrictions in R–5402 

when it is not being used by the military 

will minimize the potential economic 

impact to agricultural aviation 

operations in this airspace. 

While the FAA believes that one air 

taxi operator, a few small business 

operators, and a few agricultural 

aviation operators constitute a 

substantial number of small entities, 

based on the previous analysis, the FAA 

determined that the final rule will have 

a minimal economic impact. 

Therefore, as the acting FAA 

Administrator, I certify that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule and 

determined that it will have only a 

domestic impact and therefore no effect 

on international trade. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such a 

mandate; therefore, the requirements of 

Title II of the Act do not apply. 

Environmental Review 

Pursuant to Section 102(2) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations implementing NEPA (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508), and other 

applicable law, the USAF prepared and 

published The BRAC Beddown and 

Flight Operations of Remotely Piloted 

Aircraft at Grand Forks Air Force Base, 

North Dakota’’ dated July 2010 

(hereinafter the FEIS) that analyzed the 

potential for environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed creation of 

Restricted Areas R–5402, R–5403A, R– 

5403B, R–5403C, R–5403D, R–5403E, 

and R–5403F. In September 2010, the 

USAF issued a Record of Decision based 

on the results of the FEIS. In accordance 

with applicable CEQ regulations (40 

CFR 1501.6) and the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) between FAA 

and Department of Defense (DOD) dated 

October 2005, the FAA was a 

cooperating agency on the FEIS. The 

FAA has conducted an independent 

review of the FEIS and found that it is 

an adequate statement. Pursuant to 40 

CFR 1506.3(a) and (c), the FAA is 

adopting the portions of the FEIS for 

this action that support the 

establishment of the above named 

restricted areas. The FAA has 

documented its partial adoption in a 

separate document entitled ‘‘Partial 

Adoption of Final EIS and Record of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
36914 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 119 / Wednesday, June 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Decision for the Establishment of 

Restricted Areas R–5402 and 5403.’’ 

This final rule, which establishes 

restricted areas R–5402, R–5403A, R– 

5403B, R–5403C, R–5403D, R–5403E, 

and R–5403F, will not result in 

significant environmental impacts. A 

copy of the FAA Partial Adoption of 

FEIS and ROD has been placed in the 

public docket for this rulemaking and is 

incorporated by reference. 

FAA Authority 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 

Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 

40103. Under that section, the FAA is 

charged with prescribing regulations to 

assign the use of the airspace necessary 

to ensure the safety of aircraft and the 

efficient use of airspace. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority as 

it establishes restricted area airspace at 

Camp Grafton Range, near Devils Lake, 

ND, to enhance safety and accommodate 

essential military training. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 

Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted 

areas. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 

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. 

§ 73.54 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.54 is amended as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

R–5402 Devils Lake, ND [New] 

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°45′00′′ N., 

long. 98°47′19′′ W.; to lat. 47°45′00′′ N., long. 

98°31′25′′ W.; then clockwise on a 7 NM arc 

centered on lat. 47°40′31′′ N., long. 98°39′22′′ 

W.; to the point of beginning, excluding the 

airspace within R–5401 when active, and R– 

5403A when active. 

Designated altitudes. 500 feet AGL to, but 

not including, 10,000 feet MSL. 

Time of designation. 0700–2000 daily, by 

NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by 

NOTAM. 

Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis 

ARTCC. 

Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th 

Operations Support Squadron, Hector 

International Airport, Fargo, ND. 

* * * * * 

R–5403A Devils Lake, ND [New] 

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°45′00′′ N., 

long. 99°15′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°45′00′′ N., long. 

98°15′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°35′39′′ N., long. 

98°15′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°15′00′′ N., long. 

99°15′00′′ W.; to the point of beginning. 

Designated altitudes. 8,000 feet MSL to, but 

not including, 10,000 feet MSL. 

Time of designation. 0700–2000 daily, by 

NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by 

NOTAM. 

Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis 

ARTCC. 

Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th 

Operations Support Squadron, Hector 

International Airport, Fargo, ND. 

R–5403B Devils Lake, ND [New] 

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°45′00′′ N., 

long. 99°15′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°45′00′′ N., long. 

98°15′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°35′39′′ N., long. 

98°15′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°15′00′′ N., long. 

99°15′00′′ W.; to the point of beginning. 

Designated altitudes. 10,000 feet MSL to, 

but not including, 14,000 feet MSL. 

Time of designation. 0700–2000 daily, by 

NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by 

NOTAM. 

Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis 

ARTCC. 

Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th 

Operations Support Squadron, Hector 

International Airport, Fargo, ND. 

R–5403C Devils Lake, ND [New] 

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°45′00′′ N., 

long. 99°15′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°45′00′′ N., long. 

98°15′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°35′39′′ N., long. 

98°15′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°15′00′′ N., long. 

99°15′00′′ W.; to the point of beginning. 

Designated altitudes. 14,000 feet MSL to, 

but not including, FL 180. 

Time of designation. 0700–2000 daily, by 

NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by 

NOTAM. 

Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis 

ARTCC. 

Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th 

Operations Support Squadron, Hector 

International Airport, Fargo, ND. 

R–5403D Devils Lake, ND [New] 

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°35′39′′ N., 

long. 98°15′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°15′00′′ N., long. 

98°15′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°15′00′′ N., long. 

99°15′00′′ W.; to the point of beginning. 

Designated altitudes. 10,000 feet MSL to, 

but not including, 12,000 feet MSL. 

Time of designation. 0700–2000 daily, by 

NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by 

NOTAM. 

Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis 

ARTCC. 

Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th 

Operations Support Squadron, Hector 

International Airport, Fargo, ND. 

R–5403E Devils Lake, ND [New] 

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°35′39′′ N., 

long. 98°15′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°15′00′′ N., long. 

98°15′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°15′00′′ N., long. 

99°15′00′′ W.; to the point of beginning. 

Designated altitudes. 12,000 feet MSL to, 

but not including, 14,000 feet MSL. 

Time of designation. 0700–2000 daily, by 

NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by 

NOTAM. 

Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis 

ARTCC. 

Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th 

Operations Support Squadron, Hector 

International Airport, Fargo, ND. 

R–5403F Devils Lake, ND [New] 

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 47°35′39′′ N., 

long. 98°15′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°15′00′′ N., long. 

98°15′00′′ W.; to lat. 47°15′00′′ N., long. 

99°15′00′′ W.; to the point of beginning. 

Designated altitudes. 14,000 feet MSL to, 

but not including, FL 180. 

Time of designation. 0700–2000 daily, by 

NOTAM 6 hours in advance; other times by 

NOTAM. 

Controlling agency. FAA, Minneapolis 

ARTCC. 

Using agency. U.S. Air Force, 119th 

Operations Support Squadron, Hector 

International Airport, Fargo, ND. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 14, 

2012. 

Paul Gallant, 

Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and 

ATC Procedures Group. 

[FR Doc. 2012–15008 Filed 6–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Parts 1 and 602 

[TD 9594] 

RIN 1545–BI31 

Modification to Consolidated Return 

Regulation Permitting an Election To 

Treat a Liquidation of a Target, 

Followed by a Recontribution to a New 

Target, as a Cross-Chain 

Reorganization 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Final regulations and removal of 

temporary regulations. 

SUMMARY: This document contains final 

regulations under section 1502 of the 

Internal Revenue Code (Code). These 

final regulations modify the election 

under which a consolidated group can 

avoid immediately taking into account 

an intercompany item after the 

liquidation of a target corporation. 

These regulations apply to corporations 

filing consolidated income tax returns. 

DATES: Effective Date: These regulations 

are effective on June 20, 2012. 

Applicability Date: The changes 

reflected in these final regulations 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES