Document ID: FAA-2012-1296-0001
Agency: faa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Class B Airspace; Modifications: Minneapolis, MN
Posted Date: 2013-02-14T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10564-10572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03465]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1296; Airspace Docket No. 09-AWA-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Modification of Class B Airspace; Minneapolis, MN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Minneapolis, MN, Class B 
airspace area to contain large turbine-powered aircraft conducting 
published instrument procedures at the Minneapolis-St. Paul 
International Airport (MSP), MN, within Class B airspace. The FAA is 
proposing this action to ensure containment of aircraft being vectored 
to and conducting Simultaneous Instrument Landing System (SILS) 
approaches to parallel Runways 12L/R and 30L/R, aircraft being vectored 
to and conducting approaches to Runway 35, and aircraft being re-
sequenced from approaches to Runway 35 to approaches to Runway 30L. 
This action would further support the FAA's national airspace redesign 
goal of optimizing terminal and en route airspace areas to enhance 
safety, improving the flow of air traffic, and reducing the potential 
for near midair collision in the terminal area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; 
telephone: (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-
1296 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWA-1 at the beginning of your 
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy and ATC 
Procedures, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 
telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed 
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they 
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the 
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing 
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are 
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. 
FAA-2012-1296 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWA-1) and be submitted in 
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for 
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the 
internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments 
to Docket Nos. FAA-2012-1296 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWA-1.'' The 
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date 
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed 
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of 
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for 
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date 
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with 
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the 
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any 
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets 
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal 
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, Operations 
Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort 
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future 
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, 
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application 
procedure.

Background

    In 1974, the FAA issued a final rule which established the 
Minneapolis, MN, Terminal Control Area (TCA) (38 FR 34991). As a result 
of the Airspace Reclassification final rule (56 FR 65638), which became 
effective in 1993, the terms ``terminal control area'' and ``airport 
radar service area'' were replaced by ``Class B airspace area,'' and 
``Class C airspace area,'' respectively. The primary purpose of a Class 
B airspace area is to reduce the potential for midair collisions in the 
airspace surrounding airports with high density

[[Page 10565]]

air traffic operations by providing an area in which all aircraft are 
subject to certain operating rules and equipment requirements. FAA 
directives require Class B airspace areas be designed to contain all 
instrument procedures, and that air traffic controllers vector aircraft 
as appropriate to remain within Class B airspace after entry.
    The Minneapolis Class B airspace area has only been amended once, 
in 2006, since being established to address the significant growth in 
aircraft operations and the construction of Runway 17/35 to accommodate 
the increased operations at that time. That amendment action modified 
the Class B airspace to (1) accommodate aircraft conducting SILS 
approaches to parallel Runways 12L/R and 30L/R, and (2) provide 
protection for aircraft conducting instrument approaches to MSP's new 
Runway 35.
    Since the 2006 Minneapolis Class B airspace amendment action, 
changes to MSP vector patterns (traffic flows) and aircraft descent 
profiles, and the realization of a miscalculated Class B airspace 
boundary configuration have resulted in unanticipated and unintended 
Class B airspace exits. There are two areas in the existing Minneapolis 
Class B airspace extensions located northwest and southeast of MSP 
where aircraft on south downwind flight paths to MSP Runways 12R and 
30L operate on, or in close proximity to, the existing Class B airspace 
boundaries. These downwind ``legs'' must be far enough away from the 
associated final approach course (FAC) to ensure that aircraft have 
enough airspace to execute a standard rate turn from the downwind leg 
to a point at which they are established on a 30[deg] FAC intercept 
heading. This 30[deg] intercept heading must be achieved at least three 
miles from the FAC. On the north side of the final approach areas (for 
Runways 12L and 30R), the downwind legs are more than 1.5 nautical 
miles (NM) from the Class B airspace boundary; however, on the south 
side of the final approach areas (for Runways 12R and 30L), the 
downwind legs are less than 0.65 NM from the Class B airspace boundary. 
The southern boundaries of the existing Class B airspace extensions 
located northwest and southeast of MSP require a one NM expansion 
further south, at a minimum, to ensure large turbine-powered aircraft 
flying the downwind legs of the southern traffic patterns supporting 
Runways 12R and 30L instrument procedures are safely contained within 
Class B airspace.
    Also, there are three areas of the Minneapolis Class B airspace 
where arriving aircraft ``drop'' beneath the floor of Class B airspace 
while descending for sequencing to closely-spaced, adjacent approaches 
at MSP. Since 2006, the fleet mix of aircraft operating at MSP has 
shifted from mostly rapidly descending DC-9s and B727s, to A320s, 
B757s, and other turbojet aircraft with more ``efficient wings'' that 
require a longer time to descend. As a result, the distance at which 
these slower descending aircraft must start a descent is located 
farther from MSP because the points at which air traffic control (ATC) 
must ensure the arriving aircraft reach 4,000 feet or 5,000 feet mean 
sea level (MSL), in order to commence the various instrument approach 
procedures, has not changed. This requirement to descend arriving large 
turbine-powered aircraft earlier often results in aircraft exiting the 
floor of existing Class B airspace.
    Finally, a portion of the Runway 35 FAC, extended, is not contained 
entirely within the existing Class B airspace. Between 20 NM and 25 NM 
from the Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold-Chamberlain) Airport 
DME Antenna (I-MSP DME), the Runway 35 FAC is outside the boundary of 
existing Class B airspace; whereas, between 25 NM and 30 NM from the I-
MSP DME, the Runway 35 FAC is inside the boundary of existing Class B 
airspace. As a result, aircraft turned on to the Runway 35 FAC, 
extended, at 6,000 feet MSL will be within Class B airspace between 25 
NM and 30 NM from the I-MSP DME, but will be outside Class B airspace, 
beneath the existing 7,000-foot Class B airspace floor in that area 
between 20 NM and 25 NM from the I-MSP DME. Similarly, aircraft that 
are initially positioned for an approach to Runway 35, but then re-
sequenced to Runway 30L, are also at risk of exiting the Class B 
airspace area. In this case, the typical flight path for aircraft being 
re-sequenced from Runway 35 to Runway 30L passes under the existing 
Class B airspace where, currently, the floor of the existing Class B 
airspace subarea is 7,000 feet MSL.
    The proposed Minneapolis Class B airspace modifications described 
in this NPRM are intended to address these issues. For calendar year 
2011, MSP ranked number 12 in the list of the ``50 Busiest FAA Airport 
Traffic Control Towers,'' with over 435,000 total airport operations. 
Additionally, the calendar year 2011 passenger enplanement data ranked 
MSP as number 16 among Commercial Service Airports, with 15,895,653 
passenger enplanements (an increase of 2.47% from the previous year).

Pre-NPRM Public Input

    An Ad Hoc Committee, formed in 2010, reviewed the Minneapolis Class 
B airspace and provided recommendations to the FAA about the proposed 
design. The Ad Hoc Committee was chaired by the Minnesota Soaring Club 
representative with participants representing aviation interests in the 
greater Twin Cities area including representatives of air carrier, 
seaplane, ultralight, parachute, aerobatic, sailplane, experimental 
aircraft, and general aviation interests. The Ad Hoc Committee met 
three times; May 15, 2010; June 15, 2010; and July 13, 2010.
    In addition, as announced in the Federal Register of January 5, 
2011 (76 FR 489), four fact-finding informal airspace meetings were 
held; the first on March 18, 2011, at the Metropolitan Airports 
Commission in Minneapolis, MN; the second on March 19, 2011, at the In 
Flight Pilot Training, LLC., in Eden Prairie, MN; the third on March 
21, 2011, at the Minnesota Army National Guard, Aviation Facility, in 
St. Paul, MN; and the fourth on March 22, 2011, at the Metropolitan 
Airports Commission in Minneapolis, MN. These meetings provided 
interested airspace users with an opportunity to present their views 
and offer suggestions regarding the planned modifications to the 
Minneapolis Class B airspace area.
    The navigation aid radial information contained in the Ad Hoc 
Committee recommendations, the informal airspace meeting comments, and 
the proposal discussions that follow is presented relative to Magnetic 
North for ease of understanding. However, the navigation aid radial 
information contained in the regulatory text legal description is 
presented relative to both True North and Magnetic North.
    All substantive airspace recommendations made by the Ad Hoc 
Committee and public comments received as a result of the informal 
airspace meetings were considered in developing this proposal.

Discussion of Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations

    The FAA prepared a preliminary design of the proposed Minneapolis 
Class B airspace modifications to illustrate the need for change and to 
serve as a basis for the Ad Hoc Committee's review. In general, the 
preliminary design featured a proposal to expand the southern 
boundaries of the existing Class B airspace extensions located 
northwest and southeast of MSP by approximately one NM to the south; 
lower the floor of portions of existing

[[Page 10566]]

Class B airspace abeam both sides of the existing Class B airspace 
extensions by 1,000 feet MSL; combine the existing Class B airspace 
subareas located south and southeast of MSP into one subarea, and; 
expand the boundary of existing Class B airspace south of MSP from the 
Gopher VHF omnidirectional range (VOR)/tactical air navigation (VORTAC) 
antenna (GEP) 160[deg] radial to the GEP 157[deg] radial.
    The Ad Hoc Committee reported that most of the proposed Minneapolis 
Class B airspace area changes had little or no impact on the aviation 
community represented by the Ad Hoc Committee; however, they felt that 
the proposed modifications near the Stanton Airfield (SYN) would impact 
the Minnesota Soaring Club and Stanton Sport Aviation operations. The 
Ad Hoc Committee's report provided to the FAA contained six 
recommendations for consideration regarding the FAA's proposed 
modification of the Minneapolis Class B airspace area.
    The Ad Hoc Committee recommended limiting the expansion of the 
existing Class B airspace located south of MSP, between 25 NM and 30 NM 
from the I-MSP DME, by defining the boundary using the GEP 158[deg] 
radial instead of the initially proposed GEP 157[deg] radial. They 
believed this change would better align the Class B airspace boundary 
with easily identifiable road junctions on the visual flight rules 
(VFR) charts and allow pilots of glider and powered aircraft, which are 
not Global Positioning System (GPS) equipped, to identify the Class B 
airspace boundary visually.
    The FAA incorporated the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation and 
defined the portion of the proposed Class B airspace boundary addressed 
above (proposed Area H) using the GEP 158[deg] radial. Defining this 
portion of the proposed boundary from the GEP 157[deg] radial to the 
GEP 158[deg] radial would reduce the Class B airspace subarea by 0.8 NM 
laterally, but still provide containment of large turbine-powered 
aircraft within Class B airspace between 20 NM and 30 NM from the I-MSP 
DME.
    The Ad Hoc Committee further recommended the FAA consider using a 
north-south aligned boundary to define the proposed GEP 158[deg] radial 
boundary of the Class B airspace located south of MSP, between 25 NM 
and 30 NM from the I-MSP DME, in lieu of the discussion above. They 
thought this would more effectively shape the Class B airspace subarea 
boundary and minimize the Class B airspace expansion towards Stanton 
Airfield (SYN), as compared to the boundary being aligned using GEP 
radials. They noted this change would naturally shape the proposed 
Class B airspace wider towards MSP and minimize the movement of the 
southern portion of the boundary towards SYN.
    The FAA notes that there are no navigation aids available in the 
MSP terminal area whose position would provide a significantly improved 
north-south alignment of the proposed boundary under discussion. Absent 
prominent landmarks being available where needed, to define a north-
south aligned boundary, the FAA also considered using geographic 
references (latitude/longitude) to define the boundary. This 
alternative was also discounted because pilots of glider and powered 
aircraft, which are not GPS equipped, operating at SYN would not be 
able to easily identify the Class B airspace boundary and would risk 
further airspace incursions. Therefore, this proposal would define the 
boundary being discussed for the proposed Class B airspace Area H using 
the GEP 158[deg] radial.
    The Ad Hoc Committee also recommended the FAA consider moving the 
western boundary of the existing Class B airspace, located south of 
MSP, two degrees east by using the GEP 168[deg] radial to define the 
boundary. The committee stated the two degree boundary movement would 
reduce the amount of Class B airspace with a 6,000-foot MSL floor that 
gliders operating out of SYN would have to stay below to clear.
    This recommendation to change the existing GEP 170[deg] radial to 
the GEP 168[deg] radial to define the existing boundary of Class B 
airspace located south of MSP would affect two air traffic flows for 
Runway 35 arrivals and result in large turbine-powered aircraft not 
being contained within Class B airspace as they are today. If the 
committee's change was incorporated, the large turbine-powered aircraft 
inbound to MSP flying the TWOLF Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR) 
procedure from the south/southwest would fly, on average, an additional 
three miles in the very same airspace that nonparticipating VFR 
aircraft are flying in before they entered the protection of the Class 
B airspace area. Additionally, the large turbine-powered aircraft 
already contained in Class B airspace, flying a left downwind 
(southbound) traffic pattern to intercept Runway 35 approach 
procedures, would exit Class B airspace when the downwind leg of the 
traffic pattern extended beyond 20 NM from the I-MSP DME. The downwind 
leg of the traffic pattern to Runway 35 is typically five to seven 
miles west of the FAC, but the GEP 168[deg] radial is only 4 miles west 
of the FAC. When an aircraft flying at 6,000 feet MSL on a left 
downwind to Runway 35 extends beyond 20 NM from the I-MSP DME, it would 
exit Class B airspace beneath the existing Class B airspace subarea 
with a 7,000-foot MSL floor, and again be flying in the same airspace 
used by nonparticipating VFR aircraft before re-entering Class B 
airspace after being turned-on to the base leg of the traffic pattern 
in preparation of intercepting the Runway 35 FAC, extended. Both 
scenarios highlight the unintended consequences that would result from 
moving the western boundary of the existing Class B airspace subarea 
located south of MSP two degrees to the east and the counterproductive 
result to this proposed action.
    The Ad Hoc Committee was concerned about the availability of 
airspace north of SYN. They recommended the FAA establish only the 
portion of the proposed Class B airspace located south of MSP, west of 
the GEP 158[deg] radial, with a 6,000-foot MSL floor and retain the 
existing 7,000-foot MSL floor in the remainder of the existing Class B 
airspace north of SYN. They further recommended that if more Class B 
airspace was required north of SYN, the FAA lower the portion of 
existing Class B airspace from 7,000 feet MSL to 6,000 feet MSL in the 
area necessary in the Class B airspace cutout north of SYN. The 
committee wanted to retain the majority of airspace available north of 
SYN with a 7,000-foot MSL ceiling.
    The FAA evaluated this recommendation and determined the proposed 
Class B airspace located south of MSP and north of SYN (proposed Area 
H) is necessary with a 6,000-foot MSL floor. Aircraft that are inbound 
to Runway 35, but then re-sequenced to Runway 30L, are often vectored 
northeastward through the proposed Class B airspace Area H subarea at 
6,000 feet MSL or higher, depending on traffic volume. Typically, 
aircraft arrivals inbound from the south are re-sequenced to Runway 30L 
when the traffic flows from the north and southwest saturate the Runway 
35 FAC. As the number of aircraft sequenced to Runway 35 increases, the 
point at which aircraft from the south must be re-sequenced and turned 
to Runway 30L extends farther to the south; requiring the availability 
of Class B airspace with a 6,000-foot MSL floor. The proposed 
modification to establish the new Class B airspace Area H with a 6,000-
foot MSL floor would ensure inbound aircraft that are at or descending 
to

[[Page 10567]]

6,000 feet MSL do not exit Class B airspace when transitioning from a 
Runway 35 arrival to a Runway 30L arrival.
    However, in response to the second part of the Ad Hoc Committee's 
recommendation to minimize the amount of Class B airspace north of SYN 
being lowered, the initially proposed 25 NM boundary of Class B 
airspace being lowered to 6,000 feet MSL could be reduced to the 24 NM 
arc from the I-MSP DME with the floor of the remaining portion of 
existing Class B airspace between the 24 NM and 25 NM arcs from the I-
MSP DME retained at 7,000 feet MSL. The net effect would be to limit 
the amount of proposed Class B airspace north of SYN being lowered to 
6,000 feet MSL by moving the proposed boundary of that subarea one NM 
further north of SYN. This change to the proposal would still provide 
the Class B airspace necessary to contain large turbine-powered 
aircraft within Class B airspace when being re-sequenced from Runway 35 
to Runway 30L, but leaves the Class B airspace overhead SYN unchanged.
    The Ad Hoc Committee's final recommendation to the FAA was to 
consider moving the existing Class B airspace boundary over SYN north 
or eliminating the current 7,000-foot MSL Class B airspace floor 
altogether. It felt that flight track data shown to it indicated that 
the floor at the 25 NM line over SYN could be either moved northward or 
perhaps eliminated.
    In this proposal, the FAA moved the 25 NM boundary of proposed 
Class B airspace to be lowered to 6,000 feet MSL one NM north to the 24 
NM arc from the I-MSP DME in accordance with the Ad Hoc Committee's 
previous recommendation. The existing Class B airspace north of SYN 
that falls outside 24 NM from the I-MSP DME would remain unchanged. The 
FAA believes the minimal number of flight tracks documented below the 
existing Class B airspace between 24 NM and 25 NM from the I-MSP DME 
below 7,000 feet MSL can be managed with ATC-assigned course changes.

Discussion of Informal Airspace Meeting Comments

    The FAA received written comments from thirteen individuals and 
organizations as a result of the informal airspace meetings. Seven 
commenters found the FAA's presentation helpful in understanding the 
requirement and issues, and clearly demonstrated an understanding of 
all stakeholders' views. The remaining commenters provided comments 
opposing various aspects of the proposed Minneapolis Class B airspace 
area modification. The following discussion addresses the substantive 
comments received.
    One commenter questioned the reason for the proposed Class B 
airspace modification and submitted that the proposed modifications 
would further restrict General Aviation (GA) freedom of flight around 
the Twin Cities area, especially near Airlake Airport (LVN). He stated 
that the new airspace design might cause confusion and more airspace 
incursion violations, suggesting that the FAA ``keep things the same'' 
and have fewer regulations.
    The FAA is proposing this action to ensure aircraft being vectored 
and conducting SILS approaches to MSP parallel Runways 12L/R and 30L/R, 
aircraft being vectored to and conducting approaches to Runway 35, and 
aircraft being re-sequenced from approach procedures for Runway 35 to 
approach procedures for Runway 30L are contained within Class B 
airspace. The FAA does not agree with the commenter that the proposed 
modification will further restrict GA freedom of flight, especially 
near LVN. The closest proposed Class B airspace modification to LVN by 
this action is approximately six miles southeast of the airport; the 
proposed lowering of Class B airspace (proposed Area H) from 7,000 feet 
MSL to 6,000 feet MSL. LVN is located approximately 14 NM south of the 
I-MSP DME, between the 12 NM and 20 NM I-MSP DME arcs where the Class B 
airspace floor would remain unchanged at 4,000 feet MSL. Additionally, 
the navigation aids that currently define the various Class B airspace 
boundaries would continue to define the modified boundaries. The FAA 
believes the proposed Class B airspace modifications have been clearly 
developed to prevent confusion, and would not contribute to 
unintentional airspace incursion violations.
    One commenter expressed concern with the regulations that allow 
aircraft without transponders (sailplanes and gliders) to operate 
within the 30 NM Mode C veil around MSP, outside the Minneapolis Class 
B airspace area, because ATC may not be able to see the sailplanes and 
gliders on radar or advise other aircraft operating in the same area of 
their presence. The commenter stated that in the interest of safety, 
the FAA should look very seriously at the no-transponder exception 
allowing aircraft without a transponder to operate near congested Class 
B airspace areas.
    The commenter is seeking a change to Title 14 Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR) section 91.215, ATC transponder and altitude 
reporting equipment and use. This regulation, in part, provides an 
``exception'' to the transponder requirement for aircraft not 
originally certified with an engine-driven electrical system to conduct 
operations within the 30 NM Mode C veil around Class B airspace primary 
airports, outside Class B airspace without a transponder. This 
suggestion is beyond the scope of this action. The MSP Terminal Radar 
Approach Control (TRACON) controllers are aware that gliders and 
sailplanes are operating near SYN without transponders and will 
continue to provide traffic advisories, to the extent possible, to VFR 
aircraft under their control that are operating near SYN.
    One commenter stated that the Class B airspace modifications 
presented in the March 22, 2011, meeting offered some relief for SYN 
glider flights compared to previous versions, but that there was 
increased and unnecessary complexity created with the 24 NM to 25 NM 
Class B airspace subarea retained with a 7,000-foot MSL floor. A second 
commenter argued the same point, stating that the proposed modification 
creates an alleyway of airspace that will confuse pilots and may result 
in inadvertent airspace incursions. The commenters suggested that the 
Minneapolis Class B airspace should either end at 24 NM between the GEP 
158[deg] radial and the Flying Cloud VOR/DME navigation aid (FCM) 
123[deg] radial to simplify navigation for most gliders, or utilize a 
more consistent Class B airspace floor in this area preserving the 
7,000-foot MSL floor directly over SYN. The first commenter also 
mentioned that the flight path summaries briefed at the informal 
airspace meetings did not show or take into account the non-transponder 
equipped gliders operating in the vicinity of SYN adjacent to the 
current MSP Class B airspace.
    The FAA reviewed the Class B airspace subarea with a 7,000-foot MSL 
floor located between 24 NM and 25 NM from the I-MSP DME, from the GEP 
158[deg] radial to the FCM 123[deg] radial, addressed by the commenters 
and incorporated their suggestion to remove it from the proposal to 
reduce the perceived airspace complexity and confusion for users in the 
area north of SYN. As a result, inbound aircraft transitioning from 
Runway 35 to Runway 30L will be issued ATC- assigned headings to keep 
them within the proposed Class B airspace Area H between 20 NM and 24 
NM from the I-MSP DME.
    Additionally, the FAA acknowledges that the flight path summaries 
presented at the informal airspace meetings did not include non-
transponder equipped aircraft (gliders) since track recording

[[Page 10568]]

are only possible on transponder-equipped aircraft. This limitation 
underscores the need and importance for Minneapolis Class B airspace to 
be designed in such a way that it not only contains large turbine-
powered aircraft arriving and departing MSP or nonparticipating VFR 
aircraft cleared into the Class B airspace by the MSP TRACON, but also 
segregates aircraft operating within the Class B airspace and those 
operating outside the Class B airspace, especially those not visible to 
ATC radar.
    One commenter suggested that lowering the Class B airspace located 
north of SYN, from 7,000 feet MSL to 6,000 feet MSL, should be limited 
to the airspace west of the GEP 158[deg] radial and the remainder of 
the Class B airspace subarea left unchanged with a 7,000-foot MSL 
floor. The commenter argued that this would allow continued upwind 
operations of glider training flights north of SYN.
    As mentioned previously, the proposed Class B airspace located 
north of SYN between 20 NM and 24 NM from the I-MSP DME is necessary 
with a 6,000-foot MSL floor to ensure aircraft inbound to Runway 35, 
but then re-sequenced to Runway 30L are contained within Class B 
airspace. The proposed Class B airspace Area H would ensure aircraft 
that are at or descending to 6,000 feet MSL do not exit Class B 
airspace when transitioning from a Runway 35 arrival to a Runway 30L 
arrival. However, this action also proposes to return the Class B 
airspace located north of SYN outside 24 NM from the I-MSP DME between 
the GEP 158[deg] and FCM 123[deg] radials to the NAS. This airspace 
return is expected to continue supporting upwind operations of glider 
training flights north of SYN, as well as other nonparticipating VFR 
aircraft flying in the vicinity of SYN.
    One commenter suggested that the FAA change nine of the Minneapolis 
Class B airspace boundary segments to align them with prominent 
geographic landmarks such as rivers and freeways, rather than the 
existing DME distance and VOR radials. A list of specific boundary 
changes were recommended and provided for the airspace boundaries 
located within a short distance (less than one mile) of available 
landmarks, and where the realignments would keep MSP traffic contained 
within Class B airspace. The commenter argued that the recommended 
changes would enhance safety by improving situational awareness for VFR 
traffic operating below Class B airspace subareas; stating that 
eliminating the need [for pilots] to keep eyes inside the cockpit would 
improve traffic scans and would reduce the risk of mid-air collisions.
    Using prominent geographic features (landmarks), when they are 
easily identifiable and coincide with proposed airspace configuration 
modifications, help identify Class B airspace boundaries and enhances 
the situational awareness for VFR pilots flying in the vicinity of 
Class B airspace areas. The scope of this proposed modification is to 
modify the Minneapolis Class B airspace areas where aircraft 
containment has been compromised so as to minimize airspace impacts on 
nonparticipating VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Class B 
airspace. There are not any easily identifiable landmarks available 
that coincide with the proposed Class B airspace boundaries needed to 
contain the large turbine-powered aircraft arriving/departing MSP, 
without expanding the proposed Class B airspace subareas beyond what is 
required to match existing landmarks. Since there have not been any 
containment problems in the areas where the commenter suggested 
boundary changes, the FAA has opted to retain the existing boundaries 
and limit the scope of this action as mentioned previously.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations
    (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Minneapolis Class B airspace area. 
This action (depicted on the attached chart) proposes to expand the 
southern boundary of the existing Area D extensions by approximately 1 
NM to the south, lower the floor of portions of existing Class B 
airspace Area E abeam both sides of the existing Area D extensions by 
1,000 feet MSL, reduce the southern boundary of existing Area E located 
southeast of MSP by 1 NM and combine the remaining airspace of that 
portion of Area E with existing Area F, and move the eastern boundary 
of existing Area F from the GEP 160[deg] radial to the GEP 158[deg] 
radial between 24 NM and 30 NM from the I-MSP DME navigation aid. These 
proposed modifications would provide the minimum additional airspace 
needed to contain large turbine-powered aircraft conducting instrument 
procedures within the confines of Class B airspace.
    Except for Areas A, B, and C, the proposed descriptions of all 
other Minneapolis Class B airspace subareas would be reconfigured, re-
described, and realigned by geographic position in relation to the I-
MSP DME antenna rather than the previous practice of combining 
geographically separate areas that share common Class B airspace 
altitude floors into one large, complex subarea description. The 
current MSP Class B airspace area consists of six subareas (A through 
F) whereas the proposed configuration would consist of ten subareas (A 
through J). The proposed revisions to the Minneapolis Class B airspace 
area, by subarea, are outlined below.
    Area A. Area A is the surface area that extends upward from the 
surface to 10,000 feet MSL in the Class B airspace contained in the 
current Area A. The FAA is not proposing any changes to Area A.
    Area B. Area B extends upward from 2,300 feet MSL to 10,000 feet 
MSL in the Class B airspace contained in the current Area B. The FAA is 
not proposing any changes to Area B.
    Area C. Area C extends upward from 3,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet 
MSL in the Class B airspace contained in the current Area C. The FAA is 
not proposing any changes to Area C.
    Area D. Area D would be revised to include the airspace extending 
upward from 4,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL in the Class B airspace 
contained in the current Area D with the southern boundary of the Class 
B airspace extensions moved approximately 1 NM to the south. The 
expanded southern boundary of the new Area D extensions would ensure 
containment of aircraft flying the southern traffic pattern downwind 
legs for Runway 12R and 30L instrument procedures within Class B 
airspace.
    Area E. Area E would be revised to include the airspace extending 
upward from 6,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL between the GEP 295[deg] 
radial clockwise to the GEP 352[deg] radial and the 20 NM to 30 NM arcs 
from the I-MSP DME. This new subarea would lower a portion of existing 
Class B airspace contained in the current Area E by 1,000 feet MSL to 
ensure containment of aircraft that require a longer time/distance to 
descend for sequence to closely spaced, adjacent instrument approaches 
to Runways 12L and 12R within Class B airspace.
    Area F. Area F would include the airspace extending upward from 
7,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL between the GEP 085[deg] radial 
clockwise to the GEP 105[deg] radial and the 20 NM to 30 NM arcs from 
the I-MSP DME. This new subarea would be established in existing Class 
B airspace contained in the current Area E.
    Area G. Area G would include the airspace extending upward from 
6,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL between the GEP 105[deg] radial 
clockwise to the GEP 115[deg] radial and the 20 NM to 30

[[Page 10569]]

NM arcs from the I-MSP DME. This new subarea would lower a portion of 
existing Class B airspace contained in the current Area E by 1,000 feet 
MSL to ensure containment of aircraft that require a longer time/
distance to descend for sequence to closely spaced, adjacent instrument 
approaches to Runways 30L and 30R within Class B airspace.
    Area H. Area H would include the airspace extending upward from 
6,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL in the existing Class B airspace 
contained in current Area F and a portion of current Area E located 
southeast of MSP. This new subarea would expand the eastern boundary of 
the current Area F to the GEP 158[deg] radial, reduce the southern 
boundary of the portion of current Area E to the 24 NM arc from the I-
MSP DME, and lower the Class B airspace floor in the remaining portion 
of the current Area E to match the Class B airspace floor in the 
current Area F. The new subarea would ensure containment of aircraft 
flying the Runway 35 procedures and associated traffic patterns, as 
well as the aircraft being re-sequenced from Runway 35 to Runway 30L 
approaches, within Class B airspace.
    Area I. Area I would include the airspace extending upward from 
7,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL between the GEP 170[deg] radial 
clockwise to the FCM 270[deg] radial and the 20 NM to 30 NM arcs from 
the I-MSP DME. This new subarea would be established in existing Class 
B airspace contained in the current Area E.
    Area J. Area J would include the airspace extending upward from 
6,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL between the FCM 270[deg] radial 
clockwise to the FCM 294[deg] radial and the 20 NM to 30 NM arcs from 
the I-MSP DME. This new subarea would lower a portion of existing Class 
B airspace contained in the current Area E by 1,000 feet MSL to ensure 
containment of aircraft that require a longer time/distance to descend 
for sequence to closely spaced, adjacent instrument approaches to 
Runways 12L and 12R within Class B airspace.
    Finally, this proposed action would update the Minneapolis-St. Paul 
International (Wold-Chamberlain) Airport reference point, the Gopher 
VORTAC, the Flying Cloud VOR/DME, and the Minneapolis-St. Paul 
International (Wold-Chamberlain) Airport DME geographic coordinates 
(latitude/longitude) to reflect current NAS data is reflected in the 
Minneapolis Class B airspace area legal description header. The 
geographic coordinates in this proposal are stated in degrees, minutes, 
and seconds based on North American Datum 83.
    Implementation of these proposed modifications to the Minneapolis 
Class B airspace area would ensure containment of large turbine-powered 
aircraft within Class B airspace as required by FAA directive to 
enhance safety and the efficient management of aircraft operations in 
the Minneapolis, MN, terminal area.
    Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order 
7400.9W, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 
2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by 
reference in 14 CFR section 71.1. The Class B airspace area listed in 
this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 
directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation 
only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended 
regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact 
of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 
Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that 
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies 
to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they 
be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written 
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or 
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the 
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted 
for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble 
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed 
rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The 
reasoning for this determination follows:
    This action proposes to modify the Minneapolis, MN, Class B 
airspace area to contain large turbine-powered aircraft conducting 
published instrument procedures within Class B airspace, and reduce the 
potential for midair collisions. Given the current boundaries and 
changes in MSP traffic flows and aircraft descent profiles since the 
last restructuring, instrument flight rules (IFR) flights are not 
contained within Class B airspace. This amendment would restructure the 
airspace to ensure containment of these aircraft within Class B 
airspace which would reduce the potential for midair collisions in the 
terminal area. The amendment would also reduce controller workload by 
reducing the number of Class B airspace excursions.
    The proposed restructuring accommodates aircraft approaches on 
flight paths that are currently close to the Class B airspace 
boundaries, by proposing these boundaries be moved slightly. Also, 
since the last restructuring of the airspace, the fleet mix has changed 
from more rapidly descending aircraft to turbojets with more 
``efficient wings'' which require a longer time to descend. To better 
contain these new turbojets, the amendment proposes lowering the floor 
of the Class B airspace in the areas where arriving aircraft currently 
drop beneath the floor of Class B airspace so they would be contained. 
Also, the original Class B airspace design does not contain a portion 
of one of the FACs within the existing Class B airspace and 
consequently aircraft traveling along this FAC exit Class B airspace 
for part of the descent. The rule proposes moving the Class B boundary 
and lowering the floor in this portion of the airspace so that aircraft 
using this FAC would be contained within Class B airspace.
    The FAA expects these changes would have little impact on VFR 
traffic as VFR aircraft would have the alternatives of flying under or 
over the redesigned Class B or through it with clearance from air 
traffic control. Although there was a comment expressing concern that 
the proposed modifications would restrict general aviation flight 
around the Twin Cities area, in particular near Airlake Airport (LVN), 
the FAA notes that LVN is a significant distance from the proposed 
modifications and there should be no impact to general aviation traffic 
in that area. Furthermore, the Ad Hoc Committee which was formed to 
review the Class B airspace proposal and provide feedback to the FAA 
reported

[[Page 10570]]

most of the proposed changes would have little or no impact on the 
aviation community they represented, including non-participating VFR 
aircraft, with the exception of the cutout near Stanton Airfield. The 
committee did however indicate the proposed modifications would impact 
the Minnesota Soaring Club and Stanton Sport Aviation operations and 
provided six recommendations to alleviate the potential impact. 
Additionally, the FAA held several fact finding informal airspace 
meetings. As a result of the Ad Hoc Committee and informal airspace 
meeting inputs, the FAA incorporated those recommendations and comments 
that supported containment of IFR traffic within Class B airspace with 
an expected minimal impact on non-participatory VFR operations. The FAA 
anticipates the proposed modifications would continue to allow 
sufficient airspace for VFR operations in the vicinity of the 
Minneapolis Class B airspace area.
    The expected outcome would be a minimal impact with positive net 
benefits, and a regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The FAA 
requests comments with supporting justification about the FAA 
determination of minimal impact.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the 
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not 
required. The certification must include a statement providing the 
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be 
clear.
    The proposed rule is expected to improve safety by redefining Class 
B airspace boundaries and would impose only minimal costs. It is 
expected to cause little impact on VFR traffic. VFR traffic that might 
be currently flying in airspace that would be re-designated as Class B 
airspace would continue to have the option of flying above or below the 
proposed Class B airspace or obtaining clearance to fly through. The 
proposed amendment would not require updating of materials outside the 
normal update cycle. Therefore, the expected outcome would be a minimal 
economic impact on small entities affected by this rulemaking action.
    Therefore, the FAA certifies this proposed rule, if promulgated, 
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this determination. 
Specifically, the FAA requests comments on whether the proposed rule 
creates any specific compliance costs unique to small entities. Please 
provide detailed economic analysis to support any cost claims. The FAA 
also invites comments regarding other small entity concerns with 
respect to the proposed rule.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that 
it would have only a domestic impact and therefore no effect on 
international trade.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100 
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, 
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in 
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies 
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
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.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal 
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and 
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 
2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 3000--Subpart B--Class B Airspace

* * * * *

AGL MN B Minneapolis, MN [Amended]

Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold-Chamberlain) Airport 
(Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 44[deg]52'55'' N., long. 93[deg]13'18'' W.)
Gopher VORTAC
    (Lat. 45[deg]08'44'' N., long. 93[deg]22'23'' W.)

[[Page 10571]]

Flying Cloud VOR/DME
    (Lat. 44[deg]49'31'' N., long. 93[deg]26'34'' W.)
Minneapolis-St. Paul International (Wold-Chamberlain) Airport DME 
Antenna (I-MSP DME)
    (Lat. 44[deg]52'27'' N., long. 93[deg]12'21'' W.)

Boundaries

    Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and 
including 10,000 feet MSL within a 6 NM radius of I-MSP DME.
    Area B. That airspace extending upward from 2,300 feet MSL to 
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an 8.5 NM radius of I-MSP DME, 
excluding Area A previously described.
    Area C. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to 
and including 10,000 feet MSL within a 12 NM radius of I-MSP DME, 
excluding Area A and Area B previously described.
    Area D. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to 
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 
beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME and 
the Gopher VORTAC 301[deg]T/295[deg]M radial; thence clockwise along 
the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 121[deg]T/
115[deg]M radial; thence southeast along the Gopher VORTAC 
121[deg]T/115[deg]M radial to the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP DME; thence 
clockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the Flying Cloud 
VOR/DME 124[deg]T/123[deg]M radial; thence northwest along the 
Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124[deg]T/123[deg]M radial to the 20 NM arc of 
the I-MSP DME; thence clockwise along the 20 NM are of the I-MSP DME 
to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295[deg]T/294[deg]M radial; thence 
northwest along the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295[deg]T/294[deg]M radial 
to the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP DME; thence clockwise along the 30 NM 
arc of the I-MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 301[deg]T/295[deg]M 
radial; thence southeast along the Gopher VORTAC 301[deg]T/295[deg]M 
radial to the point of beginning, excluding Area A, Area B, and Area 
C previously described.
    Area E. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to 
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 
beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME and 
the Gopher VORTAC 301[deg]T/295[deg]M radial; thence clockwise along 
the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 358[deg]T/
352[deg]M radial; thence north along the Gopher VORTAC 358[deg]T/
352[deg]M radial to the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP DME; thence 
counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the Gopher 
VORTAC 301[deg]T/295[deg]M radial; thence southeast along the Gopher 
VORTAC 301[deg]T/295[deg]M radial to the point of beginning.
    Area F. That airspace extending upward from 7,000 feet MSL to 
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 
beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME and 
the Gopher VORTAC 091[deg]T/085[deg]M radial; thence clockwise along 
the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 111[deg]T/
105[deg]M radial; thence southeast along the Gopher VORTAC 
111[deg]T/105[deg]M radial to the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP DME; thence 
counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the Gopher 
VORTAC 091[deg]T/085[deg]M radial; thence west along the Gopher 
VORTAC 091[deg]T/085[deg]M radial to the point of beginning.
    Area G. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to 
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 
beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME and 
the Gopher VORTAC 111[deg]T/105[deg]M radial; thence clockwise along 
the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 121[deg]T/
115[deg]M radial; thence southeast along the Gopher VORTAC 
121[deg]T/115[deg]M radial to the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP DME; thence 
counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the Gopher 
VORTAC 111[deg]T/105[deg]M radial; thence northwest along the Gopher 
VORTAC 111[deg]T/105[deg]M radial to the point of beginning.
    Area H. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to 
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 
beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME and 
the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124[deg]T/123[deg]M radial; thence 
clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the Gopher VORTAC 
176[deg]T/170[deg]M radial; thence south along the Gopher VORTAC 
176[deg]T/170[deg]M radial to the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP DME; thence 
counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the Gopher 
VORTAC 164[deg]T/158[deg]M radial; thence north along the Gopher 
VORTAC 164[deg]T/158[deg]M radial to the 24 NM arc of the I-MSP DME; 
thence counterclockwise along the 24 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the 
Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124[deg]T/123[deg]M radial; thence northwest 
along the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 124[deg]T/123[deg]M radial to the 
point of beginning.
    Area I. That airspace extending upward from 7,000 feet MSL to 
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 
beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME and 
the Gopher VORTAC 176[deg]T/170[deg]M radial; thence clockwise along 
the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 
271[deg]T/270[deg]M radial; thence west along the Flying Cloud VOR/
DME 271[deg]T/270[deg]M radial to the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP DME; 
thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the 
Gopher VORTAC 176[deg]T/170[deg]M radial; thence north along the 
Gopher VORTAC 176[deg]T/170[deg]M radial to the point of beginning.
    Area J. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to 
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 
beginning at the intersection of the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME and 
the Flying Cloud VOR/DME 271[deg]T/270[deg]M radial; thence 
clockwise along the 20 NM arc of the I-MSP DME to the Flying Cloud 
VOR/DME 295[deg]T/294[deg]M radial; thence northwest along the 
Flying Cloud VOR/DME 295[deg]T/294[deg]M radial to the 30 NM arc of 
the I-MSP DME; thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM arc of the I-
MSP DME to the Flying Cloud 271[deg]T/270[deg]M radial; thence east 
along the Flying Cloud 271[deg]T/270[deg]M radial to the point of 
beginning.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 6, 2013.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 10572]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14FE13.013

[FR Doc. 2013-03465 Filed 2-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C