[Federal Register: September 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 175)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53354-53355]
[DOCID:fr11se06-24]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 355

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0520; FRL-8217-5]
RIN 2050-AG32

Reportable Quantity Adjustment for Isophorone Diisocyanate

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
adjust the reportable quantity (RQ) for Isophorone Diisocyanate (IPDI).
Reportable quantities for many of the Extremely Hazardous Substances
(EHSs) under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) were adjusted to their threshold planning quantities (TPQ) in a
final rule on May 7, 1996. On September 8, 2003, EPA modified the TPQ
for IPDI to 500 pounds. However, EPA inadvertantly omitted an RQ
adjustment for this substance. Therefore, EPA is now proposing to
adjust the RQ for IPDI to be 500 pounds.
    In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of the Federal Register,
we are revising the RQ for Isophorone Diisocyanate to 500 pounds
without prior proposal because we view the revision as noncontroversial
and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for
this approach in the preamble to the direct final rule.
    If we receive adverse comment on this revision, however, we will
withdraw this direct final action and it will not take effect. We will
address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting on any amendment must do
so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 11, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2005-0520, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Superfund Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 5305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    5. Hand Delivery: Superfund Docket, EPA Docket Center, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., EPA West Building, Room B-102, Washington DC
20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2005-0520. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Superfund Docket, EPA/DC,

EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Superfund Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>). This Docket Facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal
Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on

docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket
Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for
submitting comments to http://www.regulations.gov are not affected by the

flooding and will remain the same.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy Jacob, Office of Emergency
Management, 5104A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20004; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action applies to any facility handling Isophorone
Diisocyanate.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

    Dated: August 31, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E6-14843 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 97 (Friday, May 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27626-27627]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10751]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0441]

Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of
Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs
Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide
advice and recommendations to FDA on regulatory issues. The meeting
will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public
comment on this document.

DATES: The meeting will be held virtually on July 15, 2021, from 10
a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: Please note that due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,
all meeting participants will be joining this advisory committee
meeting via an online teleconferencing platform. Answers to commonly
asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings may be accessed
at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.
    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting.
The docket number is FDA-2021-N-0441. The docket will close on July 14,
2021. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public
meeting by July 14, 2021. Please note that late, untimely filed
comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted
on or before July 14, 2021. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic
filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the
end of July 14, 2021. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier
(for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are
postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before
that date.
    Comments received on or before June 30, 2021, will be provided to
the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into
consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA
will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and
consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
    You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2021-N-0441 for ``Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory
Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a

Public Docket; Request for Comments.'' Received comments, those filed
in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' FDA will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify the information as ``confidential.'' Any
information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in
accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For
more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see
80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joyce Yu, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave,
Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:
301-847-8533, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area). A notice in the Federal Register about last-minute modifications
that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot
always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore,
you should always check FDA's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned,
and recorded through an online teleconferencing platform. The committee
will discuss new drug application 213805, for the hypoxia inducible
factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor, roxadustat tablets, submitted by
FibroGen, Inc., for the treatment of anemia due to chronic kidney
disease in adult patients not on dialysis and on dialysis.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at
the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the
link to the online teleconference meeting room will be available at
https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll
down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link. The meeting
will include slide presentations with audio components to allow the
presentation of materials in a manner that most closely resembles an
in-person advisory committee meeting.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Docket (see
ADDRESSES) on or before June 30, 2021, will be provided to the
committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 2:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Those individuals
interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the
contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before June 22, 2021. Time
allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by June 23, 2021.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Joyce Yu (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days
in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: May 14, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-10751 Filed 5-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10564-10572]
[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:<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
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

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

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

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

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

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

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.)

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14FE13.013

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


[Federal Register: June 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 31517-31518]
[DOCID:fr02jn08-113]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57874; File No. PCAOB-2008-02]

Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Delaying Implementation
Schedule of Rule 3523, Tax Services for Persons in Financial Reporting
Oversight Roles

May 27, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 107(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the
``Act''), notice is hereby given that on April 22, 2008, the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (the ``Board'' or the ``PCAOB'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change described in Items I and II
below, which items have been prepared by the Board. The PCAOB has
designated the proposed rule change as ``constituting a stated policy,
practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule'' under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as incorporated,
by reference, into Section 107(b)(4) of the Act) and Rule 19b-4(f)(1)
thereunder, which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this
filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

I. Board's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule
Change

    The PCAOB is filing with the SEC an adjustment of the
implementation schedule for Rule 3523, Tax Services for Persons in
Financial Reporting Oversight Roles. Specifically the Board will not
apply Rule 3523 to tax services provided on or before December 31,
2008, when those services are provided during the audit period and are
completed before the professional engagement period begins. The PCAOB
is not proposing any textual changes to the Rules of the PCAOB by this
filing.

II. Board's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the
Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Board included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The Board has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Board's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the
Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    On July 26, 2005, the PCAOB adopted certain rules related to
registered public accounting firms' provision of tax services to public
company audit clients. As part of this rulemaking, the Board adopted
Rule 3523, which provides that a registered firm, subject to certain
exceptions, is not independent of an audit client if the firm, or an
affiliate of the firm, provides tax services during the audit and
professional engagement period to a person in, or an immediate family
member of a person in, a financial reporting oversight role at an audit
client. This rule was intended to address concerns related to auditor
independence when auditors provide personal tax services to individuals
who play a direct role in preparing the financial statements of public
company audit clients. Rule 3523 was approved by the SEC on April 19,
2006.
    Consistent with the SEC's independence rules,\1\ the phrase ``audit

and professional engagement period'' is defined to include two discrete
periods of time. The ``audit period'' is the period covered by any
financial statements being audited or reviewed.\2\ The ``professional
engagement period'' is the period beginning when the firm either signs
the initial engagement letter or begins audit procedures, whichever is
earlier, and ends when either the company or the firm notifies the SEC
that the company is no longer that firm's audit client.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 210.2-01(f)(5).
    \2\ Rule 3501(a)(iii)(1).
    \3\ Rule 3501(a)(iii)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 3, 2007, the Board issued a concept release to solicit
comment about the possible effect on a firm's independence of providing
tax services to a person covered by Rule 3523 during the portion of the
audit period that precedes the beginning of the professional engagement
period and other practical consequences of applying the restrictions
imposed by Rule 3523 to that portion of the audit period.\4\ The Board
also adjusted the implementation schedule for Rule 3523, as it applies
to tax services provided during the period subject to audit but before
the professional engagement period.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See PCAOB Release No. 2007-002 (Apr. 3, 2007).
    \5\ See id., at 7. Specifically, the Board stated that it would
not apply Rule 3523 to tax services provided on or before July 31,
2007, when those services are provided during the audit period and
are completed before the professional engagement period begins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 24, 2007, the Board proposed an amendment to Rule 3523 to
exclude the portion of the audit period that precedes the beginning of
the professional engagement period, as well as a new ethics and
independence rule regarding communication with audit committees, and
further adjusted the implementation schedule for Rule 3523 to allow
sufficient time for consideration of commenters' views.\6\ After
considering commenters' views, the Board adopted the amendment on April
22, 2008.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See PCAOB Release No. 2007-008 (July 24, 2007).
Specifically, the Board stated that it would not apply Rule 3523 to
tax services provided on or before April 30, 2008, when those
services are provided during the audit period and are completed
before the professional engagement period begins.
    \7\ See PCAOB Release No. 2008-003 (Apr. 22, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Board has determined to further adjust the implementation
schedule for Rule 3523 to allow sufficient time for the SEC to consider
whether to approve the amendment to Rule 3523. Specifically, the Board
will not apply Rule 3523 to tax services provided on or before December
31, 2008, when those services are provided during the audit period and
are completed before the professional engagement period begins.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This will apply regardless of whether there is an engagement
in process on April 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Title I of the
Act.

B. Board's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Board does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Board's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received
From Members, Participants or Others

    The Board did not solicit or receive written comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (as incorporated, by
reference, into Section 107(b)(4) of the Act) and paragraph (f) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder because of its designation by the PCAOB as
``constituting a stated policy, practice, or interpretation with
respect to the meaning, administration, or enforcement of an existing
rule.'' At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Title I of the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/pcaob.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number PCAOB-2008-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number PCAOB-2008-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/pcaob/
shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule changes that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the PCAOB. All
comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number PCAOB-2008-02 and should be
submitted on or before June 23, 2008.

    By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-12162 Filed 5-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P