[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48476-48491]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19902]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0661; Airspace Docket No. 09-AWA-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment to Class B Airspace; Detroit, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Detroit, MI, Class B
airspace area to contain aircraft conducting published instrument
procedures at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport (DTW), Detroit,
MI, within Class B airspace. The FAA is taking this action to support
all three existing Simultaneous Instrument Landing System (SILS)
configurations today, runways 22/21, runways \4/3\ and runways 27L/27R,
as well as support aircraft containment for triple SILS operations
planned for the very near future for runways 4L/4R/3R and runways 21L/
22L/22R. This action would enhance safety, improve the flow of air
traffic, and reduce the potential for midair collisions in the DTW
terminal area, while accommodating the concerns of airspace users.
Further, this effort supports the FAA's national airspace redesign goal
of optimizing terminal and enroute airspace areas to reduce aircraft
delays and improve system capacity.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-
0661 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWA-4 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations
and ATC Procedures, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<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-2012-0661 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWA-4) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ``ADDRESSES'' section
for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Nos. FAA-2012-0661 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWA-4.'' The

postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ``ADDRESSES'' section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, Operations
Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<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 Detroit,
MI (Metropolitan Wayne County Airport), Terminal Control Area (TCA) (39
FR 11085). The Detroit TCA airspace, renamed Class B airspace in 1993,
has been altered three times since being established. The first
modification was in 1975 (40 FR 12253) to redefine certain lateral
boundaries and floor altitudes in the vicinity of the Detroit River.
The second modification was in 1985 (50 FR 37994) to redefine lateral
boundaries for containing aircraft conducting SILS approaches as a
result of the addition of Runway 3R/21L. And the last modification was
accomplished in 1987 (52 FR 4893) to redefine lateral boundaries for
containing aircraft conducting instrument approaches to Runway 21R and
two instrument approaches to Runway 27. There have been no airspace
modifications to the Detroit Class B airspace since 1987.
    As a result of the Airspace Reclassification final rule (56 FR
65638), which became effective in 1993, the terms ``terminal control
area'' and ``airport radar service area'' were replaced by ``Class B
airspace area,'' and ``Class C airspace area,'' respectively. The
primary purpose of a Class B airspace area is to reduce the potential
for midair collisions in the airspace surrounding airports with high
density air traffic operations by providing an area in which all
aircraft are subject to certain operating rules and equipment
requirements. FAA directives require Class B airspace areas be designed
to contain all instrument procedures, and that air traffic controllers
vector aircraft as appropriate to remain within Class B airspace after
entry.
    In 1985, the Detroit TCA airspace was modified to accommodate SILS
procedures as the primary instrument approach configuration to meet
demand at that time. These procedures today require that the aircraft
be established on final approach course no less than 17 miles from the
runway. This forces the traffic pattern out of the lateral limits of
the Class B airspace to the northeast, when landing runways 22/21, and
to the southwest, when landing runways \4/3\, by a minimum of five
miles in both directions.
    In 1987, the last modification to the Detroit TCA airspace was
accomplished to contain aircraft flying instrument approaches to runway
21R and runway 27. In 1993, runway 27L opened at DTW allowing SILS
approaches to be flown when on a west flow. The associated traffic
patterns for the SILS approaches once again extended 5 to 10 miles
beyond the lateral limits of today's Class B airspace design. In 2001,
runway 22R was opened at DTW with no modification to the Class B
airspace for containing aircraft flying the new final approach courses
extending beyond the Class B airspace boundary to the west. As a result
of opening runway 22R and creating a third parallel Instrument Landing
System (ILS) approach, the associated SILS procedures required aircraft
to be established on final approach course between 19 and 21 miles from
the runways. The new runway procedures caused the associated traffic
patterns to be extended further as well.
    Since the Detroit Class B airspace area was last modified in 1987,
DTW has experienced increased traffic levels, expanding operational
requirements, a considerably different fleet mix, and airport
infrastructure improvements enabling simultaneous instrument approach
procedures to multiple parallel runway combinations. For calendar year
2010, DTW ranked number 12 in the list of the ``50 Busiest FAA Airport
Traffic Control Towers,'' with 453,000 operations (an increase of
20,000 from the previous year), and number 18 in the list of the ``50
Busiest Radar Approach Control Facilities,'' with 590,000 instrument
operations (an increase of 30,000 from the previous year).
Additionally, the calendar year 2010 passenger enplanement data ranked
DTW as number A14 among Commercial Service Airports, with A14,643,890
passenger enplanements (an increase of 2.84% from the previous year).
    The FAA has determined that it is not possible to modify current
procedures to contain arrival aircraft conducting simultaneous
instrument approaches to the existing parallel runways within the
Detroit Class B airspace area. As the capacity increases, the number of
aircraft exiting the Class B airspace also increases. With the current
Class B airspace configuration, arriving aircraft routinely enter,
exit, and then reenter Class B airspace while flying published
instrument approach procedures, contrary to FAA directives. The
procedural requirements for establishing aircraft on the final approach
course to conduct simultaneous approaches to the existing parallel
runways has resulted in aircraft exceeding the lateral boundaries of
the Class B airspace by up to 5 to 10 miles during moderate levels of
air traffic. Modeling of existing and projected traffic flows has shown
that the proposed expanded Class B airspace would enhance flight safety
by containing all instrument approach procedures and associated traffic
patterns within the boundaries of the Class B airspace, support
increased operations to the current and planned parallel runways, and
better segregate the IFR aircraft arriving/departing DTW and the VFR
aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Detroit Class B airspace. The
proposed Class B airspace modifications described in this NPRM are
intended to address these issues.

Pre-NPRM Public Input

    In 2009, the FAA took action to form an Ad hoc Committee to provide
recommendations for the FAA to consider in designing a proposed
modification to the Detroit Class B airspace area. The Michigan
Department of Transportation Aviation Programs Office chaired the group
with participants including representatives from Eastern Michigan
University,

Monroe Aviation, University of Michigan Flyers, Wayne County Airport
Authority, U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Detroit, OAM CBP Detroit,
Plymouth Mettetal Airport, Dearborn Flying Club, Civil Air Patrol,
127th Wing Selfridge ANGB, Dawn Patrol Flying Club--Mettetal Airport,
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Michigan Business
Aircraft Association, Skydive Tecumseh, Adrian Soaring Club, and
Kalitta Charters. The Airlines Pilots Association (ALPA) was
inadvertently left off the invitation, but was able to provide input
later. Three Ad hoc Committee meetings were held on November 12, 2009;
December 10, 2009; and February 19, 2010. Although the Ad hoc Committee
did not reach consensus on any airspace design recommendations, the
participants offered a number of comments for consideration.
    In addition, as announced in the Federal Register of May 13, 2010
(75 FR 11496), three informal airspace meetings were held; the first on
July 20, 2010, at the Troy, MI, Holiday Inn; the second on July 21,
2010, at the Ypsilanti, MI, campus of the Eastern Michigan University;
and the third on July 22, 2010, at the Monroe, MI, Holiday Inn Express.
These meetings provided interested airspace users with an opportunity
to present their views and offer suggestions regarding the planned
modifications to the Detroit Class B airspace area. All substantive
comments received as a result of the informal airspace meetings, along
with the comments and recommendations offered by the Ad hoc Committee
were considered in developing this proposal.

Discussion of Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations and Comments

    As a starting point for discussions, a preliminary Class B design
was presented to the Ad hoc Committee for review. In general, the
preliminary design consisted of lower Class B floors within portions of
existing Class B airspace and expansion of the Class B airspace area to
a 30 nautical mile (NM) radius of the Detroit (DXO) VOR/DME antenna as
opposed to the current 20 NM configuration centered on the Detroit ILS
Localizer runway 4R (I-DTW) antenna.
    The Ad hoc Committee agreed the current configuration of Detroit
Class B airspace is antiquated and in need of revision to accommodate
new runways, new approach procedures, and increased traffic. The Ad hoc
Committee's report provided to the FAA for consideration regarding the
proposed modification of the Detroit Class B airspace area contained
numerous recommendations related to the Class B airspace design, raised
by the committee participants.
    The Ad hoc Committee recommended the ceiling of the Detroit Class B
airspace remain at 8,000 feet MSL, arguing that raising the ceiling to
10,000 feet MSL would be more restrictive to aircraft overflying the
Class B airspace area. They further offered there was no evidence
provided that there are safety problems with the upper limit of the
existing Detroit Class B.
    The FAA believes raising the ceiling of the Class B airspace would
enhance flight safety for all by better segregating the large turbine-
powered aircraft and non-participating VFR aircraft that are currently
operating in the vicinity of the Detroit Class B airspace area. Non-
participating VFR aircraft would continue to have their choice of
flying above or below the Class B airspace, or circumnavigating it, to
remain clear should they decide not to contact Detroit Terminal Radar
Approach Control (D21) to receive Class B services. When simultaneous
triple ILS approaches are implemented in the future, aircraft assigned
the middle runway would be held above the traffic going to the outboard
runways. These aircraft would be vectored and delivered to the final
controller at 9,000 feet MSL on downwind and at 8,000 feet MSL on base
legs of the pattern to final approaches.
    A portion of the Detroit Class B airspace configuration extends
into Canadian airspace. For that portion of airspace, the U.S. Class B
airspace equivalent would be established by NAV CANADA as Canadian
``Class C'' airspace to ensure the same ATC services and procedures are
provided. NAV CANADA usually designates their Class C airspace with a
ceiling at 12,500 feet MSL, and supports raising the Detroit Class B/
Class C airspace ceiling to 10,000 feet MSL, but objects to keeping the
ceiling at 8,000 feet MSL. Canadian regulations do not have an
equivalent requirement to the FAA's Mode C veil (Mode C transponder use
required within 30 NM of Class B primary airports); however, Canadian
regulations do require transponder use above 10,000 feet MSL in radar
controlled airspace. As such, NAV CANADA strongly advocates against a
modified Class B/Class C airspace configuration that would leave a
2,000-foot gap in transponder requirements between the ceiling of the
Class B/Class C configuration and the 10,000 feet MSL regulatory
transponder requirement in Canada.
    The Ad hoc Committee recommended that the outer boundaries of the
Class B airspace area should be limited to 25 NM and only to the north-
northeast (NNE) and south-southwest (SSW) of Detroit where such
extensions are necessary for containing the parallel SILS approaches
and associated base leg and traffic pattern radar vectoring airspace.
    The recommendation to limit the outer boundaries of the Class B
proposal to 25 NM and then only to the NNE and SSW was not adopted. The
proposed Class B airspace modifications were designed to ensure
containment of current and future instrument procedures within Class B
airspace with the minimum amount of airspace essential to control IFR
aircraft arriving from multiple arrival streams being sequenced for
SILS procedures into DTW. Aircraft conducting SILS approaches cannot be
assigned the same altitude when being turned on to any of the three
parallel final approach courses; they must be assigned altitudes that
differ by a minimum of 1,000 feet. This, combined with straight flight
requirements prior to final approach course interception, results in
traffic patterns that are expected to routinely extend beyond 21 miles
from the runway, at altitudes as low as 4,000 feet MSL in ideal
conditions. During daily periods of greater than moderate air traffic
demand, the patterns would extend beyond the suggested 25 NM boundary
limit. Additionally, when DTW begins utilizing triple Precision Runway
Monitoring (PRM) SILS approaches, the associated traffic patterns are
expected to extend beyond a 25 NM boundary also. The traffic demand
requirements for conducting SILS approaches; containing aircraft flying
instrument procedures within Class B airspace, once entered; and
realizing the safety benefits with segregating large turbine-powered
aircraft and non-participating VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity
of the Detroit Class B airspace necessitate expanding the Class B
airspace as proposed.
    The Ad hoc Committee noted that extending the Class B boundaries to
30 NM in all quadrants, as originally proposed, would have an adverse
safety and economic impact on the outlying airports, glider activities,
and parachuting operations. They recommended the western boundary of
the Class B airspace area remain basically the same as the current
Class B boundary. Also, if an extension at 4,000 feet MSL to the
northeast was necessary, the Ad hoc Committee contends it should be
evaluated for its effect on the Oakland-Troy Airport (VLL), Troy, MI.

    In consideration of the recommendation, the FAA proposed a western
boundary similar to that of today in part, but not in total, to enable
arriving/departing aircraft to enter/exit the Class B airspace through
the ceiling. The proposed Class B airspace area from the DXO 333[deg]
radial counterclockwise to the SVM 217[deg] radial, west of the Ann
Arbor (ARB) and Willow Run (YIP) airports, was removed from the
original airspace configuration, and a proposed Class B airspace shelf
between 25 NM and 30 NM southwest of DTW, was terminated east of the
Tecumseh/Meyers-Divers (3TE) airport. While not strictly similar to the
boundary of today, the change is responsive to the recommendation.
Additionally, the FAA has determined the 4,000-foot MSL shelf proposed
northeast of DTW is necessary and does not affect VLL operations
occurring under the Class B airspace shelf. The proposed Class B
airspace area represents the minimum airspace prudent to contain
arriving/departing IFR aircraft while minimizing impact on other
airspace users in the area, and enhancing flight safety to all by
segregating large turbine-powered aircraft and the non-participating
VFR aircraft operating in close proximity to DTW.
    The Ad hoc Committee also recommended that Class B airspace floors
overlying Class D airspace areas should only have one altitude and not
reflect two different Class B floor altitudes overhead as was presented
in the FAA's original Class B proposal over the Coleman A. Young
Municipal Airport (DET), Detroit, MI, Class D airspace area. They
stated a split altitude configuration could lead to confusion and
potential violations.
    The recommendation to establish a single Class B airspace floor
altitude above Class D airspace was adopted at Ann Arbor Airport (ARB)
(not mentioned by the Ad hoc Committee), but not adopted at DET. In
response to the Ad hoc Committee's recommendation, the FAA reviewed the
original Class B airspace design and modified the airspace design in
the vicinity of ARB and DET airports. The portion of Class B airspace
overhead ARB is proposed with a single 3,500-foot MSL floor. The Class
B airspace overhead DET was redesigned so it does not encroach on the
DET Class D airspace, and has a 3,500-foot MSL floor over the southwest
half of the Class D airspace area and a 4,000-foot MSL floor over the
northeast half of the Class D airspace area. The FAA believes that the
amended proposal removes confusion and inadvertent incursions that
could result from the infringement of Class B on Class D airspace.
    The Ad hoc Committee noted the airspace along the Detroit River and
the Lake Erie coastline west and south of Grosse Ile, below existing
Class B airspace, provides a valuable uncharted VFR flyway for aircraft
transiting the area northeast and southwest, as well as arriving and
departing Grosse Ile (ONZ) airport. It recommended protecting that
flyway with a 3,000-foot MSL ceiling by terminating the proposed
boundary of the 2,500-foot MSL Class B airspace shelf closer to DTW. It
also recommended the western boundary of the 3,000-foot MSL Class B
airspace shelf located east of DTW be defined using Fort Street, the
railroad tracks, or the highway as visual references (similar to the
current Class B configuration) to maintain the ability to fly practice
approaches at ONZ without the need for a Class B clearance, and to
extend the area further west in the vicinity of the Ford Headquarters
building. Lastly, the Ad hoc Committee recommended the FAA work with
local pilots to establish VFR waypoints for this uncharted VFR flyway.
    The FAA adopted the suggestion to terminate the 2,500-foot Class B
airspace shelf closer to DTW. In fact, the southern radius of the
2,500-foot MSL shelf was reduced to a 10 NM arc of I-DTW, keeping the
southern boundary of the proposed 2,500-foot MSL Class B airspace shelf
near where it exists today. At the same time, the proposed radius of
the Class B surface area south of DTW was reduced to an 8 NM arc of I-
DTW. These adjustments allow easier access at the southern end of the
river and allow practice approaches at ONZ to be flown without the need
for a Class B clearance. The recommendation to retain I-75 as the
western boundary of the 3,000-foot shelf in that area was not pursued
because the FAA believes that sufficient visual references remain. Non-
participating VFR aircraft transiting the uncharted flyway noted by the
Ad hoc Committee may do so with visual reference to the eastern edge of
ONZ and the western-most mainland shoreline at Wyandotte, MI. The FAA
also agreed with the recommendation to extend the 3,000-foot MSL shelf
north of ONZ, as well as further west in the vicinity of the Ford World
Headquarters building, using visual reference (I-94) and DXO radial and
distance information. The FAA will continue to work with local pilots
to establish and chart VFR waypoints independent of this airspace
action.
    The Ad hoc Committee recommended the FAA maximize the efficiency of
the airspace around DTW with a streamlined airspace design that does
not envelop the large volume of airspace that was contained in the
original modification configuration. For example, instead of 20-mile
diameter circular areas around the airport, the FAA could consider
``V'' shaped corridors running northeast and southwest, funneling to
the runways in both directions.
    The FAA did not pursue the recommendation for establishing ``V''
shaped corridors extending northeast and southwest from DTW because
there are departure and arrival flow configurations that run in an east
and west alignment as well that would not be captured. To accommodate
all the air traffic flows and associated downwind patterns for the
various runway configurations, a ``V'' shaped configuration is not
practical. Additionally, the air traffic control procedures necessary
for safely breaking aircraft off final approach courses, when
simultaneous approaches are in use, will require aircraft vectoring
that would exceed the suggested design boundaries for containing large
turbine-powered aircraft flying the approaches within Class B airspace.
    The Ad hoc Committee recommended that the FAA make effective use of
landmarks, like the interstate highways, to assist VFR pilots in non-
GPS equipped aircraft to easily determine their position relative the
Class B airspace boundaries.
    The FAA agrees with the Ad hoc Committee's recommendation of using
landmarks to assist VFR pilots in non-GPS equipped aircraft when there
are easily identifiable landmarks that coincide with the proposed
airspace configuration. In the cases where no easily identifiable
landmarks are available or coincide with the configuration, the FAA
uses ground-based navigation aid radials and distances. Fortunately,
there are numerous landmarks depicted on the Detroit Terminal Area
Chart that will be retained to assist VFR pilots. As noted previously,
the FAA will continue to work with local pilots to define, establish,
and chart appropriate VFR waypoints, independent of this airspace
action.
    The Ad hoc Committee commented that defining the Class B airspace
configuration using a radial distance from a DME antenna from one of
the DTW ILS systems in the initial modification proposal was unworkable
for aircraft not specifically going into DTW. It recommended the
airspace be defined by radial and distance information from the DTW
airport reference point loaded in all Global

Positioning System (GPS) and Long Range Navigation (LORAN) databases.
    The FAA does not agree with the recommendation to use the DTW
airport reference point as the center point for determining radial/
distance design of the DTW Class B airspace area; opting, instead, to
describe the airspace area using a navigation aid as reference
consistent with FAA regulatory guidance. The proposed DTW Class B
airspace area reference point was changed from using an ILS DME
antenna, as originally presented to the Ad hoc Committee, to using the
DTW VOR/DME antenna. This change better supports airspace users in the
DTW area by providing radial and distance information for navigation
aid (non-GPS) equipped aircraft, as well as the geographic coordinate
position (lat./long.) reference information for GPS-equipped aircraft.
    The Ad hoc Committee was concerned about the reduced volume of
airspace proposed north of DTW in the vicinity of the highways squeezed
between the Class B airspace shelf floor, the obstructions along I-696,
and aircraft flying in and out of VLL. It recommended the FAA establish
a Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) for the four quadrants
around DTW to enable communication amongst transient traffic as they
navigated in the vicinity of the proposed Class B airspace.
    The establishment of a CTAF to assist pilots in the exchange of
position reporting, as recommended, is a misapplication of a CTAF and
outside the scope of this Class B airspace modification action. A CTAF
is a designated frequency for the purpose of carrying out airport
advisory practices while operating to or from an airport that does not
have a control tower or an airport where the control tower is not
operational. To overcome the reduced volume of airspace impact concerns
noted by the Ad hoc Committee, the FAA raised the originally proposed
Class B airspace shelf floor (Area E) from 3,000 feet MSL to 3,500 feet
MSL along the entire length of I-696 in this proposed action.
    The Ad hoc Committee urged consideration of unintended consequences
associated with the FAA's suggested Class B airspace modifications,
such as the concentration of VFR aircraft training west of DTW. It
recommended D21 establish (a) position(s) dedicated to providing ATC
advisory service to VFR pilots, especially in areas where intensive
flight training is conducted.
    The FAA believes the proposed Detroit Class B modification will
have no impact on the concentration of VFR aircraft training west of
DTW. The FAA acknowledges that the proposed Class B airspace west of
DTW extends overhead approximately three quarters of one training area,
with 3,500-foot MSL, 4,000-foot MSL, and 6,000-foot MSL Class B
airspace shelf floors; however, the training activities conducted in
that training area today could continue under the proposed Class B
airspace areas or within the proposed Class B airspace with the
appropriate clearance. Should VFR training aircraft opt to relocate
away from their current training areas, instead of flying under Class B
airspace or obtaining a Class B airspace clearance, they are expected
to move further west and north outside the lateral boundary of the
proposed Class B airspace altogether. The FAA does not expect a
substantive change to the concentration of VFR aircraft training west
of DTW, and therefore the establishment of (a) dedicated VFR advisory
position(s) is unwarranted.
    Although (a) dedicated VFR advisory position(s) is not considered
warranted, the FAA will continue working with local flight training
schools to discuss and pursue training program, scheduling, and
airspace alternatives, as needed, independent of this proposed Class B
airspace modification.
    In addition to the above recommendations, the Ad hoc Committee
report listed a number of other concerns about the preliminary design
that were not directly tied to a recommendation. These concerns are
discussed below.
    The Ad hoc Committee expressed concern that the original Class B
airspace configuration proposal would render the Eastern Michigan
University (EMU) flight school practice area, located south of ARB,
unusable. They further offered this would likely concentrate more
training aircraft into another existing EMU practice area north of ARB,
resulting in congestion and an increasing risk of an in-flight
collision.
    The FAA believes that these concerns are related to a desire to
operate up to 6,000 feet MSL in the training area south of ARB while
conducting certain practice maneuvers. As noted previously, the
proposed Class B airspace, west of DTW, extends overhead approximately
half of EMU's training area south of ARB at 3,500 feet and 4,000 feet
MSL. However, the training activities conducted in that portion of the
training area today could continue under the proposed Class B airspace
areas and within the proposed Class B airspace, with the appropriate
clearance. The other half of EMU's training area remains completely
useable; either under a proposed Class B airspace shelf with a 6,000-
foot MSL floor or outside the lateral boundary of the proposed Class B
airspace area altogether. Other committee recommendations were adopted
that further minimize training or operating impacts to EMU's training
areas noted. Specifically, the airspace area from the DXO 333[deg]
radial counterclockwise to the SVM 217[deg] radial west of the ARB and
YIP airports was completely removed from the proposed Class B airspace
configuration, and the proposed Class B airspace shelf located 25 NM to
30 NM southwest of DTW was terminated east of 3TE. These mitigations
allow for the effective containment of aircraft conducting instrument
procedures in the Class B airspace once they have entered it, while
minimizing purported impacts to the EMU training areas. The FAA does
not agree, therefore, that the proposed Class B airspace area would
render the EMU training area south of ARB unusable or force a
concentration of VFR training aircraft in EMU's north training area.
    The Ad hoc Committee raised concern that a proposed 6,000-foot MSL
Class B airspace shelf extending 30 miles west of DTW, as contained in
the original configuration proposal, would cut significantly through a
highly trafficked area of glider activity and soaring operations; where
gliders regularly reach 7,000 feet MSL and above altitudes. It also
shared a general statement that the broad reaching Class B airspace
modification proposal seems excessive, and unnecessarily impacts many
facets of general aviation and other commercial operations beyond those
of the soaring community.
    Upon review, the FAA acknowledges unintended impacts to the soaring
and glider activities operating west of DTW would have been created by
the original Class B modification configuration, and removed the
airspace area from the DXO 333[deg] radial counterclockwise to the SVM
217[deg] radial west of the ARB and YIP airports from the proposed
airspace action. Additionally, the proposed Class B airspace shelf
located 25 NM to 30 NM southwest of DTW was terminated east of 3TE. Two
portions of the Class B airspace area the Ad hoc Committee commented on
(west of the Pontiac VOR in the proposed 6,000-foot MSL shelf north of
DTW, and west of Michigan State Highway 23 in the proposed 4,000-foot
and 6,000-foot MSL shelves south-southwest of DTW) remain within the
proposed Class B airspace area. Those portions of the proposed Class B
airspace area are necessary to contain

the base and downwind traffic patterns for large turbine-powered
aircraft being vectored for instrument approaches to DTW. Given the
volume of airspace that was removed from the original proposal
configuration in response to soaring and glider activities, the FAA
believes the Class B airspace area proposed in this action addresses
the Ad hoc Committee's concerns.
    The Ad hoc Committee shared concerns relating to the parachuting
operations conducted from 3TE by Skydive Tecumseh. The airport is not
currently under the Detroit Class B airspace, but would fall under the
6,000-foot MSL Class B airspace shelf southwest of DTW, as proposed in
the original Class B airspace configuration. Although the possibility
of a Letter of Agreement between the FAA and Skydive Tecumseh was
discussed during Ad hoc Committee meetings, the committee did not find
this a sufficiently comprehensive solution, preferring to stay outside
Class B airspace and retain the existing relationship with ATC.
    In consideration of this concern, and other concerns raised about
the western boundary of the Class B airspace proposed, the area from
the DXO 333[deg] radial, counterclockwise, to the SVM 217[deg] radial
west of the ARB and YIP airports was removed from the proposed Class B
airspace configuration. Additionally, the Class B airspace shelf
located 25 NM to 30 NM southwest of DTW was terminated east of 3TE. The
Class B airspace proposal no longer impacts parachute activities, and
allows Skydive Tecumseh to operate much as they do today. The amended
proposal will continue to allow for the effective containment of
aircraft in the Class B airspace area once they have entered it, and
thereby effectively segregate the large turbine-powered aircraft and
the non-participating VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of the
Detroit Class B airspace area.
    The Ad hoc Committee, recognizing and supporting the need to modify
the Detroit Class B airspace, expressed concern that an increased
number of requests for access to Class B airspace from VFR pilots would
overload the controllers providing ATC services.
    The FAA remains committed to providing Class B services in a manner
that keeps the area safe for all users. Based on historical data and
forecast trends, D21 is staffed to provide National Airspace System
(NAS) users with high quality Class B airspace services. When traffic
demand increases, D21 has sufficient staffing to enable additional
positions to be opened as necessary to maintain that high level of
service. Many times, denial of VFR aircraft requests for Class B
clearances or services are due to traffic volume and airspace capacity,
not due to controller workload issues. When the traffic volume and
airspace capacity allow for the safe application, D21 provides Class B
airspace clearances and services to VFR aircraft requesting access into
and through the Detroit Class B airspace.

Discussion of Informal Airspace Meeting Comments

    The FAA received comments from 29 individuals as a result of the
informal airspace meetings. One commenter wrote in support of the
Detroit Class B airspace modification proposal, with the remaining
commenters providing comments opposing various aspects of the proposed
Class B modification. The following information addresses the
substantive comments received.
    Six commenters asserted that the Class B airspace is effectively an
`exclusion zone' if one is not landing or departing from DTW and that
D21 rarely grants clearances through the Class B airspace.
    The FAA does not agree. The primary purpose of a Class B airspace
area is to reduce the potential for midair collisions in the airspace
surrounding airports with high density air traffic operations by
providing an area in which all aircraft are subject to certain
operating rules and equipment requirements. FAA directives require
Class B airspace areas to be designed to contain all instrument
procedures and that air traffic controllers vector aircraft as
appropriate to remain within Class B airspace after entry. D21
routinely provides Class B airspace clearances and services to VFR
aircraft requesting access into and through the Detroit Class B
airspace when traffic volume and conditions enable safely doing so. The
FAA remains committed to providing Class B services in a manner that
keeps the area safe for all users.
    Six commenters noted the lack of, impact to, or need for additional
VFR corridors running through the Detroit Class B airspace area in a
north and south, and an east and west, direction.
    The FAA does not agree. A VFR flyway is a general flight path, not
defined as a specific course, for use by pilots in planning flights
into, out of, through or near, complex terminal airspace to avoid Class
B airspace. An ATC clearance is not required to fly these routes. Where
established, VFR flyways are depicted on the reverse side of the VFR
Terminal Area Chart (TAC), commonly referred to as ``Class B charts.''
They are designed to assist pilots in planning flight under or around
busy Class B airspace without actually entering Class B airspace.
Currently there are four VFR flyways depicted on the Detroit TAC. Three
flyways will remain unchanged: The first runs north and south (with an
east and west spur) and is located west of DTW, the second runs north
and south and is located east of DTW, and the third runs east and west
and is located north of DTW. The fourth flyway, which runs east and
west (with a north and south spur) and is located south of DTW, will
remain with a 1,000-foot reduction of the suggested altitude, from
below 4,000 to below 3,000, for a portion of the flyway. The FAA
believes that these existing VFR flyway options are sufficient to
continue supporting the VFR aircraft flying in the vicinity of DTW.
    Seven comments suggested the need for a VFR corridor east of
Detroit Metro along the Detroit River (a popular visual route to fly
between Lake St Clair and Lake Erie, and is coincident with the border
between the United States and Canada.). An eighth commenter expressed a
general concern for the reduction of corridors for VFR aircraft in the
vicinity of ONZ.
    The FAA does not agree with the need for a VFR corridor east of
Detroit. In response to an Ad hoc Committee recommendation addressing
access of an uncharted VFR flyway along the Detroit River, noted
previously in the preamble, the FAA adopted the Ad hoc Committee's
recommendation. Specifically, the FAA is proposing the boundary of the
Class B airspace surface area east of DTW as an 8-mile arc of the DXO
VOR-DME and the floor of the Class B airspace shelf beyond that, to the
10-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME, as 2,500 feet MSL. However, the FAA
lowered the floor of the Class B airspace shelf proposed north and east
of River Rouge to downtown Detroit by 500 feet to 3,500 feet MSL to
accommodate the containment requirements for base leg altitudes and
turns to the final approach courses when DTW is landing runways 21R/L
and 22R/L. This proposed configuration keeps the Class B airspace in
the area very near where it exists today and retains access for VFR
aircraft to the uncharted VFR flyway along the Detroit River, as well
as allows practice approaches at Grosse Ile airport to be flown without
the need for a Class B clearance.
    Additionally, two of the above commenters cited post 9/11
constraints on international border crossings for VFR aircraft as
creating a requirement for D21 to provide a VFR corridor running north
and south located east of DTW, in U.S. territory, with published

altitudes between 2,000 feet and 5,000 feet MSL.
    The FAA believes the issue cited was generated by security measures
implemented in response to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol requirements
and is not within the scope of this Class B airspace modification
action. The primary purpose of a Class B airspace area is to reduce the
potential for midair collisions in the airspace surrounding airports
with high density air traffic operations by providing an area in which
all aircraft are subject to certain operating rules and equipment
requirements. Additionally, the proximity of DTW to the border and the
layout of the runways and final approach courses precludes such a
corridor. As noted above, the FAA made adjustments to the proposed
Class B airspace at both ends of the Detroit River to provide as much
access as possible for VFR aircraft to transit north and south inside
U.S. airspace without crossing the U.S./Canadian border or compromising
safety to the large turbine-powered aircraft flying in the DTW traffic
patterns.
    Two commenters suggested that the eastern edge of the 2,500-foot
MSL Class B airspace shelf located southwest of DTW be retained as is,
identified by parallel railroad tracks and I-75, instead of the 10-mile
arc of the DXO VOR-DME. The issues cited were retention of current
visual references and a minimum of a 1,000-foot altitude buffer from
the ONZ 1,600 feet MSL traffic pattern.
    The FAA acknowledges that there will be a loss of some currently
used visual references (the cited railroad tracks and I-75) for VFR
pilots to determine the Class B airspace as a result of the proposed
southeast boundary of Area B being defined by the 10-mile arc of the
DXO VOR-DME. However, the FAA believes that sufficient visual
references remain for identifying the new proposed boundary. As noted
by another commenter, aircraft transiting the narrowest point between
the eastern edge of the current DTW Class B airspace 2,500-foot MSL
shelf and Canadian airspace do so using visual references to the
eastern edge of ONZ and the western-most mainland shoreline at
Wyandotte, MI. Use of these visual references would support the
proposed boundary, as well as provide VFR pilots the ability to remain
at least 1,000 feet above the Grosse Ile airport traffic pattern.
    Two individuals commented that the air traffic control procedures
for turning landing traffic onto the final approach course for the DTW
ILS approaches at a point more than 18 NM from the runway are illegal.
They cited the limits described in the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook
and the Aeronautical Information Manual.
    The FAA does not agree. The standard service volume for an ILS
Localizer is 18 NM, as established by FAA Order 8260.19, titled Flight
Procedures and Airspace. However, the DTW ILS Localizers, except for
the runway 4L antenna, are approved and flight inspected for an
expanded service volume capability with signal coverage out to 25 NM or
30 NM, depending on the localizer. The certification and flight
inspection information for each ILS at DTW is contained in the FAA's
aeronautical database. As such, the ILS approaches and associated
patterns, except to runway 4L, are not limited to 18 NM as argued by
the commenters.
    Seven commenters stated that the DTW traffic volume, and air travel
in general, is decreasing and, as such, a Class B airspace area
modification is unnecessary.
    The FAA does not agree. For calendar year 2010, DTW was ranked
number 12 in the list of the ``50 Busiest FAA Airport Traffic Control
Towers,'' with 453,000 operations (an increase of 20,000 from the
previous year), and number 18 in the list of the ``50 Busiest Radar
Approach Control Facilities,'' with 590,000 instrument operations (an
increase of 30,000 operations from the previous year). Additionally,
the calendar year 2010 passenger enplanement data ranked DTW as number
15 among Commercial Service Airports, with 15,643,890 passenger
enplanements (an increase of 2.84% from the previous year). The
proposed Class B airspace modification is being considered to ensure
the large turbine-powered aircraft conducting instrument procedures at
DTW are contained within Class B airspace once they enter it.
Currently, nearly every DTW arrival conducting instrument arrival
procedures enters, exits, and then re-enters DTW's Class B airspace.
This proposed airspace action corrects that lack of containment and
enhances the flight safety of the increasing traffic volume and
operations in the DTW terminal airspace area.
    Two commenters stated that in-trail aircraft separation provided on
the DTW final approach courses routinely extends to 7 NM or greater.
These commenters assert that arriving aircraft operations would be
contained within the current Class B airspace if the minimum allowable
separation standards were utilized.
    The FAA does not agree. The requirements for conducting
simultaneous parallel instrument approaches, independent of in-trail
spacing, necessitates traffic patterns and separation between aircraft
staggered on parallel final approach courses such that aircraft flying
instrument approach procedures are not contained within Class B
airspace once they have entered. When SILS approaches are being
conducted, the minimum point at which arrival aircraft are required to
be established on the final approach course is approximately one NM
inside the current Class B boundary for dual ILS approaches. Reducing
separation or spacing on final approach courses does not alter that.
    Six commenters objected to raising the ceiling of the Detroit Class
B airspace area to 10,000 feet MSL. They asserted that the change will
make VFR flight and/or over flights of the proposed area more
restrictive; other busy airports operate with a lower Class B airspace
ceiling and Detroit does not need a higher ceiling; and the reasons
advanced by the FAA are not sufficient to warrant the airspace change
from a safety or containment standpoint. An additional commenter
expressed general opposition to the proposed Class B airspace ceiling
stating that the vertical expansion appeared excessive and unnecessary.
    The FAA acknowledges and recognizes that some restrictions could
occur for some VFR operators. However, with the existing Class B
configuration, VFR aircraft that may not be in communication with air
traffic control are currently mixing with turbine-powered DTW arrival
traffic. The FAA weighed the impacts to VFR pilots flying lower or
choosing to circumnavigate the Class B airspace against the safety of
having large turbine-powered aircraft flying at altitudes that are not
contained within Class B airspace. Considering the concentration of
operations by all types of aircraft in the DTW terminal area, the FAA
finds the operation of large turbine-powered aircraft outside the Class
B airspace poses a greater safety risk. Raising the ceiling of the
Class B airspace increases safety by segregating the large turbine-
powered aircraft inbound to DTW from the VFR aircraft flying in the
vicinity of DTW. VFR aircraft wanting to avoid communication with ATC
while flying above 8,000 and up to 10,000 feet will be required to
adjust their route and/or altitude.
    The FAA believes that raising the ceiling of the Class B is
necessary to enhancing flight safety for all by better segregating the
large turbine-powered aircraft and the non-participating VFR aircraft
from operating in the same

volume of airspace overhead DTW. When the DTW Class B airspace was
designed in the mid 1970s, traffic entered the terminal area at 8,000
feet MSL. Traffic now enters the terminal area at 12,000 feet, and
enters the traffic patterns abeam DTW descending out of 11,000 feet.
When simultaneous triple parallel ILS approaches are implemented,
arrival aircraft assigned the middle runway will be held above the
traffic going to the outboard runways. These aircraft will be vectored
to the final controller at 9,000 feet MSL on downwind and at 8,000 feet
MSL on base legs of the pattern to final approaches.
    Lastly, the commenters' argument comparing the DTW Class B airspace
to other Class B airspace is not germane since each Class B airspace
area design is individually tailored to fit the operation needs of the
primary airport.
    Four commenters noted inconsistent navigation aid radials were
being used by the FAA to define various sub-area boundaries of the
proposed DTW Class B airspace area. Specifically, they cited
inconsistent use of the Salem VORTAC (SVM) and Detroit VOR (DXO)
radials.
    Upon review, the FAA verified the inconsistent use of the SVM and
DXO radials and incorporated four changes to the proposed DTW Class B
airspace area to correct this issue. The western boundary of the
proposed 2,500-foot MSL Class B airspace shelf south of DTW (Area B),
as well as the far south-eastern boundary of the proposed 3,500-foot
MSL Class B airspace shelf that overlies ARB (Area D), are now
identified by the DXO 240[deg] (M) radial. The western boundary of the
proposed 2,500-foot MSL Class B airspace shelf north of DTW (Area B) is
now identified by the DXO 360[deg] (M) radial. Finally, a small change
was made to the western boundary of the proposed 6,000-foot Class B
airspace shelf southwest of DTW (Area G); the northern endpoint of that
boundary has been relocated to terminate at the SVM 219[deg] radial,
which was an existing boundary point already defined on the 25-mile arc
of the DXO VOR-DME. The southern endpoint of that boundary remains
identifiable to VFR aircraft, not VOR/GPS equipped, by the town of
Blissfield, MI.
    Four commenters indicated that the proposed airspace would, or
appeared to, hinder glider, sailplane, or parachute operations in the
western quadrant of DTW. A fifth commenter asserted that cross country
glider flights from the Adrian/Lenawee County airport to the northeast
would also be seriously restricted; referencing the Tecumseh/Meyers-
Divers (3TE), Rossettie (75G) and New Hudson/Oakland Southwest (Y47)
airports that would be encompassed by the proposed Class B airspace
area.
    The FAA does not agree and believes that all of these comments are
based on the initially proposed airspace configuration presented to and
commented on by the Ad hoc Committee, and not the proposed airspace
configuration contained in this NPRM. The FAA, in response to the Ad
hoc Committee's concerns and recommendations, adopted many of the
committee's recommendations in the airspace area at issue;
significantly changing the proposed Class B airspace in that area. The
airspace area from the DXO 333[deg] (M) radial, counterclockwise to the
SVM 229[deg] (M) radial, west of the ARB and YIP airports, was
completely removed from the proposed Class B airspace. Additionally,
the proposed Class B airspace shelf southwest of DTW between the 25-
mile to 30-mile arcs of the DXO VOR-DME was terminated east of 3TE. The
proposed Class B airspace area contained in this NPRM no longer impacts
parachute jump activity at that airport. Further, 75G lies more than
nine miles west of the proposed Class B airspace boundaries, and Y47,
although at the edge of the proposed Class B airspace area, is no
longer encompassed by it; thus, eliminating the cited impact to cross
country glider flights.
    Five commenters stated concerns over impacts to IFR routes in and
around an expanded Class B airspace area.
    The purpose for the proposed DTW Class B airspace modification is
to contain aircraft conducting instrument procedures at DTW within
Class B airspace once they have entered, and to better segregate the
large turbine-powered aircraft and the non-participating VFR aircraft
operating in the vicinity of the Detroit Class B airspace area. The IFR
routes and procedures, fleet mix, and altitudes flown by IFR aircraft
would not change as a result of the proposed airspace modification. The
proposed action would establish Class B airspace around the existing
instrument procedures and associated traffic flows and traffic patterns
supporting those procedures to contain the large turbine-powered
aircraft flying the instrument procedures within Class B airspace. The
proposed modification represents the minimum airspace needed to
reasonably accommodate current and future operations and flight tracks
at DTW. IFR arrival, departure, or over flight aircraft are vectored
within Class B airspace dependent on the IFR traffic patterns in use,
which is, in turn, dependent on the runways in use and the DTW landing
configuration. The existing IFR routes, traffic patterns, and runway
utilizations would not be affected by the proposed DTW Class B
modification.
    Three comments asserted that the proposed DTW Class B modification
was an effort to standardize Detroit Class B airspace with that of
other locations around the country; referring to both the proposed
airspace boundaries and altitudes. They cited a general concern that
the airspace enlargement held no demonstrable value and that FAA
guidance stated, ``each Class B airspace area is individually
tailored.''
    The FAA does not agree with the commenters' assertion of a
standardized DTW Class B airspace configuration, and asserts that the
proposed Class B airspace modification is tailored to the operational
requirements observed at DTW and within its terminal area. The proposed
Class B airspace modification is focused on containing all instrument
procedures and associated patterns and traffic flows at DTW within
Class B airspace; containing the large turbine-powered aircraft
conducting instrument procedures within Class B airspace once they've
entered, as well as enhancing flight safety by segregating the large
turbine-powered aircraft and the nonparticipating VFR aircraft. The
proposed DTW Class B airspace design configuration is influenced by the
VFR aircraft training areas and activities west of DTW; protection of
the uncharted VFR flyway above the Detroit River; the glider,
parachute, and ultra-light operations located around DTW; and the
geographic location and proximity of satellite airports all around DTW.
The proposed Class B airspace area boundaries, and the proposed
altitude of the airspace area, are shaped by the operational
requirements of aviation users at and around DTW; the DTW terminal
airspace environment; and geographic, operational, and procedural
factors specific to DTW.
    Eight commenters stated that the proposed vertical and lateral
expansion of Class B airspace would increase icing risks. Their issues
included increased communication with ATC resulting in delays in
altitude change clearances; a general concern that the modified
airspace will force GA aircraft into more dangerous icing altitudes;
and IFR flight restriction impacts to aircraft not landing or departing
DTW (typically restricted to a maximum of 4,000 feet).
    The FAA does not agree. The proposed Class B airspace modifications
would not expose VFR aircraft and operators to any higher icing risks
than they face today. The FAA expects VFR pilots, after receiving the
appropriate weather briefings, to plan their flights so

as to avoid conditions of known or forecasted icing. In the event they
encounter unexpected icing conditions, upon contacting ATC, D21 would
continue to respond to all contingencies with the same operational and
procedural sense of urgency as they do today. As mentioned previously,
IFR aircraft would not be impacted by the proposed changes. Altitude
assignment and route of flight is dependent on IFR traffic volume,
traffic flows and patterns, and landing runway configurations, not the
design of Class B airspace.
    One commenter stated that the Class B modification should not
include two different floor altitudes (3,500 feet and 4,000 feet MSL)
above ARB, the city of Ann Arbor, and the township of Pittsfield. The
issue cited is that of confusion and potential inadvertent airspace
violations by nonparticipating aircraft.
    The FAA adopted a recommendation from the Ad hoc Committee that
changed the floor of the proposed Class B airspace shelf (Area D) in
the vicinity of ARB, the City of Ann Arbor, and the Township of
Pittsfield to a single 3,500-foot MSL altitude that is 200 feet above
the ceiling of the ARB Class D airspace area. Although this proposed
Class B airspace shelf (Area D) overlaps approximately the southwest
half of the ARB Class D airspace area, the other half of the ARB Class
D airspace area falls outside the proposed DTW Class B airspace
boundary. Specific to the issue of confusion and potential inadvertent
airspace violations raised by the commenter, the FAA notes that VFR
pilots are safely operating in the vicinity of current DTW Class B
airspace areas, with its differing floor altitudes, as well as at other
Class B airspace areas across the country. The FAA expects VFR pilots
to be able to continue flying in the vicinity of the proposed DTW Class
B airspace area without incursions into Class B airspace, as they do
today.
    Seven commenters raised concerns about impacts to the airspace
areas in which flight training activities take place outside of the
current Class B airspace area. Six of these commenters cited a general
loss of practice areas to the south and west; one commenter stated the
proposed modifications would cause overcrowding in that airspace used
by flight schools based at the ARB and YIP airports.
    The FAA disagrees with the assertion that the proposed DTW Class B
airspace would result in a loss of VFR practice areas. D21 is unaware
of any practice area that would be lost due to the modified design. The
FAA does acknowledge, however, that the floor of the proposed Class B
airspace could impact the available altitudes in some areas. As a
result of adopting a number of the Ad hoc Committee's recommendations,
the FAA adjusted the proposed airspace modification to alleviate many
practice area impacts. The result is that the areas west and north of
Ann Arbor would be unaffected. While not specifically included in the
public comments, the FAA believes the practice areas around Pontiac
Oakland County (PTK) airport are unaffected also. The FAA notes that
the practice area near the General Motors Proving Ground, southwest of
PTK, is not completely outside the proposed Class B airspace area;
however, flight operations above 6,000 feet MSL are not normally
accomplished there and the proposed Class B airspace floor of 6,000
feet MSL would have negligible impact. The greatest impact is to the
southeastern quadrant of the Eastern Michigan Aviation South Practice
Area; a point at which the floor of the proposed Class B airspace is
4,000 feet MSL. The proposed Class B airspace shelf in that area is
necessary to contain arriving large turbine-powered aircraft flying
instrument procedures within Class B airspace, and would enhance flight
safety to all by segregating the large turbine-powered aircraft and the
non-participating VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of the
proposed DTW Class B airspace.
    One commenter stated that there is no need to extend the Class B to
contain aircraft on the finals for runways 27L and 27R.
    The FAA does not agree and notes that modifications that occur in
Canadian airspace are regulated by NAV CANADA. Further, where control
responsibility within Canadian airspace has been formally delegated to
the FAA, as it has over the Windsor peninsula, an agreement was
established that requires the application of FAA procedures (i.e.
containing all instrument procedures within Class B airspace so that
large turbine-powered aircraft will remain within Class B airspace, and
Canadian Class C airspace supporting DTW, once they have entered).
    Two commenters expressed concern for helicopter operations based on
the proposed increase of the surface area boundary of client facilities
south and southeast of DTW, and that it would create increased VFR
communication with ATC and inaccessibility problems in poor weather.
The commenters suggested keeping the current surface area with a 1,500-
foot shelf between the current and proposed surface area because lower
Class B floors may cause GA pilots to drop into ``helicopter
airspace.'' One of the commenters indicated that ATC personnel were
very good at accommodating their needs.
    The FAA acknowledges that any expansion of the Class B airspace
surface area will require communications with ATC for Class B services
in that expanded airspace, and that delays during poor weather could
occur. However, the FAA remains committed to providing Class B services
to users operating in the airspace surrounding DTW in a manner that
keeps the area safe for all users. The FAA has considered and made
several changes to the proposed Class B design south of DTW, including
moving the proposed surface area boundary from a 10-mile arc of the DXO
VOR-DME to an 8-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME. The FAA has determined
that the proposed Class B surface area boundary is the minimum airspace
area that is prudent to contain arriving IFR aircraft, and will enhance
flight safety by segregating the large turbine-powered aircraft flying
instrument procedures and the non-participating VFR aircraft operating
in close proximity to DTW. Though not specifically described where by
the commenter, the FAA does not believe the proposed Class B airspace
modification in this action would cause GA aircraft to drop into
``helicopter airspace.''
    Six commenters stated that current advanced equipment capabilities,
or proposed NextGen capabilities, or both, if utilized, would negate
the need for a larger Class B airspace area.
    The FAA does not agree. Existing equipment capabilities and
procedures do not alter the requirements for SILS approaches, and have
no impact on overcoming the existing Class B airspace containment
issues being experienced regularly with large turbine-powered aircraft
entering, exiting, and re-entering Class B airspace while flying
instrument approach procedures. The FAA remains committed to achieving
NextGen capabilities in the future, but is also aware that the airspace
requirements for containing turbine-powered aircraft flying instrument
procedures within Class B airspace, once they have entered, cannot be
resolved through equipage alternatives only.
    Three commenters stated that the FAA lacks any demonstrated safety
reasons for changing the Detroit Class B airspace because there were no
reported TCAS events, no reported ``loss of separation'' incidents, no
accidents, and no analysis suggesting a reduction of these same items
following a Class B airspace modification.
    The FAA does not agree. While the primary purpose of Class B
airspace

areas is to reduce the potential for midair collisions in the airspace
surrounding airports with high density air traffic operations, this
action proposes to modify the DTW Class B airspace area to contain
aircraft conducting published instrument procedures at DTW within Class
B airspace once they enter it. The FAA is proposing this action to
support all three existing SILS configurations today; runways 22/21,
runways \4/3\ and runways 27L/27R, as well as support aircraft
containment for triple SILS operations planned for the future for
runways 4L/4R/3R and runways 21L/22L/22R. This proposed action would
enhance flight safety in the vicinity of DTW by segregating the large
turbine-power aircraft conducting instrument procedures from the VFR
aircraft operating in the vicinity of DTW, improve the flow of air
traffic, and reduce the potential for midair collisions in the DTW
terminal area, while accommodating airspace access concerns of airspace
users in the area
    One commenter objected to the FAA contracting with Lockheed-Martin
for providing support activities since the FAA considered proposing a
DTW Class B airspace modification action. The commenter argued there
was a conflict of interest in favor of the Air Traffic Organization at
the expense of local governments and users; misrepresentation of the Ad
hoc Committee recommendations; and a general statement that many users
from areas north, northeast and east of DTW were discouraged from
providing input on the Class B airspace area.
    The FAA does not agree, and noted that the commenter did not
provide any substantive support for the allegations. Contract support
is used throughout the FAA to supplement workload management in a cost
effective way, and in this case, the contractor fulfilled the duties
and responsibilities defined by the FAA professionally with no bias
noted. Local government representatives, as well as interested local
area airspace users and aviation organizations, were invited and
accepted to become Ad hoc Committee members charged with providing
inputs and recommendations to the FAA regarding the proposed DTW Class
B airspace modification action, and they provided those inputs and
recommendations in a formal report directly to the FAA. With respect to
the claim of users being discouraged from providing input to the FAA's
proposed airspace modification, the FAA mailed A14,852 informal
airspace meeting notification letters to all registered pilots within
all counties in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, that were within 100 miles
of DTW and actively solicited comments from those individuals and
organizations that attended.
    Seven commenters stated that safety would be compromised by
compressing VFR traffic outside of the Class B airspace area. Five of
these commenters cited the issue of increased midair collision risk for
general aviation (GA) aircraft landing or departing Oakland County
airports by forcing all VFR GA aircraft to remain under the proposed
DTW Class B airspace shelf (Area H) with a 6,000-foot MSL floor. Two of
the commenters cited the increased potential for collision; stating
that a larger population of non-DTW traffic and or non-participating
VFR aircraft will be concentrated on the edges of the modified Class B.
An eighth commenter argued a possible increase in pilot violations of a
redesigned airspace with increased ``safety issues.''
    The FAA does not agree. The FAA is taking action to modify the
current Class B airspace to contain all instrument procedures at DTW
and the aircraft flying those procedures within Class B airspace, once
they have entered it, to overcome the IFR aircraft entering, exiting,
and re-entering Class B airspace while flying the published instrument
approaches and associated traffic patterns. The FAA acknowledges that
some compression will occur and that non-participating VFR traffic will
have to fly above, below or circumnavigate the proposed DTW Class B
airspace in order to remain clear of it should they decide not to
contact D21 to seek Class B airspace services. All aircraft operating
beneath or in the vicinity of Area H are expected to continue to comply
with the regulatory requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulation (14 CFR) Sec.  91.111, titled Operating Near Other Aircraft,
to avoid creating a collision hazard with other aircraft operating in
the same airspace. Additionally, all aircraft operating in the same
areas noted above are expected to continue complying with 14 CFR Sec.
91.113, titled Right-of-Way Rules: Except Water Operations, to ``see
and avoid'' other aircraft as well. The FAA believes that continued GA
pilot compliance with established flight rules regulatory requirements,
and these two regulations specifically, will overcome the mid-air
collision concerns raised by the commenters.
    Eleven commenters stated that either efficiency or negative
economic impacts would result. The issues cited included: Increased
avoidance and circumnavigation time; longer, less direct routings for
VFR and IFR aircraft; increased cost of flight training; loss of fuel
efficiency to IFR GA aircraft that will be held to lower altitudes for
longer periods of time; economic impacts to communities where flight
schools or sky diving businesses may be forced to close; or, due to a
lower available altitude when flying over Lake Erie in conjunction with
Canadian border restrictions, a reluctance to fly into ONZ.
    The FAA recognizes that the proposed Class B airspace modification
could increase fuel burn for non-participating VFR aircraft. In order
to remain clear of the Detroit Class B airspace area, non-participating
VFR pilots who decide not to contact D21 for Class B services may end
up flying at lower altitudes or further west of DTW. However, this
proposed action is necessary to separate them from the large turbine-
powered aircraft being contained within the Class B airspace while
flying instrument procedures. While some aircraft will opt to fly
additional distances or different altitudes to circumnavigate the
proposed Class B airspace, the FAA believes any increase in fuel would
be minimal and is justified by the increase in overall safety. The
modified Class B airspace area would have no impact to the routes or
altitudes assigned to IFR aircraft in the vicinity of the Detroit Class
B airspace area. As noted previously in the preamble, the proposed
Class B airspace design incorporated the Ad hoc Committee's
recommendations to prevent impacts, operationally and economically, to
the known sky diving activities at 3TE, as well as to the soaring
activities located west of DTW. Additionally, there were no practice
areas lost as a result of the proposed airspace modification and there
remain numerous unaffected practice areas for use by the local area
flight training schools. The FAA does not expect any sky diving
operation, soaring club or flight training activity to relocate; thus,
averting the financial impacts to any local community. In addition to
the alternate overland routes available for non-participating aircraft
concerned about an approach to ONZ, D21 remains committed to providing
Class B services to all NAS users operating in the airspace surrounding
DTW in a manner that keeps the area safe for all users.
    One commenter cited a lack of specificity in the number and source
of users who have complained about the lack of containment in the
current Class B airspace area; suggesting that perhaps the complaints
in this regard came from union air traffic controllers.
    The FAA is proposing to modify the current DTW Class B airspace
area to contain all instrument procedures at

DTW and the aircraft flying those instrument procedures to and from DTW
within Class B airspace, consistent with FAA directives and based on
the instrument procedures in place today. Currently, large turbine-
powered aircraft vectored to DTW are not contained in the Class B
airspace area and operate in the same airspace as non-participating VFR
aircraft. This proposed action overcomes IFR aircraft entering,
exiting, and reentering DTW Class B airspace while flying published
instrument approach procedures and the associated traffic patterns
during arrival. Additionally, the action further enhances flight safety
by segregating IFR aircraft flying the instrument procedures into DTW
and VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of the DTW Class B airspace.
The proposed Class B modifications in this NPRM represent the minimum
airspace needed to reasonably accommodate the current operations, fleet
mix, and existing flight tracks at DTW.
    One commenter asserted that the FAA did not allow real comments
from the public, or recording of those comments to be made, and
suggested that the informal airspace meetings that were held were done
so to placate the public.
    It is FAA policy to hold, if at all practicable, informal airspace
meetings to inform the affected users of planned airspace changes. The
purpose of these informal meetings, which are mandated for Class B
airspace actions, is to gather facts and information relevant to
proposed airspace actions being considered or studied. The FAA
recognizes the benefits associated with hosting informal airspace
meetings and seeking input on airspace actions from the public;
requiring notices of informal airspace meetings be sent to all known
licensed pilots, state aviation agencies, airport managers/operators,
and operators of parachute, sailplane, ultra-light, and balloon clubs
within a 100-mile radius of the primary airport for Class B airspace
actions. The FAA is committed to providing all interested aviation-
related organizations and persons the opportunity to participate in
airspace regulatory actions under consideration; soliciting interested
parties to provide verbal and/or written comments for consideration by
the FAA as it seeks to balance the needs and requirements of all NAS
users. Although official transcripts or minutes of informal airspace
meetings are not taken or prepared, a meeting summary, listing
attendees and a digest of the discussions held, must be recorded,
considered, and retained. Further, written statements received from
attendees during and after the informal airspace meetings must be
considered and addressed in NPRM and final rule determinations, as well
as retained in the administrative record of airspace actions taken by
the FAA. Informal airspace meetings and the public's opportunity to
comment on airspace actions being considered by the FAA are not held
simply to placate the public.
    One commenter expressed concern that the modification of the Class
B airspace area is to contain the vector pattern for arriving aircraft
when the charted instrument approach procedure is fully contained in
the current Class B airspace area; suggesting that since controllers
only need to use radar vectors in ``certain situations,'' it is the
procedures, not the airspace, that require review.
    The FAA does not agree. Radar vectors are not used by air traffic
controllers only under certain, limited situations; they are used to
vector aircraft to intercept the final instrument approach procedure
course for virtually every aircraft that lands at DTW. While it is true
that the Class B must be designed to contain all instrument procedures
within it, it must also contain the supported traffic patterns, and
aircraft traffic flows for those instrument procedures. The Class B
airspace area must allow for an orderly traffic management within the
area. As noted previously, the requirements for simultaneous parallel
instrument approach procedures, and the associated traffic flow and
traffic patterns supporting the instrument procedures, collectively
necessitate this proposed DTW Class B airspace area modification.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Detroit Class B
airspace area. This action (depicted on the attached chart) proposes to
lower the floor of Class B airspace in some portions of the existing
Class B airspace; extend Class B airspace out to 30 NM to the north,
east (designated Class C airspace in Canada), and south of DTW; and
raise the ceiling of the entire Class B airspace area from 8,000 feet
MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. These proposed modifications would provide the
additional airspace needed to contain large turbine-powered aircraft
conducting instrument procedures within the confines of Class B
airspace, especially when dual and triple SILS approaches are utilized.
Additionally, the proposed modifications would ensure efficient
airspace utilization and enhance safety by better segregating the large
turbine-powered IFR aircraft arriving/departing DTW and the VFR
aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Detroit Class B airspace
area. The current Detroit Class B airspace area consists of four
subareas (A through D) while the proposed configuration would consist
of nine subareas (A through I). The proposed revisions of the Detroit
Class B airspace area are outlined below.
    Area A. Area A is the surface area that would extend from the
ground upward to 10,000 feet MSL, centered on the Detroit VOR/DME
antenna. The southern boundary would arc approximately 2.5 NM further
south into the current Area B, lowering the existing floor of Class B
airspace from 2,500 feet MSL to the surface in that area.
    Area B. A revised Area B would include the airspace extending
upward from 2,500 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. The new Area B boundary
would incorporate two small segments of the current Area C; one located
southeast of DTW and the other arcing counterclockwise from the east of
DTW to the north of DTW. The new Area B would lower the existing floor
of Class B airspace in those segments of the current Area C from 3,000
feet MSL to 2,500 feet MSL.
    Area C. This area would continue to surround Areas A and B, and
would include the airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to
10,000 feet MSL. The revised Area C would expand to incorporate most of
the current Area D located south of DTW and almost half of the current
Area D located north of DTW, as well as include segments of airspace to
the west, south, and southeast of DTW that is outside the current
Detroit Class B airspace area. The new Area C would lower the floor of
Class B airspace in the portions of the current Area D from 4,000 feet
MSL to 3,000 feet MSL and establish a floor of Class B airspace at
3,000 feet MSL in the airspace that falls outside of the current Class
B airspace.
    Area D. Area D is redefined to include the airspace extending
upward from 3,500 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. The new Area D would
include the portion of the current Area D south of Detroit that was not
incorporated into the new Area C and a portion of airspace west of DTW
that is outside the current Class B airspace area. The portion of
airspace west of DTW, outside the current Class B airspace area, would
also overlay the southeastern half of the Ann Arbor Class D airspace
area ceiling. The revised Area D would lower the floor of Class B
airspace in the portion of the current Area D from 4,000 feet MSL to
3,500 feet MSL and establish a floor of Class B airspace at 3,500 feet
MSL in the

airspace that falls outside of the current Class B airspace.
    Area E. Area E would be a new subarea to describe that airspace
extending upward from 3,500 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. The new Area E
would include the portion of the current Area D north of DTW that was
not incorporated into the new Area C and two slivers of airspace, one
north and one northeast of DTW, that is outside the current Class B
airspace area currently. The new area would lower the floor of Class B
airspace in the portion of the current Area D from 4,000 feet MSL to
3,500 feet MSL and establish a floor of Class B airspace at 3,500 feet
MSL in the airspace that falls outside of the current Class B airspace.
    Area F. The proposed Area F would be a new subarea to describe that
airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. This
new area would be established outside the current Detroit Class B
airspace area between the 20 NM and 25 NM arcs of the Detroit VOR/DME
antenna from the SVM 044[deg] radial (north of DTW), clockwise, to the
SVM 214[deg] radial (southwest of Detroit). The new area would also
incorporate a small piece of the current Area C east of Detroit. The
new Area F would raise the floor of Class B airspace for the portion of
the current Area C incorporated from 3,000 feet MSL to 4,000 feet MSL
and establish a floor of Class B airspace at 4,000 feet MSL in the
airspace that falls outside of the current Class B airspace.
    Area G. The proposed Area G would be a new subarea to describe that
airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. This
new area would be established outside the current Detroit Class B
airspace area, southwest of DTW, between the 25 NM and 30 NM arcs of
the Detroit VOR/DME antenna. This area would abut to the new Area F and
I (described below) and establish a floor of Class B airspace at 6,000
feet MSL in airspace that falls outside of the current Class B
airspace.
    Area H. The proposed Area H would also be a new subarea to describe
that airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL.
The area would be established outside the current Class B airspace
area, between the 25 NM and 30 NM arcs of the Detroit VOR/DME antenna
from southeast of DTW, counterclockwise, to the Detroit VOR/DME
327[deg] radial. This area would abut the new Areas C, E, F and I
(described below) and establish a floor of Class B airspace at 6,000
feet MSL in airspace that falls outside of the current Class B
airspace.
    Area I. The proposed Area I would be a new subarea to describe that
airspace extending upward from 9,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. This
new area would be established south of DTW, outside the current Class B
airspace area, from the 25 NM (approximately) and 30 NM arcs of the
Detroit VOR/DME antenna between the new Areas G and H, and abutting the
new Area F. This area would establish a floor of Class B airspace at
9,000 feet MSL in airspace that falls outside of the current Class B
airspace.
    Finally, this proposed action would update the DTW airport
reference point coordinates to reflect current NAS data, include in the
Detroit Class B airspace area legal description header all airports and
navigation aids, with geographic coordinates, used to describe the
Detroit Class B airspace, and describe the Detroit Class B airspace
area centered on the Detroit VOR/DME (DXO) antenna.
    Implementation of these proposed modifications to the Detroit Class
B airspace area would enhance the efficient use of the airspace for the
safety and management of aircraft operations in the Cleveland terminal
area.
    Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order
7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 9,
2011, and effective September A14, 2011, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR section 71.1. The Class B airspace area listed in
this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation
only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended
regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact
of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements
Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies
to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they
be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed
rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows:
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
proposed rule:
    (1) Imposes minimal incremental costs and provides benefits;
    (2) Is not an economically ``significant regulatory action'' as
defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866;
    (3) Is not significant as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures;
    (4) Would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities;
    (5) Would not have a significant effect on international trade; and
    (6) Would not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the monetary
threshold identified.
    These analyses are summarized below.

The Proposed Action

    This action proposes to modify the Detroit, MI, Class B airspace to
contain aircraft conducting published instrument procedures at Detroit
Metropolitan Wayne County (DTW), Detroit, MI, within Class B airspace.
The FAA is taking this action to support all three existing
Simultaneous Instrument Landing System (SILS) configurations today;
runways 22/21, runways 4/3 and runways 27L/27R, as well as support
containment for triple SILS operations planned for the future for
runways 4L/4R/3R and runways 21L/22L/22R.

Benefits of the Proposed Action

    The benefits of this action are that it would enhance safety,
improve the flow of air traffic, and reduce the potential for midair
collisions in the DTW terminal area. In addition this action would
support the FAA's national airspace redesign goal of optimizing
terminal and enroute airspace areas to

reduce aircraft delays and improve system capacity.

Costs of the Proposed Action

    Possible costs of this proposal would include the costs of general
aviation aircraft that might have to fly further if this proposal were
adopted. However, the FAA believes that any such costs would be minimal
because the FAA designed the proposal to minimize the effect on
aviation users who would not fly in the Class B airspace. In addition
the FAA held a series of meetings to solicit comments from people who
thought that they might be affected by the proposal. Wherever possible
the FAA included the comments from these meetings in the proposal.

Expected Outcome of the Proposal

    The expected outcome of the proposal would be a minimal impact with
positive net benefits, therefore a regulatory evaluation was not
prepared. The FAA requests comments with supporting justification about
the FAA determination of minimal impact.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

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

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and
determined that it would encourage international cooperation between
the United States and Canada because the proposal affects airspace in
both these countries.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a
mandate is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA
currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of
$100 million. This proposal does not contain such a mandate; therefore
the requirements of Title II do not apply.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September A14,
2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 3000--Subpart B--Class B Airspace

* * * * *

AGL MI B Detroit, MI

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, MI (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 42[deg]12'45'' N., long. 83[deg]21'12'' W.)
Detroit, Willow Run Airport, MI
    (Lat. 42[deg]14'21'' N., long. 83[deg]31'51'' W.)
Ann Arbor Municipal Airport, MI
    (Lat. 42[deg]13'23'' N., long. 83[deg]44'44'' W.)
Coleman A. Young Municipal Airport, MI
    (Lat. 42[deg]24'33'' N., long. 83[deg]00'36'' W.)
Detroit (DXO) VOR-DME
    (Lat. 42[deg]12'47'' N., long. 83[deg]22'00'' W.)
Salem (SVM) VORTAC
    (Lat. 42[deg]24'32'' N., long. 83[deg]35'39'' W.)

    Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and
including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning
at lat. 42[deg]17'18'' N., long. 83[deg]27'27'' W.; thence northeast
to lat. 42[deg]20'47'' N., long. 83[deg]22'12'' W. on the 8-mile arc
of the Detroit (DXO) VOR-DME; thence clockwise along the 8-mile arc
of the DXO VOR-DME to intercept the 4.4-mile radius of the Detroit
Willow Run Airport at lat. 42[deg]09'57'' N., long. 83[deg]32'04''
W.; thence counterclockwise along the 4.4-mile radius of the Detroit
Willow Run Airport to lat. 42[deg]12'08'' N., long. 83[deg]26'44''
W.; thence north to lat. 42[deg]5'17'' N., long.

83[deg]26'04'' W. on the 4.4-mile radius of the Detroit Willow Run
Airport; thence counterclockwise along the 4.4-mile radius of the
Detroit Willow Run Airport to the point of beginning.
    Area B. That airspace extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the DXO VOR-DME 354[deg]T/360[deg]M
radial and the Detroit, Willow Run Airport 047[deg]T/054[deg]M
bearing; thence north along the DXO VOR-DME 354[deg]T/360[deg]M
radial to intercept the 10-mile arc of the DXO VOR-;DME; thence
clockwise along the 10-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME to intercept the
DXO VOR-DME 234[deg]T/240[deg]M radial; thence northeast along the
DXO VOR-DME 234[deg]T/240[deg]M radial to intercept the 8-mile arc
of the DXO VOR-DME; thence counterclockwise along the 8-mile arc of
the DXO VOR-DME arc to lat. 42[deg]20'47'' N., long. 83[deg]22'12''
W.; thence southwest to the point of beginning.
    Area C. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the 5-mile arc of the SVM VORTAC
and the 5-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME at lat. 42[deg]26'42'' N.,
long. 83[deg]29'34'' W.; thence clockwise along the 5-mile arc of
the DXO VOR-DME to intercept the DXO VOR-DME 063[deg]T/069[deg]M
radial; thence northeast along the DXO VOR-DME 063[deg]T/069[deg]M
radial to intercept the 4.1-mile radius of the Coleman A. Young
Municipal Airport at lat. 42[deg]20'30'' N., long. 83[deg]01'31''
W.; thence counterclockwise along the 4.1-mile radius of the Coleman
A. Young Municipal Airport to intercept the 20-mile arc of the DXO
VOR-DME at lat. 42[deg]21'09'' N., long. 82[deg]57'31'' W.; thence
clockwise along the DXO 20-DME arc to intercept the DXO VOR-DME
234[deg]T/240[deg]M radial; thence northeast along the DXO
234[deg]T/240[deg]M radial to intercept the 5-mile arc of the DXO
VOR-DME; thence clockwise along the 5-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME to
intercept the 4.4-mile radius of the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport at
lat. 42[deg]09'36'' N., long. 83[deg]41'43'' W.; thence
counterclockwise around the 4.4-mile radius of the Ann Arbor
Municipal Airport to intercept the SVM VORTAC 214[deg]T/217[deg]M
radial at lat. 42[deg]17'21'' N., long. 83[deg]42'10'' W.; thence
northeast along the SVM VORTAC 214[deg]T/217[deg]M radial to
intercept the 5-mile arc of the SVM VORTAC at lat. 42[deg]20'23''
N., long. 83[deg]39'25'' W.; thence counterclockwise along the 5-
mile arc of the SVM VORTAC to the point of beginning, excluding
Areas A and B previously described.
    Area D. That airspace extending upward from 3,500 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the SVM VORTAC 214[deg]T/217[deg]M
radial and the 20-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME; thence
counterclockwise along the 20-mile arc of the DXO VOR-ME to
intercept the DXO VOR-DME 234[deg]T/240[deg]M radial; thence
northeast along the DXO VOR-DME 234[deg]T/240[deg]M radial to
intercept the 5-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME at lat. 42[deg]03'57''
N., long. 83[deg]38'18'' W.; thence clockwise along the 5-mile arc
of the DXO VOR-DME to intercept the 4.4-mile radius of the Ann Arbor
Municipal Airport at lat. 42[deg]9'36'' N., long. 83[deg]41'43'' W.;
thence counterclockwise around the 4.4-mile radius of the Ann Arbor
Municipal Airport to intercept the SVM VORTAC 214[deg]T/217[deg]M
radial at lat. 42[deg]17'21'' N., long. 83[deg]42'10'' W.; thence
southwest the point of beginning.
    Area E. That airspace extending upward from 3,500 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the 5-mile arc of the SVM VORTAC
and the 5-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME at lat. 42[deg]26'42'' N.,
long. 83[deg]29'34'' W.; thence clockwise along the 5-mile arc of
the DXO VOR-DME to intercept the DXO VOR-DME 063[deg]T/069[deg]M
radial; thence northeast along the DXO VOR-DME 063[deg]T/069[deg]M
radial to intercept the 4.1-mile radius of the Coleman A. Young
Municipal Airport at lat. 42[deg]20'30'' N., long. 83[deg]01'31''
W.; thence counterclockwise along the 4.1-mile radius of the Coleman
A. Young Municipal Airport to intercept the 20-mile arc of the DXO
VOR-DME at lat. 42[deg]21'09'' N., long. 82[deg]57'31'' W.; thence
counterclockwise along the 20-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME to
intercept the SVM VORTAC 044[deg]T/047[deg]M radial; thence
southwest along the SVM VORTAC 044[deg]T/047[deg]M radial to
intercept the 5-mile arc of the SVM VORTAC at lat. 42[deg]28'08''
N., long. 83[deg]30'58'' W.; thence clockwise along the 5-mile arc
of the SVM VORTAC to the point of beginning.
    Area F. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the SVM VORTAC 044[deg]T/047[deg]M
radial and the 25-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME; thence clockwise
along the 25-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME to lat. 41[deg]48'32'' N.,
long. 83[deg]13'49'' W.; thence west to intercept the 25-mile arc of
the DXO VOR-DME at lat. 41[deg]48'11'' N., long. 83[deg]28'00'' W.;
thence clockwise along the 25-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME to
intercept the SVM VORTAC 214[deg]T/217[deg]M radial; thence
northeast along the SVM VORTAC 214[deg]T/217[deg]M radial to
intercept the 20-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME at lat. 42[deg]10'10''
N., long. 83[deg]48'40'' W.; thence counterclockwise along the 20-
mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME to intercept the SVM VORTAC 044[deg]T/
047[deg]M radial; thence northeast to the point of beginning.
    Area G. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the SVM VORTAC 214[deg]T/217[deg]M
radial and the 25-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME at lat. 42[deg]04'33''
N., long. 83[deg]53'44'' W.; thence counterclockwise along the 25-
mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME to lat. 41[deg]48'11'' N., long.
83[deg]28'00'' W.; thence west to intercept the 30-mile arc of the
DXO VOR-DME at lat. 41[deg]47'43'' N., long. 83[deg]44'08'' W.;
thence clockwise along the 30-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME to lat.
41[deg]51'00'' N., long. 83[deg]49'42'' W.; thence north to the
point of beginning.
    Area H. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 42[deg]37'56'' N., long. 83[deg]44'08'' W. on the
DXO VOR-DME 327[deg]T/333[deg]M radial; thence clockwise along the
30-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME to lat. 41[deg]46'30'' N., long.
83[deg]02'36'' W.; thence northwest to lat. 41[deg]48'44'' N., long.
83[deg]05'28'' W.; thence west to intercept the 25-mile arc of the
DXO VOR-DME at lat. 41[deg]48'32'' N., long. 83[deg]13'49'' W.;
thence counterclockwise along the 25-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME
until intercepting the SVM VORTAC 044[deg]T/047[deg]M radial; thence
southwest along the SVM VORTAC 044[deg]T/047[deg]M radial until
intercepting the 5-mile arc of the SVM VORTAC; thence clockwise
along the 5-mile arc of the SVM VORTAC to intercept the DXO VOR-DME
327[deg]T/333[deg]M radial at lat. 42[deg]21'52'' N., long.
83[deg]29'57'' W.; thence northwest to the point of beginning.
    Area I. That airspace extending upward from 9,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 41[deg]47'43'' N., long. 83[deg]44'08'' W. on the
30-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME; thence counterclockwise along the
30-mile arc of the DXO VOR-DME to lat. 41[deg]46'30'' N., long.
83[deg]02'36'' W.; thence northwest to lat. 41[deg] 48' 44'' N.,
long. 83[deg]05'28'' W.; thence west to the point of beginning.

    Note:  The Canadian airspace depicted in Areas C, F, and H above
are included in the legal description for the Detroit Class B to
accommodate charting. This accommodation reflects airspace
established by Transport Canada to complete the Detroit Class B
airspace area.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 8, 2012.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14AU12.017

[FR Doc. 2012-19902 Filed 8-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE C