[Federal Register: June 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 114)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33297-33298]
[DOCID:fr12jn08-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0130; Airspace Docket No. 08-AEA-11]

Modification of Class E Airspace; Wilkes-Barre, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; confirmation of effective date, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule
published in the Federal Register on February 21, 2008 (FR 73 9445)
Docket No. FAA-2008-0130 that modifies Class E Airspace at Wilkes-
Barre, PA. Additionally, this action corrects a minor technical error
in the publication of the coordinates for the Wyoming Valley Medical
Center, Wilkes-Barre, PA and the Community Medical Center, Scranton,
PA.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 5, 2008. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, Airspace Specialist,
System Support, AJO2-E2B.12, FAA Eastern Service Center, 1701 Columbia
Ave., College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (404) 305-
5572.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for
comments in the Federal Register on February 21, 2008 (73 FR 9445) to
modify Class E airspace and restore previously published airspace
descriptions at Wilkes-Barre, PA. After publication, it was discovered
that the airport reference point coordinates of the Wyoming Valley
Medical Center and the Community Medical Center Airports had minor
errors. This action corrects those errors.

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a
noncontroversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would
become effective on April 10, 2008. It further advised that a
confirmation docket would be published in the Federal Register
confirming the effective date. This docket completes that requirement.
No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that
effective date.

Correction

0
Pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the publication in the
Federal Register dated February 21, 2008 (73 FR 9445), Federal Register
Docket No.

FAA-2008-0130, on page 9446, column 3, line 46 is corrected to read:

    (Lat. 41[deg]15'45'' N., long. 75[deg]48'40'' W.)

and on page 9446, column 3, line 50 is corrected to read:

    (Lat. 41[deg]24'00'' N., long. 75[deg]38'49'' W.)
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, GA on April 25, 2008.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. E8-12782 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20825-20826]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8227]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-D-0144]

Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff;
User Fees for 513(g) Requests for Information; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the guidance entitled ``Guidance for Industry and Food
and Drug Administration Staff; User Fees for 513(g) Requests for
Information.'' This guidance document describes the user fees
associated with 513(g) requests for information.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at
any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at
any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance
document entitled ``Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug
Administration Staff; User Fees for 513(g) Requests for Information''
to the Division of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer
Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 4613, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002 or Office of Communication, Outreach and
Development (HFM-40), 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD
20852. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your request, or fax your request to<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access
to the guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bob Gatling, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 1640, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17),
Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N,
Rockville, MD 20852.<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 513(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(g)) provides a means for obtaining FDA's
views about classification information and the regulatory requirements
that may be applicable to a particular device. Title II of the Food and
Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), also termed the
Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85), extends
FDA's authority to collect medical device user fees by establishing a
fee for ``a request for classification information.''
    In the Federal Register of April 29, 2010 (75 FR 22601), FDA
announced the availability of the draft guidance. Comments on the draft
guidance were due by July 28, 2010. No comments were received. The
guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance of the
same title.
    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing
a document announcing the availability of a guidance document entitled
``Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; FDA and
Industry Procedures for Section 513(g) Requests for Information under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.'' This guidance describes
procedures for the submission, FDA review, and FDA response to requests
for information with respect to the classification of a device or the
requirements applicable to a device submitted in accordance with
section 513(g) requests for information.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
Agency's current thinking on user fees for 513(g) requests for
information. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any
person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative
approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statute and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
using the Internet. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents
is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance
documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov or from the
CBER Internet site at http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm. To receive
``Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; User
Fees for 513(g) Requests for Information,'' you may either send an
email request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic copy of
the document or send a fax request to<PHONE_NUMBER> to receive a hard
copy. Please use the document number 1709 to identify the guidance you
are requesting.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains information collection provisions that are
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collection(s) of information in this guidance was approved under OMB
control number 0910-0705.
    This guidance also refers to currently approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in
21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number
0910-0120 and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 have
been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES), either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: March 29, 2012.
Nancy K. Stade,
Deputy Director for Policy, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. 2012-8227 Filed 4-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: March 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 47)]
[Notices]
[Page 12356-12358]
[DOCID:fr10mr06-65]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0532; FRL-7761-6]

Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for the Establishment of
a Regulation for the Residues of Dimethomorph in or on Brassica Head
and Stem Food Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide
petition proposing the establishment of a regulation for residues of
the fungicide dimethomorph [(E,Z)4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-
dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propenyl]-morpholine] in or on Brassica head
and stem (Subgroup 5A) food commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0532 and pesticide petition number (PP)
4E6848, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch
(PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
     Hand Delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity
Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall 2, 1801
S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0532. The docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
docket facility is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0532. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line
at http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information

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

or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''

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

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

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

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

Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall
2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. The docket facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the docket facility is (703) 305-
5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Madden, Registration Division,
(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; (703)
305-6463; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

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

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

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

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of a pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment
or amendment of regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of
pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. EPA has
determined that this pesticide petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however,
EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at
this time or whether the data support granting of the pesticide
petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on this
pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of the
pesticide chemical residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at
http://www.regulations.gov/. To locate this information on the home

page of EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the
OPP docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking
on the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the
docket for the pesticide including the petition summary.

New Tolerance

    PP 4E6848. Interregional Research Project No. 4, Rutgers, the State
University of New Jersey, 681 U. S. Highway No. 1 South, North
Brunswick, NJ 08902-3390, proposes to establish a tolerance for
residues of the fungicide dimethomorph [(E,Z)4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-
(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propenyl]-morpholine] in or on food
commodities Brassica head and stem (Subgroup 5A) at 2.0 parts per
million (ppm). A reliable method for the determination of dimethomorph
residues in Brassica head and stem (Subgroup 5A) exists. This method is
the FDS Multi-Residue Method, Protocol D, as published in the Pesticide
Analytical Manual I.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: February 15, 2006.
 Rachel C. Holloman,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. 06-2241 Filed 3-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5429-5440]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2072]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1237; Airspace Docket No. 08-AWA-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Modification of the Atlanta Class B Airspace Area; GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Atlanta, GA, Class B
airspace area to ensure the containment of aircraft within Class B
airspace, reduce controller workload and enhance safety in the Atlanta,
GA, terminal area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 3, 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-2011-
1237 and Airspace Docket No. 08-AWA-1, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace, Regulations
and ATC Procedures Group, 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-2011-1237 and Airspace Docket No. 08-AWA-5) 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-2011-1237 and Airspace Docket No. 08-AWA-5.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337.
    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

    The primary purpose of Class B airspace 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. Controllers must inform the aircraft when leaving
and entering Class B airspace if it becomes necessary to extend the
flight path outside Class B airspace for spacing. However, in the
interest of safety, FAA policy dictates that such extensions be the
exception rather than the rule.

Atlanta Class B Airspace History

    On May 21, 1970, the FAA issued a final rule that established the
Atlanta, GA, Terminal Control Area (TCA) with an effective date of June
25, 1970 (35 FR 7784). The TCA was modified several times during the
1970s to accommodate revised instrument procedures, the addition of a
fourth parallel runway, and to ensure that the flight paths of large
turbine-powered aircraft remain within the designated airspace. In
1993, as part of the Airspace Reclassification Final Rule (56 FR
65638), the term ``terminal control area'' was replaced by ``Class B
airspace area.''
    A fifth parallel runway became operational at the Hartsfield-
Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) in May 2006, enabling the
implementation of Simultaneous Triple ILS operations as well as triple
departure procedures. The new procedures added additional traffic and
complexity to the ATL air traffic operation and the FAA found that not
all aircraft could be contained within Class B airspace due to the
existing design. To address this situation, the FAA issued a final rule
in October 2006 (71 FR 60419) that lowered the floor of the Atlanta
Class B airspace area from 6,000 feet MSL to 5,000 feet MSL within two
small areas (approximately 9 NM by 5 NM), one to the east and one to
the west of the airport and between the 20 NM and 25 NM arcs of the
Atlanta VORTAC. The rule, however, was an interim measure that didn't
address all issues with the Class B design, and the FAA noted its
intent to conduct a thorough review of the Atlanta Class B airspace
design for possible future revisions. Except for the changes
implemented in the 2006 rule, noted above, the configuration of the
Atlanta Class B airspace area has remained largely unchanged since the
1970s.

Need for Modification

    Traffic at ATL has increased dramatically in the years since the
airspace was originally designed. The airport has expanded from three
parallel runways in the early 1980s to five parallel runways today. The
operation has changed from a large contingent of propeller-driven
aircraft to an almost all jet fleet today with a varied mix of aircraft
types in the terminal area. The operational complexity at ATL also has
increased dramatically with the addition of the fifth runway and the
introduction of advanced navigation procedures (e.g., RNAV SIDs and
STARs), which necessitates additional Class B airspace and more
stringent procedures. In addition, there is a renewed safety emphasis
on retaining all large turbine-powered aircraft within the Class B
airspace to avoid mixing with other aircraft that are not in contact
with ATC. The Atlanta operation has outgrown the 1970s airspace design
and air traffic controllers often must vector aircraft on inefficient
routes in an effort to keep them within Class B airspace. Keeping large
jet aircraft within the existing Atlanta Class B airspace is not always
possible. For example, arrivals are sometimes required to extend the
downwind leg beyond the lateral limits of the existing Class B airspace
before turning onto final due to traffic volume. On hot summer days,
heavy aircraft on departure are sometimes unable to climb fast enough
to stay above the rising floor of the Class B airspace.

Clarification of Terms

    A review of comments received in response to the informal airspace
meetings (see below) revealed some confusion over the meaning or
application of several terms that apply to published VFR routes.
Frequently, the terms are incorrectly used interchangeably. Since the
terms are used in this NPRM, the following information is provided to
explain the purpose of each type of route.
    A VFR Corridor is airspace through a Class B airspace area with
defined vertical and lateral boundaries in which aircraft may operate
without an ATC clearance or communication with ATC. The corridor is, in
effect, a ``tunnel'' through Class B airspace. Due to heavy traffic
volume and procedures necessary to manage the flow of traffic, it has
not been possible to incorporate VFR corridors in Class B airspace
areas in recent years.
    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 flights under or around busy Class B airspace
without actually entering Class B airspace.
    A Class B airspace VFR transition route is a route depicted on a
TAC to accommodate VFR traffic transiting through a specific Class B
airspace area. The route includes a specific flight course and specific
ATC-assigned altitudes. Pilots must obtain an ATC clearance prior to
entering Class B airspace on the route.
    See the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) for more information
about these routes.

Pre-NPRM Public Input

    In October 2008, the FAA took action to form an Ad Hoc Committee to
develop recommendations for the FAA to consider in designing a proposed
modification to the Atlanta Class B airspace area. The Georgia
Department of Transportation (GDOT) Aviation Programs Office headed the
group, which consisted of representatives from airports that underlie
the Atlanta Class B airspace area, national aviation organizations, and
the ballooning and soaring communities. The Committee met three times
between February 2009 and April 2009.
    As announced in the Federal Register of December 4, 2009 (74 FR
63818), informal airspace meetings were held on February 22, 2010, in
Kennesaw, GA; on February 25, 2010, in Covington, GA; on March 1, 2010,
in Chamblee, GA; and on March 4, 2010, at Peachtree City Falcon Field,
Peachtree City, GA. The purpose

of the meetings was to provide airspace users an opportunity to present
their views and suggestions regarding modifications to the Atlanta
Class B airspace area.

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 a reduced
radius of 30 NM from the ATL VORTAC as opposed to the current 35 NM
radius. The preliminary design retained the extensions on the southwest
and southeast corners as well as proposing new extensions on the
northwest and northeast corners that extended out to a 40 NM radius in
those areas. The Ad Hoc Committee submitted several recommendations to
the FAA regarding the proposed modifications of the Atlanta Class B
airspace area.
    The Committee raised three concerns related to the proposed lower
Class B airspace floors, particularly in the airspace directly
underlying the final approach courses at ATL. First, the Committee
believed there would be increased congestion at lower altitudes due to
VFR traffic trying to avoid flying in the Class B airspace area and
leaving less room for VFR aircraft to transition the airspace. The
Committee recommended the FAA establish transition routes for north and
southbound traffic to assist VFR aircraft navigating through the area
and to mitigate congestion below the Class B floor.
    The FAA understands the need for safe routes for VFR aircraft to
transition through, around, and under the Class B airspace. The FAA
originally considered proposing to lower the Class B floor in the
airspace underlying the final approach courses at ATL from the current
3,500 feet MSL to 2,500 feet, which is the minimum vectoring altitude
(MVA) in that area. Instead, the FAA proposed to set the floor at 3,000
feet because that altitude would contain all operations that are not
currently being contained with the existing 3,500 foot floor. Aircraft
executing a missed approach or a go-around from the southern-most
runway are climbed to 3,000 feet. This altitude is needed to deconflict
traffic with other aircraft at 4,000 feet. Aircraft at 3,000 feet
routinely exit the existing Class B airspace, which conflicts with FAA
procedures. The procedures cannot be changed due to the lack of
available airspace to contain missed approaches.
    The 3,000 foot Class B floor provides adequate airspace for
aircraft to safely transition under the Class B airspace and still
maintain the required terrain and obstruction clearance. The FAA
intends to establish VFR Waypoints and Reporting Points to assist VFR
pilot navigation. The new VFR waypoints would be located over areas
that can be easily identified visually. The FAA also plans to establish
VFR routes that can be used to circumnavigate the Class B airspace when
necessary to avoid aircraft operating within the Class B airspace.
However, these routes would also be useful as a predetermined route
through the Class B airspace when operations permit. In addition to
these new VFR waypoints, the FAA intends to establish RNAV T-Routes
within Class B airspace for transitioning over the top of ATL. The T-
routes would be part of the low altitude IFR enroute structure, but
could also serve as VFR transition routes through the Class B for
suitably equipped aircraft. Since the routes would enter Class B
airspace, an ATC clearance would be required to use the T-routes.
Typically, VFR aircraft could be assigned either 4,500 feet or 5,500
feet when transitioning along these routes. The new T-Routes would also
make transitioning of IFR aircraft more safe and efficient. The VFR
Flyway Planning Chart on the back of the Atlanta Terminal Area Chart
would be updated to reflect the new routes and VFR waypoints. However,
the FAA does not plan to establish a VFR Flyway or VFR corridor over
the top of ATL because that airspace is too congested to accommodate
such a flyway or corridor.
    Second, the Committee was concerned that the lower floors would
result in commercial airline traffic flying at lower altitudes in
closer proximity to the satellite airports in the ATL area. Therefore,
the Committee contended that lower floors could decrease the efficiency
of the satellite airports and create IFR delays for arriving and
departing traffic at the satellite airports.
    The FAA looked at the Class B floors over the satellite airports.
With the opening of the fifth runway at ATL, departure procedures had
to be modified to reduce delays. One procedural modification was to
separate the prop and turboprop traffic from traffic lanes used by
faster jet aircraft. This resulted in more aircraft being turned north
and south off of ATL. The routes that these aircraft take are already
in existence and aircraft are already flying in the vicinity of Fulton
county Airport-Brown Field (FTY) and Dekalb-Peachtree (PDK) airports,
but below the floor of the existing Class B airspace. Lowering the
floor of the Class B airspace over these airports would only ensure
that this existing ATL departure traffic is contained within the Class
B airspace as required by FAA directives. The change would not affect
IFR traffic flows at either FTY or PDK. Also, the lower floor would not
impose a lower initial altitude for aircraft departing these airports.
Today, all aircraft departing all satellite airports are initially
assigned 3,000 feet. Aircraft are then normally assigned 5,000 feet, or
higher, upon initial contact with departure control. The assignment of
higher altitudes is not dependent on the Class B airspace, but rather
on the internal IFR airspace delegations within Atlanta TRACON (A80).
This practice would not change because of the proposed modifications of
the Class B airspace. There would be no expected increase in delays at
satellite airports due to the lowering of the Class B floor.
    Regarding satellite airport VFR traffic, it is true that lowering
the floor of the Class B airspace may affect altitudes that VFR
aircraft can initially climb to and still remain outside of the
proposed Class B airspace. For example, aircraft departing southbound
from Atlanta Regional Airport-Falcon Field (FFC), Newnan Coweta County
(CCO), Clayton County-Tara Field (4A7) and Griffin-Spalding County
(6A2) airports currently are able to climb to about 7,500 feet and
still remain outside of the Class B airspace. Lowering the floor would
have an impact VFR aircraft departing those airports in that they would
have to remain below 6,000 feet or 5,000 feet until clear of the Class
B airspace boundary, or request Class B service from A80. With today's
Class B airspace configuration, large turbine-powered aircraft are
allowed to mix with smaller aircraft departing the airports listed
above. Containing large turbine-powered aircraft within Class B
airspace, in compliance with FAA procedures, would increase safety in
the area by minimizing the potential mixing of controlled and
uncontrolled aircraft.
    The Committee's third concern regarding the lower floors was the
potential increase in noise complaints from surrounding communities.
The FAA understands the concerns of the surrounding communities
concerning noise and the effect of lowering the base of the Class B
airspace. However, the Class B airspace changes under consideration are
not associated with any changes of flight path or altitude. The FAA
does not intend to change any existing instrument procedures in
conjunction with the proposed Class B changes. As noted above, changes
in the Class B airspace are being proposed purely to ensure that
existing instrument procedures are contained

within the designated Class B airspace. The FAA believes that the noise
concerns result from the perception that aircraft would be flying lower
if the Class B floor is lowered. Aircraft are already flying in those
areas, and at those altitudes, utilizing current FAA procedures, but
these aircraft are not presently contained within Class B airspace as
required by FAA policy. This proposal is subject to an environmental
analysis prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
    The Committee recommended that the FAA establish visual references
to mark the Class B boundaries to assist VFR aircraft that have limited
navigation equipment. The FAA agrees and would establish VFR Reporting
Points at key points around the Class B airspace area to aid in
navigation through and around the area, if this rule is adopted.
    The Committee recommended that the current 8,000 feet and 6,000
feet Class B airspace floors over PDK be retained, or kept as close to
the current altitudes as possible, in order to maintain efficient
operations at PDK.
    Due to the opening of the fifth runway at ATL, departure procedures
had to be modified to reduce delays, as described above. Aircraft are
already flying in the vicinity of PDK airport. Lowering the floor of
the Class B airspace over the satellite airports would only contain the
existing ATL departure traffic within the Class B airspace; it would
not affect IFR traffic flows at PDK.
    The Committee also recommended that the Class B floor over
Covington Municipal Airport (9A1) not be lowered from 8,000 feet to
4,000 feet as proposed, but that the airport be excluded (i.e., ``cut
out'') from the Class B airspace. After reviewing this recommendation,
the FAA found that the airspace over 9A1 could be excluded without an
adverse impact to the ATL operation. The proposed Class B airspace
boundary has been revised so that 9A1 would be completely outside of
Class B airspace.
    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 Committee stated that lower IFR departure altitudes could force
faster aircraft to mix with slower aircraft.
    The proposed design of the Class B would not result in lower IFR
departure altitudes. IFR traffic flows would be the same with the
proposed Class B airspace design as they are today. The initial
departure altitude has been 3,000 feet for all satellite airports since
the mid 1970s. After initial departure, aircraft are normally assigned
5,000 feet until they are clear of other traffic landing at ATL. IFR
aircraft are not restricted by the Class B airspace, but rather by
other IFR traffic. Once the conflicting traffic is clear, aircraft are
routinely cleared to climb into/through the Atlanta Class B airspace.
There remains the possibility of faster and slower aircraft mixing at
low altitudes outside of the Class B airspace. This, however, is not
new and is more a function of satellite airport proximity to the ATL
airport than of the Class B airspace.
    The Committee held that the FAA had not studied the effect of the
proposed Class B design on VFR traffic flow.
    There are two areas where VFR flights would be most affected by the
proposed change in the Class B airspace. The first area is below the
new proposed 5,000 foot MSL shelf north of ATL. In this area, pilots
would have to choose between flying at a lower altitude,
circumnavigating the area to the north, or requesting Class B service
from A80. Likewise, the area that currently underlies the final
approach courses for ATL is proposed to be lowered to 3,000 feet MSL.
Again, pilots must choose between flying lower, circumnavigating the
area, or requesting Class B service from A80 to transition the area.
Large turbine powered aircraft are routinely operating in both of these
areas. Class B airspace is necessary in these areas to ensure the
highest level of safety possible in the Atlanta terminal area.
    The Committee raised the issue of flight restrictions over the
Atlanta Motor Speedway in Hampton, GA, during NASCAR races. The
Committee believed that lowering the Class B floor from 8,000 feet to
6,000 feet in that area would cause compression of traffic when a race
was in progress.
    The flight restriction, currently described in FDC NOTAM number 9/
5151, prohibits flight within a 3 NM radius of the track, up to and
including 3,000 feet AGL, during the period from one hour before until
one hour after the end of the event. While events subject to the
restrictions of this NOTAM occur once a year at the Atlanta Motor
Speedway, the restriction does not apply to other Speedway race events.
Even when the restriction is in effect, the FAA does not believe that
circumnavigating the area would be a significant impact to aircraft
operating in the vicinity. As stated in the NOTAM, the restriction does
not apply to aircraft authorized by, and in contact with, ATC for
operational or safety of flight purposes. Furthermore, aircraft may
operate in the restricted airspace to the extent necessary to arrive at
or depart from an airport using standard air traffic control
procedures.
    The Committee stated that compressing aircraft lower to the ground
as a result of lower Class B floors places aircraft closer to obstacles
and terrain, which limits the time pilots have to respond to a
mechanical emergency. Pilots must plan their flights to take these
potential situations into account. Today, aircraft routinely operate at
or below 2,400 feet while transitioning under the existing Class B
airspace. This altitude is 600 feet below the floor of the proposed
Class B airspace in some areas. This altitude has routinely provided
safe obstacle and terrain clearance for aircraft transitioning under
the Class B airspace.
    Instead of lowering the Class B floor, one Committee member
suggested that ATC should advise aircraft with poor climb performance
that they are leaving the Class B airspace or publish a climb gradient
that will allow aircraft to remain within the existing Class B
airspace.
    The need for lower Class B airspace floors to the north and to the
south of ATL is based on the requirement to fully contain existing
instrument procedures within Class B airspace. These procedures are not
fully contained by today's Class B airspace configuration. Due to
internal airspace delegations designed to segregate slower prop and
turboprop traffic from turbojet traffic, prop and turboprop aircraft
must fly at lower altitudes out to 20NM before they can initiate a
climb. This allows enough room for turbojet aircraft to climb above the
prop and turboprop aircraft. Additionally, merely advising the aircraft
that they are leaving the Class B airspace is not an option. Retaining
these aircraft within the Class B airspace is required by FAA policy
and is a top safety issue. Since the existing airspace is inadequate,
the Class B design needs to be modified.
    The Committee wrote that the new proposed Class B extensions on the
northwest and northeast corners (referred to by commenters as the
``ears'' or ``wings''), as well as the existing southwest and southeast
extensions, would be difficult to navigate around and that they are
unnecessary. The FAA reevaluated this feature and concluded that all
four ``ears'' can be deleted from the proposed design.
    The Committee believed that the lower Class B floors could impact
sailplane operations at the Monroe-Walton County Airport (D73) and the
West Georgia Regional Airport-O. V. Gray Field (CTJ). It contended that
the lower inbound traffic to ATL from the east and the west would
infringe on

airspace being used outside of the Class B airspace by sailplanes.
    Arrival traffic to ATL does not typically fly in the vicinity of
those airports. ATL inbounds are routed from the four corners,
northeast, northwest, southeast, and southwest. These arrival corridors
are well clear of the two airports and are not changing due to the
proposed the Class B airspace modifications.
    The Ad Hoc Committee report also included an alternative Class B
design for FAA's consideration. In part, this design consisted of
higher Class B floors than those proposed by the FAA, such as retaining
the current 8,000 foot floor north and south of ATL. Also, a large
portion of the Class B would have a 6,000 foot floor. A block of Class
B airspace would be aligned along the extended centerlines, to the east
and west of the airport, with a floor of 2,500 feet from 7 NM to 12 NM,
and a base of 3,500 feet MSL from 12 NM out to 20 NM. Surrounding this
section on all sides, the Class B floor would be 5,000 feet MSL. The
5,000 foot area would provide for westbound VFR traffic at 4,500 feet
MSL north of the airport and eastbound VFR traffic at 3,500 feet MSL
south of the airport.
    The Committee's proposal would require changing ATC procedures to
fit the proposed alternate airspace, instead of changing the airspace
to fit the procedures. These procedures, adopted over many years, have
proven to be the most efficient for handling the high volume of traffic
serving ATL. The main points of the alternative design in the
Committee's report are discussed below.
    1. The FAA does not find that the 6,000 foot area would be adequate
to contain all large turbine powered aircraft departing ATL. It does
not allow enough room for departures to clear internal airspace
boundaries that protect ATL jet departures from satellite airport
departures. Additionally, on the southeast and southwest corners of the
airspace, it does not allow ATL arrival aircraft to get low enough to
feed the south final.
    2. Raising the Class B airspace floor over the downtown area and
the stadiums to 5,000 feet to allow traffic to overfly the FTY Class D
airspace area and (when NOTAM 9/5151 is in effect) would be
problematic. The current floor over the downtown area would not change
in the FAA's proposed Class B design. The floor of the Class B airspace
over the downtown area has been 3,500 feet since at least the mid-1970s
and has provided adequate space for aircraft to transition that
airspace. A 5,000-foot floor would not allow departures or missed
approach aircraft to be contained within the Class B airspace.
    3. The Committee contended that turboprop departures should not be
turned until they can comply with the 5,000 foot floor. This is not
operationally feasible because it would require the turboprops to be
blended back in with the jets on departure and would greatly reduce
departure capacity at ATL.
    4. The Committee suggested that ATL missed approaches should be
flown as departures unless an emergency exists. This alternative
procedure would not allow ATC enough options. The rules that apply to
missed approaches in a terminal environment, where multiple runways are
being used simultaneously for arrivals and departures, are very
complex. They require ATC to retain the maximum flexibility in the
operation to ensure that we can effectively separate missed approach
and unplanned go-arounds from departing aircraft. Sometimes, aircraft
will be able to proceed outbound on the departure tracks. Other times
aircraft must be turned immediately to avoid aircraft departing
simultaneously from a parallel runway.
    5. The Committee also contended that long, low, finals are not
needed. Currently, aircraft are turned on to parallel finals at ATL
between 3,500 feet and 7,000 feet MSL. FAA Order JO 7110.65 requires
that aircraft being turned onto parallel finals be separated by 3 miles
longitudinal or 1,000 feet vertical separation until they are
established on final approach course. It is more efficient to turn the
aircraft on final with vertical separation. Raising the altitude that
aircraft are turned on to parallel finals would result in even longer
finals and would require Class B extensions beyond 30NM. The FAA has
been able to reduce the size of the proposed Class B on the east and
west sides to less than 30 NM based on the existing procedures.

Discussion of Informal Airspace Meeting Comments

    Over 150 comments were received in response to the informal
airspace meetings. Two commenters wrote in support of the proposal,
while the remaining comments opposed various aspects of the proposed
Class B modifications.
    One commenter contended that the proposed Class B changes are
premature since ATL flights declined in 2009 and could continue to do
so over the next decade due to the U.S. economic downturn. According to
the commenter, the current Class B should be left in place and reviewed
again in five or ten years.
    While economic swings may happen periodically, the volume of
traffic and passenger boardings at ATL remain extremely high. Passenger
boardings at ATL declined by just over three percent from 2008 to 2009,
but even so, boardings exceeded 42 million passengers (over eight times
the threshold to qualify for Class B airspace). Calendar year 2010 data
show a two percent rise in boardings from the previous year. Similarly,
airport operations declined slightly from 2008 to 2009, but still
totaled over 970,000 operations (more than three times the number to
qualify for Class B airspace). The proposed airspace changes are
necessary to ensure safety of flight. Nevertheless, the FAA would
continue to periodically evaluate the airspace design and may propose
changes in the future if circumstances dictate.
    Some commenters suggested that the ATL Class B airspace should be
set up like that in Seattle, WA, but aligned along ATL's east/west
approaches and departures with fixes outbound so traffic is strung out
over a larger area east- and west-bound. They contended that this
alignment would leave the northern satellite airports free to expedite
their arrivals/departures; while ATL missed approaches could fly
straight out.
    Each Class B airspace area design is individually tailored to fit
the operational needs of the primary airport. Atlanta's airspace system
could not be set up like Seattle due to the many differences between
the two operations. West coast facilities are able to take advantage of
the fact that the majority of the traffic arrives from the same
direction (east) while Atlanta traffic arrives from all directions. The
Seattle Class B design is influenced by high terrain to the east and
northwest as well as special use airspace northwest and southwest of
the area. Additionally, the Atlanta operation is much larger than
Seattle, involving five runways versus three, and accommodating over
three times the number of airport operations. Seattle's Class B
configuration simply would not provide sufficient airspace to contain
Atlanta's operations. Regarding missed approaches, ATL missed approach
aircraft cannot always fly straight out because aircraft departing from
other runways also occupy the same airspace. In the FAA's proposed
design, the size of the Atlanta Class B would be reduced so that all
Class B airspace beyond 30 NM would be eliminated.
    One commenter wrote that the proposed ``wings'' in the four
quadrants

should be retained because eliminating the wings exposes arriving
aircraft below 10,000 feet to transitory nonparticipating aircraft
circumnavigating the Class B airspace.
    The FAA has reevaluated the proposed Class B extensions. The
existing and proposed ``wings'' extended beyond the 30 NM Class B
lateral limit as provided in FAA Order JO 7400.2H. The vertical and
lateral limits of the area are designed to contain all instrument
procedures within Class B airspace. In this proposal, the outer limits
of the proposed Class B have been reduced to a maximum of 30 NM from
ATL to meet FAA policy and to address Ad Hoc Committee comments that
the ``wings'' should be reduced or eliminated.
    One commenter contended that aircraft will be unable to identify
the lateral boundaries on the ``45s'' (Note: the ``45s'' refers to
those Class B boundary lines currently described by the ATL VORTAC
323[deg], 031[deg], 138[deg] and 218[deg] radials) because they would
no longer be based on ATL VORTAC radials. In addition, the east and
west Class B boundaries would be difficult to identify because they are
defined by longitude lines rather than DME.
    The FAA has found that, in the current Class B design, some of the
boundaries that are defined by radials and DME are the same areas where
aircraft are consistently leaving the Class B airspace. Due to the
position of the ATL VORTAC, if radials were used to describe the
proposed realigned ``45s,'' it would result in the designation of more
Class B airspace than is needed to contain current operations. An
increasing number of general and business aviation users are now RNAV
or RNAV GPS equipped. Additionally, pilots may request vectors to
remain clear of Class B airspace. The Ad Hoc Committee concurred with
the use of GPS in defining certain area boundaries.
    Many commenters were concerned about the perceived impacts of the
proposed changes on VFR operations in the Atlanta terminal area. It was
stated that the FAA did not fully determine the impact on VFR aircraft
flying beneath the Class B airspace. In response, a new study was done,
which found that, of the 7,123 flights observed in the vicinity of PDK,
141 were operating above 5,000 feet MSL. With almost 98% of the
aircraft flying in that area already operating below 5,000 feet MSL,
lowering the floor of Class B airspace to 5,000 feet MSL would not
significantly impact VFR operations.
    However, many commenters echoed concerns also raised by the Ad Hoc
Committee that the lower Class B floors would cause the compression of
VFR traffic beneath the Class B and/or require pilots to fly further to
deviate around the Class B airspace. Commenters said that the changes
could increase the potential for midair collisions, reduce the airspace
available for avoiding Class D airspace areas and obstructions in the
ATL terminal area, and leave pilots with less time and altitude to
react to inflight emergency situations or locate a suitable emergency
landing site.
    The FAA acknowledges these concerns and recognizes that compression
could occur for some VFR operations. However, with the existing Class B
configuration, VFR aircraft that are not in communication with ATC are
currently mixing with turbine-powered ATL 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 heavy concentration of operations by all
types of aircraft in the Atlanta terminal area, we believe the
operation of large turbine-powered aircraft outside the Class B
airspace poses a greater safety risk. Lowering the floor of the Class B
airspace increases safety by segregating large turbine-powered aircraft
from aircraft that may not be in contact with ATC. As always, it is the
pilot's prerogative and responsibility to evaluate these factors and
determine the safest course of action for any given flight.
    One commenter opposed the lowering of the Class B floor in the
vicinity of PDK from 8,000 feet to 5,000 feet because it could cause
compression of VFR aircraft given the fact that the PDK Class D
airspace ceiling is 3,500 feet.
    The existing Class B floor above PDK is 8,000 feet, while
immediately to the east and south of PDK, the existing floor is 6,000
feet. Under the proposed Class B changes, the floor of Class B airspace
above the southern half of the PDK Class D airspace would be 5,000
feet; to the northeast, the floor would be 6,000 feet; and to the
northwest, the floor would be 7,000 feet. This would still give pilots
room to navigate north of the PDK airport eastbound at 5,500 feet. It
is true that the proposed change would eliminate the 5,500 foot VFR
altitude over the southern half of the PDK Class D airspace. This may
require the pilot to make a choice to fly eastbound below 3,000 feet
AGL or to fly further north in order to fly above 3,000 feet AGL and
below the Class B airspace.
    Other commenters argued that the proposed 3,000 foot floor on the
east and west sides of the area would make it more difficult for VFR
aircraft to navigate around the city and get from north-to-south and
vice versa. The commenters asked that more waypoint-driven VFR routes
be developed around the city, and that a ``corridor'' used by A80 to
route aircraft over ATL be publicized and added to the Sectional Chart
and be made a more routine choice for VFR pilots.
    Regarding the proposed 3,000 foot floor, the existing Class B floor
in those areas is 3,500 feet MSL. Today, aircraft landing at ATL are
intercepting the southern final approach course farther from the
airport than needed to meet the present Class B separation criteria.
During Triple ILS approaches, aircraft are required to maintain 1,000
feet vertical separation until established on the final approach
courses. This mandates an aircraft final approach interception point
that is two NM farther from the airport than would be required if the
Class B floor was lowered to 3,000 feet. The proposed 3,000-foot floor
would allow aircraft to be turned onto the final approach course closer
to the airport which would increase efficiency, save fuel and reduce
emissions. Additionally, lowering the floor to 3,000 feet would allow
Visual Approaches to be conducted more often, which is the most
efficient arrival operation at ATL. The proposed 3,000 foot floor would
produce a safer airspace environment for aircraft arriving at the
world's busiest airport. Flying VFR under the lowest floor of the Class
B airspace always requires the pilot in command to evaluate traffic
that may be flying overhead within the Class B as well as terrain,
obstructions and emergency landing options and determine the best and
safest course of action for the planned flight. Regarding waypoint-
driven VFR routes, the Atlanta TAC would be revised to contain VFR
flyways as well as GPS intersections/waypoints to assist VFR pilot
navigation.
    In regard to the comment about A80's ``corridor'' over the top of
Atlanta, this is not the same thing as a ``VFR corridor'' as described
in the Clarification of Terms section, above. The A80 Satellite Sectors
are assigned airspace within the Class B that can be used to transition
aircraft north and south. This airspace delegation is adjusted based on
the operational runway configuration in use at ATL. It is a 6 NM wide
north/south airspace area that overlies the approach side of the
arrival runways. Its primary use is to route IFR aircraft departing
airports north of VOR Federal airway V-18 that are filed to
destinations south of the

Atlanta area. It is also used when operationally advantageous to route
some aircraft northbound that are landing at airports to the north and
within A80's airspace. This small, high traffic density ``corridor,''
encompassing 5,000 to 6,000 feet, is used by air traffic controllers to
efficiently flow and meter Atlanta satellite airport aircraft. Since
the location of the ``corridor'' shifts based on the direction of
operations at ATL, it would be impractical to publish the locations on
aeronautical charts. Clearance into the area is based on traffic and
the workload of the Satellite Controllers. It is intended for
controller operational use. Pilots may request use of the ``corridor''
and controllers may approve the request when appropriate. VFR aircraft
flying in this airspace are required to obtain a Class B clearance.
    Several commenters said that the FAA should have considered
establishing VFR corridors through the Class B airspace to offset the
issue of flying beneath the lower Class B floors. The FAA considered a
VFR corridor, however, since a VFR corridor permits flight through
Class B airspace without an ATC clearance or radio communications
requirements, the idea was not adopted due to the high volume of
traffic, the amount of airspace required to create a useful corridor,
and the potential effects on safety considering weather and missed
approach procedures.
    One commenter requested that the FAA establish ``traffic dependent
routes'' that could be used to allow more direct routes to FTY and PDK
when traffic, time and weather conditions permit. ``Traffic dependent
routes'' are currently being discussed with A80 separately from this
Class B proposal process. Class B airspace would have no effect on the
implementation of ``traffic dependent routes.''
    One commenter noted a lack of IFR arrival routes into the satellite
airports for use by smaller, but technically advanced, aircraft.
Currently, the DIFFI ONE, JRAMS TWO (RNAV) and the TRBOW EIGHT Standard
Terminal Arrivals (STARs) are in effect. These STARs were designed to
facilitate all types of aircraft inbound from the south of Atlanta that
have filed to airports north of Atlanta that are within A80's airspace.
It is important to note that these STARs are also designed to keep
aircraft that are not landing at the Atlanta Airport safely outside of
the Atlanta base leg arrival traffic as well as Atlanta departing
traffic.
    Several commenters suggested that lowering the Class B floors would
result in increased IFR departure delays from satellite airports such
as FTY and PDK. The existence of Class B airspace has no impact on
delays from these airports. The determining factors for delays are
normally traffic volume and weather. No additional IFR aircraft would
be introduced into the airspace over these airports, so the traffic
that flows through the affected airspace is already there. Where
aircraft fly today in that area is where they would fly if the new
airspace is implemented. The only difference is that, if the new Class
B is implemented, those aircraft would be contained within the Class B
airspace. IFR aircraft departing from satellite airports would not be
artificially held down due to a change in the floor of the Class B
airspace. Any IFR delays experienced by the satellite airports should
be of the same frequency and magnitude as those experienced today.
    There is also a perception that IFR aircraft departing satellite
airports are kept out of the Class B airspace. This is not the case.
With the proposed Class B airspace, aircraft departing satellite
airports would be worked within Class B airspace much more often. For
example, a turbojet aircraft departing Runway 8 at FTY going eastbound
is normally assigned 5,000 feet MSL shortly after takeoff. Today, that
aircraft is outside Class B airspace. If the proposed Class B change is
implemented, that same aircraft would still be assigned 5,000 feet but
would be contained within Class B airspace.
    A pilot who flies out of Gwinnett County Airport-Briscoe Field
(LZU) (in comparing his current operations below the existing 6,000
foot floor, to the north of Atlanta) stated that if the Class B floor
is lowered to 5,000 feet in that area, he could not legally fly VFR at
3,000 feet AGL. Aircraft operating below Class B airspace north of
Atlanta may transition west bound at 4,500 feet MSL and eastbound at
3,500 feet MSL. These altitudes ensure that VFR aircraft are outside of
Class B airspace and will remain above the FTY Class D airspace area.
In this instance, there are at least three options for VFR aircraft:
    1. Alter course to avoid the FTY, Dobbins ARB (MGE), DeKalb-
Peachtree (PDK) and Cobb County-McCollum Field (RYY) Class D airspace
areas at 3,500 MSL;
    2. Ask for VFR Flight Following from A80. If VFR aircraft are
receiving VFR Flight Following from A80, they can transit these Class D
airspace areas without having to contact each individual control tower;
or
    3. Fly just north of an east/west line over PDK which will put VFR
aircraft in an area where the lower limit of Class B is either 6,000 or
7,000 MSL. This airspace can be transited at 5,500 feet MSL while
remaining outside the Class B and Class D airspace areas.
    Another commenter said that extending the Class B airspace to LZU
would require pilots on approach to Runway 7 to fly under the Class B
shelf which could discourage access by light sport pilots and students.
The commenter asked that the Class B boundary be moved farther from LZU
to allow several miles for extended downwind. Since the existing Class
B airspace extends out to 35 NM, today the LZU airport totally
underlies a shelf of Class B airspace. With the proposed Class B
design, LZU airport would be completely outside the Class B boundary.
Aircraft approaching Runway 7 may still need to fly under a 6,000 foot
Class B floor, but this floor is well above traffic pattern altitude
and leaves plenty of room for aircraft to maneuver. The proposed design
would be much less restrictive to LZU airport operations than the
existing airspace.
    One commenter believed that lowering the Class B floor would cause
the existing VFR ``corridors'' to be within Class B airspace, thus
defeating the purpose of the ``corridors.'' ATL does not have VFR
corridors in either the current or proposed airspace design. The FAA
believes that the commenter is referring, instead, to the charted VFR
flyways depicted on the reverse side of the Atlanta VFR Terminal Area
Chart. If the proposed airspace is implemented, these flyways will be
amended based on the Class B changes. The FAA intends to develop
additional flyways and to add GPS waypoints to the chart to assist
pilots in navigating around the area. The FAA has no plans to develop a
VFR corridor within the Atlanta Class B airspace area because the
airspace is simply too congested.
    Over 90 comments concerned impacts of the proposal on the
communities around PDK airport, including: Increased noise and air
pollution; lower property values and inability to sell homes;
detrimental effect on local businesses; reduced tax revenues; and
decreased quality of life. Noise complaints were a recurring issue
because many commenters believed that lowering the floor of the Class B
airspace would cause aircraft to fly lower over residential areas
resulting in increased noise for their communities.
    The FAA is not proposing to change existing air traffic procedures
or flight paths, therefore, where aircraft fly today is where they
would continue to fly if the proposed Class B changes are implemented.
As stated previously, the reason for the proposed Class B change is to
comply with agency policy to

contain large turbine-powered aircraft arriving and departing ATL
within Class B airspace on the routes they are currently flying.
Therefore, the Class B changes should not cause an increase of over-
flight noise from what residents are experiencing today.
    Additionally, there is a perception that Hartsfield jets will begin
flying lower over residential areas near PDK airport due to the
lowering of the Class B floor. The FAA does not intend to change where
aircraft fly today. ATL arrivals are operating in the area in question
at 6,000 feet today and they will continue to operate at that altitude
in the future. As previously discussed, the purpose of the proposed
lowering of the Class B floor to 5,000 feet is to encompass ATL
departures that are already operating in that area at 5,000 feet
underneath the arrivals (but outside the confines of Class B airspace).
ATL arrival flows could not be lowered from 6,000 feet to 5,000 feet
without also lowering the departures down to 4,000 feet in order to be
below the arrivals with proper separation. This would require the Class
B floor to be even lower at 4,000 feet, but that is not being
considered. Since arrivals and departures to both ATL and PDK will
continue to operate at the same altitudes as they do today, none of the
above impacts would result from the proposed Class B changes. In fact,
the vast majority of noise being experienced by residents is caused by
aircraft at or below 3,000 feet MSL when taking off from, or landing
at, PDK. These aircraft will continue to fly at those altitudes
regardless of any changes made to the Atlanta Class B airspace. The
proposed Class B changes would have no effect, positive or negative, on
noise generated by aircraft arriving or departing PDK. Therefore,
lowering the floor of Class B airspace to 5,000 feet MSL would not have
an appreciable effect on the amount of noise experienced by residents
in the neighborhoods surrounding PDK.
    Two commenters wrote that a new reliever airport should be
constructed in the Atlanta area to support the growth of air travel and
preclude the need for modifying the Class B airspace. This suggestion
is outside the scope of this proposed rulemaking effort.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Atlanta Class B airspace
area. This action (depicted on the attached chart) proposes to lower
the floor of Class B airspace to ensure the containment of large
turbine-powered aircraft, reduce the outer lateral dimensions of the
area for more efficient airspace utilization, and update the Atlanta
airport geographic position to reflect the current airport survey
information. The Class B airspace ceiling would remain at 12,500 feet
MSL. The proposed revisions of the Atlanta Class B airspace area are
outlined below.
    Area A. Area A is the surface area that extends from the ground up
to 12,500 feet MSL. The FAA is not proposing any changes to Area A.
    Area B. A revised Area B is proposed consisting of that airspace
extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL east and west of the Atlanta
airport. The revised Area B would combine two existing subareas, B and
C. The existing area B consists of a small segment of airspace, east of
the ATL airport that extends upward from 2,100 feet MSL between the 7
and 9-mile radii of the Atlanta VORTAC. The existing Area C includes
that airspace extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL, east and west of
Atlanta airport between the 7 and 12 NM radius of the Atlanta VORTAC.
With this change, the existing 2,100-foot floor of Class B airspace
would be eliminated.
    Area C. Area C is redefined to include that airspace that extends
upward from 3,000 feet MSL (as described above, the existing Area C
extends upward from 2,500 feet MSL). The new Area C would lower the
existing floor of Class B airspace from 3,500 feet MSL to 3,000 feet
MSL. Currently, Area D includes the airspace extending upward from
3,500 feet MSL. With this proposal, most of the airspace now in Area D
would be incorporated into the new Area C (with the lower 3,000-foot
floor).
    Area D. This area would still consist of that airspace extending
upward from 3,500 feet MSL. However, it would be significantly reduced
in size due to the modification of Area C, described above. The revised
Area D would include only that airspace bounded on the south by a line
4 miles north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R localizer course,
and on the north by a line 8 miles north of and parallel to the above
mentioned localizer courses. The revised Area D would be bounded on the
west by long. 84[deg]51'38'' W., and on the east by long.
84[deg]00'32'' W.
    Area E. This area would continue to include the airspace extending
upward from 4,000 feet MSL, but it would be modified incorporating a
small segment of Class B airspace, south of ATL that currently extends
upward from 6,000 feet MSL. In addition, Area E would incorporate the
two segments, currently extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL that were
added by the October 2006 rule as discussed in the Background section,
above.
    Area F. Area F consists of that airspace extending upward from
5,000 feet MSL. The area currently is composed of four small segments,
one southwest of ATL, one southeast and the two segments east and west
of ATL that were designated in the October 2006 rule. These four areas
would be removed from Area F and incorporated into other subareas with
lower floors. The modified Area F would be located north of ATL within
the area bounded on the south by a line 8 miles north of and parallel
to the Runway 08L/26R localizer courses, and on the north by a line
13.5 miles north of and parallel to the above mentioned localizer
courses. On the east and west, Area F would be bounded approximately by
the 30 NM radius of the Atlanta VORTAC. The effect of this change would
be to lower the floor of Class B airspace from 6,000 feet MSL to 5,000
feet MSL in the described area.
    Area G. Area G contains that airspace extending upward from 6,000
feet MSL. Currently, Area G consists of airspace north of ATL, which
would largely be incorporated into the revised Area F. The revised Area
G would consist of the airspace bounded approximately between the
Atlanta VORTAC 30 NM radius on the south, and a line 12 miles south of
and parallel to the Runway 10/28 localizer courses.
    Area H. This area consists of two airspace segments that extend
upward from 5,000 feet MSL, one located southwest and one located
southeast of ATL. The Area H segments would be bounded on the north by
a line 12 miles south of and parallel to the Runway 10/28 localizer
courses and on the south by the 30 NM radius of the Atlanta VORTAC,
excluding the airspace within Area G as described above.
    Area I. Area I is redefined to consist of the airspace extending
upward from 7,000 feet MSL north of ATL. The revised Area I would be
bounded on the north side by the 30 NM radius of the Atlanta VORTAC; on
the south by a line 13.5 NM north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R
localizer courses; on the east by a line from lat. 33[deg]52'25'' N.,
long. 84[deg]19'08'' W. direct to lat. 34[deg]04'20'' N., long.
84[deg]09'24'' W.; and on the west by a line from lat 33[deg]53'28''
N., long. 84[deg]36'07'' W. This change would lower the floor of Class
B airspace from 8,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL in the defined area.
    Area J. Area J would be a new subarea to describe that airspace
extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL in two segments, one northwest and
one northeast, of ATL. One segment would

abut the west side of Area I and the other segment would abut the east
side of Area I. The two segments would abut the northern boundary of
Area F, with the 30 NM radius of the Atlanta VORTAC defining their
northern edges. Area J would lower part of the Class B airspace floor
from 8,000 feet MSL to 6,000 feet MSL in the northwest and northeast
sections of the area.
    If the above proposed changes are implemented, all existing Class B
airspace that lies outside the 30 NM radius of the Atlanta VORTAC would
be eliminated. These changes are being proposed to ensure the
containment of large turbine-powered aircraft within Class B airspace
as required by FAA directives to enhance safety and the efficient
management of air traffic in the Atlanta, GA terminal area.
    The geographic coordinates in this proposal are stated in degrees,
minutes and seconds based on North American Datum 83.
    Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order
7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class B airspace area
proposed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there
is no new information collection requirement associated with this final
rule.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563
directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation
only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended
regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact
of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements
Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies
to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they
be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written
assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or
final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the
expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed
rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows:
    This action proposes to modify the Atlanta, GA, Class B airspace
area to ensure the containment of aircraft within Class B airspace,
reduce controller workload and enhance safety in the Atlanta, GA,
terminal area. It lowers the Class B Airspace in some sections to
encompass existing IFR traffic. Lowering the floor of the Class B
airspace would increase safety by segregating large turbine-powered
aircraft from aircraft that may not be in contact with ATC. It would
also increase safety and reduce air traffic controller workload by
reducing the number of radio communications that air traffic
controllers must use to inform IFR aircraft when they are leaving and
re-entering Class B airspace. This would reduce the amount of
distraction that air traffic controllers face in issuing these
communications and free radio time for more important control
instructions. IFR traffic would not be rerouted as a result of this
proposal.
    The change may cause some VFR pilots to have to choose between
flying lower, circumnavigating the area, or requesting Class B service
from A80 to transition the area. This has the potential of increasing
costs to VFR pilots if the alternative routes are longer, take more
time and burn more fuel. The FAA believes, however, that there would be
minimal impact to VFR aircraft operating where the Class B floor would
be lowered. Where the floor would be lowered to 5,000 feet, an FAA
sampling of VFR traffic found that 98 percent of 7123 VFR flights were
already operating below 5,000 feet. Where the floor would be lowered to
3,000 feet, we believe there is sufficient airspace to allow safe
flight below the Class B airspace. The minimum vectoring altitude
(based in part on obstruction clearance) under most of the proposed
3,000-foot floor is 2,500 feet. VFR aircraft can and do fly safely at
2,000 feet under the existing Class B floor. Recognizing that some VFR
aircraft may elect to circumnavigate instead of flying lower, it is
only a short deviation in distance and time would be needed to place
the aircraft beneath a higher Class B floor.
    The FAA intends to take actions that would increase the
alternatives available to VFR pilots. For instance, if this proposal is
adopted, the FAA intends to establish VFR Waypoints and Reporting
Points to assist VFR pilot navigation, and to establish VFR routes that
can be used to circumnavigate the Class B airspace or used as a
predetermined route through the Class B airspace when operations
permit. In addition to these new VFR waypoints, the FAA would establish
RNAV T-Routes within Class B airspace for transitioning over the top of
ATL airports. These various alternatives should provide pilots with
options that would assist them in navigating around or beneath the
Class B and/or to request ATC clearance to cut through the Class B. The
FAA believes that no more than a small percent of VFR traffic would
choose to travel longer, less efficient or more costly routes because
safe flight would still be possible beneath most of the Class B
airspace, A80 would continue to provide VFR services to assist pilots
in transiting the area, and only short course deviations would be
needed if pilots decide to avoid the areas with lower Class B floors.
    The FAA would have to update maps and charts to indicate the
airspace modifications, but these documents are updated regularly.
These modifications would be made within the normal updating process
and therefore would not contribute to the cost of the rule since the
updates would be as scheduled.
    The proposed rule redefines Class B airspace boundaries to improve
safety, would not require updating of materials outside the normal
update cycle, would not require rerouting of IFR traffic, and is
expected to possibly cause some VFR traffic to travel alternative
routes which are not expected to be appreciably longer than with the
current airspace design. The expected outcome would be a minimal impact
with positive net benefits, and a regulatory evaluation was not
prepared. The FAA requests comments with supporting justification about
the FAA determination of minimal impact.

    FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

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

International Trade Impact Assessment

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

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

    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 15,
2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B Airspace

* * * * *

ASO GA B Atlanta, GA [Revised]

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 33[deg]38'12'' N., long. 84[deg]25'41'' W.)
Atlanta VORTAC
    (Lat. 33[deg]37'45'' N., long. 84[deg]26'06'' W.)

Boundaries

    Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and
including 12,500 feet MSL, bounded on the east and west by a 7-mile
radius of the Atlanta VORTAC, on the south by a line 4 miles south
of and parallel to the Runway 10/28 localizer courses, and on the
north by a line 4 miles north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R
localizer courses; excluding the Atlanta Fulton County Airport-Brown
Field, GA, Class D airspace area.
    Area B. That airspace extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL, bounded on the east and west by a 12-
mile radius of the Atlanta VORTAC, on the south by a line 4 miles
south of and parallel to the Runway 10/28 localizer courses, and on
the north by a line 4 miles north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/
26R localizer courses; excluding the Atlanta Fulton County Airport-
Brown Field, GA, Class D airspace area and that airspace contained
in Area A.
    Area C. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL, bounded on the east by long.
84[deg]00'32'' W., on the west by long. 84[deg]51'38'' W., on the
south by a line 8 miles south of and parallel to the Runway 10/28
localizer courses, and on the north by a line 4 miles north of and
parallel to the Runway 08L/26R localizer courses; excluding that
airspace contained in Areas A and B.
    Area D. That airspace extending upward from 3,500 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL, bounded on the east by long.
84[deg]00'32'' W., on the west by long. 84[deg]51'38'' W., on the
south by a line 4 miles north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R
localizer courses, and on the north by a line 8 miles

north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R localizer courses.
    Area E. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL, bounded on the east by long.
83[deg]54'04'' W., on the west by long. 84[deg]57'41'' W., on the
south by a line 12 miles south of and parallel to the Runway 10/28
localizer courses and on the north by a line 8 miles north of and
parallel to the Runway 08L/26R localizer courses; excluding that
airspace contained in Areas A, B, C, and D.
    Area F. That airspace extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL, within a 30-mile radius of the
Atlanta VORTAC and bounded on the east by long. 83[deg]54'04'' W.,
on the south by a line 8 miles north of and parallel to the Runway
08L/26R localizer courses, on the west by long. 84[deg]57'41'' W.,
and on the north by a line 13.5 miles north of and parallel to the
Runway 08L/26R localizer courses.
    Area G. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL bounded on the north by a line 12
miles south of and parallel to the Runway 10/28 localizer courses,
on the east by a line from lat. 33[deg]25'20'' N., long.
84[deg]16'49'' W. direct to lat. 33[deg]15'33'' N., long.
84[deg]01'55'' W., on the south by a 30-mile radius of the Atlanta
VORTAC, and on the west by a line from lat. 33[deg]25'25'' N., long.
84[deg]33'32'' W. direct to lat. 33[deg]18'26'' N., long.
84[deg]42'56'' W., thence south via long. 84[deg]42'56'' W.
    Area H. That airspace extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL, within a 30-mile radius of the
Atlanta VORTAC south of a line 12 miles south of and parallel to the
Runway 10/28 localizer courses, bounded on the west by long
84[deg]57'41'' W. and on the east by long. 83[deg]54'04'' W.;
excluding that airspace within the lateral limits of area G.
    Area I. That airspace extending upward from 7,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL bounded on the north by the 30-mile
radius of the Atlanta VORTAC, on the east by a line from lat.
33[deg]52'25'' N., long. 84[deg]19'08'' W. direct to lat.
34[deg]04'20'' N., long. 84[deg]09'24'' W., on the south by a line
13.5 miles north of and parallel to the Runway 08L/26R localizer
courses, and on the west by a line from lat. 33[deg]52'28'' N.,
long. 84[deg]36'07'' W. direct to lat. 34[deg]01'40'' N., long.
84[deg]47'55'' W.
    Area J. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 12,500 feet MSL within a 30-mile radius of the Atlanta
VORTAC north of a line 13.5 miles north of and parallel to the
Runway 08L/26R localizer courses; excluding that airspace within the
lateral limits of area I.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 19, 2012.
Gary A. Norek,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03FE12.001

[FR Doc. 2012-2072 Filed 2-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P