
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48476-48491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19902]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

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


Proposed Amendment to Class B Airspace; Detroit, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; 
telephone: (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2012-
0661 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWA-4 at the beginning of your 
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed 
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they 
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the 
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing 
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are 
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. 
FAA-2012-0661 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWA-4) and be submitted in 
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ``ADDRESSES'' section 
for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments 
to Docket Nos. FAA-2012-0661 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWA-4.'' The

[[Page 48477]]

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

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking 
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any 
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets 
Office (see ``ADDRESSES'' section for address and phone number) between 
9:00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal 
business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, Operations 
Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 Meacham Blvd. Fort 
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future 
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, 
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application 
procedure.

Background

    In 1974, the FAA issued a final rule which established the Detroit, 
MI (Metropolitan Wayne County Airport), Terminal Control Area (TCA) (39 
FR 11085). The Detroit TCA airspace, renamed Class B airspace in 1993, 
has been altered three times since being established. The first 
modification was in 1975 (40 FR 12253) to redefine certain lateral 
boundaries and floor altitudes in the vicinity of the Detroit River. 
The second modification was in 1985 (50 FR 37994) to redefine lateral 
boundaries for containing aircraft conducting SILS approaches as a 
result of the addition of Runway 3R/21L. And the last modification was 
accomplished in 1987 (52 FR 4893) to redefine lateral boundaries for 
containing aircraft conducting instrument approaches to Runway 21R and 
two instrument approaches to Runway 27. There have been no airspace 
modifications to the Detroit Class B airspace since 1987.
    As a result of the Airspace Reclassification final rule (56 FR 
65638), which became effective in 1993, the terms ``terminal control 
area'' and ``airport radar service area'' were replaced by ``Class B 
airspace area,'' and ``Class C airspace area,'' respectively. The 
primary purpose of a Class B airspace area is to reduce the potential 
for midair collisions in the airspace surrounding airports with high 
density air traffic operations by providing an area in which all 
aircraft are subject to certain operating rules and equipment 
requirements. FAA directives require Class B airspace areas be designed 
to contain all instrument procedures, and that air traffic controllers 
vector aircraft as appropriate to remain within Class B airspace after 
entry.
    In 1985, the Detroit TCA airspace was modified to accommodate SILS 
procedures as the primary instrument approach configuration to meet 
demand at that time. These procedures today require that the aircraft 
be established on final approach course no less than 17 miles from the 
runway. This forces the traffic pattern out of the lateral limits of 
the Class B airspace to the northeast, when landing runways 22/21, and 
to the southwest, when landing runways \4/3\, by a minimum of five 
miles in both directions.
    In 1987, the last modification to the Detroit TCA airspace was 
accomplished to contain aircraft flying instrument approaches to runway 
21R and runway 27. In 1993, runway 27L opened at DTW allowing SILS 
approaches to be flown when on a west flow. The associated traffic 
patterns for the SILS approaches once again extended 5 to 10 miles 
beyond the lateral limits of today's Class B airspace design. In 2001, 
runway 22R was opened at DTW with no modification to the Class B 
airspace for containing aircraft flying the new final approach courses 
extending beyond the Class B airspace boundary to the west. As a result 
of opening runway 22R and creating a third parallel Instrument Landing 
System (ILS) approach, the associated SILS procedures required aircraft 
to be established on final approach course between 19 and 21 miles from 
the runways. The new runway procedures caused the associated traffic 
patterns to be extended further as well.
    Since the Detroit Class B airspace area was last modified in 1987, 
DTW has experienced increased traffic levels, expanding operational 
requirements, a considerably different fleet mix, and airport 
infrastructure improvements enabling simultaneous instrument approach 
procedures to multiple parallel runway combinations. For calendar year 
2010, DTW ranked number 12 in the list of the ``50 Busiest FAA Airport 
Traffic Control Towers,'' with 453,000 operations (an increase of 
20,000 from the previous year), and number 18 in the list of the ``50 
Busiest Radar Approach Control Facilities,'' with 590,000 instrument 
operations (an increase of 30,000 from the previous year). 
Additionally, the calendar year 2010 passenger enplanement data ranked 
DTW as number A14 among Commercial Service Airports, with A14,643,890 
passenger enplanements (an increase of 2.84% from the previous year).
    The FAA has determined that it is not possible to modify current 
procedures to contain arrival aircraft conducting simultaneous 
instrument approaches to the existing parallel runways within the 
Detroit Class B airspace area. As the capacity increases, the number of 
aircraft exiting the Class B airspace also increases. With the current 
Class B airspace configuration, arriving aircraft routinely enter, 
exit, and then reenter Class B airspace while flying published 
instrument approach procedures, contrary to FAA directives. The 
procedural requirements for establishing aircraft on the final approach 
course to conduct simultaneous approaches to the existing parallel 
runways has resulted in aircraft exceeding the lateral boundaries of 
the Class B airspace by up to 5 to 10 miles during moderate levels of 
air traffic. Modeling of existing and projected traffic flows has shown 
that the proposed expanded Class B airspace would enhance flight safety 
by containing all instrument approach procedures and associated traffic 
patterns within the boundaries of the Class B airspace, support 
increased operations to the current and planned parallel runways, and 
better segregate the IFR aircraft arriving/departing DTW and the VFR 
aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Detroit Class B airspace. The 
proposed Class B airspace modifications described in this NPRM are 
intended to address these issues.

Pre-NPRM Public Input

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

[[Page 48478]]

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

Discussion of Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations and Comments

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

[[Page 48479]]

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

[[Page 48480]]

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

[[Page 48481]]

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

Discussion of Informal Airspace Meeting Comments

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

[[Page 48482]]

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

[[Page 48483]]

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

[[Page 48484]]

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

[[Page 48485]]

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

[[Page 48486]]

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

The Proposal

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

[[Page 48487]]

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

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

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

The Proposed Action

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

Benefits of the Proposed Action

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

[[Page 48488]]

reduce aircraft delays and improve system capacity.

Costs of the Proposed Action

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

Expected Outcome of the Proposal

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

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

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

International Trade Impact Assessment

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

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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


Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

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

Paragraph 3000--Subpart B--Class B Airspace

* * * * *

AGL MI B Detroit, MI

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

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

[[Page 48489]]

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

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


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

[[Page 48490]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14AU12.017


[[Page 48491]]


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


