Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27229 

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD SCHEDULE OF FEES FOR FOIA SERVICES

[Implementing 10 CFR 1703.107(b)(6)] 

Search or Review Charge ........................................................................ $77.00 per hour. 

Copy Charge (paper) ................................................................................ $.12 per page, if done in-house, or generally available commercial rate 

(approximately $.10 per page). 

Electronic Media ....................................................................................... $5.00. 

Copy Charge (audio cassette) ................................................................. $3.00 per cassette. 

Duplication of DVD ................................................................................... $25.00 for each individual DVD; $16.50 for each additional individual 

DVD. 

Copy Charge for large documents (e.g., maps, diagrams) ..................... Actual commercial rates. 

Dated: May 7, 2010. 

Brian Grosner, 

General Manager. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11375 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3670–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0347; Airspace 

Docket No. 07–AWA–2 RIN 2120–AA66] 

Proposed Modification of Class B 

Airspace; Chicago, IL 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

modify the Chicago, IL, Class B airspace 

area by expanding the existing airspace 

to ensure containment of Instrument 

Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft conducting 

instrument approach procedures within 

Class B airspace, and segregating IFR 

aircraft at Chicago O’Hare International 

Airport (ORD) and Visual Flight Rules 

(VFR) aircraft operating in the vicinity 

of Chicago Class B airspace. Additional 

Class B airspace would support 

operations to ORD’s triple parallel 

runways and three additional parallel 

runways planned for the near future. 

This action would enhance safety, 

improve the flow of air traffic, and 

reduce the potential for midair collision 

in the Chicago terminal area, further 

supporting the FAA’s national airspace 

redesign goal of optimizing terminal and 

en route airspace areas to reduce aircraft 

delays and improve system capacity. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 13, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the United States (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–2010–0347 and Airspace Docket 

No. 07–AWA–2 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 and Rules 

Group, Office of System Operations 

Airspace and AIM, 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– 

2010–0347 and Airspace Docket No. 07– 

AWA–2) 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–2010–0347 and 

Airspace Docket No. 07–AWA–2.’’ The 

postcard will be date/time stamped and 

returned to the commenter. 

All communications received on or 

before the specified closing date for 

comments will be considered before 

taking action on the proposed rule. The 

proposal contained in this action may 

be changed in light of comments 

received. All comments submitted will 

be available for examination in the 

public docket both before and after the 

closing date for comments. A report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerned 

with this rulemaking will be filed in the 

docket. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Recently published rulemaking 

documents can also be accessed through 

the FAA’s Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ 

airspace_amendments/. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. An informal docket 

may also be examined during normal 

business hours at the office of the 

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 1970, the FAA issued a final rule 

(35 FR 8880) which established the 

Chicago, Ill., Terminal Control Area to 

replace the Chicago, Ill., control zone. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27230 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

area in which all aircraft are subject to 

certain operating rules and equipment 

requirements. 

The present day Chicago Class B 

airspace has remained unchanged since 

being established in 1993 by the 

Airspace Reclassification final rule 

noted above. During that period, ORD 

has experienced increased traffic levels, 

a considerably different fleet mix, and 

airport infrastructure improvements 

enabling simultaneous instrument 

approach procedures to three parallel 

runways. For calendar year 2008, ORD 

was ranked number 2 in the list of the 

‘‘50 Busiest FAA Airport Traffic Control 

Towers,’’ with 882,807 aircraft 

operations, and number 6 in the list of 

the ‘‘50 Busiest Radar Approach Control 

Facilities,’’ with 1,270,825 instrument 

operations. Additionally, the calendar 

year 2008 passenger enplanement data 

ranked ORD as number 2 among 

Commercial Service Airports with 

33,683,991 passenger enplanements. 

In recent years, the City of Chicago 

has undertaken construction projects to 

convert ORD to a primarily east/west 

operating airport. Ongoing construction 

projects include three additional 

parallel runways planned to supplement 

the existing three parallel Runways 9L/ 

27R, 9R/27L, and 10/28. The FAA has 

determined that it is not possible to 

modify existing procedures to contain 

arrival aircraft conducting simultaneous 

instrument approaches to the existing 

parallel runways within the Chicago 

Class B airspace area. As the planned 

runways become operational and 

capacity increases, the number of 

aircraft exiting the Class B airspace will 

also increase. 

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 final to conduct 

simultaneous approaches to the three 

existing parallel runways has resulted in 

aircraft exceeding the lateral boundaries 

of the current Class B airspace by up to 

5 to 10 miles during moderate levels of 

air traffic. Modeling of existing traffic 

flows has shown that the proposed 

expanded Class B airspace would 

enhance safety by containing all 

instrument approach procedures and 

associated traffic patterns within the 

confines of Class B airspace, support 

increased operations and capacity to the 

current and planned parallel runways, 

and better segregate the IFR aircraft 

arriving/departing ORD and VFR aircraft 

operating in the vicinity of the Chicago 

Class B airspace. The proposed Class B 

airspace modifications described in this 

NPRM are intended to address these 

issues. 

Pre-NPRM Public Input 

In 2007, the FAA initiated action to 

form an ad hoc committee to develop 

recommendations for the FAA to 

consider in designing a proposed 

modification of the Chicago Class B 

airspace area. Participants in the 

committee included representatives 

from the Illinois Department of 

Transportation, the City of Chicago, the 

Chicago Area Business Aviation 

Association, the Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association (AOPA), the National 

Business Aviation Association, Inc. 

(NBAA), the Cargo Airline Association 

(CAA), the Helicopter Association 

International (HAI), the United States 

Parachute Association (USPA), airline 

pilot groups, airlines, soaring clubs, and 

local area airports, pilots, and fixed base 

operators. Three ad-hoc committee 

meetings were held on December 18, 

2007; January 31, 2008; and April 9, 

2008. 

As announced in the Federal Register 

(73 FR 44311 and 73 FR 51605), three 

informal airspace meetings were held; 

one each on September 23 and 25, 2008, 

at the Chicago Executive Airport, 

Wheeling, IL, and one on September 24, 

2008, at the Chicago DuPage Airport, 

West Chicago, IL. Two additional 

informal airspace meetings were held, 

as announced in the Federal Register 

(73 FR 77867); one on February 23, 

2009, at Lewis University, Romeoville, 

IL; and one on February 26, 2009, at 

Chicago DuPage Airport, West Chicago, 

IL, to ensure all interested airspace 

users were provided with an 

opportunity to present their views and 

offer suggestions regarding the planned 

modification of the Chicago Class B 

airspace area. 

All substantive airspace 

recommendations made by the ad hoc 

committee and public comments 

received as a result of the informal 

airspace meetings were considered in 

developing this proposal. 

Discussion of Recommendations and 

Comments 

Ad hoc Committee Recommendations 

The ad hoc committee recommended 

the FAA reduce the size of the original 

proposed Area E in order to provide 

general aviation and glider communities 

with additional airspace to operate 

within. (The original proposed Area E 

incorporated the airspace around the 

existing Class B airspace area out to 30 

nautical miles of the Chicago O’Hare 

VHF omnidirectional range(VOR)/ 

Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) 

antenna, extending upward from 4,000 

feet mean sea level (MSL) to and 

including 10,000 feet MSL, excluding 

Areas A, B, C, and D.) Specifically, the 

committee recommended the airspace 

extension to the west be limited and 

designed to retain the existing Area F, 

extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL 

to 10,000 feet MSL, with the western 

boundary extended to a uniform 25 

nautical mile arc of the Chicago O’Hare 

VOR/DME antenna. Additionally, the ad 

hoc committee recommended a new 

area be established to supplement Area 

F, extending upward from 5,000 feet 

MSL to 10,000 feet MSL, bordered on 

the east and west by the 25 nautical 

mile and 30 nautical mile arcs of the 

Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME antenna, 

respectively, and by a set of railroad 

tracks and the Aurora Airport Class D 

airspace on the north and south, 

respectively. The FAA partially adopted 

this recommendation. In lieu of 

modifying one area of the Chicago Class 

B airspace and establishing a second 

area, with a different altitude floor, to 

support the Class B airspace extension 

required to the west, the FAA designed 

one area by expanding the existing Area 

F and retaining the 4,000 feet MSL floor 

for the whole area. The expansion of 

Area F will be limited to (1) extending 

the western boundary of the current 

Area F to a uniform 25 nautical mile arc 

of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME 

antenna and (2) further extending the 

western boundary to include the 

airspace between the 25 nautical mile 

and 30 nautical mile arcs of the Chicago 

O’Hare VOR/DME antenna between a 

border defined from the intersection of 

Interstate 90 and the 25 nautical mile 

arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME 

antenna, then due west to lat. 42°07′21′′ 

N., long. 88°33′05′′ W., on the 30 

nautical mile arc of the Chicago O’Hare 

VOR/DME antenna, to the north, and 

Illinois State Route 10, to the south. The 

FAA has determined that the need to 

descend aircraft low enough for an 

approach to all of the present and future 

runways, while maintaining 1,000 feet 

vertical separation between 

simultaneous arrivals and departures, 

requires that the lowest of the final 

approach courses be at 4,000 feet MSL 

between the 15 and 30 nautical mile 

arcs of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME 

antenna. 

The ad hoc committee similarly 

recommended the FAA reduce the size 

of the original proposed Area E East of 

ORD and design the airspace extension 

as an area, extending upward from 5,000 

feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL, bordered 

by the 25 nautical mile and 30 nautical 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27231 

mile arcs of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/ 

DME antenna between the 070° and 

110° degree radials of the Chicago 

O’Hare VOR/DME antenna. The FAA 

partially adopted this recommendation. 

The proposed Class B airspace 

extension to the east (new Area E) is 

designed to include the airspace, 

extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL 

to 10,000 feet MSL, from the 25 nautical 

mile arc to the 30 nautical mile arc of 

the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME antenna 

between latitude/longitude points that 

lay along Federal airways V–100/V–526, 

to the north, and latitude/longitude 

points that lay along Federal airways V– 

6/V–10, to the south. Again, the FAA 

determined that the need to descend 

aircraft low enough for an approach to 

all of the present and future runways, 

while maintaining 1,000 feet vertical 

separation between simultaneous 

arrivals and departures, requires that the 

lowest of the final approach courses be 

at 4,000 feet MSL between the 15 and 

30 nautical mile arcs of the Chicago 

O’Hare VOR/DME antenna. 

The ad hoc committee also 

recommended the FAA modify the 

existing Area G to accommodate aircraft 

flying the instrument landing system 

approach to Runway 16 and circling to 

Runway 34 at Chicago Executive Airport 

without having to enter the Chicago 

Class B airspace. Specifically, the 

committee recommended expanding 

Area G by moving the southern 

boundary from the 6 nautical mile arc 

of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME 

antenna to the 5 nautical mile arc, with 

the airspace segment extending upward 

from 2,500 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. 

The FAA adopted this recommendation. 

The proposed modifications to Area A 

and Area G reflect this lateral boundary 

movement and the associated vertical 

airspace floor change from the existing 

surface to the recommended 2,500 feet 

MSL. These modifications will 

accommodate the traffic pattern and 

circling approach to Runway 34 at 

Chicago Executive Airport. 

Finally, the ad hoc committee 

recommended the FAA not incorporate 

the airspace originally established to 

protect the, now-closed, Glenview Naval 

Air Station (currently Area E of the ORD 

Class B airspace area) into Area B of the 

original proposed Class B airspace 

modification. Inclusion of this airspace 

into Area B as originally proposed 

would lower the Class B airspace floor 

in that area from 2,500 feet MSL to 

1,900 feet MSL. The FAA adopted this 

recommendation. The proposed Area H, 

described in the Proposal section, 

contains the airspace area boundary and 

altitude descriptions recommended by 

the ad hoc committee; thus, retaining 

the availability of the airspace below 

Area H from the surface to 2,500 feet 

MSL for VFR aircraft flying outside the 

ORD Class B airspace area. 

The ad hoc committee included two 

additional recommendations in their 

report, one addressing discreet 

transponder codes for glider operations 

and a second addressing a future ad hoc 

committee being established when eastwest runway construction projects are 

completed. These recommendations fall 

outside the scope of this airspace 

rulemaking action and accordingly, are 

not addressed in this rulemaking action. 

Informal Airspace Meeting Comments 

As a result of the informal airspace 

meetings, the FAA received written 

comments from 89 commenters. Three 

commenters concurred with the Chicago 

Class B airspace proposal as it was 

briefed at the informal airspace 

meetings. Four commenters shared that 

the proposed Class B airspace, in 

general, was too large and unnecessary. 

However, the majority of commenters 

focused their attention on the proposed 

Area F; although one commenter was in 

favor of the proposed Area F design. 

Sixty-seven comments were received 

objecting to the amount of airspace to 

the west (Area F) that is included within 

the new Class B airspace proposal. 

Twenty-one commenters requested that 

the airspace to the west be reduced in 

size laterally and/or vertically. They 

specifically requested that Area F, 

proposed with a base altitude of 4,000 

feet MSL, be raised to either 5,000 feet 

MSL or 6,000 feet MSL. The FAA has 

determined that this is not achievable. 

Aircraft conducting simultaneous 

parallel approaches may not be assigned 

the same altitude during turn-on to the 

final approach course. Air Traffic 

Control needs to turn aircraft on to 

instrument approaches at 6,000, 7,000, 

and 8,000 feet. It is not possible to turn 

aircraft on to approaches at 5,000 feet 

MSL because of satellite airport air 

traffic to the other 52 airports within the 

Chicago Terminal Radar Approach 

Control Facility (TRACON) airspace. 

Twenty-three commenters expressed 

safety concerns due to traffic 

compression between gliders, as well as 

between gliders and general aviation 

aircraft. To remain clear of the Chicago 

Class B airspace VFR aircraft and gliders 

would have to fly at lower altitudes or 

fly further east or west of ORD. The 

FAA partially agrees. For general 

aviation and glider aircraft to remain 

clear of the Chicago Class B airspace 

areas, they would have to fly either 

below or above the Class B airspace 

extensions, or circumnavigate five to ten 

nautical miles further east or west of 

ORD. However, these areas are 

necessary to (1) retain IFR aircraft on 

instrument approaches and departures 

within the Chicago Class B airspace 

area; and (2) ensure general aviation and 

glider aircraft and the large turbinepowered aircraft conducting instrument 

approaches to Chicago O’Hare are 

segregated. Additionally, aircraft 

conducting simultaneous, triple parallel 

instrument and visual approaches to 

ORD may not be assigned the same 

altitude during turn-on to the final 

approach course, resulting in aircraft 

being assigned altitudes that will differ 

by a minimum of 1,000 feet. In order to 

contain these aircraft flying 

simultaneous instrument approaches 

within Class B airspace, and ensure 

segregation from general aviation traffic, 

the Chicago Class B airspace area must 

be modified to establish the additional 

extensions as proposed. 

Three commenters contended that the 

amount of airspace proposed to be 

included in the Class B airspace to the 

west could be reduced through changes 

in procedures and airspace delegation 

between the Chicago TRACON and 

Chicago Air Route Traffic Control 

Center (ARTCC). They suggested that 

the Chicago ARTCC MALTS sector 

boundary be moved to the north; that 

the Rockford Federal airway V–100 

traffic be moved to the north; and that 

the Plano arrivals be forced down to 

10,000 feet MSL or lower when in an 

east flow. The FAA does not agree and 

has determined that changing 

procedures and/or airspace delegation 

would not solve the problem at hand. 

Implementation of these suggestions 

would not enable Chicago TRACON to 

contain aircraft within the boundaries of 

the present day Class B airspace, nor 

ensure segregation of IFR arrival aircraft 

with the VFR aircraft and gliders 

operating in the vicinity of the Chicago 

Class B airspace. 

Fifty-nine commenters raised 

concerns for adverse impacts to glider 

operations, echoing similar issues to 

those mentioned above, as a result of the 

proposed Class B airspace modifications 

of Area F. The FAA partially agrees. The 

airspace where Area F is proposed to be 

established currently lies outside the 

existing boundary of the Chicago Class 

B airspace and it is understandable that 

users of that airspace view the necessary 

establishment of Class B airspace as an 

encroachment. However, in the interest 

of safety for all, the FAA has determined 

that the Class B airspace extension to 

the west of ORD is the only way to 

ensure IFR aircraft arriving and 

departing ORD are contained within 

Class B airspace and IFR aircraft are 

segregated from VFR aircraft and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27232 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

gliders, that may not be visible to or 

communicating with Air Traffic Control, 

that already are operating in that area. 

The proposed Area F Class B airspace 

extension has been limited in design to 

include only the volume of airspace 

necessary to contain IFR arrivals/ 

departures at ORD, segregate IFR and 

VFR aircraft operations, and minimize 

impacts to general aviation and glider 

VFR operators. Additionally, the 

proposed Area F was designed to ensure 

it does not encompass or overlay the 

airfields where the Sky Soaring Glider 

Club (Hampshire, IL) and Windy City 

Soaring Association (Hinckley, IL) 

operations are located. The Chicago 

Glider Club (Minooka, IL) lies well 

south of any of the proposed Chicago 

Class B airspace. 

Four commenters suggested that the 

western portion of the Class B airspace 

be delegated to gliders through Letter of 

Agreement/Letter of Authorization/ 

Notice to Airmen when Air Traffic 

Control did not require it for their use. 

The FAA finds these suggestions 

untenable due to the regulatory nature 

of Class B airspace and the requirement 

for Air Traffic Control to provide 

positive separation within it. Class B 

airspace is established via rulemaking 

and when it is established, the airspace 

and regulatory requirements associated 

with accessing and operating within it 

are specific and in effect at all times. 

Class B airspace cannot be modified or 

delegated to the user community on an 

ad hoc basis. Additionally, the 

regulatory requirements for aircraft to 

enter and operate within Class B 

airspace may not be waived, modified, 

or exempted by Letter of Agreement. 

Three commenters thought that the 

northern border of Area F should be 

moved south to the railroad tracks in the 

Hampshire, IL, area to establish a better 

visual reference of the Class B airspace 

for VFR aircraft. Another commenter 

thought that the northern border of the 

Area F extension should be moved to 

Illinois State Route 72 for a visual 

reference. The FAA finds both of these 

suggestions impractical. The resultant 

size of the Area F extension would be 

insufficient to safely ensure separation 

between aircraft flying in the runways 

9L, 9R, and 10 traffic patterns and final 

approach course. Additionally, issues 

associated with an insufficient amount 

of airspace would only be compounded 

when the three additional planned 

parallel runways become operational. 

One commenter cited noise and safety 

concerns for residents located below the 

proposed Area F to the west of ORD. 

The FAA does not agree. The proposed 

modifications to the Chicago Class B 

airspace will not change the location of 

existing flight tracks, use of altitudes, or 

the number of aircraft being vectored for 

approaches to ORD within the proposed 

Area F airspace today. Moreover, the 

FAA views the proposed Area F as 

critical to overcoming the safety 

ramifications associated with large 

turbojet aircraft exiting the Class B 

airspace, and consequently, 

intermingling with general aviation and 

glider aircraft not in contact with the 

Chicago TRACON. 

Three commenters expressed support 

for establishing Global Positioning 

Satellite (GPS) guidance or VOR DME 

waypoints for VFR flyways underneath 

the Chicago Class B airspace. 

Specifically, one commenter requested 

that there be three north-south VFR 

routes west of ORD, a VFR route along 

the shoreline, east-west transitions both 

north and south of ORD, a VFR route 

around Chicago Executive Airport, and 

a route around Chicago Midway Airport. 

A second commenter expressed a need 

for a VFR flyway from Chicago 

Executive Airport/Lakeshore to south 

side airports in both directions. In 

response, the FAA offers that VFR 

flyways under and around the Class B 

airspace similar to the those addressed 

by the commenters already exist. The 

VFR flyways are published on the 

Chicago Charted VFR Flyway Planning 

Chart on the reverse side of the Chicago 

VFR Terminal Area Chart. The FAA 

does note, however, that the existing 

VFR flyways depicted on the Chicago 

Charted VFR Flyway Planning Chart 

will require minor adjustments in 

recommended altitudes to accommodate 

the proposed Class B airspace 

modifications. 

One commenter recommended that a 

VFR flyway directly over the top of ORD 

running north/south at 8,000, 9,000, or 

10,000 feet MSL using GPS or VOR/ 

DME waypoints should be established. 

The FAA does not agree. On a daily 

basis, roughly 10 aircraft an hour for 13 

to 15 hours a day (130 to 150 flights per 

day on average) are routed over the top 

of ORD at altitudes between 8,000 feet 

MSL and 11,000 feet MSL in order to 

utilize a preferred runway. The use of a 

preferred runway is normally based on 

the need for a longer runway, but can 

also be required for runway balancing. 

Additionally, departures at Chicago 

Midway International Airport (MDW) 

that are northbound transition over the 

top of ORD between 6,000 feet MSL and 

11,000 feet MSL, climbing to 13,000 feet 

MSL, and departures at Aurora (ARR) 

and DuPage (DPA) Airports heading east 

and then northbound also transition 

through this same airspace. Aircraft at 

MDW, ARR, and DPA are typically 

corporate business jets and, depending 

on runway configuration(s) and 

destinations, account for an additional 

estimated 40 to 50 aircraft per day. 

A number of comments were received 

regarding the proposed modification to 

the Class B airspace (Area E) to the east 

of ORD. Ten commenters felt the size of 

the proposed area to the east was 

excessive, not needed by the Chicago 

TRACON, and objected to this aspect of 

the proposal. Five other commenters 

specifically questioned the need for the 

additional airspace supporting Runway 

22 operations; requesting the size of the 

area be reduced. The FAA agrees with 

these commenters. The original 

proposal for Area E incorporated the 

airspace east of ORD from the 25 

nautical mile arc to the 30 nautical mile 

arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME 

antenna, extending upward from 4,000 

feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet 

MSL, from the shoreline north of ORD 

to the shoreline southeast of ORD. The 

FAA has determined the size of Area E 

could be reduced to the dimensions 

listed in the Proposal section below. 

Two commenters further stated that 

traffic landing on Runway 28 could be 

vectored on to the localizer at 4,000 feet 

MSL inside the 25 nautical mile arc of 

the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME antenna, 

which would allow the floor of Area F 

to be raised between the 25 nautical 

mile and 30 nautical mile arcs. The FAA 

does not agree. There are simply too 

many aircraft to contain them all within 

the 25 nautical mile arc of the Chicago 

O’Hare VOR/DME antenna. Simply put, 

ORD and its associated operations has 

outgrown the present day Class B 

airspace established in 1993. 

The FAA also received some general 

comments regarding the Chicago Class B 

airspace. Two commenters suggested 

lowering the ceiling of the Class B 

airspace, citing other Class B airspace 

areas in the country with lower ceilings. 

The FAA does not agree. Class B 

airspace designs are specific to locations 

based on varying local area operational 

requirements and aviation needs. To 

advocate one standard Class B airspace 

design for all major airports with high 

density air traffic operations does not 

recognize those differences in the local 

area operational requirements or 

aviation needs and could result in 

airspace being incorporated 

unnecessarily at some locations 

(impacting free navigable airspace) or 

not enough airspace being incorporated 

at other locations (causing unacceptable 

aviation safety risks). This suggestion 

also would not be suitable in Chicago’s 

case as the higher altitudes of the 

Chicago Class B airspace are currently 

used to accommodate the large volume 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27233 

of aircraft arriving and departing the 

area. 

Four commenters expressed concern 

that the proposal would increase the 

risk of Class B airspace violations. The 

FAA does not agree. The legal 

description of the proposed Class B 

airspace includes prominent visual 

references, latitude/longitude 

coordinates, and arcs of the Chicago 

O’Hare VOR/DME antenna. The FAA 

believes that this mix of descriptors 

effectively assists pilots in identifying 

the lateral boundaries of the Class B 

airspace. 

Two commenters stated that the 

proposal would have an economic 

impact on general aviation traffic due to 

increased fuel burn. The FAA partially 

agrees with this comment. Although 

some aircraft would need to fly added 

distances or different altitudes to remain 

clear of the Class B airspace, the FAA 

believes any increase in fuel burn would 

be nominal. 

Finally, two commenters thought that 

inadequate information was given to the 

ad hoc committee in order for them to 

accurately evaluate the proposal and 

recommended that the entire Class B 

process begin over again. They also 

requested that after all runway 

construction projects are completed at 

ORD, the ad hoc committee be 

reestablished. The FAA does not agree. 

Three ad hoc committee meetings were 

held to identify, discuss, and develop 

recommendations for the FAA to 

consider with respect to modifying the 

Chicago Class B airspace. The ad hoc 

committee provided the FAA a 

memorandum that addressed four 

specific recommendations for 

consideration in the development of the 

Chicago Class B airspace modification 

proposal, which are incorporated into 

the proposal. Additionally, five informal 

airspace meetings were held to inform 

interested aviation users of the proposed 

airspace changes and to gather facts and 

information relevant to the proposed 

action. Furthermore, this NPRM 

provides users with a 60-day comment 

period to submit comments or 

recommendations on the proposal. All 

comments received as a result of this 

NPRM will be fully considered, and 

may result in changes to the proposed 

action, before the FAA makes a final 

determination. The FAA believes that 

re-initiating the Class B process, after it 

has been in progress since December of 

2008, would be to ignore the safety 

ramifications associated with the 

inability to contain large turbojet aircraft 

operations within the existing Chicago 

Class B airspace, and consequently, 

their intermingling with VFR aircraft 

that are not in contact with the Chicago 

TRACON. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify 

the Chicago Class B airspace area. This 

action (depicted on the attached chart) 

is proposed to make minor 

modifications to the existing Chicago 

Class B airspace and to establish two 

new airspace extensions (the first, a new 

Area E, to the east and the second, 

expanding existing Area F, to the west) 

to the current Chicago Class B airspace 

area in order to provide airspace needed 

to contain aircraft conducting 

instrument and visual approach 

operations within the confines of Class 

B airspace. Additionally, the proposed 

modifications would better segregate the 

IFR aircraft arriving/departing ORD and 

the VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity 

of the Chicago Class B airspace. The 

current Chicago Class B airspace area 

consists of seven subareas (A through G) 

while the proposed configuration would 

consist of eight subareas (A through H). 

The proposed revisions to the Chicago 

Class B airspace area are discussed 

below. 

Area A. The FAA proposes to modify 

the northern boundary of Area A by 

incorporating the airspace east of U.S. 

Highway 12 between the 6 nautical mile 

and 5 nautical mile arcs of the Chicago 

O’Hare VOR/DME antenna, from 2,500 

feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet 

MSL, as part of Area G. The airspace 

east of U.S. Highway 12 between the 6 

nautical mile and 5 nautical mile arcs of 

the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME antenna, 

below 2,500 feet MSL, would be 

returned to the NAS. This modification 

of Area A, as described, would raise the 

floor of the Class B airspace in the 

affected segment from the surface to 

2,500 feet MSL. This proposed 

modification, as recommended by the 

ad hoc committee and adopted by the 

FAA, would provide additional airspace 

to accommodate aircraft on the 

downwind traffic pattern and circling 

approaches to Runway 34 at Chicago 

Executive Airport, without entering 

Chicago Class B airspace. 

Area B. The FAA proposes to modify 

Area B by defining its northeast 

boundary using the railroad tracks that 

run from U.S. Highway 294 to Willow 

Road (slightly east of the existing Area 

B, Area C, and current Area E shared 

boundary) and expanding Area B to 

incorporate a portion of existing Class B 

airspace that is contained in the current 

Area E. Specifically, the modification 

would expand Area B to incorporate the 

airspace contained east of the railroad 

tracks and south of Willow Road within 

the current Area E, and lower the floor 

of that affected airspace from the current 

2,500 feet MSL to 1,900 feet MSL. This 

modification of Area B, as described, 

would raise the floor of the Class B 

airspace west of the railroad tracks to 

the existing shared boundary noted 

above to 3,000 feet MSL, but lower the 

floor of the Class B airspace in the 

affected segment of the current Area E 

by 600 feet to 1,900 feet MSL. This 

proposed modification of Area B would 

incorporate only that airspace deemed 

necessary from the current Area E to 

ensure IFR arrival aircraft flying 

instrument approaches to ORD Runway 

22R are contained within the confines of 

Class B airspace throughout the 

approach, and ensure segregation of IFR 

arrival aircraft from VFR aircraft flying 

near the boundary of Class B airspace. 

Additionally, this proposed 

modification would better define the 

northeast boundary of Area B using 

visual references for pilots flying in the 

vicinity of Chicago Class B airspace. 

Area C. Area C would expand into 

existing Class B airspace, incorporating 

portions of Area B and Area H 

commensurately. As proposed in Areas 

B and H, the new shared boundary 

would follow the railroad tracks that 

run northeast from U.S. Highway 294 to 

the 10 nautical mile arc of the Chicago 

O’Hare VOR/DME antenna. Other than 

re-defining the shared boundary of 

Areas B, C, and H using visual 

references for pilots flying in the 

vicinity of the Chicago Class B airspace, 

there is no effect to IFR or VFR aircraft 

operations from this resultant 

modification of existing Class B 

airspace. 

Area D. The FAA is not proposing to 

modify Area D. 

Area E. The FAA proposes to 

establish a new Area E to the east of 

ORD. This modification would extend 

Class B airspace from the existing Area 

D boundary defined by the 25 nautical 

mile arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/ 

DME antenna to the 30 nautical arc of 

the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME antenna. 

The northern boundary would be 

defined by latitude/longitude points 

that lay along Federal airways V–100/V– 

526, and the southern boundary would 

be defined by latitude/longitude points 

that lay along Federal airways V–6/V– 

10. This new area would extend upward 

from 4,000 feet MSL to and including a 

ceiling of 10,000 feet MSL, overlying 

Lake Michigan. The FAA has 

determined that the need to descend 

aircraft low enough for an approach to 

all present and future runways, while 

maintaining 1,000 feet vertical 

separation between simultaneous 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27234 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

arrivals and departures, requires that the 

lowest of the final approach courses be 

at 4,000 feet MSL between the 15 and 

30 nautical mile arcs of the Chicago 

O’Hare VOR/DME antennas. This new 

area would ensure IFR arrival aircraft 

flying simultaneous visual and 

instrument approaches to the existing 

runways 27R, 27L, and 28, as well as 

three additional parallel runways 

planned for the future, are contained 

within the confines of Class B airspace 

throughout the approach. This proposed 

new area would also ensure segregation 

of IFR aircraft arriving ORD and VFR 

aircraft operating in the vicinity of the 

Chicago Class B airspace, yet provide 

navigable airspace below and above 

Class B airspace for VFR aircraft. 

Area F. The FAA proposes to expand 

Area F to the west of ORD. This 

proposed modification would (1) extend 

the western boundary of the current 

Area F to a uniform 25 nautical mile arc 

of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME 

antenna and (2) further extend the 

western boundary to include the 

airspace between the 25 nautical mile 

and 30 nautical mile arcs of the Chicago 

O’Hare VOR/DME antenna between a 

border defined from the intersection of 

Interstate 90 and the 25 nautical mile 

arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME 

antenna, then due west to lat. 

42°07′21′′N., long. 88°33′05′′W., on the 

30 nautical mile arc of the Chicago 

O’Hare VOR/DME antenna, to the north, 

and Illinois State Route 10, to the south. 

This new Area F would be established 

with the floor extending upward from 

4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL. The FAA has determined that 

the need to descend aircraft low enough 

for an approach to all of the present and 

future runways, while maintaining 

1,000 feet vertical separation between 

simultaneous arrivals and departures, 

requires that the lowest of the final 

approach courses be at 4,000 feet MSL 

between the 15 and 30 nautical mile 

arcs of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME 

antenna. This new area would ensure 

IFR arrival aircraft flying simultaneous 

visual and instrument approaches to the 

existing Runways 9L, 9R, and 10, as 

well as three additional parallel 

runways planned for the future, are 

contained within the confines of Class 

B airspace throughout the approach. 

This proposed new area would also 

ensure segregation of IFR aircraft 

arriving ORD and VFR aircraft and 

gliders operating in the vicinity of the 

Chicago Class B airspace, yet provide 

navigable airspace below and above 

Class B airspace for VFR aircraft 

operations. 

Area G. The FAA proposes to modify 

the southern boundary of Area G by 

incorporating the airspace contained in 

Area A that lies east of U.S. Highway 12 

between the 6 nautical mile and 5 

nautical mile arcs of the Chicago O’Hare 

VOR/DME antenna, extending upward 

from 2,500 feet MSL to and including 

10,000 feet MSL. The modification of 

Area G, as described, would raise the 

floor of Class B airspace in the affected 

segment from the surface to 2,500 feet 

MSL. This proposed modification, as 

recommended by the ad hoc committee 

and adopted by the FAA, would provide 

additional airspace to accommodate 

aircraft on the downwind traffic pattern 

and circling approaches to Runway 34 

at Chicago Executive Airport, without 

entering the Chicago Class B airspace. 

Area H. The FAA proposes to 

establish Area H from the existing 

northern portion of the current Area E. 

The proposed Area H would be 

bordered by the 10 nautical mile arc of 

the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME antenna 

on the east, Willow Road on the south, 

and the railroad tracks (located slightly 

east of the existing Area B, Area C, and 

Area E shared boundary) that run from 

U.S. Highway 294 to the 10 nautical 

mile arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/ 

DME antenna on the west. This new 

area would be established with the floor 

extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL 

to and including 10,000 feet MSL. 

These modifications to the Chicago 

Class B airspace are being proposed to 

ensure the containment of IFR aircraft 

operations within Class B airspace as 

required by FAA directives, the 

segregation of IFR aircraft arriving/ 

departing ORD and VFR aircraft 

operating in the vicinity of the Chicago 

Class B airspace, and support the 

aircraft arrival/departure operations of 

three parallel runways, planned to be 

expanded to six parallel runways, 

performing simultaneous visual and 

instrument approaches. 

Class B airspace areas are published 

in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order 

7400.9T, Airspace Designations and 

Reporting Points, dated August 27, 

2009, and effective September 15, 2009, 

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 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 

United States 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 to be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 

Such a determination has been made for 

this proposed rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows: 

This proposed rule would enhance 

safety by containing all instrument 

approach procedures and associated 

traffic patters within the confines of 

Class B airspace. The requirements 

would support increased operations and 

capacity to the current and planned 

parallel runways while better 

segregating IRF aircraft that would be 

operating in the affected airspace. 

After consultation with a diverse 

cross-section of stakeholders that 

participated in the ad hoc committee to 

develop the recommendations 

contained in this proposal, and a review 

of the recommendations and comments, 

the FAA expects that this proposed rule 

would result in minimal cost. We are 

aware that the proposal might require 

small adjustments to existing VFR 

flyway planning charts, but the 

additional cost would be minimal. Also, 

the proposed rule could also have an 

affect on general aviation due to 

increased fuel consumption from flying 

different distances or altitudes to remain 

safely outside of Class B airspace. 

Although we expect operators might 

consume more fuel on some flights, we 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27235 

estimate the additional fuel cost would 

be minimal. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

The FAA believes the proposal would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

as the economic impact is expected to 

be minimal. We request comments from 

the potentially affected small 

businesses. 

Therefore, the FAA certifies that this 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

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 

United States standards. The FAA has 

assessed the potential effect of this 

proposed rule and determined that it 

would enhance safety and is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

trade. 

Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Act do not 

apply. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. We 

have determined that there is no new 

information collection requirement 

associated with this proposed rule. 

Conclusion 

This NPRM would enhance safety, 

reduce the potential for a midair 

collision in the Chicago terminal area, 

and would improve the flow of air 

traffic. As such, we estimate a minimal 

impact with substantial positive net 

benefits. The FAA requests comments 

with supporting justification about the 

FAA determination of minimal impact. 

FAA has, therefore, determined that this 

proposed rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. 

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. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 27, 2009, and effective 

September 15, 2009, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B–Class B 

Airspace 

* * * * * 

AGL IL B Chicago, IL [Modified] 

Chicago O’Hare International Airport 

(Primary Airport) 

(Lat. 41°58′46′′ N., long. 87°54′16′′ W.) 

Chicago Midway Airport 

(Lat. 41°47′10′′ N., long. 87°45′08′′ W.) 

Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME 

(Lat. 41°59′16′′ N., long. 87°54′17′′ W.) 

Boundaries. 

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°04′10′′ N., long. 87°55′31′′ 

W.; thence clockwise along the 5 nautical 

mile arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME to 

lat. 41°59′15′′ N., long. 87°47′35′′ W.; thence 

east to lat. 41°59′15′′ N., long. 87°46′15′′ W.; 

thence clockwise along the 6 nautical mile 

arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME to 

Interstate Highway 290 (lat. 41°57′12′′ N., 

long. 88°01′ 56′′ W.); thence north along 

Interstate Highway 290 to the 6 nautical mile 

arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME (lat. 

42°01′20′′ N., long. 88°01′51′′ W.); thence 

clockwise along the 6 nautical mile arc of the 

Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME to U.S. Highway 

12 (lat. 42°05′03′′ N., long. 87°56′26′′ W.); 

thence southeast along U.S. Highway 12 to 

the point of beginning. 

Area B. That airspace extending upward 

from 1,900 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway 

294 and railroad tracks at lat. 42°03′48′′ N., 

long. 87°52′03′′ W.; thence northeast along 

the railroad tracks to Willow Road (lat. 

42°06′20′′ N., long. 87°49′38′′ W.); thence east 

along Willow Road to the 10 nautical mile 

arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME (lat. 

42°06′04′′ N., long. 87°44′28′′ W.); thence 

clockwise along the 10 nautical mile arc of 

the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME to the 5 

nautical mile radius of Chicago Midway 

Airport (lat. 41°49′34′′ N., long. 87°51′00′′ 

W.); thence counterclockwise along the 5 

nautical mile radius of the Chicago Midway 

Airport to the 10.5 nautical mile arc of the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
27236 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME (lat. 41°48′59′′ N., 

long. 87°51′22′′ W.); thence clockwise along 

the 10.5 nautical mile arc of the Chicago 

O’Hare VOR/DME to the 10 nautical mile 

radius of the Chicago Midway Airport (lat. 

41°49′11′′ N., long. 87°58′14′′ W.); thence 

clockwise along the 10 nautical mile radius 

of Chicago Midway Airport to the 10 nautical 

mile arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME 

(lat. 41°49′40′′ N., long. 87°58′05′′ W.); thence 

clockwise along the 10 nautical mile arc of 

the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME to U.S. 

Highway 12 (lat. 42°08′02′′ N., long. 

88°00′44′′ W.); thence southeast along U.S. 

Highway 12 to the 5 mile arc of the Chicago 

O’Hare VOR/DME (lat. 42°04′10′′ N., long. 

87°55′31′′ W.); thence clockwise along the 5 

nautical mile arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/ 

DME to the point of beginning, excluding 

that airspace designated as Area A. 

Area C. That airspace extending upward 

from 3,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL within an area bounded by the 15 

nautical mile arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/ 

DME, excluding that airspace designated as 

Area A, Area B, Area G, and Area H. 

Area D. That airspace extending upward 

from 3,600 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL within an area bounded by a line 

beginning at lat. 42°07′52′′ N., long. 88°10′47′′ 

W.; thence northwest to the 25 nautical mile 

arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME (lat. 

42°15′40′′ N., long. 88°19′39′′ W.); thence 

clockwise along the 25 nautical mile arc of 

the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME to lat. 

41°42′03′′ N., long. 88°18′34′′ W.; thence 

northeast to the 15 nautical mile arc of the 

Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME (lat. 41°49′53′′ N., 

long. 88°09′59′′ W.); thence clockwise along 

the 15 nautical mile arc of the Chicago 

O’Hare VOR/DME to the point of beginning, 

excluding that airspace designated as Area A, 

Area B, Area C, Area G, and Area H. 

Area E. 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 lat. 42°11′11′′ N., long. 87°24′46′′ 

W.; thence east to the 30 nautical mile arc of 

the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME (lat. 42°10′39′′ 

N., long. 87°17′01′′ W.); thence clockwise 

along the 30 nautical mile arc of the Chicago 

O’Hare VOR/DME to lat. 41°46′38′′ N., long. 

87°17′51′′ W.; thence west to the 25 nautical 

mile arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME 

(lat. 41°46′40′′ N., long. 87°25′22′′ W.); thence 

counterclockwise along the 25 nautical mile 

arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME 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 lat. 42°07′52′′ N., long. 88°10′47′′ 

W.; thence northwest to the 25 nautical mile 

arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME (lat. 

42°15′40′′ N., long. 88°19′39′′ W.); thence 

counterclockwise along the 25 nautical mile 

arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME to 

Interstate 90 (lat. 42°07′22′′ N., long. 

88°26′01′′ W.); thence west to the 30 nautical 

mile arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME 

(lat. 42°07′21′′ N., long. 88°33′05′′ W.); thence 

counterclockwise along the 30 nautical mile 

arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME to 

Illinois State Route 10 (lat. 41°49′49′′ N., 

long. 88°32′27′′ W.); thence east along Illinois 

State Route 10 to the 25 nautical mile arc of 

the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME (lat. 41°50′40′′ 

N., long. 88°25′44′′ W.); thence 

counterclockwise along the 25 nautical mile 

arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME to lat. 

41°42′03′′ N., long. 88°18′34′′ W.; thence 

northeast to the 15 nautical mile arc of the 

Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME (lat. 41°49′53′′ N., 

long. 88°09′59′′ W.); thence clockwise along 

the 15 nautical mile arc of the Chicago 

O’Hare VOR/DME to the point of beginning. 

Area G. 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 lat. 42°04′14′′ N., long. 87°54′56′′ 

W.; thence northwest to the 10 nautical mile 

arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME (lat. 

42°09′00′′ N., long. 87°57′22′′ W.); thence 

counterclockwise along the 10 nautical mile 

arc of the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME to U.S. 

Highway 12 (lat. 42°08′02′′ N., long. 

88°00′44′′ W.); thence southeast along U.S. 

Highway 12 to the 5 nautical mile arc of the 

Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME (lat. 42°04′10′′ N., 

long. 87°55′31′′ W.); thence clockwise along 

the 5 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O’Hare 

VOR/DME to the point of beginning. 

Area H. 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 Willow Road 

and railroad tracks at lat. 42°06′20′′ N., long. 

87°49′38′′ W.; thence northeast along the 

railroad tracks to the 10 nautical mile arc of 

the Chicago O’Hare VOR/DME (lat. 42°08′06′′ 

N., long. 87°48′02′′ W.); thence clockwise 

along the 10 nautical mile arc of the Chicago 

O’Hare VOR/DME to Willow Road (lat. 

42°06′04′′ N., long. 87°44′28′′ W.); thence 

west along Willow Road to the point of 

beginning. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2010. 

Edith V. Parish, 

Manager, Airspace and Rules Group. 

BILLING CODE P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 93 / Friday, May 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 27237 

[FR Doc. 2010–11499 Filed 5–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE C 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1910 

[Docket No. OSHA–2007–0080] 

RIN: 1218–AC34 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Review of 

the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA) is 

conducting a review of its Bloodborne 

Pathogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1030) 

under Section 610 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and Section 5 of 

Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory 

Planning and Review. OSHA conducts 

its review pursuant to Section 610 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 610, 

and Section 5 of Executive Order (EO) 

12866. Section 610 directs agencies to 

review impacts of regulations on small 

businesses by examining: the continued 

need for the rule; the nature of 

complaints or comments received 

concerning the rule from the public; the 

complexity of the rule; the extent to 

which the rule overlaps, duplicates or 

conflicts with other Federal rules, and, 

to the extent feasible, with State and 

local governmental rules; and the length 

of time since the rule has been 

evaluated or the degree to which 

technology, economic conditions, or 

other factors have changed in the area 

affected by the rule. The EO requires 

agencies to determine whether their 

regulations ‘‘should be modified or 

eliminated so as to make the Agency’s 

regulatory program more effective in 

achieving the regulatory objectives, less 

burdensome, or in greater alignment 

with the President’s priorities and 

principles set forth in th[e] Executive 

Order.’’ Written comments on these and 

other relevant issues are welcome. 

DATES: Written comments to OSHA 

must be sent or postmarked by August 

12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

Electronically: You may submit 

comments and attachments 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, which is the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the 

instructions on-line for making 

electronic submissions; 

Fax: If your submissions, including 

attachments, are not longer than 10 

pages, you may fax them to the OSHA 

Docket Office at (202) 693–1648; or 

Mail, hand delivery, express mail, 

messenger and courier service: You 

must submit three copies of your 

comments and attachments to the OSHA 

Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA–2007– 

0080, U.S. Department of Labor, Room 

N–2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries 

(hand, express mail, messenger and 

courier service) are accepted during the 

Department of Labor’s and Docket 

Office’s normal business hours, 8:15 

a.m.–4:45 p.m., e.t. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the Agency name and the OSHA 

docket number for this rulemaking 

(OSHA–2007–0080). Submissions are 

placed in the public docket without 

change and may be available online 

http://www.regulations.gov. OSHA 

cautions you about submitting personal 

information such as social security 

numbers and birth dates. 

Docket: To read or download 

submissions or other material in the 

docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALSEP14MY10.000</GPH>