This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

20528 

Vol. 75, No. 75 

Tuesday, April 20, 2010 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–0514; Airspace 

Docket No. 07–AWA–1] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Amendment to Class B 

Airspace; Cleveland, OH 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

modify Cleveland, OH, Class B airspace 

to contain aircraft conducting 

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) 

instrument approach procedures to 

Cleveland-Hopkins International 

Airport (CLE) within Class B airspace. 

This action also would update two 

geographic coordinates listed in the 

description. This action would contain 

aircraft operations conducting 

instrument approaches within 

Cleveland Class B airspace, 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 June 21, 2010. 

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–2009–0514 and 

Airspace Docket No. 07–AWA–1 at the 

beginning of your comments. You may 

also submit comments through the 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Colby Abbott, Airspace 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– 

2009–0514 and Airspace Docket No. 07– 

AWA–1) and be submitted in triplicate 

to the Docket Management Facility (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number). You may also submit 

comments through the Internet 

at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this action must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket Nos. FAA–2009–0514 and 

Airspace Docket No. 07–AWA–1.’’ The 

postcard will be date/time stamped and 

returned to the commenter. 

All communications received on or 

before the specified closing date for 

comments will be considered before 

taking action on the proposed rule. The 

proposal contained in this action may 

be changed in light of comments 

received. All comments submitted will 

be available for examination in the 

public docket both before and after the 

closing date for comments. A report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerned 

with this rulemaking will be filed in the 

docket. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

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

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 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 1974, the FAA issued a final rule 

which established the Cleveland, OH 

(Cleveland-Hopkins International 

Airport), Terminal Control Area (39 FR 

11256). 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. 

The Cleveland Class B airspace area 

was last modified in 1970 when it was 

the Cleveland, Ohio (Cleveland-Hopkins 

International Airport), control zone, 

using 1970s air traffic activity levels, 

and has not been modified since. In 

recent years, the City of Cleveland has 

accomplished construction projects to 

modernize, enhance safety, and provide 

sufficient capacity at CLE. These 

projects included the construction of a 

replacement Runway 6L/24R at CLE that 

increased the lateral distance between 

runways 6L/24R and 6R/24L to 1,241 

feet. This increase in lateral distance 

between the runways has allowed 

simultaneous arrival and departure 

operations under visual flight rules 

(VFR) conditions and simultaneous 

approaches during marginal VFR 

conditions through the use of Precision 

Runway Monitor/Simultaneous Offset 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 20529 

Instrument Approaches (PRM/SOIA). 

Operationally, PRM/SOIA results in 

higher arrival acceptance rates during 

lower VFR minimums, but requires 

aircraft to be established on the final 

approach courses not less than 15 miles 

from the airport. During periods with 

moderate levels of air traffic, this 

requirement quickly extends the final 

approach course to a distance of 25–30 

miles from the airport; placing aircraft 

outside the confines of the current 

Cleveland Class B airspace. 

Since the Cleveland Class B airspace 

area was established, CLE has 

experienced increased traffic levels, a 

considerably different fleet mix, and 

airport infrastructure improvements 

enabling simultaneous instrument 

approach procedures. For calendar year 

2008, CLE documented 550,171 total 

operations and was rated number 34 

among all Commercial Service Airports 

with 5,387,625 passenger enplanements. 

With the current Class B airspace 

configuration, aircraft routinely enter, 

exit, and then reenter Class B airspace 

while flying published instrument 

approach procedures, contrary to FAA 

directives. The procedural requirements 

for using PRM/SOIA to establish aircraft 

on final at least 15 miles from the 

airport 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 extensions would 

enhance safety by containing all 

instrument approach procedures, and 

associated traffic patterns, within the 

confines of Class B airspace and better 

segregate IFR aircraft arriving/departing 

CLE and VFR aircraft operating in the 

vicinity of the Cleveland 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 provide 

comments and recommendations 

regarding the planned modifications to 

the Cleveland Class B airspace area. 

Participants in the committee included 

representatives from Cleveland Airport 

System, Reader Botsford Field, 

Cleveland City Council, Aircraft Owners 

and Pilots Association, Air Line Pilots 

Association, Continental Airlines, 

Soaring Society of America, local 

soaring clubs, and local communities. 

One ad-hoc committee meeting was 

held at Burke Lakefront Airport on 

January 11, 2008. Although the ad-hoc 

committee did not reach consensus on 

an airspace design, a variety of 

alternatives were recommended. 

In addition, as announced in the 

Federal Register (73 FR 40446), 

informal airspace meetings were held on 

September 16, 2008, at the Wellington 

Town Hall, Wellington, OH; and on 

September 17, 2008, at the Burke 

Lakefront Airport, Cleveland, OH. These 

meetings provided interested airspace 

users with an opportunity to present 

their views and offer suggestions 

regarding the planned modification of 

the Cleveland Class B airspace. All 

comments received as a result of the 

informal airspace meetings, along with 

the recommendations made by the ad 

hoc committee were considered in 

developing this proposal. 

Discussion of Recommendations and 

Comments 

Ad hoc Committee Recommendations 

The ad hoc committee recommended 

the FAA raise the floor of Area F from 

5,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) to 6,000 

feet MSL or layering it. Area F was 

originally proposed as a single area 

extension to the southwest described 

from the 20-mile arc of the CLE Runway 

24L ILS/DME antenna (I–HPI) to the 30- 

mile arc of I–HPI, with the northern 

boundary 6 miles north and parallel to 

the runway 6L localizer (I–LIZ) signal 

extended and the southern boundary 6 

miles south and parallel to the runway 

6R localizer (I–EYU) signal extended, 

from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 

8,000 feet MSL. The FAA originally 

discounted this recommendation based 

on current operating procedures and 

flight safety concerns, however, the 

FAA carried the recommendation 

forward for further review and 

consideration. 

The ad hoc committee suggested three 

other recommendations that were not 

adopted. These recommendations were: 

(1) Use a Letter of Agreement to delegate 

a portion of airspace within Area F (as 

originally proposed) for glider 

operations and allow tow aircraft to 

communicate to air traffic control for 

the gliders when the Class B extension 

is not needed by air traffic control; (2) 

retain IFR arrival aircraft turns to the 

final approach course inside the current 

20-mile Class B airspace boundary; and 

(3) move Area F (as originally proposed) 

further to the North. 

The recommendation to use a Letter 

of Agreement to delegate airspace and 

‘‘third-party’’ communication 

procedures for gliders operating within 

Class B airspace, when the airspace is 

not needed, was not adopted due to the 

regulatory nature of Class B airspace. 

The associated operational and equipage 

requirements to operate within Class B 

airspace cannot be waived by Letter of 

Agreement. Additionally, air traffic 

control must be able to provide positive 

separation and control of all aircraft 

within Class B airspace at all times. 

The recommendation to retain aircraft 

turning to the final approach course 

within the current Class B airspace was 

not adopted because approximately 15 

to 18 percent of IFR arrivals currently 

extend beyond the existing boundary. 

This alternative would require imposing 

in-trail spacing requirements, 

prohibiting use of PRM/SOIA, and using 

airborne holding. While these measures 

might be of minor benefit in keeping 

aircraft within the confines of the 

present day Cleveland Class B airspace, 

the associated detrimental impacts to 

the national airspace system would be 

excessive. 

The recommendation to move the 

Area F extension (as originally 

proposed) further to the North was not 

adopted because the extension would 

no longer align with the runway 

centerlines extended, nor the 

instrument final approach courses. The 

purpose for establishing the Class B 

airspace extensions, i.e. to retain IFR 

arrival aircraft on instrument 

approaches within Class B airspace, 

would not be realized and the current 

situation of IFR arrival aircraft entering, 

exiting, and reentering the Class B 

airspace would continue. 

Informal Airspace Meeting Comments 

Twelve commenters raised concerns 

that Area F (as originally proposed) 

would impose on the existing glider 

operations at Reader-Botsford Airport. 

The 5,000 feet MSL floor of the area 

would provide only 4,200 feet above 

ground level (AGL) airspace for gliders 

to operate within and they would be 

unable to reach adequate altitudes for 

safe departures and returns from crosscountry soaring. Six of these 

commenters suggested dividing Area F 

into a north area with the 5,000 feet 

MSL floor the FAA proposed, and a 

south area with a 6,000 feet MSL floor 

to support cross-country glider 

operations. And, four of these 

commenters further suggested using 

railroad tracks that run west to east 

under the originally proposed Area F as 

a visual reference to mark the boundary 

between the north and south areas. The 

FAA partially agrees. The originally 

proposed Area F has been redefined into 

a north area (named Area F in the 

proposal section below) and a south 

area (named Area G in the proposal 

section below). The ‘‘new’’ Areas F and 

G are expected to provide the gliders 

operating at Reader-Botsford Airport 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20530 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

with additional airspace for their 

operations while preserving the 

integrity of the Class B airspace 

containing IFR aircraft flying instrument 

approaches to CLE. The FAA does not 

agree with using the railroad tracks to 

define the two areas and is proposing 

the boundary between the proposed 

Areas F and G be described by the 

runway 6R localizer (I–CLE) signal 

extended. The railroad tracks suggested 

by the commenters does not divide the 

originally proposed Area F in a manner 

supportive of containing IFR aircraft on 

instrument approaches within Class B 

airspace. 

Four commenters expressed concern 

that the planned establishment of Areas 

E and F (as originally proposed) with a 

5,000 feet MSL floor would compress 

general aviation traffic into lower 

altitudes and cause traffic compression. 

The FAA partially agrees with these 

comments. For general aviation aircraft 

to remain clear of the Cleveland Class B 

airspace areas, they would have to fly 

either below or above the Class B 

airspace extensions. However, these 

areas are necessary to (1) retain IFR 

aircraft on instrument approaches in the 

Cleveland Class B airspace area and (2) 

ensure general aviation traffic and the 

large turbine-powered aircraft 

conducting instrument approaches are 

segregated. Additionally, aircraft 

conducting simultaneous, parallel 

instrument approaches may not be 

assigned the same altitude during turnon to the final approach course, 

resulting in aircraft being assigned 

altitudes that may differ by a minimum 

of 1,000 feet. In order to accommodate 

containment of these aircraft flying 

simultaneous instrument approaches 

within Class B airspace, and ensure 

segregation from general aviation traffic, 

the Cleveland Class B airspace area 

must be modified to establish the 

additional extensions as proposed. 

One commenter cited Area F (as 

originally proposed) would be an 

impediment to general aviation aircraft 

operating at Elyria and Lorain County 

Regional Airports, as descents and 

climbs would have to be modified to get 

below the proposed 5,000 feet MSL 

extension. The FAA does not agree. 

Both Elyria and Lorain County Regional 

Airports are located under the 

Cleveland Class B airspace Area C (floor 

altitude 3,000 feet MSL), which is 

unchanged by this proposal. The current 

Cleveland Class B airspace Area D 

extends 5 miles west of the airports 

(floor altitude 4,000 feet MSL) and is 

also unchanged by this proposal. The 

newly proposed Class B airspace 

extension, comprised of Areas F and G, 

would be established at 5,000 feet MSL 

and 6,000 feet MSL, respectively, and 

located beyond the existing Area D. The 

flight profile impacts for general 

aviation aircraft operating at Elyria and 

Lorain County Regional Airports should 

be minimal since departures to or 

arrivals from the West or South are 

expected to be unaffected by the 

proposed extension. 

Ten commenters, including a 

representative from the Village of 

Wellington, stated concerns regarding 

potential loss of revenue to the village, 

the Reader-Botsford Airport land owner, 

and the Fun Country Soaring Club 

should the glider operations cease 

because of the Class B airspace 

proposal. The FAA does not agree. As 

noted above, the Area F extension (as 

originally proposed) was modified to 

provide additional airspace to the 

soaring club operators at ReaderBotsford Airport. Since the majority of 

glider operations occur to the south and 

west, the new Areas F and G are 

expected to enable glider operations to 

continue with negligible impact to local 

area or cross-country glider flights. As 

such, the FAA does not expect the 

soaring club operation at ReaderBotsford Airfield to relocate; thus, 

averting the financial impacts to the 

Village of Wellington, the airport land 

owner, or the soaring club, as raised by 

the commenters. 

Two commenters questioned the need 

for the Cleveland Class B modifications 

in light of the recent reduction of air 

carrier traffic at CLE. The FAA does not 

agree. The Class B airspace extensions 

proposed are aimed at ensuring IFR 

aircraft flying instrument approaches to 

CLE are contained within Class B 

airspace during their arrival. As noted 

in the ad hoc committee 

recommendations section, even with the 

reduced air carrier traffic levels today, 

there continues to be approximately 15 

to 18 percent of IFR aircraft arrivals to 

CLE that enter, exit, and re-enter the 

Class B airspace. The FAA considers 

this proposed modification to the 

Cleveland Class B airspace to be the 

minimum amount of airspace necessary 

to contain all IFR arrivals within Class 

B airspace. 

Four commenters stated the FAA 

should determine a way to ‘‘turn the 

airspace [original proposed Area F 

extension] on and off’’, while one 

suggested the use of a Letter of 

Agreement to enable gliders to gain 

access/entry to the Class B airspace 

extension proposed overhead ReaderBotsford Airfield. The FAA does not 

agree. Class B airspace is established via 

rulemaking and when established, the 

airspace and the regulatory 

requirements associated with accessing 

and operating within it are specific and 

in effect at all times for all operations. 

The regulatory requirements for aircraft 

to enter and operate within Class B 

airspace may not be waived, modified, 

or exempted by Letter of Agreement. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify 

the Cleveland, OH, Class B airspace 

area. This action (depicted on the 

attached chart) would add two airspace 

extensions (one, Area E, to the Northeast 

and one, defined by Areas F and G, to 

the Southwest) in order to provide 

additional airspace needed to contain 

aircraft conducting instrument approach 

operations within the confines of Class 

B airspace, especially when PRM/SOIA 

are utilized. Additionally, the proposed 

modifications would better segregate 

IFR aircraft arriving/departing CLE and 

VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of 

the Cleveland Class B airspace area. The 

current Cleveland Class B airspace area 

consists of four subareas (A through D) 

while the proposed configuration would 

consist of seven subareas (A through G). 

The proposed modifications to the 

Cleveland Class B airspace area are: 

Areas A–D. Except for a proposed 

administrative correction to the legal 

description in Area B, which excludes 

the airspace within a 2-mile radius of 

Burke Lakefront Airport in error, there 

are no changes to the airspace 

descriptions of Area A through D. The 

airspace contained within Area B does 

not overlap with the airspace contained 

within a 2-mile radius of the Burke 

Lakefront Airport. Therefore, the Area B 

exclusion language addressing that 

airspace within a 2-mile radius of Burke 

Lakefront Airport is unnecessary. 

Area E. The FAA proposes to 

establish Area E to the Northeast of CLE. 

This modification would extend from 

the existing Area D boundary defined by 

the 20-mile arc of I–HPI to the 30-mile 

arc of I–HPI. The northern boundary is 

proposed to be defined 6-miles north 

and parallel to the Runway 24R 

localizer (I–PVY) signal extended, and 

the southern boundary is proposed to be 

defined 6-miles south and parallel to the 

Runway 24L localizer (I–FVZ) signal 

extended. This new area would be 

established with the floor extending 

upward from 5,000 feet MSL to and 

including 8,000 feet MSL, overlying the 

Willoughby Lost Nation Airport in 

Willoughby, OH. The effect of this new 

area would be to ensure IFR aircraft 

flying instrument approaches to 

runways 24L and 24R are contained 

within the confines of Class B airspace 

throughout the approach, yet provide 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 20531 

airspace below and above this area for 

VFR aircraft operations outside of the 

Class B airspace. 

Area F. The FAA proposes to 

establish Area F to the Southwest of 

CLE. This modification would extend 

from the existing Area D boundary 

defined by the 20-mile arc of I–HPI to 

the 30-mile arc of I–HPI. The northern 

boundary is proposed to be defined 6- 

miles north and parallel to the Runway 

6L localizer (I–LIZ) signal extended, and 

the southern boundary is proposed to be 

defined by the Runway 6R localizer (I– 

CLE) signal extended. This new area 

would be established with the floor 

extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL 

to and including 8,000 feet MSL, and to 

the north and west of the town of 

Wellington, OH. Similar to the effect of 

Area E, this new area, with Area G 

described below, would ensure IFR 

aircraft flying instrument approaches to 

runways 6L and 6R are contained 

within the confines of Class B airspace 

throughout the approach, yet provide 

airspace below and above this area for 

VFR aircraft operations outside of the 

Class B airspace. 

Area G. The FAA proposes to 

establish Area G to the Southwest of 

CLE. This modification would extend 

from the existing Area D boundary 

defined by the 20-mile arc of I–HPI to 

the 30-mile arc of I–HPI. The northern 

boundary is proposed to be defined by 

the Runway 6R localizer (I–CLE) signal 

extended, and the southern boundary is 

proposed to be defined 6-miles south 

and parallel to the Runway 6R localizer 

(I–EYU) signal extended. This new area 

would be established with the floor 

extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL 

to and including 8,000 feet MSL, 

overlying the Reader-Botsford Airport 

located in Wellington, OH. Similar to 

the effect of Areas E and F, this new 

area, with Area F described above, 

would ensure IFR aircraft flying 

instrument approaches to runways 6L 

and 6R are contained within the 

confines of Class B airspace throughout 

the approach, yet provide airspace 

below and above this area for VFR 

aircraft operations outside of the Class 

B airspace. 

Finally, this proposed action would 

update the CLE airport reference point 

coordinates and the I–HPI coordinates 

in the legal description to reflect current 

National Airspace System data. 

Implementation of these proposed 

modifications to the Cleveland 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 

7400.9T, 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 United States standards, this 

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 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: 

After consultation with a diverse 

cross-section of stakeholders that 

participated in the Cleveland airport ad 

hoc advisory committee, in addition to 

thorough review of public comments as 

a result of an informal meeting, the FAA 

expects the proposed modifications to 

the Cleveland Class B airspace to result 

in minimal cost. Existing traffic flow 

modeling to CLE shows commercial 

aircraft routinely enter, exit and then 

reenter the current Class B airspace 

while flying published instrument 

approach procedures, contrary to FAA 

directives. The Class B extension 

proposed will increase safety by 

encompassing the actual flight paths of 

commercial aircraft on instrument 

approach. Commercial aircraft are 

already performing instrument 

approaches to CLE in accordance to the 

proposed extensions to Class B airspace. 

As a result of the aforementioned 

public meeting, only four commenters— 

all of whom are individual glider 

pilots—mentioned concerns over 

general aviation compression with the 

extended Class B airspace extension. 

However, the FAA discounts such 

compression arguments because as 

mentioned above current commercial 

procedures for approach to CLE are 

occurring in the proposed Class B 

extension. The FAA also adjusted the 

proposed extension of Class B airspace 

by bifurcation of the affected area and 

increasing the floor altitude from 5,000 

MSL to 6,000 MSL in the area most 

trafficked by the gliders out of ReaderBotsford Airport, to the south and to the 

west of the airport. 

Commenters worry a soaring club may 

discontinue operation resulting in a loss 

of revenue to the Village of Wellington, 

the landowner of Reader-Botsford 

Airport, as a result of the proposed 

extension. The FAA does not believe the 

proposed Class B extension will cause 

the soaring club to close down; 

therefore, the costs would be minimal, 

if any. The FAA included 

accommodations to the proposed 

extension. The area to the south and the 

west of Reader-Botsford Airport 

included in the proposed Class B 

airspace extension gives a 6,000 MSL 

minimal floor as compared to 5,000 

MSL minimal floor in other portions of 

the proposed extension to the Class B 

airspace. This accommodation would 

allow for a vaster amount of airspace for 

gliders. Additionally, this rule does not 

regulate any nearby airspace outside of 

the current and proposed Class B 

airspace which is available to general 

aviation and gliders but not to 

commercial aircraft on approach to CLE. 

The benefits of the proposed 

extension of Cleveland Class B airspace 

far exceed any minimal cost associated 

with this proposed rule. As mentioned 

earlier this change is primarily to 

encapsulate already practiced 

instrument landing approaches thereby 

increasing the safety of not only the 

commercial traffic but also the general 

aviation community already being 

affected. The FAA also recognizes the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
20532 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

significant benefits of having increased 

number of simultaneous lateral 

approaches of commercial aircraft both 

for instrument approaches and visual 

approaches. 

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. Based on the Small 

Business Administration small entity 

criterion for small government 

jurisdictions the rule would impact a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Reader-Botsford Airport is a regional 

airport that’s land is owned by a 

government with a population less than 

50,000, the Village of Wellington, Ohio. 

The FAA does not believe Wellington 

will be significantly impacted by the 

proposed extension of Cleveland Class B 

airspace because the proposed rule 

would not force a local soaring club to 

cease operations. The FAA proposed a 

higher ceiling to accommodate the 

soaring club. Additionally, commercial 

flights are currently using the proposed 

Class B extended airspace. The FAA 

believes these changed patterns result in 

a minimal economic impact. Therefore 

the FAA certifies that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We request comments from the 

potentially affected entities which 

would include estimated compliance 

cost and revenue, such that we could 

provide a measure of economic impact. 

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 to change the airspace 

classification for CLE and determined 

that it would not have a potential effect 

on trade-sensitive activities as discussed 

above. 

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 

$136.1 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. 

Conclusion 

FAA has, therefore, determined that 

the extension of Cleveland Class B 

airspace 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 OH B Cleveland, OH [Modified] 

Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport 

(Primary Airport) 

(Lat. 41°24′34′′ N., long. 81°51′18′′ W.) 

Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport 

Runway 24L ILS/DME Antenna (I–HPI) 

(Lat. 41°23′44′′ N., long. 81°52′18′′ W.) 

Gilbert Airport (Pvt) 

(Lat. 41°22′00′′ N., long. 81°58′00′′ W.) 

Boundaries 

Area A. That airspace extending upward 

from the surface to and including 8,000 feet 

MSL within a 5-mile radius of I–HPI, 

excluding that airspace within a 1-mile 

radius of Gilbert Airport. 

Area B. That airspace extending upward 

from 1,900 feet MSL to and including 8,000 

feet MSL within an 8.5-mile radius of I–HPI, 

excluding Area A previously described. 

Area C. That airspace extending upward 

from 3,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 

feet MSL within a 15-mile radius of I–HPI, 

excluding Areas A and B previously 

described. 

Area D. That airspace extending upward 

from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 

feet MSL within a 20-mile radius of I–HPI, 

excluding Areas A, B, and C previously 

described. 

Area E. That airspace extending upward 

from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 

feet MSL starting at point lat. 41°30′41′′ N., 

long. 81°27′22′′ W., then northeast to point 

lat. 41°37′00′′ N., long. 81°16′29′′ W., then 

northwest along the 30-mile arc of I–HPI to 

point lat. 42°47′20′′ N., long. 81°27′36′′ W., 

then southwest to point lat. 42°40′43′′ N., 

long. 81°38′13′′ W., then southeast along the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Proposed Rules 20533 

20-mile arc of I–HPI to the point of 

beginning. 

Area F. That airspace extending upward 

from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 

feet MSL starting at point lat. 41°16′17′′ N., 

long. 82°16′56′′ W., then southwest to point 

lat. 41°09′35′′ N., long. 82°27′23′′ W., then 

southeast along the 30-mile arc of I–HPI to 

point lat. 41°04′24′′ N., long. 82°22′43′′ W., 

then northeast to point lat. 41°10′52′′ N., 

long. 82°12′37′′ W., then northwest along the 

20-mile arc of I–HPI to the point of 

beginning. 

Area G. That airspace extending upward 

from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 

feet MSL starting at point lat. 41°06′13′′ N., 

long. 82°05′07′′ W., then southwest to point 

lat. 40°59′08′′ N., long. 82°15′03′′ W., then 

northwest along the 30-mile arc of I–HPI to 

point lat. 41°04′24′′ N., long. 82°22′43′′ W., 

then northeast to point lat. 41°10′52′′ N, long. 

82°12′37′′ W, then southeast along the 

20-mile arc of I–HPI to the point of 

beginning. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 13, 

2010. 

Edith V. Parish, 

Manager, Airspace and Rules Group. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9024 Filed 4–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1500 

[Docket No. CPSC–2010–0029] 

Interpretation of ‘‘Children’s Product’’ 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed interpretative rule. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘CPSC,’’ ‘‘Commission,’’ or 

‘‘we’’) is issuing a proposed 

interpretative rule that would interpret 

the term ‘‘children’s product’’ as used in 

the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (‘‘CPSIA’’), 

Public Law 110–314. The proposal 

would provide additional guidance on 

the factors that must be considered 

when evaluating what is a children’s 

product. 

DATES: Written comments and 

submissions in response to this notice 

must be received by June 21, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2010– 

0029, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. To ensure timely processing 

of comments, the Commission is no 

longer accepting comments submitted 

by electronic mail (e-mail) except 

through http://www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: Mail/Hand delivery/ 

Courier (for paper, disk, or CD–ROM 

submissions), preferably in five copies, 

to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this proposed 

rulemaking. All comments received may 

be posted without change, including 

any personal identifiers, contact 

information, or other personal 

information provided, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Do not submit 

confidential business information, trade 

secret information, or other sensitive or 

protected information electronically. 

Such information should be submitted 

in writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan D. Midgett, Office of Hazard 

Identification, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1EP20AP10.007</GPH>