```

[Federal Register: September 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 182)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 57376-57383]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21se10-6]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0347; Airspace Docket No. 07-AWA-2]
RIN 2120-AA66

 
Modification of Class B Airspace; Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies the Chicago, IL, Class B airspace area by 
expanding the existing airspace area to ensure containment of 
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft conducting instrument approach 
procedures within Class B airspace, and segregating IFR aircraft 
arriving/departing Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD) and 
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) aircraft operating in the vicinity of the 
Chicago Class B airspace area. The additional Class B airspace will 
support simultaneous instrument approach procedure operations to ORD's 
triple parallel runways today, as well as the three additional parallel 
runways (six total) planned for the near future. This action enhances 
safety, improves the flow of air traffic, and reduces 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 safety and 
efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS).

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, October 21, 2010. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and 
publication of conforming amendments.

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: 

Background

    On May 14, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice 
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify the Chicago, IL, Class B 
airspace area (75 FR 27229). The FAA proposed this action to ensure 
containment of turbo-jet IFR aircraft conducting instrument approaches 
to ORD within the confines of Class B airspace and better segregate IFR 
aircraft arriving/departing ORD and non-participating VFR aircraft 
operating in the vicinity of the Chicago Class B airspace area.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking 
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. In response to 
the NPRM, the FAA received 82 written comment submissions; of which, 7 
were duplicate documents submitted by 4 commenters. Many of the 
commenters identified themselves as pilots who operate within, or 
through, the local area. All comments received were considered before 
making a determination on the final rule. An analysis of the comments 
received and the FAA's responses are contained in the ``Discussion of 
Comments'' section below.
    Subsequent to the NPRM publication, the geographic coordinates in 
the aeronautical database for the ORD airport reference point (ARP), 
the Chicago Midway International Airport ARP, and the intersection of 
U.S. Highway 294 and the railroad tracks identified in Area B changed. 
The correct coordinates for the above have been incorporated into the 
Chicago Class B airspace area legal description contained in this final 
rule.
    Class B airspace designations are published in paragraph 3000 of 
FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 
2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class B 
airspace designations

[[Page 57377]]

listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.

Discussion of Comments

    Six commenters expressed general opposition to the proposal stating 
they thought it was unnecessary.
    The FAA does not agree. As stated in the NPRM, the current Chicago 
Class B airspace area was established in 1993. Since then, ORD has 
experienced a significant increase in the number of aircraft operations 
and a substantial change in the fleet mix, with no change to the 
airspace configuration. The City of Chicago has completed airport 
infrastructure projects in recent years that enable simultaneous 
instrument approaches to three parallel runways that run west to east. 
Ongoing planned runway construction projects for the near future 
include building three additional parallel runways running west to 
east; transforming the operational flow of ORD to a West/East flow with 
six parallel runways when completed.
    FAA guidance requires air traffic controllers to vector IFR arrival 
aircraft to remain within Class B airspace once they've entered it. 
Today, turbo-jet aircraft flying simultaneous triple instrument 
approach procedures to ORD exceed the Class B airspace area boundaries; 
routinely entering, exiting, and re-entering the Class B airspace 
during their arrival. The procedural requirements associated with 
establishing arrival aircraft on simultaneous instrument approaches to 
three parallel runways result in aircraft exceeding the Class B 
airspace lateral boundaries by up to ten nautical miles (NM) during 
moderate traffic levels. As the additional runways planned for 
construction at ORD become operational and expected airport capacity 
increases, the number of aircraft exiting the Class B airspace during 
arrivals is also expected to increase; resulting in IFR turbo-jet air 
carrier arrivals flying in the very airspace that non-participating VFR 
general aviation and glider aircraft are also operating.
    Due to the existing and forecasted traffic volume, fleet mix, and 
operational complexity for controlling arrivals and departures at ORD 
and the immediate vicinity, the FAA has determined changing air traffic 
procedures alone will not retain IFR turbo-jet arrivals to ORD within 
the existing outdated Chicago Class B airspace configuration. The 
proposed airspace modification is the minimum needed to reasonably 
accommodate current and future aircraft operations at ORD and necessary 
to ensure flight safety and efficiency of operations at and in the 
vicinity of ORD for all users of the airspace.
    Sixty-six commenters, including the Aircraft Owners and Pilot 
Association and multiple Soaring Clubs in the area, requested that the 
floor of Area F be raised to 5,000 feet mean sea level (MSL).
    The FAA has determined it is not possible to raise the floor of 
Area F from 4,000 feet MSL to 5,000 feet MSL. Aircraft conducting 
triple simultaneous approaches at ORD cannot be assigned the same 
altitude during turn-on to the final approach course; they must be 
assigned an altitude that differs by at least 1,000 feet from the 
altitude of the other two aircraft conducting simultaneous approaches.
    Specifically, when conducting triple simultaneous instrument 
approaches during an east flow, aircraft will be turned onto and 
established on final approach courses at 4,000 feet MSL for runway 9L 
(the northern most runway), 7,000 feet MSL or above for runway 9R (the 
center runway), and 5,000 feet MSL and 6,000 feet MSL for runway 10 
(the southernmost runway currently). When runway 10C becomes 
operational, it will be used as the southernmost arrival runway and 
mark the time when ORD will transition to become primarily a west flow 
or east flow operation.
    Traffic must be established on the respective localizers in a 
manner which allows for standard IFR (1,000 feet vertical) separation 
to be maintained until the aircraft is switched to the parallel monitor 
frequency. In reality, this means that the minimum point that the 4,000 
feet MSL traffic (north runway) needs to be established is 3 NM from 
the point that the adjoining final's aircraft descend below 5,000 feet 
MSL. The traffic that turns on at 5,000 feet MSL or 6,000 feet MSL 
(south runway) needs to be established 3 NM from the point that the 
adjoining final's aircraft descend below 7,000 feet MSL. These minimum 
``turn on points'' are located about 20 NM west of ORD for east flow 
operations. The base legs for aircraft flying to the north and south 
runways will need to be an additional few miles west of those points to 
meet their ``turn on'' requirements. Additionally, for both north and 
south runways, air traffic controllers will be sequencing aircraft from 
two or more arrival streams, necessitating the use of multiple 
altitudes in the arrival descent areas, until lateral separation is 
established. Under some projected traffic scenarios, multiple altitude 
downwind patterns will be utilized, with traffic ``layered'' by 
altitude and worked by separate controllers. During periods of heavy 
arrival demand, it is expected that the length of finals will extend to 
25-30 NM routinely, as is the case today during west flow operations.
    The described scenario addresses triple simultaneous Instrument 
Landing System approaches. When runway 10R opens and becomes 
operational, the situation will become compounded as the Chicago TRACON 
begins conducting ``quad'' operations. The procedures for controlling 
quad approaches are in the early planning stages.
    Sixty commenters stated that a floor of 4,000 feet MSL for Area F 
would adversely affect safety. The safety factors cited included ill 
effects due to compression, decreased possibility of safe landing 
during in-flight emergencies, inability to avoid the Class B airspace, 
and inability for gliders to maintain sufficient altitude during 
departure and arrival.
    The FAA acknowledges that some compression will occur. Non-
participating VFR general aviation and glider aircraft will have their 
choice of flying either above or below the Class B airspace, or 
circumnavigating it five to ten NM further west to remain clear should 
they decide not to contact Chicago TRACON (C90) to receive Class B 
services. However, this is necessary to contain arriving IFR turbo-jet 
aircraft flying instrument approaches to ORD within Class B airspace 
once they've entered it, and will enhance flight safety to all by 
segregating the large turbo-jet aircraft and the non-participating VFR 
aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Chicago Class B airspace 
area.
    The FAA notes that the proposal will affect glider operations. 
While the Area F Class B airspace extension proposed to the west of ORD 
brings Class B airspace closer to the airfields where gliders operate, 
the original airspace extension to the west was reduced in size as much 
as possible in response to concerns expressed by the glider community 
during the ad hoc committee meetings and included in their final 
report. Subsequently, Area F was designed to ensure it does not 
encompass or overlay the airfields where the Sky Soaring Glider Club 
(Hampshire, IL) and the Windy City Soaring Association (Hinkley, IL) 
operations are located; as well as the Chicago Glider Club (Minooka, 
IL) which lies well south of any proposed Chicago Class B airspace area 
modifications.
    Based on the dimensions of Area F having been reduced at the 
recommendation and request of the glider community, the FAA feels the 
success for a safe landing would be no different than it would be in 
other areas of the present day Class B airspace

[[Page 57378]]

where the floor is 4,000 feet MSL or less.
    The FAA does not agree that non-participating pilots will have 
difficulty avoiding the Area F Class B airspace extension. The legal 
description of the airspace area includes a mixture of prominent visual 
landmark references, geographic coordinates, and arcs defined off 
distance measuring equipment (DME) navigation aids. The FAA believes 
this mix of descriptors should be sufficient and effective in assisting 
pilots to identify the lateral limits of Area F.
    Lastly, the FAA acknowledges the concerns of the glider community 
during departure and arrival phases of flight should they continue to 
fly in the Class E airspace under the Area F Class B airspace extension 
and resist seeking alternative airspace that may allow them to climb to 
higher altitudes on departure and during sustained flights. Great 
effort was taken to ensure the Class B airspace extension was minimized 
to the absolute essential dimensions and to ensure it does not 
encompass or overlay airfields that gliders routinely operate from to 
minimize impacts to their flight operations.
    The four factors cited above, however, do not negate the need for 
the project. At the present time, large turbo-jet air carriers, general 
aviation, and glider aircraft are flying simultaneously in the airspace 
proposed to become Area F due to the outdated design of the Chicago 
Class B airspace area. Moving forward with the Class B airspace 
modification will enhance flight safety for all operators flying 
within, through, or near the Chicago Class B airspace area.
    Twenty-two commenters stated that proposed Area F with a floor of 
4,000 feet MSL would have negative effects to general aviation aircraft 
such as delays, or would have negative effects overall on glider 
operations. The negative effects included difficulty of training new 
glider pilots and diminished livelihood for instructors and tow pilots.
    The FAA notes that similar concerns of adverse impact were raised 
by commenters responding to the informal airspace meetings and offers 
the following, also addressed in the NPRM. The proposed Area F Class B 
airspace extension extending west of ORD incorporates a portion of 
Class E airspace that currently lies to the west of the boundary of the 
existing Area F, which currently has a 4,000 feet MSL floor, of the 
Chicago Class B airspace area. It is understandable that users of that 
Class E airspace view the establishment of Class B airspace there as an 
encroachment; however, in the interest of flight safety, the FAA has 
determined that the proposed Area F airspace extension to the west of 
ORD is necessary. The extension will contain IFR arrival aircraft 
flying triple simultaneous instrument approaches to ORD within Class B 
airspace throughout their approach, segregate IFR aircraft arriving to 
and departing from ORD and non-participating VFR aircraft in the 
vicinity of ORD from one another, and ensure a safer flying environment 
for all airspace users in the busy terminal airspace around ORD.
    The Area F Class B airspace extension was limited to include only 
the volume of airspace necessary to support triple simultaneous 
instrument approaches. Although Area F brings Class B airspace closer 
to the airfields where gliders operate, the original airspace extension 
to the west was reduced in size as much as possible in response to 
concerns expressed by the glider community during the ad hoc committee 
meeting process. Additionally, as noted above, Area F was designed to 
ensure it does not encompass or overlay the airfields where the Sky 
Soaring Glider Club and the Windy City Soaring Association operations 
are located; the Chicago Glider Club lies well south of any proposed 
Class B airspace modifications.
    The FAA maintains it is necessary to separate the large turbo-jet 
aircraft arriving and departing ORD and the non-participating VFR 
aircraft to ensure flight safety for all flying within, through, or 
near the Chicago Class B airspace area.
    One commenter suggested VFR corridors be established northwest/
southeast and northeast/southwest directly over ORD at 1,500 feet MSL 
to 2,000 feet MSL. Another commenter offered that the proposal would 
adversely affect the VFR flyway along the Fox River and a third 
commenter stated additional VFR flyways should be established to the 
east, the west, and directly over the airspace, and that they should be 
northbound or southbound only.
    The FAA does not agree. Establishing VFR corridors at 1,500 feet 
MSL to 2,000 feet MSL directly over ORD through the Class B airspace 
surface area are not feasible. VFR corridors provide general aviation 
flight paths for pilots planning flights into, out of, or through 
complex terminal airspace so as to avoid Class B airspace. ORD fans 
departures off the airport covering as much as 270 degrees around the 
compass using a combination of parallel and diagonal runways. Depending 
upon the runway configuration in use, establishing low altitude 
corridors as suggested would conflict with the over 1,300 departures 
daily, on average, and force departures to be restricted below the 
corridor altitude until clear of the corridor. Additionally, IFR 
aircraft arriving and departing ORD, as well as departing Chicago 
Midway, Aurora, DuPage, and Milwaukee Mitchell airports, commonly 
occupy this airspace area.
    The FAA also does not agree that the VFR flyway along the Fox River 
would be affected by the proposed modification. VFR flyways are not 
addressed in regulatory airspace proposals or determinations, but in 
accordance with FAA Order 7210.3, Facility Administration and 
Procedures, processing requirements. However, the FAA notes that the 
floor of the existing Class B airspace area over the Fox River is 4,000 
feet MSL and remains the same in the proposed modification. The 
existing suggested altitude for the VFR flyway along the Fox River is 
charted at or below 3,500 feet MSL. The VFR flyway along the Fox River 
is unaffected by existing Class B airspace and will remain unaffected 
by the Chicago Class B airspace area modification.
    Currently, there are three VFR flyways, that run north and south, 
west of ORD and one flyway that runs north and south, east of ORD. The 
flyways to the west utilize a river, roads, and railroad tracks, 
whereas the flyway to the east utilizes the Lake Michigan shoreline. 
The FAA believes the existing three VFR flyways are sufficient to 
support non-participating aircraft flying in the vicinity of ORD.
    Two commenters requested that the floor of the Class B airspace 
over Lake Michigan be raised from 3,000 feet MSL (Area C) and 3,600 
feet MSL (Area D) to 4,000 feet MSL or 4,500 feet MSL, citing safety as 
the reason. One of the commenters stated that raising the floor would 
increase options for pilots.
    The FAA has determined it is not possible to raise the floor 
altitude for Areas C and D, as requested. No modifications were 
proposed for these areas as the existing airspace structure was deemed 
sufficient to continue supporting and protecting IFR aircraft flying 
triple simultaneous instrument approaches during west flow operations 
and non-participating VFR aircraft flying along the Lake Michigan 
shoreline. Although the commenters cited safety reasons as the basis 
for their suggestion, there are no known safety issues for that 
airspace today. The FAA recognizes that raising the Area C and D Class 
B airspace floors would increase options (additional transit altitudes 
and airspace over Lake Michigan) for non-participating VFR pilots 
operating east of ORD; however, the Class B airspace in Areas C and D 
protects the

[[Page 57379]]

instrument approaches flown to runways 22L and 27R, specifically.
    Two commenters stated that the airspace contained in Area F below 
5,000 feet MSL is unusable for instrument approaches. One of those 
commenters also stated that the FAA has indicated that the altitudes 
below 6,000 feet MSL are unusable in Area F on the west side of the 
Class B airspace due to traffic from satellite airports.
    The FAA does not agree. These statements are incorrect. In fact, 
IFR aircraft flying instrument approach procedures to ORD today operate 
below 6,000 feet MSL in the airspace proposed to be Area F. As 
mentioned previously in response to the public's comments to raise the 
floor of Area F to 5,000 feet MSL, when conducting triple simultaneous 
instrument approaches during an east flow, aircraft will be turned onto 
and established on final approach courses at 4,000 feet MSL for runway 
9L (the northern most runway), 7,000 feet MSL or above for runway 9R 
(the center runway), and 5,000 feet MSL and 6,000 feet MSL for runway 
10 (the southernmost runway currently). When runway 10C becomes 
operational, it will be used as the southernmost arrival runway and 
mark the time when ORD will transition to become primarily a west flow 
or east flow operation.
    Traffic must be established on the respective localizers in a 
manner that allows for standard IFR (1,000 feet vertical) separation to 
be maintained until the aircraft is switched to the parallel monitor 
frequency. This means that the minimum point that the 4,000 feet MSL 
traffic (north runway) needs to be established is 3 NM from the point 
that the adjoining final's aircraft descend below 5,000 feet MSL. The 
traffic that turns on at 5,000 feet MSL or 6,000 feet MSL (south 
runway) needs to be established 3 NM from the point that the adjoining 
final's aircraft descend below 7,000 feet MSL. These minimum ``turn on 
points'' are located about 20 NM west of ORD for east flow operations. 
Additionally, for both north and south runways, air traffic controllers 
will be sequencing aircraft from two or more arrival streams, 
necessitating the use of multiple altitudes in the arrival descent 
areas, until lateral separation is established. Under some projected 
traffic scenarios, multiple altitude downwind patterns will be 
utilized, with traffic ``layered'' by altitude, including the airspace 
between 4,000 feet MSL and 6,000 feet MSL.
    Thirty-one commenters thought the railroad tracks near Hampshire, 
IL, should be used as a visual landmark to define the northern boundary 
of Area F between the 25 NM and 30 NM arcs. Thirty of those commenters 
thought that doing so would increase safety with regard to gliders 
avoiding the Class B airspace area.
    The FAA does not agree. As stated in the NPRM, the FAA finds this 
suggestion impractical. The resultant dimension of the Area F extension 
would be insufficient laterally between the runway 9L centerline 
extended and the northern boundary of the area to safely ensure 
separation between aircraft flying in the runways 9L, 9R, and 10 
downwind traffic patterns and aircraft flying along the Area F boundary 
and final approach courses. Additionally, issues associated with 
establishing Area F with an insufficient amount of airspace 
dimensionally will only be compounded when the three additional 
parallel runways that are planned become operational.
    The FAA also notes that a second set of railroad tracks parallel to 
the railroad tracks near the town of Hampshire, IL, run approximately 
three NM to the south. Although commenters believed that using the 
visually identifiable railroad tracks near Hampshire, IL, would 
increase safety with regard to gliders avoiding the Chicago Class B 
airspace area, the opportunity for a pilot to misidentify the correct 
set of railroad tracks defining the boundary challenges that 
perspective. A pilot unfamiliar with the local area, encountering 
weather, or confused in flight for any number of reasons could 
misidentify the railroad tracks near Hampshire, IL, with those railroad 
tracks running parallel approximately three NM south near Burlington, 
IL, and unintentionally intrude into the Chicago Class B airspace area.
    Two commenters stated that Area F was not necessary because 
departure aircraft from ORD did not conflict with instrument approach 
traffic in that area.
    The FAA agrees that aircraft departing ORD do not conflict with 
aircraft flying instrument approaches in that area. However, the FAA 
does not agree that Area F is not necessary. Area F is intended to 
contain IFR turbo-jet aircraft flying instrument approach procedures to 
runways 9L, 9R, and 10 within Class B airspace. It also will segregate 
IFR turbo-jet aircraft from non-participating GA and glider aircraft 
from operating within the same volume of airspace. This will ensure a 
safe flying environment for all aircraft flying in or near Area F.
    One commenter stated that aircraft are more fuel efficient at 
higher altitudes and, consequently, the proposal would increase fuel 
consumption for air transport aircraft. Another stated that the 
proposal would increase fuel consumption for general aviation aircraft.
    The FAA does not agree that the Class B airspace area modification 
will increase fuel consumption for air transport aircraft. The FAA is 
taking action to modify the existing Class B airspace to contain IFR 
arrival aircraft flying instrument approach procedures within Class B 
airspace based on operational procedures today. This action aims to 
overcome IFR arrival aircraft entering, exiting, and reentering the 
Chicago Class B airspace area during arrival. This modification 
represents the minimum airspace needed to reasonably accommodate 
current operations and flight tracks at ORD. Since air traffic control 
will continue using existing approach procedures, altitudes, and flight 
tracks for the same fleet mix it is serving today, fuel consumption for 
air transport aircraft being controlled today is expected to remain the 
same in the future. Finally, as the existing flight tracks, altitude 
use, and approach procedures will not change as a result of 
modification to the Class B, this modification is not expected to have 
any fuel consumption impact on air transport aircraft.
    The FAA recognizes that the Class B airspace modification could 
increase fuel burn for non-participating VFR aircraft. Areas E and F 
are the new Class B airspace areas that could affect non-participating 
VFR aircraft. In order to remain clear of the Chicago Class B airspace 
area, non-participating VFR pilots who decide not to contact the 
Chicago TRACON for Class B services will either have to fly lower or 
further east or west of ORD. However, this is necessary to separate 
them and the large turbo-jet aircraft being contained within the Class 
B airspace area. While some aircraft would need to fly additional 
distances or at different altitudes, the FAA believes any increase use 
of fuel would be minimal and be justified by the increase in overall 
safety.
    One commenter stated that the floor of Area D over Joliet was too 
low, the airspace proposal would adversely affect Chicago Midway 
Airport (MDW) traffic, and that aircraft on approach to MDW should be 
at a higher altitude.
    The FAA does not agree. The Joliet Regional Airport lies outside 
the Chicago Mode C veil (30 NM from ORD) in an area unaffected by the 
Chicago Class B airspace modification. Area D in the existing Chicago 
Class B airspace area is unchanged in the modification of the Chicago 
Class B airspace and continues to be over 5 NM away from Joliet 
Regional Airport. Since there are no proposed changes to Area D, the 
FAA does not believe there will be any

[[Page 57380]]

adverse affects to IFR arrival and departure operations to and from 
MDW. Additionally, the FAA considers the approach procedures to MDW to 
be safe, appropriate, and supportive of operations there; therefore, 
the approach procedures will not change as a result of this action.
    Two commenters stated that the proposal would have noise impacts 
because arrival aircraft would be flying at lower altitudes. 
Additionally, one of those commenters asked if an environmental impact 
study or noise study had been done and if the FAA had notified 
communities that aircraft would be flying over them at lower altitudes.
    The FAA does not agree. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1, 
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 311a, 
rulemaking actions that modify Class B airspace are categorically 
excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement. The FAA determined that there were no 
extraordinary circumstances that would have necessitated further 
environmental review. The location of present day flight tracks and 
altitude use will not change as a result of modification to the Class B 
airspace area. Jet aircraft will continue to fly the same flight tracks 
and patterns in the same locations that they fly today. There will be 
no adverse effects on any of the environmental impact categories 
required to be analyzed in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1; neither 
will there be any cumulative impacts. Moreover, the FAA prepared an 
environmental impact statement in July of 2005, and a record of 
decision in September of 2005, for construction and operation of the 
new runways at ORD. As such, there is no requirement for a noise study 
or public notification.
    One commenter thought that undue priority was given to the safety 
needs of IFR aircraft destined for ORD and MDW; second priority was 
given to separation between IFR and VFR traffic; and last priority was 
given to uncontrolled aircraft. This commenter added that positive 
separation could not realistically occur for uncontrolled aircraft and 
thought policymakers should not favor one group over another.
    The FAA does not agree that priority is given to the safety needs 
of IFR over VFR aircraft. Title 49 of U.S. Code, Section 40103, 
Sovereignty and use of airspace, charges the FAA to develop plans and 
policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation 
or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of all 
aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This action, once 
established, will ensure containment of turbo-jet IFR aircraft 
conducting instrument approaches to ORD within the confines of Class B 
airspace and better segregate IFR aircraft arriving/departing ORD and 
non-participating VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Chicago 
Class B airspace area. The containment of the IFR turbo-jet arrivals 
into ORD within Class B airspace enables the segregation of those 
aircraft from non-participating VFR aircraft and enhances safety system 
for all aircraft (IFR and VFR) equally.
    The FAA agrees that positive separation cannot be provided for 
aircraft not in communication with air traffic control. FAA Order 
7110.65, Air Traffic Control, prescribes the separation standards 
between IFR aircraft and between VFR/IFR aircraft that air traffic 
controllers must apply to IFR aircraft they are controlling. This 
action is aimed at ensuring the safety of all aircraft, IFR and VFR 
equally, that will be operating in and around the Chicago Class B 
airspace area.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 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) modifies several areas within the 
existing Chicago Class B airspace area and establishes two Class B 
airspace extensions; one to the east and a second to the west to 
provide necessary airspace for containment of turbo-jet IFR aircraft 
conducting approach operations within the confines of Class B airspace 
once they have entered it and to better segregate the IFR aircraft 
arriving/departing ORD and the non-participating VFR aircraft operating 
in the vicinity of the Chicago Class B airspace area. The modifications 
to the Chicago Class B airspace area are discussed below.
    Area A. The northern boundary of Area A is modified by 
incorporating the airspace east of U.S. Highway 12 between the 6 NM and 
5 NM 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 NM and 5 NM arcs of the Chicago O'Hare 
VOR/DME antenna, below 2,500 feet MSL, are returned to the NAS. This 
modification of Area A raises the floor of the Class B airspace in the 
affected segment from the surface to 2,500 feet MSL to 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 northeast boundary of Area B is redefined using 
visually identifiable 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). Additionally, Area B is expanded to 
incorporate a portion of existing Class B airspace contained in the 
current Area E (specifically, the airspace contained east of the 
railroad tracks and south of Willow Road within the current Area E) and 
lowers the floor of that affected airspace to 1,900 feet MSL. This 
modification of Area B raises the floor of the Class B airspace west of 
the railroad tracks westward to the existing shared boundary noted 
above to 3,000 feet MSL, but lowers the floor of the Class B airspace 
in the affected segment of the current Area E to 1,900 feet MSL. This 
modification incorporates 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 ensures segregation of IFR 
arrival aircraft from VFR aircraft flying near the boundary of Class B 
airspace. Additionally, this modification better defines the northeast 
boundary of Area B using visual references.
    Area C. Area C is expanded by incorporating portions of existing 
Class B airspace (Areas B and E), from 3,000 feet MSL to and including 
10,000 feet MSL, commensurately. As described in the Areas B and H 
modification paragraphs (above and below), the new shared boundary 
follows railroad tracks that run northeast from U.S. Highway 294 to the 
10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna. Other than re-defining 
the shared boundary of the new Areas B, C, and H using a visual 
reference for pilots flying in the vicinity of the Chicago Class B 
airspace, there is no effect to IFR or VFR aircraft operations from 
this modification.
    Area D. Area D is unchanged.
    Area E. Area E is a newly established airspace extension to the 
east of the existing Chicago Class B airspace area over Lake Michigan. 
This establishment extends Class B airspace from the existing Area D 
boundary defined by the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna 
to the 30 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna. The northern 
boundary is defined by latitude/longitude points that lay along Federal 
airways V-100/V-526, and the southern boundary is defined by latitude/
longitude points that lay along Federal airways V-6/V-10. This new

[[Page 57381]]

Area E extends upward from 4,000 feet MSL to and including a ceiling of 
10,000 feet MSL to ensure IFR arrival aircraft flying simultaneous 
instrument approaches to the existing runways 27R, 27L, and 28, as well 
as the three additional parallel runways planned for the near future, 
are contained within the confines of Class B airspace throughout their 
approach; ensure segregation of IFR aircraft arriving ORD and non-
participating VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Chicago 
Class B airspace area; and provide navigable airspace below and above 
for VFR aircraft operations.
    Area F. Area F is expanded to the west of ORD to establish an 
airspace extension to the west of the existing Chicago Class B airspace 
area, similar to Area E to the east. Specifically, this modification 
extends the western boundary of the current Area F to a uniform 25 NM 
arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna and then further extends a 
portion of the western boundary to include the airspace between the 25 
NM and 30 NM arcs of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna. The northern 
boundary of the extension to the 30 NM arc is defined by the 
intersection of Interstate 90 and the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare 
VOR/DME antenna, then due west to lat. 42[deg]07'21'' N., long. 
88[deg]33'05'' W., on the 30 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME 
antenna; and the southern boundary of the extension to the 30 NM arc is 
defined by Illinois State Route 10 between the 25 NM and 30 NM arcs of 
the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna. This new Area F extends upward from 
4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL to ensure IFR arrival 
aircraft flying simultaneous instrument approaches to the existing 
runways 9L, 9R, and 10, as well as the three additional parallel 
runways planned for the near future, are contained within the confines 
of Class B airspace throughout their approach; to ensure segregation of 
IFR aircraft arriving ORD and non-participating VFR aircraft operating 
in the vicinity of the Chicago Class B airspace area; and to provide 
navigable airspace below and above for VFR aircraft operations.
    Area G. The southern boundary of Area G is modified by 
incorporating the airspace contained in Area A that lies east of U.S. 
Highway 12 between the 6 NM and 5 NM arcs of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME 
antenna, extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL to and including 10,000 
feet MSL. This modification of Area G raises the floor of the Class B 
airspace in the affected segment from the surface to 2,500 feet MSL to 
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 H. Area H is established from the existing northern portion of 
the current Area E. This new area is bordered by the 10 NM 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 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna on the west. This 
new area extends upward from 2,500 feet MSL to and including 10,000 
feet MSL.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical 
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance 
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and 
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to 
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no 
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an 
environmental assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. 
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impacts of this final 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 final rule. The reasoning 
for this determination follows:
    This final rule enhances safety by containing all instrument 
approach procedures and associated traffic patterns within the confines 
of Class B airspace. The requirements support increased operations and 
capacity to the current and planned parallel runways while better 
segregating aircraft that will be operating in the affected airspace.
    As stated in the NPRM, we are aware that this final rule might 
require small adjustments to existing VFR flyway planning charts and 
perhaps some increased general aviation fuel consumption. After 
consultation with a diverse cross-section of stakeholders that 
participated in the ad hoc committee, and as we received no adverse 
comments regarding the economic analysis, we have determined that this 
final rule will result in minimal cost.
    This final rule will enhance safety, reduce the potential for a 
midair collision in the Chicago terminal area, and will improve the 
flow of air traffic. As such, we estimate a minimal impact with 
substantial positive net benefits. The FAA has, therefore, determined 
that this final 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.

Final 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

[[Page 57382]]

governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this 
principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible 
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to 
assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.'' The RFA 
covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-
for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. 
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so 
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    Our initial determination was that the rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
We received no public comments regarding our initial determination. As 
such, this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because the economic impact is 
expected to be minimal.
    Therefore, the FAA Administrator certifies that this final rule 
will 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 the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 
assessed the effect of this final rule and determined that it will 
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 final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, 
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Rule

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration 
amends 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal 
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and 
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 
2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B Airspace.

* * * * *

AGL IL B Chicago, IL

Chicago O'Hare International Airport (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 41[deg]58'54'' N., long. 87[deg]54'24'' W.)
Chicago Midway Airport
    (Lat. 41[deg]47'10'' N., long. 87[deg]45'09'' W.)
Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME
    (Lat. 41[deg]59'16'' N., long. 87[deg]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[deg]04'10'' N., long. 87[deg]55'31'' W.; thence clockwise 
along the 5 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to lat. 
41[deg]59'15'' N., long. 87[deg]47'35'' W.; thence east to lat. 
41[deg]59'15'' N., long. 87[deg]46'15'' W.; thence clockwise along 
the 6 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to Interstate Highway 290 
(lat. 41[deg]57'12'' N., long. 88[deg]01'56'' W.); thence north 
along Interstate Highway 290 to the 6 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare 
VOR/DME (lat. 42[deg]01'20'' N., long. 88[deg]01'51'' W.); thence 
clockwise along the 6 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to U.S. 
Highway 12 (lat. 42[deg]05'03'' N., long. 87[deg]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[deg]03'58'' N., long. 87[deg]51'58'' W.; thence 
northeast along the railroad tracks to Willow Road (lat. 
42[deg]06'20'' N., long. 87[deg]49'38'' W.); thence east along 
Willow Road to the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 
42[deg]06'04'' N., long. 87[deg]44'28'' W.); thence clockwise along 
the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the 5 NM radius of 
Chicago Midway Airport (lat. 41[deg]49'34'' N., long. 87[deg]51'00'' 
W.); thence counterclockwise along the 5 NM radius of the Chicago 
Midway Airport to the 10.5 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME 
(lat. 41[deg]48'59'' N., long. 87[deg]51'22'' W.); thence clockwise 
along the 10.5 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the 10 NM 
radius of the Chicago Midway Airport (lat. 41[deg]49'11'' N., long. 
87[deg]58'14'' W.); thence clockwise along the 10 NM radius of 
Chicago Midway Airport to the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/
DME (lat. 41[deg]49'40'' N., long. 87[deg]58'05'' W.); thence 
clockwise along the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to U.S. 
Highway 12 (lat. 42[deg]08'02'' N., long. 88[deg]00'44'' W.); thence 
southeast along U.S. Highway 12 to the 5 NM arc of the Chicago 
O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 42[deg]04'10'' N., long. 87[deg]55'31'' W.); 
thence clockwise along the 5 NM 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 NM 
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[deg]07'52'' N., long. 88[deg]10'47'' W.; thence 
northwest to the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 
42[deg]15'40'' N., long. 88[deg]19'39'' W.); thence clockwise along 
the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to lat. 41[deg]42'03'' 
N., long. 88[deg]18'34'' W.; thence northeast to the 15 NM arc of 
the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 41[deg]49'53'' N., long. 
88[deg]09'59'' W.); thence clockwise along the 15 NM 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[deg]11'11'' N., long. 87[deg]24'46'' W.; thence 
east to the 30 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 
42[deg]10'39'' N., long. 87[deg]17'01'' W.); thence clockwise along 
the 30 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/

[[Page 57383]]

DME to lat. 41[deg]46'38'' N., long. 87[deg]17'51'' W.; thence west 
to the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 41[deg]46'40'' 
N., long. 87[deg]25'22'' W.); thence counterclockwise along the 25 
NM 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[deg]07'52'' N., long. 88[deg]10'47'' W.; thence 
northwest to the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 
42[deg]15'40'' N., long. 88[deg]19'39'' W.); thence counterclockwise 
along the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to Interstate 90 
(lat. 42[deg]07'22'' N., long. 88[deg]26'01'' W.); thence west to 
the 30 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 42[deg]07'21'' N., 
long. 88[deg]33'05'' W.); thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM 
arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to Illinois State Route 10 (lat. 
41[deg]49'49'' N., long. 88[deg]32'27'' W.); thence east along 
Illinois State Route 10 to the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/
DME (lat. 41[deg]50'40'' N., long. 88[deg]25'44'' W.); thence 
counterclockwise along the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME 
to lat. 41[deg]42'03'' N., long. 88[deg]18'34'' W.; thence northeast 
to the 15 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 41[deg]49'53'' 
N., long. 88[deg]09'59'' W.); thence clockwise along the 15 NM 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[deg]04'14'' N., long. 87[deg]54'56'' W.; thence 
northwest to the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 
42[deg]09'00'' N., long. 87[deg]57'22'' W.); thence counterclockwise 
along the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to U.S. Highway 12 
(lat. 42[deg]08'02'' N., long. 88[deg]00'44'' W.); thence southeast 
along U.S. Highway 12 to the 5 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME 
(lat. 42[deg]04'10'' N., long. 87[deg]55'31'' W.); thence clockwise 
along the 5 NM 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[deg]06'20'' N., long. 87[deg]49'38'' W.; thence northeast 
along the railroad tracks to the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare 
VOR/DME (lat. 42[deg]08'06'' N., long. 87[deg]48'02'' W.); thence 
clockwise along the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to 
Willow Road (lat. 42[deg]06'04'' N., long. 87[deg]44'28'' W.); 
thence west along Willow Road to the point of beginning.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 15, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AU10.004

[FR Doc. 2010-23470 Filed 9-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```