```

[Federal Register: May 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 93)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27229-27237]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14my10-19]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

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

Proposed Modification of Class B Airspace; Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Chicago, IL, Class B
airspace area by expanding the existing airspace to ensure containment
of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft conducting instrument
approach procedures within Class B airspace, and segregating IFR
aircraft at Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD) and Visual
Flight Rules (VFR) aircraft operating in the vicinity of Chicago Class
B airspace. Additional Class B airspace would support operations to
ORD's triple parallel runways and three additional parallel runways
planned for the near future. This action would enhance safety, improve
the flow of air traffic, and reduce the potential for midair collision
in the Chicago terminal area, further supporting the FAA's national
airspace redesign goal of optimizing terminal and en route airspace
areas to reduce aircraft delays and improve system capacity.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the United States (U.S.)
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001; telephone: (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2010-0347 and Airspace Docket No. 07-AWA-2 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace and Rules
Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2010-0347 and Airspace Docket No. 07-AWA-2) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Nos. FAA-2010-0347 and Airspace Docket No. 07-AWA-2.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, Operations Support Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX
76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Background

    In 1970, the FAA issued a final rule (35 FR 8880) which established
the Chicago, Ill., Terminal Control Area to replace the Chicago, Ill.,
control zone. As a result of the Airspace Reclassification final rule
(56 FR 65638), which became effective in 1993, the terms ``terminal
control area'' and ``airport radar service area'' were replaced by
``Class B airspace area,'' and ``Class C airspace area,'' respectively.
The primary purpose of a Class B airspace area is to reduce the
potential for midair collisions in the airspace surrounding airports
with high density air traffic operations by providing an

[[Page 27230]]

area in which all aircraft are subject to certain operating rules and
equipment requirements.
    The present day Chicago Class B airspace has remained unchanged
since being established in 1993 by the Airspace Reclassification final
rule noted above. During that period, ORD has experienced increased
traffic levels, a considerably different fleet mix, and airport
infrastructure improvements enabling simultaneous instrument approach
procedures to three parallel runways. For calendar year 2008, ORD was
ranked number 2 in the list of the ``50 Busiest FAA Airport Traffic
Control Towers,'' with 882,807 aircraft operations, and number 6 in the
list of the ``50 Busiest Radar Approach Control Facilities,'' with
1,270,825 instrument operations. Additionally, the calendar year 2008
passenger enplanement data ranked ORD as number 2 among Commercial
Service Airports with 33,683,991 passenger enplanements.
    In recent years, the City of Chicago has undertaken construction
projects to convert ORD to a primarily east/west operating airport.
Ongoing construction projects include three additional parallel runways
planned to supplement the existing three parallel Runways 9L/27R, 9R/
27L, and 10/28. The FAA has determined that it is not possible to
modify existing procedures to contain arrival aircraft conducting
simultaneous instrument approaches to the existing parallel runways
within the Chicago Class B airspace area. As the planned runways become
operational and capacity increases, the number of aircraft exiting the
Class B airspace will also increase.
    With the current Class B airspace configuration, arriving aircraft
routinely enter, exit, and then reenter Class B airspace while flying
published instrument approach procedures, contrary to FAA directives.
The procedural requirements for establishing aircraft on final to
conduct simultaneous approaches to the three existing parallel runways
has resulted in aircraft exceeding the lateral boundaries of the
current Class B airspace by up to 5 to 10 miles during moderate levels
of air traffic. Modeling of existing traffic flows has shown that the
proposed expanded Class B airspace would enhance safety by containing
all instrument approach procedures and associated traffic patterns
within the confines of Class B airspace, support increased operations
and capacity to the current and planned parallel runways, and better
segregate the IFR aircraft arriving/departing ORD and VFR aircraft
operating in the vicinity of the Chicago Class B airspace. The proposed
Class B airspace modifications described in this NPRM are intended to
address these issues.

Pre-NPRM Public Input

    In 2007, the FAA initiated action to form an ad hoc committee to
develop recommendations for the FAA to consider in designing a proposed
modification of the Chicago Class B airspace area. Participants in the
committee included representatives from the Illinois Department of
Transportation, the City of Chicago, the Chicago Area Business Aviation
Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the
National Business Aviation Association, Inc. (NBAA), the Cargo Airline
Association (CAA), the Helicopter Association International (HAI), the
United States Parachute Association (USPA), airline pilot groups,
airlines, soaring clubs, and local area airports, pilots, and fixed
base operators. Three ad-hoc committee meetings were held on December
18, 2007; January 31, 2008; and April 9, 2008.
    As announced in the Federal Register (73 FR 44311 and 73 FR 51605),
three informal airspace meetings were held; one each on September 23
and 25, 2008, at the Chicago Executive Airport, Wheeling, IL, and one
on September 24, 2008, at the Chicago DuPage Airport, West Chicago, IL.
Two additional informal airspace meetings were held, as announced in
the Federal Register (73 FR 77867); one on February 23, 2009, at Lewis
University, Romeoville, IL; and one on February 26, 2009, at Chicago
DuPage Airport, West Chicago, IL, to ensure all interested airspace
users were provided with an opportunity to present their views and
offer suggestions regarding the planned modification of the Chicago
Class B airspace area.
    All substantive airspace recommendations made by the ad hoc
committee and public comments received as a result of the informal
airspace meetings were considered in developing this proposal.

Discussion of Recommendations and Comments

Ad hoc Committee Recommendations

    The ad hoc committee recommended the FAA reduce the size of the
original proposed Area E in order to provide general aviation and
glider communities with additional airspace to operate within. (The
original proposed Area E incorporated the airspace around the existing
Class B airspace area out to 30 nautical miles of the Chicago O'Hare
VHF omnidirectional range(VOR)/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME)
antenna, extending upward from 4,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) to and
including 10,000 feet MSL, excluding Areas A, B, C, and D.)
Specifically, the committee recommended the airspace extension to the
west be limited and designed to retain the existing Area F, extending
upward from 4,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL, with the western
boundary extended to a uniform 25 nautical mile arc of the Chicago
O'Hare VOR/DME antenna. Additionally, the ad hoc committee recommended
a new area be established to supplement Area F, extending upward from
5,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL, bordered on the east and west by the
25 nautical mile and 30 nautical mile arcs of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/
DME antenna, respectively, and by a set of railroad tracks and the
Aurora Airport Class D airspace on the north and south, respectively.
The FAA partially adopted this recommendation. In lieu of modifying one
area of the Chicago Class B airspace and establishing a second area,
with a different altitude floor, to support the Class B airspace
extension required to the west, the FAA designed one area by expanding
the existing Area F and retaining the 4,000 feet MSL floor for the
whole area. The expansion of Area F will be limited to (1) extending
the western boundary of the current Area F to a uniform 25 nautical
mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna and (2) further
extending the western boundary to include the airspace between the 25
nautical mile and 30 nautical mile arcs of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME
antenna between a border defined from the intersection of Interstate 90
and the 25 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna,
then due west to lat. 42[deg]07'21'' N., long. 88[deg]33'05'' W., on
the 30 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna, to the
north, and Illinois State Route 10, to the south. The FAA has
determined that the need to descend aircraft low enough for an approach
to all of the present and future runways, while maintaining 1,000 feet
vertical separation between simultaneous arrivals and departures,
requires that the lowest of the final approach courses be at 4,000 feet
MSL between the 15 and 30 nautical mile arcs of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/
DME antenna.
    The ad hoc committee similarly recommended the FAA reduce the size
of the original proposed Area E East of ORD and design the airspace
extension as an area, extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to 10,000
feet MSL, bordered by the 25 nautical mile and 30 nautical

[[Page 27231]]

mile arcs of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna between the 070[deg]
and 110[deg] degree radials of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna. The
FAA partially adopted this recommendation. The proposed Class B
airspace extension to the east (new Area E) is designed to include the
airspace, extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL, from
the 25 nautical mile arc to the 30 nautical mile arc of the Chicago
O'Hare VOR/DME antenna between latitude/longitude points that lay along
Federal airways V-100/V-526, to the north, and latitude/longitude
points that lay along Federal airways V-6/V-10, to the south. Again,
the FAA determined that the need to descend aircraft low enough for an
approach to all of the present and future runways, while maintaining
1,000 feet vertical separation between simultaneous arrivals and
departures, requires that the lowest of the final approach courses be
at 4,000 feet MSL between the 15 and 30 nautical mile arcs of the
Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna.
    The ad hoc committee also recommended the FAA modify the existing
Area G to accommodate aircraft flying the instrument landing system
approach to Runway 16 and circling to Runway 34 at Chicago Executive
Airport without having to enter the Chicago Class B airspace.
Specifically, the committee recommended expanding Area G by moving the
southern boundary from the 6 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare
VOR/DME antenna to the 5 nautical mile arc, with the airspace segment
extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL. The FAA
adopted this recommendation. The proposed modifications to Area A and
Area G reflect this lateral boundary movement and the associated
vertical airspace floor change from the existing surface to the
recommended 2,500 feet MSL. These modifications will accommodate the
traffic pattern and circling approach to Runway 34 at Chicago Executive
Airport.
    Finally, the ad hoc committee recommended the FAA not incorporate
the airspace originally established to protect the, now-closed,
Glenview Naval Air Station (currently Area E of the ORD Class B
airspace area) into Area B of the original proposed Class B airspace
modification. Inclusion of this airspace into Area B as originally
proposed would lower the Class B airspace floor in that area from 2,500
feet MSL to 1,900 feet MSL. The FAA adopted this recommendation. The
proposed Area H, described in the Proposal section, contains the
airspace area boundary and altitude descriptions recommended by the ad
hoc committee; thus, retaining the availability of the airspace below
Area H from the surface to 2,500 feet MSL for VFR aircraft flying
outside the ORD Class B airspace area.
    The ad hoc committee included two additional recommendations in
their report, one addressing discreet transponder codes for glider
operations and a second addressing a future ad hoc committee being
established when east-west runway construction projects are completed.
These recommendations fall outside the scope of this airspace
rulemaking action and accordingly, are not addressed in this rulemaking
action.

Informal Airspace Meeting Comments

    As a result of the informal airspace meetings, the FAA received
written comments from 89 commenters. Three commenters concurred with
the Chicago Class B airspace proposal as it was briefed at the informal
airspace meetings. Four commenters shared that the proposed Class B
airspace, in general, was too large and unnecessary. However, the
majority of commenters focused their attention on the proposed Area F;
although one commenter was in favor of the proposed Area F design.
    Sixty-seven comments were received objecting to the amount of
airspace to the west (Area F) that is included within the new Class B
airspace proposal. Twenty-one commenters requested that the airspace to
the west be reduced in size laterally and/or vertically. They
specifically requested that Area F, proposed with a base altitude of
4,000 feet MSL, be raised to either 5,000 feet MSL or 6,000 feet MSL.
The FAA has determined that this is not achievable. Aircraft conducting
simultaneous parallel approaches may not be assigned the same altitude
during turn-on to the final approach course. Air Traffic Control needs
to turn aircraft on to instrument approaches at 6,000, 7,000, and 8,000
feet. It is not possible to turn aircraft on to approaches at 5,000
feet MSL because of satellite airport air traffic to the other 52
airports within the Chicago Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility
(TRACON) airspace.
    Twenty-three commenters expressed safety concerns due to traffic
compression between gliders, as well as between gliders and general
aviation aircraft. To remain clear of the Chicago Class B airspace VFR
aircraft and gliders would have to fly at lower altitudes or fly
further east or west of ORD. The FAA partially agrees. For general
aviation and glider aircraft to remain clear of the Chicago Class B
airspace areas, they would have to fly either below or above the Class
B airspace extensions, or circumnavigate five to ten nautical miles
further east or west of ORD. However, these areas are necessary to (1)
retain IFR aircraft on instrument approaches and departures within the
Chicago Class B airspace area; and (2) ensure general aviation and
glider aircraft and the large turbine-powered aircraft conducting
instrument approaches to Chicago O'Hare are segregated. Additionally,
aircraft conducting simultaneous, triple parallel instrument and visual
approaches to ORD may not be assigned the same altitude during turn-on
to the final approach course, resulting in aircraft being assigned
altitudes that will differ by a minimum of 1,000 feet. In order to
contain these aircraft flying simultaneous instrument approaches within
Class B airspace, and ensure segregation from general aviation traffic,
the Chicago Class B airspace area must be modified to establish the
additional extensions as proposed.
    Three commenters contended that the amount of airspace proposed to
be included in the Class B airspace to the west could be reduced
through changes in procedures and airspace delegation between the
Chicago TRACON and Chicago Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC).
They suggested that the Chicago ARTCC MALTS sector boundary be moved to
the north; that the Rockford Federal airway V-100 traffic be moved to
the north; and that the Plano arrivals be forced down to 10,000 feet
MSL or lower when in an east flow. The FAA does not agree and has
determined that changing procedures and/or airspace delegation would
not solve the problem at hand. Implementation of these suggestions
would not enable Chicago TRACON to contain aircraft within the
boundaries of the present day Class B airspace, nor ensure segregation
of IFR arrival aircraft with the VFR aircraft and gliders operating in
the vicinity of the Chicago Class B airspace.
    Fifty-nine commenters raised concerns for adverse impacts to glider
operations, echoing similar issues to those mentioned above, as a
result of the proposed Class B airspace modifications of Area F. The
FAA partially agrees. The airspace where Area F is proposed to be
established currently lies outside the existing boundary of the Chicago
Class B airspace and it is understandable that users of that airspace
view the necessary establishment of Class B airspace as an
encroachment. However, in the interest of safety for all, the FAA has
determined that the Class B airspace extension to the west of ORD is
the only way to ensure IFR aircraft arriving and departing ORD are
contained within Class B airspace and IFR aircraft are segregated from
VFR aircraft and

[[Page 27232]]

gliders, that may not be visible to or communicating with Air Traffic
Control, that already are operating in that area. The proposed Area F
Class B airspace extension has been limited in design to include only
the volume of airspace necessary to contain IFR arrivals/departures at
ORD, segregate IFR and VFR aircraft operations, and minimize impacts to
general aviation and glider VFR operators. Additionally, the proposed
Area F was designed to ensure it does not encompass or overlay the
airfields where the Sky Soaring Glider Club (Hampshire, IL) and Windy
City Soaring Association (Hinckley, IL) operations are located. The
Chicago Glider Club (Minooka, IL) lies well south of any of the
proposed Chicago Class B airspace.
    Four commenters suggested that the western portion of the Class B
airspace be delegated to gliders through Letter of Agreement/Letter of
Authorization/Notice to Airmen when Air Traffic Control did not require
it for their use. The FAA finds these suggestions untenable due to the
regulatory nature of Class B airspace and the requirement for Air
Traffic Control to provide positive separation within it. Class B
airspace is established via rulemaking and when it is established, the
airspace and regulatory requirements associated with accessing and
operating within it are specific and in effect at all times. Class B
airspace cannot be modified or delegated to the user community on an ad
hoc basis. Additionally, the regulatory requirements for aircraft to
enter and operate within Class B airspace may not be waived, modified,
or exempted by Letter of Agreement.
    Three commenters thought that the northern border of Area F should
be moved south to the railroad tracks in the Hampshire, IL, area to
establish a better visual reference of the Class B airspace for VFR
aircraft. Another commenter thought that the northern border of the
Area F extension should be moved to Illinois State Route 72 for a
visual reference. The FAA finds both of these suggestions impractical.
The resultant size of the Area F extension would be insufficient to
safely ensure separation between aircraft flying in the runways 9L, 9R,
and 10 traffic patterns and final approach course. Additionally, issues
associated with an insufficient amount of airspace would only be
compounded when the three additional planned parallel runways become
operational.
    One commenter cited noise and safety concerns for residents located
below the proposed Area F to the west of ORD. The FAA does not agree.
The proposed modifications to the Chicago Class B airspace will not
change the location of existing flight tracks, use of altitudes, or the
number of aircraft being vectored for approaches to ORD within the
proposed Area F airspace today. Moreover, the FAA views the proposed
Area F as critical to overcoming the safety ramifications associated
with large turbojet aircraft exiting the Class B airspace, and
consequently, intermingling with general aviation and glider aircraft
not in contact with the Chicago TRACON.
    Three commenters expressed support for establishing Global
Positioning Satellite (GPS) guidance or VOR DME waypoints for VFR
flyways underneath the Chicago Class B airspace. Specifically, one
commenter requested that there be three north-south VFR routes west of
ORD, a VFR route along the shoreline, east-west transitions both north
and south of ORD, a VFR route around Chicago Executive Airport, and a
route around Chicago Midway Airport. A second commenter expressed a
need for a VFR flyway from Chicago Executive Airport/Lakeshore to south
side airports in both directions. In response, the FAA offers that VFR
flyways under and around the Class B airspace similar to the those
addressed by the commenters already exist. The VFR flyways are
published on the Chicago Charted VFR Flyway Planning Chart on the
reverse side of the Chicago VFR Terminal Area Chart. The FAA does note,
however, that the existing VFR flyways depicted on the Chicago Charted
VFR Flyway Planning Chart will require minor adjustments in recommended
altitudes to accommodate the proposed Class B airspace modifications.
    One commenter recommended that a VFR flyway directly over the top
of ORD running north/south at 8,000, 9,000, or 10,000 feet MSL using
GPS or VOR/DME waypoints should be established. The FAA does not agree.
On a daily basis, roughly 10 aircraft an hour for 13 to 15 hours a day
(130 to 150 flights per day on average) are routed over the top of ORD
at altitudes between 8,000 feet MSL and 11,000 feet MSL in order to
utilize a preferred runway. The use of a preferred runway is normally
based on the need for a longer runway, but can also be required for
runway balancing. Additionally, departures at Chicago Midway
International Airport (MDW) that are northbound transition over the top
of ORD between 6,000 feet MSL and 11,000 feet MSL, climbing to 13,000
feet MSL, and departures at Aurora (ARR) and DuPage (DPA) Airports
heading east and then northbound also transition through this same
airspace. Aircraft at MDW, ARR, and DPA are typically corporate
business jets and, depending on runway configuration(s) and
destinations, account for an additional estimated 40 to 50 aircraft per
day.
    A number of comments were received regarding the proposed
modification to the Class B airspace (Area E) to the east of ORD. Ten
commenters felt the size of the proposed area to the east was
excessive, not needed by the Chicago TRACON, and objected to this
aspect of the proposal. Five other commenters specifically questioned
the need for the additional airspace supporting Runway 22 operations;
requesting the size of the area be reduced. The FAA agrees with these
commenters. The original proposal for Area E incorporated the airspace
east of ORD from the 25 nautical mile arc to the 30 nautical mile arc
of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna, extending upward from 4,000 feet
MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL, from the shoreline north of ORD
to the shoreline southeast of ORD. The FAA has determined the size of
Area E could be reduced to the dimensions listed in the Proposal
section below.
    Two commenters further stated that traffic landing on Runway 28
could be vectored on to the localizer at 4,000 feet MSL inside the 25
nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna, which would
allow the floor of Area F to be raised between the 25 nautical mile and
30 nautical mile arcs. The FAA does not agree. There are simply too
many aircraft to contain them all within the 25 nautical mile arc of
the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna. Simply put, ORD and its associated
operations has outgrown the present day Class B airspace established in
1993.
    The FAA also received some general comments regarding the Chicago
Class B airspace. Two commenters suggested lowering the ceiling of the
Class B airspace, citing other Class B airspace areas in the country
with lower ceilings. The FAA does not agree. Class B airspace designs
are specific to locations based on varying local area operational
requirements and aviation needs. To advocate one standard Class B
airspace design for all major airports with high density air traffic
operations does not recognize those differences in the local area
operational requirements or aviation needs and could result in airspace
being incorporated unnecessarily at some locations (impacting free
navigable airspace) or not enough airspace being incorporated at other
locations (causing unacceptable aviation safety risks). This suggestion
also would not be suitable in Chicago's case as the higher altitudes of
the Chicago Class B airspace are currently used to accommodate the
large volume

[[Page 27233]]

of aircraft arriving and departing the area.
    Four commenters expressed concern that the proposal would increase
the risk of Class B airspace violations. The FAA does not agree. The
legal description of the proposed Class B airspace includes prominent
visual references, latitude/longitude coordinates, and arcs of the
Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna. The FAA believes that this mix of
descriptors effectively assists pilots in identifying the lateral
boundaries of the Class B airspace.
    Two commenters stated that the proposal would have an economic
impact on general aviation traffic due to increased fuel burn. The FAA
partially agrees with this comment. Although some aircraft would need
to fly added distances or different altitudes to remain clear of the
Class B airspace, the FAA believes any increase in fuel burn would be
nominal.
    Finally, two commenters thought that inadequate information was
given to the ad hoc committee in order for them to accurately evaluate
the proposal and recommended that the entire Class B process begin over
again. They also requested that after all runway construction projects
are completed at ORD, the ad hoc committee be reestablished. The FAA
does not agree. Three ad hoc committee meetings were held to identify,
discuss, and develop recommendations for the FAA to consider with
respect to modifying the Chicago Class B airspace. The ad hoc committee
provided the FAA a memorandum that addressed four specific
recommendations for consideration in the development of the Chicago
Class B airspace modification proposal, which are incorporated into the
proposal. Additionally, five informal airspace meetings were held to
inform interested aviation users of the proposed airspace changes and
to gather facts and information relevant to the proposed action.
Furthermore, this NPRM provides users with a 60-day comment period to
submit comments or recommendations on the proposal. All comments
received as a result of this NPRM will be fully considered, and may
result in changes to the proposed action, before the FAA makes a final
determination. The FAA believes that re-initiating the Class B process,
after it has been in progress since December of 2008, would be to
ignore the safety ramifications associated with the inability to
contain large turbojet aircraft operations within the existing Chicago
Class B airspace, and consequently, their intermingling with VFR
aircraft that are not in contact with the Chicago TRACON.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Chicago Class B
airspace area. This action (depicted on the attached chart) is proposed
to make minor modifications to the existing Chicago Class B airspace
and to establish two new airspace extensions (the first, a new Area E,
to the east and the second, expanding existing Area F, to the west) to
the current Chicago Class B airspace area in order to provide airspace
needed to contain aircraft conducting instrument and visual approach
operations within the confines of Class B airspace. Additionally, the
proposed modifications would better segregate the IFR aircraft
arriving/departing ORD and the VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity
of the Chicago Class B airspace. The current Chicago Class B airspace
area consists of seven subareas (A through G) while the proposed
configuration would consist of eight subareas (A through H). The
proposed revisions to the Chicago Class B airspace area are discussed
below.
    Area A. The FAA proposes to modify the northern boundary of Area A
by incorporating the airspace east of U.S. Highway 12 between the 6
nautical mile and 5 nautical mile arcs of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME
antenna, from 2,500 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL, as part
of Area G. The airspace east of U.S. Highway 12 between the 6 nautical
mile and 5 nautical mile arcs of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna,
below 2,500 feet MSL, would be returned to the NAS. This modification
of Area A, as described, would raise the floor of the Class B airspace
in the affected segment from the surface to 2,500 feet MSL. This
proposed modification, as recommended by the ad hoc committee and
adopted by the FAA, would provide additional airspace to accommodate
aircraft on the downwind traffic pattern and circling approaches to
Runway 34 at Chicago Executive Airport, without entering Chicago Class
B airspace.
    Area B. The FAA proposes to modify Area B by defining its northeast
boundary using the railroad tracks that run from U.S. Highway 294 to
Willow Road (slightly east of the existing Area B, Area C, and current
Area E shared boundary) and expanding Area B to incorporate a portion
of existing Class B airspace that is contained in the current Area E.
Specifically, the modification would expand Area B to incorporate the
airspace contained east of the railroad tracks and south of Willow Road
within the current Area E, and lower the floor of that affected
airspace from the current 2,500 feet MSL to 1,900 feet MSL. This
modification of Area B, as described, would raise the floor of the
Class B airspace west of the railroad tracks to the existing shared
boundary noted above to 3,000 feet MSL, but lower the floor of the
Class B airspace in the affected segment of the current Area E by 600
feet to 1,900 feet MSL. This proposed modification of Area B would
incorporate only that airspace deemed necessary from the current Area E
to ensure IFR arrival aircraft flying instrument approaches to ORD
Runway 22R are contained within the confines of Class B airspace
throughout the approach, and ensure segregation of IFR arrival aircraft
from VFR aircraft flying near the boundary of Class B airspace.
Additionally, this proposed modification would better define the
northeast boundary of Area B using visual references for pilots flying
in the vicinity of Chicago Class B airspace.
    Area C. Area C would expand into existing Class B airspace,
incorporating portions of Area B and Area H commensurately. As proposed
in Areas B and H, the new shared boundary would follow the railroad
tracks that run northeast from U.S. Highway 294 to the 10 nautical mile
arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna. Other than re-defining the
shared boundary of Areas B, C, and H using visual references for pilots
flying in the vicinity of the Chicago Class B airspace, there is no
effect to IFR or VFR aircraft operations from this resultant
modification of existing Class B airspace.
    Area D. The FAA is not proposing to modify Area D.
    Area E. The FAA proposes to establish a new Area E to the east of
ORD. This modification would extend Class B airspace from the existing
Area D boundary defined by the 25 nautical mile arc of the Chicago
O'Hare VOR/DME antenna to the 30 nautical arc of the Chicago O'Hare
VOR/DME antenna. The northern boundary would be defined by latitude/
longitude points that lay along Federal airways V-100/V-526, and the
southern boundary would be defined by latitude/longitude points that
lay along Federal airways V-6/V-10. This new area would extend upward
from 4,000 feet MSL to and including a ceiling of 10,000 feet MSL,
overlying Lake Michigan. The FAA has determined that the need to
descend aircraft low enough for an approach to all present and future
runways, while maintaining 1,000 feet vertical separation between
simultaneous

[[Page 27234]]

arrivals and departures, requires that the lowest of the final approach
courses be at 4,000 feet MSL between the 15 and 30 nautical mile arcs
of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antennas. This new area would ensure IFR
arrival aircraft flying simultaneous visual and instrument approaches
to the existing runways 27R, 27L, and 28, as well as three additional
parallel runways planned for the future, are contained within the
confines of Class B airspace throughout the approach. This proposed new
area would also ensure segregation of IFR aircraft arriving ORD and VFR
aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Chicago Class B airspace, yet
provide navigable airspace below and above Class B airspace for VFR
aircraft.
    Area F. The FAA proposes to expand Area F to the west of ORD. This
proposed modification would (1) extend the western boundary of the
current Area F to a uniform 25 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare
VOR/DME antenna and (2) further extend the western boundary to include
the airspace between the 25 nautical mile and 30 nautical mile arcs of
the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna between a border defined from the
intersection of Interstate 90 and the 25 nautical mile arc of the
Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna, then due west to lat. 42[deg]07'21''N.,
long. 88[deg]33'05''W., on the 30 nautical mile arc of the Chicago
O'Hare VOR/DME antenna, to the north, and Illinois State Route 10, to
the south. This new Area F would be established with the floor
extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL.
The FAA has determined that the need to descend aircraft low enough for
an approach to all of the present and future runways, while maintaining
1,000 feet vertical separation between simultaneous arrivals and
departures, requires that the lowest of the final approach courses be
at 4,000 feet MSL between the 15 and 30 nautical mile arcs of the
Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna. This new area would ensure IFR arrival
aircraft flying simultaneous visual and instrument approaches to the
existing Runways 9L, 9R, and 10, as well as three additional parallel
runways planned for the future, are contained within the confines of
Class B airspace throughout the approach. This proposed new area would
also ensure segregation of IFR aircraft arriving ORD and VFR aircraft
and gliders operating in the vicinity of the Chicago Class B airspace,
yet provide navigable airspace below and above Class B airspace for VFR
aircraft operations.
    Area G. The FAA proposes to modify the southern boundary of Area G
by incorporating the airspace contained in Area A that lies east of
U.S. Highway 12 between the 6 nautical mile and 5 nautical mile arcs of
the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna, extending upward from 2,500 feet
MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL. The modification of Area G, as
described, would raise the floor of Class B airspace in the affected
segment from the surface to 2,500 feet MSL. This proposed modification,
as recommended by the ad hoc committee and adopted by the FAA, would
provide additional airspace to accommodate aircraft on the downwind
traffic pattern and circling approaches to Runway 34 at Chicago
Executive Airport, without entering the Chicago Class B airspace.
    Area H. The FAA proposes to establish Area H from the existing
northern portion of the current Area E. The proposed Area H would be
bordered by the 10 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME
antenna on the east, Willow Road on the south, and the railroad tracks
(located slightly east of the existing Area B, Area C, and Area E
shared boundary) that run from U.S. Highway 294 to the 10 nautical mile
arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna on the west. This new area
would be established with the floor extending upward from 2,500 feet
MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL.
    These modifications to the Chicago Class B airspace are being
proposed to ensure the containment of IFR aircraft operations within
Class B airspace as required by FAA directives, the segregation of IFR
aircraft arriving/departing ORD and VFR aircraft operating in the
vicinity of the Chicago Class B airspace, and support the aircraft
arrival/departure operations of three parallel runways, planned to be
expanded to six parallel runways, performing simultaneous visual and
instrument approaches.
    Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order
7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 27,
2009, and effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR section 71.1. The Class B airspace area listed in
this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of United
States standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The
reasoning for this determination follows:
    This proposed rule would enhance safety by containing all
instrument approach procedures and associated traffic patters within
the confines of Class B airspace. The requirements would support
increased operations and capacity to the current and planned parallel
runways while better segregating IRF aircraft that would be operating
in the affected airspace.
    After consultation with a diverse cross-section of stakeholders
that participated in the ad hoc committee to develop the
recommendations contained in this proposal, and a review of the
recommendations and comments, the FAA expects that this proposed rule
would result in minimal cost. We are aware that the proposal might
require small adjustments to existing VFR flyway planning charts, but
the additional cost would be minimal. Also, the proposed rule could
also have an affect on general aviation due to increased fuel
consumption from flying different distances or altitudes to remain
safely outside of Class B airspace. Although we expect operators might
consume more fuel on some flights, we

[[Page 27235]]

estimate the additional fuel cost would be minimal.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    The FAA believes the proposal would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities as the economic impact
is expected to be minimal. We request comments from the potentially
affected small businesses.
    Therefore, the FAA certifies that this proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

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

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Conclusion

    This NPRM would enhance safety, reduce the potential for a midair
collision in the Chicago terminal area, and would improve the flow of
air traffic. As such, we estimate a minimal impact with substantial
positive net benefits. The FAA requests comments with supporting
justification about the FAA determination of minimal impact. FAA has,
therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory
Policies and Procedures.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B-Class B Airspace

* * * * *

AGL IL B Chicago, IL [Modified]

Chicago O'Hare International Airport (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 41[deg]58'46'' N., long. 87[deg]54'16'' W.)
Chicago Midway Airport
    (Lat. 41[deg]47'10'' N., long. 87[deg]45'08'' 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 nautical mile 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 nautical mile 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 nautical mile 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 nautical mile 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]03'48'' N., long. 87[deg]52'03'' 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 nautical mile 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 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/
DME to the 5 nautical mile radius of Chicago Midway Airport (lat.
41[deg]49'34'' N., long. 87[deg]51'00'' W.); thence counterclockwise
along the 5 nautical mile radius of the Chicago Midway Airport to
the 10.5 nautical mile arc of the

[[Page 27236]]

Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 41[deg]48'59'' N., long. 87[deg]51'22''
W.); thence clockwise along the 10.5 nautical mile arc of the
Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the 10 nautical mile radius of the Chicago
Midway Airport (lat. 41[deg]49'11'' N., long. 87[deg]58'14'' W.);
thence clockwise along the 10 nautical mile radius of Chicago Midway
Airport to the 10 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME
(lat. 41[deg]49'40'' N., long. 87[deg]58'05'' W.); thence clockwise
along the 10 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to U.S.
Highway 12 (lat. 42[deg]08'02'' N., long. 88[deg]00'44'' W.); thence
southeast along U.S. Highway 12 to the 5 mile 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 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare
VOR/DME to the point of beginning, excluding that airspace
designated as Area A.
    Area C. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by the 15
nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME, excluding that
airspace designated as Area A, Area B, Area G, and Area H.
    Area D. That airspace extending upward from 3,600 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 42[deg]07'52'' N., long. 88[deg]10'47'' W.; thence
northwest to the 25 nautical mile 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 nautical mile 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 nautical mile 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 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the point
of beginning, excluding that airspace designated as Area A, Area B,
Area C, Area G, and Area H.
    Area E. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 42[deg]11'11'' N., long. 87[deg]24'46'' W.; thence
east to the 30 nautical mile 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 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to lat.
41[deg]46'38'' N., long. 87[deg]17'51'' W.; thence west to the 25
nautical mile 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
nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the point of
beginning.
    Area F. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 42[deg]07'52'' N., long. 88[deg]10'47'' W.; thence
northwest to the 25 nautical mile 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 nautical mile 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 nautical mile 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 nautical mile 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 nautical mile 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 nautical mile 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 nautical mile 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 nautical mile arc
of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the point of beginning.
    Area G. That airspace extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 42[deg]04'14'' N., long. 87[deg]54'56'' W.; thence
northwest to the 10 nautical mile 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 nautical mile 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
nautical mile 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 nautical
mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the point of beginning.
    Area H. That airspace extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of Willow Road and railroad tracks at
lat. 42[deg]06'20'' N., long. 87[deg]49'38'' W.; thence northeast
along the railroad tracks to the 10 nautical mile 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 nautical mile 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 May 6, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
BILLING CODE P

[[Page 27237]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14MY10.000

[FR Doc. 2010-11499 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE C
```