67632 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2001 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA–2001–10912; Airspace

Docket No. 00–AWA–6]

RIN 2120–AA66

Proposed Modification of the

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky

International Airport Class B Airspace

Area; KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This action proposes to

modify the current Cincinnati/Northern

Kentucky International Airport (CVG)

Class B airspace area. Specifically, this

action proposes to expand the lateral

limits of Area C; reduce the lateral

limits of Area F; eliminate Area G; and

raise the upper limit of the entire Class

B airspace area from 8,000 feet mean sea

level (MSL) to 10,000 feet MSL. The

FAA is proposing this action to enhance

safety, reduce the potential for midair

collisions, and to improve the

management of air traffic operations in

the CVG terminal area. Further, this

effort supports the FAA’s National

Airspace Redesign project goal of

optimizing terminal and enroute

airspace areas to reduce aircraft delays

and improve system capacity.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 1, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this

proposal to the Docket Management

System, U.S. Department of

Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590–0001. You must identify both

docket numbers, FAA–2001–10912/

Airspace Docket No. 00-AWA–6, at the

beginning of your comments.

You may also submit comments

through the Internet to http://

dms.dot.gov. You may review the public

docket containing the proposal, any

comments received, and any final

disposition in person in the Dockets

Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. The Dockets Office (telephone

1–800–647–5527) is on the plaza level

of the NASSIF Building at the

Department of Transportation at the

above address.

An informal docket may also be

examined during normal business hours

at the office of the Regional Air Traffic

Division, ASO–500, Federal Aviation

Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue,

College Park, GA 30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

Gallant, Airspace and Rules Division,

ATA–400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace

Management, 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

airspace docket numbers and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this notice must submit

with those comments a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Docket Nos. FAA–2001–

10912/Airspace Docket No. 00–AWA–

6.’’ 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 notice may be changed in light

of comments received. All comments

submitted will be available for

examination in the Rules 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 NPRM’s

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded through the

internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Internet

users may reach the FAA’s web page at

http://www.faa.gov or the Federal

Register’s web page at http://

www.access.gpo.gov/nara for access to

recently published rulemaking

documents.

Any person may also obtain a copy of

this NPRM by submitting a request to

the FAA, Office of Air Traffic Airspace

Management, ATA–400, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling

(202) 267–8783. Communications must

identify both docket numbers of this

NPRM. Persons interested in being

placed on a mailing list for future

NPRM’s should call the FAA, Office of

Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, to request

a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Distribution System, which describes

the application procedure.

Related Rulemaking Actions

On May 21, 1970, the FAA published

the Designation of Federal Airways,

Controlled Airspace, and Reporting

Points Final Rule (35 FR 7782). This

rule provided for the establishment of

Terminal Control Airspace (TCA) areas

(now known as Class B airspace areas).

On June 21, 1988, the FAA published

the Transponder With Automatic

Altitude Reporting Capability

Requirement Final Rule (53 FR 23356).

This rule requires all aircraft to have an

altitude encoding transponder when

operating within 30 nautical miles (NM)

of any designated TCA (now known as

Class B airspace areas) primary airport

from the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL.

This rule excluded those aircraft that

were not originally certificated with an

engine-driven electrical system (or those

that have not subsequently been

certified with such a system), balloons,

or gliders.

On October 14, 1988, the FAA

published the Terminal Control Area

Classification and Terminal Control

Area Pilot and Navigation Equipment

Requirements Final Rule (53 FR 40318).

This rule, in part, requires the pilot-incommand of a civil aircraft operating

within a Class B airspace area to hold

at least a private pilot certificate, except

for a student pilot who has received

certain documented training.

On December 17, 1991, the FAA

published the Airspace Reclassification

Final Rule (56 FR 65638). This rule

discontinued the use of the term

‘‘Terminal Control Area’’ and replaced it

with the designation ‘‘Class B airspace

area.’’ This change in terminology is

reflected in the remainder of this NPRM.

Petitions

On April 28, 1999, Sportsman’s

Market, Inc., (herein after referred to as

‘‘the petitioner’’ or ‘‘Sporty’s’’)

petitioned the FAA for a modification to

the current CVG Class B airspace area by

raising the upper limit and modifying

the lateral dimensions of certain subareas. Specifically, the petitioner

requested that the FAA raise the upper

limit of the CVG Class B airspace area

from 8,000 feet MSL to 8,400 feet MSL,

lower the floor of area F and change its

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2001 / Proposed Rules 67633

lateral boundaries on the western side to

include part of area G, and eliminate the

rest of area G. The petitioner is of the

opinion that the existing CVG Class B

rule causes significant adverse

economic effects to businesses located

at Clermont County Airport because the

airport is located under, but not in, an

area of Class B airspace. Essentially, the

petitioner contended in part that the 25

NM outer ring impedes access to

Clermont County Airport. However, as

the floor of the Class B airspace area is

6,000 feet MSL in the vicinity of the

airport, the airport is located outside of,

and beneath the Class B airspace area.

This configuration provides access to

the airport, and businesses located at

the airport, for pilots not desiring to

participate in Class B services.

On May 12, 1999, the Aircraft Owners

and Pilots Association (AOPA)

petitioned the FAA to reconsider the

dimension of the current Class B

airspace area. Specifically, AOPA

requested that the outer ring of the

airspace be reduced to 20 NM from 25

NM and that the reference point for the

Class B airspace area be centered on the

very high frequency omnidirectional

radio range/tactical air navigational aid

(VORTAC).

This rulemaking proposal will

address the concerns and substance of

both the Sportsman’s Market, Inc., and

the AOPA petitions which will be

discussed later in the document.

Although AOPA’s petition stated that it

was a request for reconsideration, the

relief sought by AOPA could not be

accomplished without rulemaking.

Related Rulemaking

The TCA (now Class B airspace)

program was developed to reduce the

potential for midair collision in the

congested airspace surrounding airports

with high density air traffic by

providing an area wherein all aircraft

are subject to certain operating rules and

equipment requirements.

The density of traffic and the type of

operations being conducted in the

airspace surrounding major terminals

increase the probability of midair

collisions. In 1970, an extensive study

found that the majority of midair

collisions occurred between a general

aviation (GA) aircraft and an air carriers

or military aircraft, and another GA

aircraft. The basic causal factor common

to these conflicts was the mix of aircraft

operating under visual flight rules (VFR)

and aircraft operating under instrument

flight rules (IFR). Class B airspace areas

provide a method to accommodate the

increasing number of IFR and VFR

operations. The regulatory requirements

of these airspace areas afford the

greatest protection for the greatest

number of people by giving air traffic

control (ATC) increased capability to

proved aircraft separation service,

thereby minimizing the mix of

controlled and uncontrolled aircraft.

The standard configuration of these

areas contains three concentric circles

centered on the primary airport

extending to 10, 20, and 30 NM,

respectively. The standard vertical limit

of these airspace areas normally should

not exceed 10,000 feet above MSL, with

the floor established at the surface in the

inner area and at levels appropriate to

the containment of operations in the

outer areas. However, variations if this

configuration may be utilized

contingent on the terrain, adjacent

regulatory airspace, and factors unique

to the terminal area.

On November 30, 1998 the FAA

published a final rule establishing the

CVG Class B airspace area and revoking

the existing Class C airspace area (63 FR

65972). The new Class B airspace area,

implemented on July 15, 1999,

consisted of that airspace within a 25-

NM radius of the CVG International

Airport, from the surface or higher up to

and including 8,000 feet above MSL.

Pre-NPRM Public Input

FAA policy requires a biennial

evaluation of existing Class B airspace

areas to ensure that the airspace is

configured to enhance safety and that it

is being used efficiently. Based on a

need for this evaluation, an Ad Hoc

Committee, representing a cross section

of aviation users, was formed to

determine if the dimensions of the CVG

Class B airspace area were meeting the

original intent and, if needed, to

develop recommendations for

modifications to that airspace. The

Committee held a series of meetings

between November 1999 and April

2000.

As announced in the Federal Register

on June 28, 2000 (65 FR 39979) preNPRM informal airspace meetings were

held on August 16 and 17, 2000, in

Cincinnati, OH, to allow local interested

airspace users an opportunity to present

input on planned modifications to the

CVG Class B airspace area and

recommendations from the Ad Hoc

group. The proposed modifications

discussed in this notice were developed

as a result of an FAA airspace analysis

completed in accordance with the

agency’s policy to periodically review

Class B airspace area designations, and

the recommendations submitted by the

Ad Hoc Committee. All comments

received during the informal airspace

meetings and the subsequent comment

period were considered and are

addressed in this NPRM.

Discussion

What follows is a discussion of the

proposal, analysis of the comments

received during the pre-NPRM stage,

and petitions received.

Vertical Dimension Modification

Seven commenters expressed

opposition to the proposed raising of the

CVG Class B airspace area ceiling to

10,000 MSL. Reasons for this opposition

included: the impact on the ability of

VFR traffic to fly over the top of the

Class B airspace area (without the need

for supplemental oxygen); the fact that

other, apparently busier, Class B

terminals have ceilings below 10,000

feet MSL; and, that air carrier aircraft

operating above 8,000 feet do not need

expanded Class B airspace because the

existing Mode C veil requirements and

the equipage of air carrier aircraft with

the Traffic Alert and Collision

Avoidance System (TCAS) already

provide adequate protection.

The FAA does not agree with these

comments. The proposed increase in the

Class B airspace area ceiling would not

deny VFR aircraft access to the airspace

between 8,000 feet and 10,000 feet MSL.

It is anticipated that the proposed

higher ceiling would not have a

significant adverse impact on VFR

traffic based on a finding by the Ad Hoc

Committee that, over a 60-day period,

only 70 VFR flight tracks were observed

between 8,000 and 10,000 feet, within

25 miles of CVG. The FAA believes that

the proposed 10,000-foot ceiling would,

in fact, enhance the safety of VFR

operations in that stratum as these

altitudes currently contain a significant

volume of turbojet-powered air carrier,

general aviation, and cargo aircraft that

are climbing rapidly to 10,000 feet to

accelerate above 250k; or are descending

to 10,000 feet for speed reduction prior

to further descent. While TCAS

certainly enhances safety, it should be

noted that the TCAS requirement does

not currently apply to cargo aircraft. A

sizeable percentage of CVG’s traffic

volume consists of large turbojetpowered cargo aircraft. In a separate

regulatory action, the FAA issued a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on

November 1, 2001, proposing to add

collision avoidance system

requirements for certain cargo airplanes

(66 FR 55506). Notwithstanding the

outcome of that effort, the higher ceiling

would augment the safety benefits of the

Mode C veil and TCAS by ensuring that

ATC has communications with all

aircraft operating in that stratum. This

would not only reduce controller

67634 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2001 / Proposed Rules

workload by enabling ATC to ascertain

VFR pilot intentions, route of flight, and

destination, but would also allow

controllers to offer assistance to such

VFR aircraft in avoiding the heavy

concentrations of traffic transitioning

vertically through these altitudes.

Additionally, although other

terminals may have Class B airspace

area ceilings below 10,000 feet, the

design of each Class B airspace area is

unique, site specific, and is based on a

variety of factors such as airspace

complexity and ATC operational

requirements. Operational requirements

were in part factors in the development

of this proposal. Another factor is that

the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky

terminal airspace is bounded by

Restricted Areas R–3403A and R–3404B

on the west, and the Buckeye military

operations area on the east. These areas

limit ATC’s flexibility in assigning

arrival and departure tracks in two

quadrants of the terminal area. Also,

other terminal areas near CVG have ATC

delegated airspace up to 10,000 feet

MSL. The proposed raising of the CVG

Class B ceiling would simplify terminal

area ATC procedures by reducing

coordination requirements and

frequency changes because, for example

the CVG air traffic controller could have

the ability to transfer a departing aircraft

directly to the center controller without

a requirement for the pilot to contact the

adjacent terminal facility controller.

Indianapolis Air Route Traffic Control

(ARTCC) currently delivers aircraft

inbound to CVG at 11,000 feet MSL via

one of four arrival transition areas

(ATA) located northwest, northeast,

southeast, or southwest of the airport.

Once in the terminal area, these airport

arrivals are generally descended to

10,000 feet; while the departures

normally climb up to 8,000 or 9,000

feet. When the departures have been

laterally separated from the arrivals by

ATC, the departures are issued a climb

to 13,000 feet and handed off to

Indianapolis ARTCC. Concurrently,

once this lateral separation is

established, the arrivals are given a

descent to a lower altitude. This

generally cannot occur until the arrivals

are abeam the airport, on a downwind

leg. With the existing 8,000 feet ceiling,

traffic arriving at CVG often must fly

30–35 NM outside of the Class B

airspace, depending on the runway in

use and the direction of arrival into the

terminal area. For example, when the

airport is using Runways 18L and 18R

for landings (approximately 86 percent

of the time), aircraft arriving through the

southeast or southwest ATAs are

required to travel about 30 flying miles

at 10,000 feet or 11,000 feet, above the

existing CVG Class B airspace area,

before reaching a point abeam the

airport where they can be descended

into the Class B airspace area. A similar

situation exists for aircraft arriving

through the northwest and northeast

ATAs when Runways 36L and 36R are

in use.

The Ad Hoc Committee did not reach

a consensus regarding the issue of

raising the Class B airspace area ceiling

to 10,000 feet MSL. However, the FAA

believes that the airspace analysis

supports the increase and is including

the proposal in this notice to obtain

additional comment on the matter

before any final decision is made. If the

FAA keeps the Class B ceiling at a lower

altitude (i.e., 8,000 feet MSL), more

departing aircraft will be required to

level off prior to reaching an altitude

where they can accelerate above 250

knots. This is not cost effective and does

not contribute to system efficiency.

Raising the altitude to 10,000 feet MSL

decreases the chances that ATC will

need to require a departing aircraft to

level off prior to cruise altitude. The

FAA believes that raising the altitude of

the area would lessen economic impacts

and increase system efficiency for

aircraft operating into and out of CVG.

Raising the Class B ceiling to 8,400 feet

MSL as requested by Sporty’s, would

not provide sufficient Class B airspace

needed to contain those arriving aircraft

that must currently travel a significant

distance above Class B airspace as

discussed above. For the original

establishment of the CVG Class B

airspace area, the FAA’s analysis

indicated that an 8,000 feet MSL ceiling

would be sufficient. Operational

experience with this configuration since

the July 15, 1999 implementation

indicates that a 10,000 feet MSL ceiling

would benefit safety and efficiency in

the CVG terminal area.

Lateral Dimension Modification

Several commenters contended that

the 25–NM ring of the Class B airspace

area is excessively large and that the

outer ring of the Class B airspace area

should be reduced to 20 NM.

Conversely, two commenters expressed

concern about whether the proposed

reduction of the outer ring from 25

miles to 20 miles would still ensure that

aircraft are contained within the Class B

airspace area throughout all phases of

the approach.

In this action, the FAA is proposing

to reduce the limit of the outer ring in

the east and west quadrants (i.e.,

portions of area G and area F) to 20 NM.

During the rulemaking process to revoke

the Class C airspace area and implement

a Class B airspace area at CVG, several

commenters recommended reducing the

size of the proposed area to a 15- to 20-

mile radius rather than at that time the

proposed 25-mile radius. At that time,

the FAA concluded that, because of the

high volume of arrival and departure

aircraft at the primary airport, it was

necessary to use the area between 20–

25 NM, including areas F and G. The

Class B airspace area became effective

on July 15, 1999 (64 FR 17934) with the

outer ring set at 25 NM. After the

implementation of the Class B airspace

area, modifications were made to local

ATC procedures to improve the

management of aircraft operations into

and out of CVG. Over the past 3 years,

the FAA has been studying aircraft

operations in the CVG terminal area to

assess airspace use and air traffic

control procedures and requirements,

particularly in light of the conversion of

CVG terminal airspace from Class C to

Class B. As part of this effort, FAA

representatives met on numerous

occasions with local pilots, user groups,

and airport officials seeking feedback on

the effectiveness of the terminal area

airspace configuration. These feedback

sessions, along with the internal

ongoing review, were conducted to

determine whether the Class B airspace

area was configured to ensure the most

efficient use of airspace, and to ensure

the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow

of traffic. Based on its review, the FAA

determined that, based on procedural

changes, arrival aircraft are not now

being directed into the airspace to the

east and west of CVG. Further,

operational experience also revealed

that departure aircraft on the east and

west sides have already reached an

altitude between 11,000 to 12,000 feet

MSL by the time they pass the 20 NM

Class B airspace ring. Another factor

that the FAA evaluated is the proximity

to special use airspace to the CVG Class

B airspace area. On the west side,

restricted areas R–3404A and B are

situated less than 10 NM west of the

current 25 NM Class B boundary. This

allows only a small corridor for VFR

pilots transiting north and south

between the restricted areas and the

CVG Class B airspace area who elect not

to participate in Class B services.

Reducing the outer ring to 20 NM in this

area would provide additional airspace

for pilots transiting north and south or

choosing to circumnavigate the Class B

area. Similarly, on the east side, the

Buckeye military operations area (MOA)

is located approximately 10 NM east of

the Class B airspace boundary. Reducing

the outer ring to 20 NM in this area

would also provide VFR aircraft with a

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2001 / Proposed Rules 67635

wider corridor to circumnavigate the

Class B airspace area and remain clear

of the Buckeye MOA. Additionally, the

airspace analysis revealed that the

current airspace north and south of CVG

is necessary to accommodate arrival

traffic and provide needed airspace for

simultaneous parallel ILS approaches. A

third runway is scheduled to become

operational at CVG in 2005. When

operational, the third runway is

expected to provide a 26% capacity

improvement at CVG through the

introduction of simultaneous triple ILS

approaches.

In their petitions, both Sporty’s and

AOPA requested adjustments to the

outer limits of the CVG Class B airspace

area. The retention of the outer ring at

25 NM on the north and south sides will

ensure that sufficient Class B airspace is

available to contain those procedures

and accommodate the projected increase

in traffic at CVG. Based on the

operational experience gained since the

inception of the Class B airspace area

and the recommendations of the Ad Hoc

committee, the FAA believes that Class

B airspace is not required between the

20 NM and 25 NM rings to the east and

west of CVG and that the modification

of the outer ring as described above

would enhance the efficient use of

airspace without adversely affecting

safety.

Other Comments

One commenter suggested that a

corridor be developed through the Class

B airspace area, within which the Mode

C veil requirement would not apply.

The FAA does not have the latitude

to exclude areas within a 30–NM radius

of the Class B airspace primary airport

from the requirement for an altitude

encoding transponder (this area is

commonly referred to as the ‘‘Mode C

Veil’’). The Mode C veil requirement

originated from several Congressional

mandates (Public Law 100–202, etc.)

that the FAA issue regulations requiring

that all aircraft operating in certain

terminal airspace areas be equipped

with a transponder with Mode C. On

June 21, 1988, the FAA issued a rule

requiring that, as of July 1, 1989, all

aircraft, with certain exceptions,

operating within 30 miles of any

designated terminal control area (now

Class B airspace area) primary airport

must be equipped with a transponder

with Mode C (53 FR 23368). However,

the commenter is advised that FAA

included provisions in 14 CFR 91.215(d)

to allow for ATC-authorized deviations

from this requirement, under certain

conditions, to accommodate nontransponder operations to, from, or

within the Mode C veil.

One commenter stated that the FAA

should use physical features instead of

radials to describe the boundaries of the

Class B airspace area. In its petition,

AOPA requested that the reference point

for the Class B airspace area be centered

on the Cincinnati VORTAC as opposed

to the airport.

The Class B airspace area description

proposed in this notice is based on the

recommendations of the Ad Hoc

Committee and represents only minor

changes to the existing format used to

describe the lateral dimensions of the

area. The current and proposed

boundary descriptions consist of a mix

of prominent landmarks, latitude/

longitude coordinates, radials from the

Cincinnati VORTAC, and arcs of the

airport. Considering the availability of

landmarks in the area, the FAA believes

that this mix of descriptors should

effectively assist pilots in identifying

the lateral boundaries of the Class B

airspace area. The FAA will consider

the addition of a very high frequency

omnidirectional radio range radial/

Distance Measuring Equipment (DME)

cross-reference table to the Cincinnati

terminal area chart, similar to the tables

found on the Los Angeles and San Diego

terminal area charts, to define various

points of the CVG Class B airspace area.

This table would provide radial/DME

references to further assist pilots in

navigating in the Cincinnati area.

Two commenters recommended that

the FAA establish VFR corridors

through the Class B airspace area and

one commenter recommended the

establishment of a VFR/IFR corridor to

facilitate transiting the Cincinnati area.

The FAA does not agree with the

recommendation to establish VFR

corridors because the establishment of

such corridors could interfere with safe

and efficient operations in the CVG

Class B airspace area. Low altitude VFR

transition routes have been published

on the reverse side of the Cincinnati

VFR Terminal area chart to assist pilots

since the original inception of the Class

B airspace area. If the proposed

modifications are implemented, the

transition routes will basically remain

the same except for minor adjustments

to the suggested altitudes in Area D, to

the north and south of the airport.

Regarding the recommendation to

establish a VFR/IFR corridor, there

would be no operational advantage to be

gained over the services currently

provided by ATC to assist both VFR and

IFR overflights in avoiding the high

concentrations of IFR traffic.

The Proposal

The FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR

part 71 by modifying the CVG Class B

airspace area. Specifically, this action

(depicted on the attached chart)

proposes to expand the lateral limits of

Area C to the north and south of the

airport; modify the lateral limits of Area

F on the east and west sides of the Class

B area; eliminate Area G; and raise the

upper limit of the Class B airspace area

from 8,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL.

These modifications would better

accommodate nonparticipating aircraft

operations by providing both easier

access to satellite airports, and

additional airspace on the east and west

sides for aircraft desiring to

circumnavigate the CVG Class B

airspace area. In addition, these

modifications would improve the

management of air traffic operations in

the CVG terminal area, and enhance

safety by extending Class B airspace

protection to a significant volume of

aircraft currently operating between

8,000 feet MSL and 10,000 feet MSL.

This proposed action supports various

efforts to enhance the efficiency and

capacity of the National Airspace

System, such as the National Airspace

Redesign and the Operational Evolution

Plan.

Area A and Area B. The FAA is not

proposing any changes to the lateral

dimensions of Area A or Area B.

Area C. The FAA proposes to modify

Area C by expanding the boundaries of

Area C to the north and south of the

airport. This modification would

incorporate into Area C, two segments

of the Class B airspace area that are

currently contained within Area D.

Specifically, to the north of the airport,

the FAA proposes to extend Area C

northward to incorporate that part of

Area D airspace that lies west of the

extended instrument landing system

(ILS) localizer course for Runway 18L,

between the 20– and 25–NM arcs of the

airport. To the south of the airport, the

FAA proposes to extend Area C

southward to incorporate that portion of

Area D that lies west of the extended

ILS localizer course for Runway 36R,

between the 20– and 25–NM arcs of the

airport. The effect of extending Area C

as described, would be to lower the

floor of Class B airspace in the affected

segments from the current 3,500 feet

MSL to 3,000 feet MSL. The reason for

this change is to provide additional

airspace needed to ensure that the

required 1,000 feet vertical separation is

maintained while multiple aircraft are

being radar vectored for simultaneous

ILS approaches.

Area D. The FAA proposes to modify

Area D to the north and south of the

airport as a result of the expansion of

Area C as described above. This

modification would reduce the size of

67636 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2001 / Proposed Rules

the Area D segments located to the north

and south of the airport. The Area D

segments located to the east and west of

the airport would not be changed by this

proposal.

Area E. No changes are proposed to

the lateral dimensions of Area E.

Area F. The FAA proposes to reduce

the overall size of Area F by eliminating

certain portions of Area F, between 20

NM and 25 NM, located to the west and

east of the airport. On the west side, the

portion of Area F that lies within an

area bounded by the 20– and 25–NM

arcs of the airport, and between the CVG

VORTAC 247° radial clockwise to the

CVG VORTAC 297° radial, would be

eliminated. To the east of the airport,

the portion of Area F bounded by the

20– and 25–NM arcs of the airport, and

between the CVG VORTAC 056° radial

clockwise to the CVG VORTAC 116°

radial, would also be eliminated. The

FAA proposes to further modify Area F

by incorporating two small sections of

Area G. Specifically, Area F would

absorb small segments of airspace in the

western-most point and the southern tip

of the existing Area G. The proposed

Area F modifications would benefit

nonparticipating VFR operations by

accommodating easier access to satellite

airports and by providing a larger area

for circumnavigation between the Class

B airspace area and Restricted Area R–

3403 on the west side; and between the

Class B airspace area and the Buckeye

military operations area to the east of

the CVG terminal area.

Area G. The FAA proposes to

eliminate most of Area G (i.e., that

airspace from 6,000 feet MSL to and

including 8,000 feet MSL, along the

eastern edge of the Class B airspace

area), except for two small sections at

the western-most and southern-most

points in Area G that would be

incorporated into Area F, as described

above. Three years ago, the FAA

believed that it was necessary to have

Class B airspace out to 25 NM to the

west and to the east of CVG. The FAA

believed this was necessary in order to

accommodate departure profiles and to

provide for the optimum use of the

airspace. After two years of operational

experience, the FAA now believes that

the proposed cutouts to the east and to

the west will adequately accommodate

the departure profiles. This

modification would better accommodate

GA operations at satellite airports and

allow easier access/transition by

nonparticipating aircraft. This would

also provide aircraft not desiring to

participate in Class B services with

additional airspace for circumnavigation

of the Class B airspace area on the east

side.

The FAA further proposes to raise the

upper limit of the Class B airspace area

from the current 8,000 feet MSL to

10,000 feet MSL.

This proposal to modify the CVG

Class B airspace area would enhance

safety and improve the flow of air traffic

in the CVG terminal area. In addition, it

would better accommodate VFR

operations by improving access to

satellite airports and providing

additional airspace for circumnavigation

of the CVG Class B airspace area. The

modifications proposed in this notice

support the National Airspace Redesign

project and the FAA’s Operational

Evolution Plan.

The coordinates for this airspace

docket are based on North American

Datum 83. Class B airspace areas are

published in paragraph 3000 of FAA

Order 7400.9J, dated August 31, 2001,

and effective September 16, 2001, 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

each Federal agency proposing or

adopting a regulation to first make a

reasoned determination that the benefits

of the intended regulation justify its

costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility

Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze

the economic impact of regulatory

changes on small entities. Third, the

Trade Agreements Act prohibits

agencies from setting standards that

create unnecessary obstacles to the

foreign commerce of the United States.

In developing U.S. standards, this act

requires agencies to consider

international standards, and use them

where appropriate as the basis of U.S.

standards. Fourth, the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires

agencies to prepare a written assessment

of the costs and benefits and other

effects of proposed and final rules. An

assessment must be prepared only for

rules that impose a Federal mandate on

State, local or tribal governments, or on

the private sector, likely to result in a

total expenditure of $100 million or

more in any one year (adjusted for

inflation.)

In conducting these analyses, FAA

has determined: (1) This rule has

benefits that justify its costs. This

rulemaking does not impose costs

sufficient to be considered ‘‘significant’’

under the economic standards for

significance under Executive Order

12866 or under DOT’s Regulatory

Policies and Procedures. Due to public

interest, however, it is considered

significant under the Executive Order

and DOT policy. (2) This rule would not

have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities. (3)

This rule has no affect on any tradesensitive activity. (4) This rule does not

impose an unfunded mandate on state,

local, or tribal governments, or on the

private sector.

The proposed rule would expand the

lateral limits of Area C; reduce the

lateral limits of Area F; eliminate Area

G; and raise the upper limit of the entire

Class B airspace area from 8,000 feet

MSL to 10,000 feet MSL.

This NPRM would enhance safety in

the CVG terminal area and would result

in a more efficient use of the airspace.

Additionally, this NPRM would

generate cost savings to

nonparticipating VFR operations by

providing a larger area for

circumnavigation. Thus, the FAA has

determined that this proposed rule

would be cost-beneficial.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

establishes ‘‘as a principle of regulatory

issuance that agencies shall endeavor,

consistent with the objective of the rule

and of applicable statutes, to fit

regulatory and informational

requirements to the scale of the

business, organizations, and

governmental jurisdictions subject to

regulation.’’ To achieve that principle,

the Act requires agencies to solicit and

consider flexible regulatory proposals

and to explain the rationale for their

actions. The Act covers a wide-range of

small entities, including small

businesses, not-for-profit organizations

and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to

determine whether a proposed or final

rule would have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. If the determination is that it

would, the agency must prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) as

described in the Act.

However, if an agency determines that

a proposed or final rule is not expected

to have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act

provides that the head of the agency

may so certify and an RFA is not

required. The certification must include

a statement providing the factual basis

for this determination, and the

reasoning should be clear.

In view of the minimal cost impact of

the rule, the FAA has determined that

this proposed rule would not have

significant economic impact on a

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2001 / Proposed Rules 67637

substantial number of small entities.

Consequently, the FAA certifies that the

rule would not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The FAA

solicits comments from affected entities

with respect to this finding and

determination.

International Trade Impact Assessment

The Trade Agreement Act of 1979

prohibits Federal agencies from

engaging in any standards or related

activities that create unnecessary

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the

United States. Legitimate domestic

objectives, such as safety, are not

considered unnecessary obstacles. The

statute also requires consideration of

international standards and where

appropriate, that they be the basis for

U.S. standards.

In accordance with the above statute,

the FAA has assessed the potential

effect of this proposed rule and has

determined that it would have only a

domestic impact and therefore create no

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the

United States.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as

Public Law 104–4 on March 22, 1995,

requires each Federal agency, to the

extent permitted by law, to prepare a

written assessment of the effects of any

Federal mandate in a proposed or final

agency rule that may result in the

expenditure of $100 million or more

(when adjusted annually for inflation)

in any one year by State, local, and

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

by the private sector. Section 204(a) of

the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the

Federal agency to develop an effective

process to permit timely input by

elected officers (or their designees) of

State, local, and tribal governments on

a proposed ‘‘significant

intergovernmental mandate.’’ A

‘‘significant intergovernmental

mandate’’ under the Act is any

provision in a Federal agency regulation

that would impose an enforceable duty

upon State, local, and tribal

governments in the aggregate of $100

million (adjusted annually for inflation)

in any one year. Section 203 of the Act,

2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements

section 204(a), provides that, before

establishing any regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, the

agency shall have developed a plan

which, among other things, must

provide for notice to potentially affected

small governments, if any, and for a

meaningful and timely opportunity for

these small governments to provide

input in the development of regulatory

proposals.

This proposed rule does not contain

any Federal intergovernmental or

private sector mandates. Therefore, the

requirements of Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not

apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–511),

there are no requirements for

information collection associated with

this proposed rule.

Conclusion

In view of the minimal or zero cost of

compliance of the proposed rule and the

enhancements to operational efficiency

that do not reduce aviation safety, the

FAA has determined that the proposed

rule would be cost-beneficial.

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,

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;

AIRWAYS; ROUTES, AND REPORTING

POINTS

1. The authority citation for part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9J, Airspace

Designations and reporting Points, dated

August 31, 2001, and effective

September 16, 2001, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 3000—Subpart B—Class B

Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO KY B Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky

International Airport, KY [Revised]

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International

Airport (Primary Airport)

(Lat. 39°02′46′′N., long. 84°39′44′′ W.)

Cincinnati VORTAC (CVG)

(Lat. 39°00′57′′ N., long. 84°42′12′′ W.)

Boundaries

Area A. That airspace extending upward

from the surface to and including 10,000 feet

MSL within a radius of 5 miles from the

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International

Airport.

Area B. That airspace extending upward

from 2,100 feet MSL to and including 10,000

feet MSL within the area bounded by a line

beginning at the intersection of the 5-mile arc

of the airport and the Kentucky bank of the

Ohio River northeast of the airport; thence

northeast along the Kentucky bank of the

Ohio River to the 10-mile arc of the airport;

thence clockwise along the 10-mile arc to the

Kentucky bank of the Ohio River southwest

of the airport; thence north along the

Kentucky bank of the Ohio River to the

Indiana-Ohio State line (long. 84°49′00′′ W);

thence north along the State line to Interstate

275; thence northeast along Interstate 275 to

Interstate 74; thence east along Interstate 74

to the CVG VORTAC 040° radial; thence

southwest along the CVG VORTAC 040°

radial to the 5-mile arc of the airport; thence

counterclockwise on the 5-mile arc to the

point of beginning.

Area C. That airspace extending upward

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

feet MSL within the area bounded by a line

beginning at the intersection of Interstate 275

and the Indiana-Ohio State line (long.

84°49′00′′ W); thence north along the IndianaOhio State line, to intersect the 20-mile arc

of the airport; thence clockwise along the 20-

mile arc of the airport to intersect the

extended Runway 18L ILS localizer course;

then south along the extended Runway 18L

ILS localizer course to the 15-mile arc of the

airport; thence clockwise on the 15-mile arc

to long. 84°30′00′′ W.; thence south along

long. 84°30′00′′ W. to the 10-mile arc of the

airport; thence clockwise on the 10-mile arc

to the Kentucky bank of the Ohio River;

thence west along the Kentucky bank the

Ohio River to the 5-mile arc of the airport;

thence counterclockwise along the 5-mile arc

to the CVG VORTAC 040° radial; thence

northeast along the CVG VORTAC 040° radial

to Interstate 74; thence west along Interstate

74 to Interstate 275; thence west along

Interstate 275 to the point of beginning. That

airspace beginning at the intersection of the

10-mile arc southeast of the airport and long.

84°30′00′′ W.; thence south along long.

84°30′00′′ W. to the 15-mile arc of the airport;

thence clockwise along the 15-mile arc to

intersect the Runway 36R ILS localizer

course; thence south along the Runway 36R

ILS localizer course to the 20-mile arc of the

airport, thence clockwise along the 20-mile

arc to long. 84°49′00′′ W.; thence north along

long. 84°49′00′′ W. to the Kentucky bank of

the Ohio River; thence north along the

Kentucky bank of the Ohio River to the 10-

mile arc of the airport; thence

counterclockwise along the 10-mile arc to the

point of beginning.

Area D. That airspace extending upward

from 3,500 feet MSL to and including 10,000

feet MSL within the area bounded by a line

beginning at the intersection of lat. 39°09′18′′

N. and the 10-mile arc northeast of the

airport; thence east to the 15-mile arc of the

airport; thence clockwise on the 15-mile arc

to lat. 38°56′15′′ N.; thence west along lat.

38°56′15′′ N. to intersect the 10-mile arc of

the airport; thence counterclockwise along

the 10-mile arc to the point of beginning.

67638 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 250 / Monday, December 31, 2001 / Proposed Rules

That airspace beginning at the intersection of

the Kentucky bank of the Ohio River and lat.

38°56′15′′ N. southwest of the airport; thence

west along lat. 38°56′15′′ N. to the 15-mile arc

of the airport; thence clockwise along the 15-

mile arc to lat. 39°09′18′′ N.; thence east

along lat. 39°09′18′′ N. to the Indiana-Ohio

State line; thence South along the IndianaOhio State line to the Kentucky bank of the

Ohio River; thence south along the Kentucky

bank of the Ohio River to point of beginning.

That airspace beginning at the intersection of

the 15-mile arc of the airport and the ILS

Runway 18L localizer course; thence north

along the extended ILS Runway 18L localizer

course to the 20-mile arc of the airport;

thence clockwise along the 20-mile arc to

long. 84°30′00′′ W.; thence south along long.

84°30′00′′ W. to the 15-mile arc of the airport;

thence counterclockwise along the 15-mile

arc to the point of beginning. That airspace

beginning at the intersection of the 15-mile

arc south of the airport and the ILS Runway

36R localizer course; thence south along the

extended ILS Runway 36R localizer to the 20-

mile arc of the airport; thence

counterclockwise along the 20-mile arc to

long. 84°30′00′′ W.; thence north along long.

84°30′00′′ W. to the 15-mile arc of the airport;

thence clockwise along the 15-mile arc to the

point of beginning.

Area E. That airspace extending upward

from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000

feet MSL within the area bounded by a line

beginning at the intersection of the 20-mile

arc of the airport and the Indiana-Ohio State

line; thence north along the Indiana-Ohio

State line to the 25-mile arc of the airport;

thence clockwise along the 25-mile arc to

long. 84°30′00′′ W.; thence south along long.

84°30′00′′ W. to the 20-mile arc of the airport;

thence counterclockwise on the 20-mile arc

to the point of beginning. That airspace

beginning at the intersection of the 20-mile

arc of the airport and long. 84°30′00′′ W.

southeast of the airport; thence south along

long. 84°30′00′′ W. to the 25-mile arc of the

airport; thence clockwise along the 25-mile

arc to long. 84°49′00′′ W.; thence north along

long. 84°49′00′′ W. to the 20-mile arc of the

airport; thence counterclockwise along the

20-mile arc to the point of beginning.

Area F. That airspace extending upward

from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000

feet MSL within the area bounded by a line

beginning at the intersection of the 25-mile

arc north of the airport and long. 84°30′00′′

W.; thence clockwise along the 25-mile arc of

the airport to the CVG VORTAC 056° radial;

thence southwest along the CVG VORTAC

056° radial to the 20-mile arc of the airport;

thence clockwise along the 20-mile arc of the

airport to the CVG VORTAC 116° radial;

thence southeast along the CVG VORTAC

116° radial to the 25-mile arc of the airport;

thence clockwise along the 25-mile arc of the

airport to long. 84°30′00′′ W. south of the

airport; thence north along long. 84°30′00′′

W. to the intersection of the 10-mile arc of

the airport and lat. 38°56′15′′ N.; thence east

along lat. 38°56′15′′ N. to the 15-mile arc of

the airport; thence clockwise along the 15-

mile arc of the airport to lat. 39°09′18′′ N.;

thence west along lat. 39°09′18′′ N. to the

intersection of the 10-mile arc of the airport

and long. 84°30′00′′ W; thence north along

long. 84°30′00′′ W. to the point of beginning.

That airspace beginning at the intersection of

the 25-mile arc of the airport and the IndianaOhio State line; thence counterclockwise

along the 25-mile arc to the CVG VORTAC

297° radial; thence southeast along the CVG

VORTAC 297° radial to the 20-mile arc of the

airport; thence counterclockwise along the

20-mile arc of the airport to the CVG

VORTAC 247° radial; thence southwest along

the CVG VORTAC 247° radial to the 25-mile

arc of the airport; thence counterclockwise

along the 25-arc of the airport to long.

84°49′00′′ W. south of the airport; thence

north along long. 84°49′00′′ W. to the

Kentucky bank of the Ohio River; thence

north along the Kentucky bank of the Ohio

River to lat. 38°56′15′′ N.; thence west along

lat. 38°56′15′′ N. to the 15-mile arc of the

airport; thence clockwise on the 15-mile arc

of the airport to lat. 39°09′18′′ N.; thence east

along lat. 39°09′18′′ N. to the Indiana-Ohio

State line; thence north along the IndianaOhio State line to the point of beginning.

Area G. [Revoked]

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on December

21, 2001.

Reginald C. Matthews,

Manager, Airspace and Rules Division.

[FR Doc. 01–32007 Filed 12–21–01; 3:43 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P