Proposed Amendment to Class B Airspace; Cleveland, OH, 20528-20533 [2010-9024]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 20, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20528-20533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9024]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 20528]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0514; Airspace Docket No. 07-AWA-1]
RIN 2120-AA66


Proposed Amendment to Class B Airspace; Cleveland, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Cleveland, OH, Class B airspace 
to contain aircraft conducting Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) instrument 
approach procedures to Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport (CLE) 
within Class B airspace. This action also would update two geographic 
coordinates listed in the description. This action would contain 
aircraft operations conducting instrument approaches within Cleveland 
Class B airspace, further supporting the FAA's national airspace 
redesign goal of optimizing terminal and en route airspace areas to 
reduce aircraft delays and improve system capacity.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 21, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; 
telephone: (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2009-
0514 and Airspace Docket No. 07-AWA-1 at the beginning of your 
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed 
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they 
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the 
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing 
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are 
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. 
FAA-2009-0514 and Airspace Docket No. 07-AWA-1) and be submitted in 
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for 
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the 
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments 
to Docket Nos. FAA-2009-0514 and Airspace Docket No. 07-AWA-1.'' The 
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date 
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed 
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of 
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for 
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date 
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with 
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the 
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

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

Background

    In 1974, the FAA issued a final rule which established the 
Cleveland, OH (Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport), Terminal 
Control Area (39 FR 11256). As a result of the Airspace 
Reclassification final rule (56 FR 65638), which became effective in 
1993, the terms ``terminal control area'' and ``airport radar service 
area'' were replaced by ``Class B airspace area,'' and ``Class C 
airspace area,'' respectively. The primary purpose of a Class B 
airspace area is to reduce the potential for midair collisions in the 
airspace surrounding airports with high density air traffic operations 
by providing an area in which all aircraft are subject to certain 
operating rules and equipment requirements.
    The Cleveland Class B airspace area was last modified in 1970 when 
it was the Cleveland, Ohio (Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport), 
control zone, using 1970s air traffic activity levels, and has not been 
modified since. In recent years, the City of Cleveland has accomplished 
construction projects to modernize, enhance safety, and provide 
sufficient capacity at CLE. These projects included the construction of 
a replacement Runway 6L/24R at CLE that increased the lateral distance 
between runways 6L/24R and 6R/24L to 1,241 feet. This increase in 
lateral distance between the runways has allowed simultaneous arrival 
and departure operations under visual flight rules (VFR) conditions and 
simultaneous approaches during marginal VFR conditions through the use 
of Precision Runway Monitor/Simultaneous Offset

[[Page 20529]]

Instrument Approaches (PRM/SOIA). Operationally, PRM/SOIA results in 
higher arrival acceptance rates during lower VFR minimums, but requires 
aircraft to be established on the final approach courses not less than 
15 miles from the airport. During periods with moderate levels of air 
traffic, this requirement quickly extends the final approach course to 
a distance of 25-30 miles from the airport; placing aircraft outside 
the confines of the current Cleveland Class B airspace.
    Since the Cleveland Class B airspace area was established, CLE has 
experienced increased traffic levels, a considerably different fleet 
mix, and airport infrastructure improvements enabling simultaneous 
instrument approach procedures. For calendar year 2008, CLE documented 
550,171 total operations and was rated number 34 among all Commercial 
Service Airports with 5,387,625 passenger enplanements.
    With the current Class B airspace configuration, aircraft routinely 
enter, exit, and then reenter Class B airspace while flying published 
instrument approach procedures, contrary to FAA directives. The 
procedural requirements for using PRM/SOIA to establish aircraft on 
final at least 15 miles from the airport has resulted in aircraft 
exceeding the lateral boundaries of the current Class B airspace by up 
to 5 to 10 miles during moderate levels of air traffic. Modeling of 
existing traffic flows has shown that the proposed expanded Class B 
airspace extensions would enhance safety by containing all instrument 
approach procedures, and associated traffic patterns, within the 
confines of Class B airspace and better segregate IFR aircraft 
arriving/departing CLE and VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of 
the Cleveland Class B airspace. The proposed Class B airspace 
modifications described in this NPRM are intended to address these 
issues.

Pre-NPRM Public Input

    In 2007, the FAA initiated action to form an ad hoc committee to 
provide comments and recommendations regarding the planned 
modifications to the Cleveland Class B airspace area. Participants in 
the committee included representatives from Cleveland Airport System, 
Reader Botsford Field, Cleveland City Council, Aircraft Owners and 
Pilots Association, Air Line Pilots Association, Continental Airlines, 
Soaring Society of America, local soaring clubs, and local communities. 
One ad-hoc committee meeting was held at Burke Lakefront Airport on 
January 11, 2008. Although the ad-hoc committee did not reach consensus 
on an airspace design, a variety of alternatives were recommended.
    In addition, as announced in the Federal Register (73 FR 40446), 
informal airspace meetings were held on September 16, 2008, at the 
Wellington Town Hall, Wellington, OH; and on September 17, 2008, at the 
Burke Lakefront Airport, Cleveland, OH. These meetings provided 
interested airspace users with an opportunity to present their views 
and offer suggestions regarding the planned modification of the 
Cleveland Class B airspace. All comments received as a result of the 
informal airspace meetings, along with the recommendations made by the 
ad hoc committee were considered in developing this proposal.

Discussion of Recommendations and Comments

Ad hoc Committee Recommendations

    The ad hoc committee recommended the FAA raise the floor of Area F 
from 5,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) to 6,000 feet MSL or layering it. 
Area F was originally proposed as a single area extension to the 
southwest described from the 20-mile arc of the CLE Runway 24L ILS/DME 
antenna (I-HPI) to the 30-mile arc of I-HPI, with the northern boundary 
6 miles north and parallel to the runway 6L localizer (I-LIZ) signal 
extended and the southern boundary 6 miles south and parallel to the 
runway 6R localizer (I-EYU) signal extended, from 5,000 feet MSL to and 
including 8,000 feet MSL. The FAA originally discounted this 
recommendation based on current operating procedures and flight safety 
concerns, however, the FAA carried the recommendation forward for 
further review and consideration.
    The ad hoc committee suggested three other recommendations that 
were not adopted. These recommendations were: (1) Use a Letter of 
Agreement to delegate a portion of airspace within Area F (as 
originally proposed) for glider operations and allow tow aircraft to 
communicate to air traffic control for the gliders when the Class B 
extension is not needed by air traffic control; (2) retain IFR arrival 
aircraft turns to the final approach course inside the current 20-mile 
Class B airspace boundary; and (3) move Area F (as originally proposed) 
further to the North.
    The recommendation to use a Letter of Agreement to delegate 
airspace and ``third-party'' communication procedures for gliders 
operating within Class B airspace, when the airspace is not needed, was 
not adopted due to the regulatory nature of Class B airspace. The 
associated operational and equipage requirements to operate within 
Class B airspace cannot be waived by Letter of Agreement. Additionally, 
air traffic control must be able to provide positive separation and 
control of all aircraft within Class B airspace at all times.
    The recommendation to retain aircraft turning to the final approach 
course within the current Class B airspace was not adopted because 
approximately 15 to 18 percent of IFR arrivals currently extend beyond 
the existing boundary. This alternative would require imposing in-trail 
spacing requirements, prohibiting use of PRM/SOIA, and using airborne 
holding. While these measures might be of minor benefit in keeping 
aircraft within the confines of the present day Cleveland Class B 
airspace, the associated detrimental impacts to the national airspace 
system would be excessive.
    The recommendation to move the Area F extension (as originally 
proposed) further to the North was not adopted because the extension 
would no longer align with the runway centerlines extended, nor the 
instrument final approach courses. The purpose for establishing the 
Class B airspace extensions, i.e. to retain IFR arrival aircraft on 
instrument approaches within Class B airspace, would not be realized 
and the current situation of IFR arrival aircraft entering, exiting, 
and reentering the Class B airspace would continue.

Informal Airspace Meeting Comments

    Twelve commenters raised concerns that Area F (as originally 
proposed) would impose on the existing glider operations at Reader-
Botsford Airport. The 5,000 feet MSL floor of the area would provide 
only 4,200 feet above ground level (AGL) airspace for gliders to 
operate within and they would be unable to reach adequate altitudes for 
safe departures and returns from cross-country soaring. Six of these 
commenters suggested dividing Area F into a north area with the 5,000 
feet MSL floor the FAA proposed, and a south area with a 6,000 feet MSL 
floor to support cross-country glider operations. And, four of these 
commenters further suggested using railroad tracks that run west to 
east under the originally proposed Area F as a visual reference to mark 
the boundary between the north and south areas. The FAA partially 
agrees. The originally proposed Area F has been redefined into a north 
area (named Area F in the proposal section below) and a south area 
(named Area G in the proposal section below). The ``new'' Areas F and G 
are expected to provide the gliders operating at Reader-Botsford 
Airport

[[Page 20530]]

with additional airspace for their operations while preserving the 
integrity of the Class B airspace containing IFR aircraft flying 
instrument approaches to CLE. The FAA does not agree with using the 
railroad tracks to define the two areas and is proposing the boundary 
between the proposed Areas F and G be described by the runway 6R 
localizer (I-CLE) signal extended. The railroad tracks suggested by the 
commenters does not divide the originally proposed Area F in a manner 
supportive of containing IFR aircraft on instrument approaches within 
Class B airspace.
    Four commenters expressed concern that the planned establishment of 
Areas E and F (as originally proposed) with a 5,000 feet MSL floor 
would compress general aviation traffic into lower altitudes and cause 
traffic compression. The FAA partially agrees with these comments. For 
general aviation aircraft to remain clear of the Cleveland Class B 
airspace areas, they would have to fly either below or above the Class 
B airspace extensions. However, these areas are necessary to (1) retain 
IFR aircraft on instrument approaches in the Cleveland Class B airspace 
area and (2) ensure general aviation traffic and the large turbine-
powered aircraft conducting instrument approaches are segregated. 
Additionally, aircraft conducting simultaneous, parallel instrument 
approaches may not be assigned the same altitude during turn-on to the 
final approach course, resulting in aircraft being assigned altitudes 
that may differ by a minimum of 1,000 feet. In order to accommodate 
containment of these aircraft flying simultaneous instrument approaches 
within Class B airspace, and ensure segregation from general aviation 
traffic, the Cleveland Class B airspace area must be modified to 
establish the additional extensions as proposed.
    One commenter cited Area F (as originally proposed) would be an 
impediment to general aviation aircraft operating at Elyria and Lorain 
County Regional Airports, as descents and climbs would have to be 
modified to get below the proposed 5,000 feet MSL extension. The FAA 
does not agree. Both Elyria and Lorain County Regional Airports are 
located under the Cleveland Class B airspace Area C (floor altitude 
3,000 feet MSL), which is unchanged by this proposal. The current 
Cleveland Class B airspace Area D extends 5 miles west of the airports 
(floor altitude 4,000 feet MSL) and is also unchanged by this proposal. 
The newly proposed Class B airspace extension, comprised of Areas F and 
G, would be established at 5,000 feet MSL and 6,000 feet MSL, 
respectively, and located beyond the existing Area D. The flight 
profile impacts for general aviation aircraft operating at Elyria and 
Lorain County Regional Airports should be minimal since departures to 
or arrivals from the West or South are expected to be unaffected by the 
proposed extension.
    Ten commenters, including a representative from the Village of 
Wellington, stated concerns regarding potential loss of revenue to the 
village, the Reader-Botsford Airport land owner, and the Fun Country 
Soaring Club should the glider operations cease because of the Class B 
airspace proposal. The FAA does not agree. As noted above, the Area F 
extension (as originally proposed) was modified to provide additional 
airspace to the soaring club operators at Reader-Botsford Airport. 
Since the majority of glider operations occur to the south and west, 
the new Areas F and G are expected to enable glider operations to 
continue with negligible impact to local area or cross-country glider 
flights. As such, the FAA does not expect the soaring club operation at 
Reader-Botsford Airfield to relocate; thus, averting the financial 
impacts to the Village of Wellington, the airport land owner, or the 
soaring club, as raised by the commenters.
    Two commenters questioned the need for the Cleveland Class B 
modifications in light of the recent reduction of air carrier traffic 
at CLE. The FAA does not agree. The Class B airspace extensions 
proposed are aimed at ensuring IFR aircraft flying instrument 
approaches to CLE are contained within Class B airspace during their 
arrival. As noted in the ad hoc committee recommendations section, even 
with the reduced air carrier traffic levels today, there continues to 
be approximately 15 to 18 percent of IFR aircraft arrivals to CLE that 
enter, exit, and re-enter the Class B airspace. The FAA considers this 
proposed modification to the Cleveland Class B airspace to be the 
minimum amount of airspace necessary to contain all IFR arrivals within 
Class B airspace.
    Four commenters stated the FAA should determine a way to ``turn the 
airspace [original proposed Area F extension] on and off'', while one 
suggested the use of a Letter of Agreement to enable gliders to gain 
access/entry to the Class B airspace extension proposed overhead 
Reader-Botsford Airfield. The FAA does not agree. Class B airspace is 
established via rulemaking and when established, the airspace and the 
regulatory requirements associated with accessing and operating within 
it are specific and in effect at all times for all operations. The 
regulatory requirements for aircraft to enter and operate within Class 
B airspace may not be waived, modified, or exempted by Letter of 
Agreement.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify the Cleveland, OH, Class 
B airspace area. This action (depicted on the attached chart) would add 
two airspace extensions (one, Area E, to the Northeast and one, defined 
by Areas F and G, to the Southwest) in order to provide additional 
airspace needed to contain aircraft conducting instrument approach 
operations within the confines of Class B airspace, especially when 
PRM/SOIA are utilized. Additionally, the proposed modifications would 
better segregate IFR aircraft arriving/departing CLE and VFR aircraft 
operating in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B airspace area. The 
current Cleveland Class B airspace area consists of four subareas (A 
through D) while the proposed configuration would consist of seven 
subareas (A through G). The proposed modifications to the Cleveland 
Class B airspace area are:
    Areas A-D. Except for a proposed administrative correction to the 
legal description in Area B, which excludes the airspace within a 2-
mile radius of Burke Lakefront Airport in error, there are no changes 
to the airspace descriptions of Area A through D. The airspace 
contained within Area B does not overlap with the airspace contained 
within a 2-mile radius of the Burke Lakefront Airport. Therefore, the 
Area B exclusion language addressing that airspace within a 2-mile 
radius of Burke Lakefront Airport is unnecessary.
    Area E. The FAA proposes to establish Area E to the Northeast of 
CLE. This modification would extend from the existing Area D boundary 
defined by the 20-mile arc of I-HPI to the 30-mile arc of I-HPI. The 
northern boundary is proposed to be defined 6-miles north and parallel 
to the Runway 24R localizer (I-PVY) signal extended, and the southern 
boundary is proposed to be defined 6-miles south and parallel to the 
Runway 24L localizer (I-FVZ) signal extended. This new area would be 
established with the floor extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to and 
including 8,000 feet MSL, overlying the Willoughby Lost Nation Airport 
in Willoughby, OH. The effect of this new area would be to ensure IFR 
aircraft flying instrument approaches to runways 24L and 24R are 
contained within the confines of Class B airspace throughout the 
approach, yet provide

[[Page 20531]]

airspace below and above this area for VFR aircraft operations outside 
of the Class B airspace.
    Area F. The FAA proposes to establish Area F to the Southwest of 
CLE. This modification would extend from the existing Area D boundary 
defined by the 20-mile arc of I-HPI to the 30-mile arc of I-HPI. The 
northern boundary is proposed to be defined 6-miles north and parallel 
to the Runway 6L localizer (I-LIZ) signal extended, and the southern 
boundary is proposed to be defined by the Runway 6R localizer (I-CLE) 
signal extended. This new area would be established with the floor 
extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 feet MSL, 
and to the north and west of the town of Wellington, OH. Similar to the 
effect of Area E, this new area, with Area G described below, would 
ensure IFR aircraft flying instrument approaches to runways 6L and 6R 
are contained within the confines of Class B airspace throughout the 
approach, yet provide airspace below and above this area for VFR 
aircraft operations outside of the Class B airspace.
    Area G. The FAA proposes to establish Area G to the Southwest of 
CLE. This modification would extend from the existing Area D boundary 
defined by the 20-mile arc of I-HPI to the 30-mile arc of I-HPI. The 
northern boundary is proposed to be defined by the Runway 6R localizer 
(I-CLE) signal extended, and the southern boundary is proposed to be 
defined 6-miles south and parallel to the Runway 6R localizer (I-EYU) 
signal extended. This new area would be established with the floor 
extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 feet MSL, 
overlying the Reader-Botsford Airport located in Wellington, OH. 
Similar to the effect of Areas E and F, this new area, with Area F 
described above, would ensure IFR aircraft flying instrument approaches 
to runways 6L and 6R are contained within the confines of Class B 
airspace throughout the approach, yet provide airspace below and above 
this area for VFR aircraft operations outside of the Class B airspace.
    Finally, this proposed action would update the CLE airport 
reference point coordinates and the I-HPI coordinates in the legal 
description to reflect current National Airspace System data.
    Implementation of these proposed modifications to the Cleveland 
Class B airspace area would enhance the efficient use of the airspace 
for the safety and management of aircraft operations in the Cleveland 
terminal area.
    Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order 
7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 27, 
2009, and effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by 
reference in 14 CFR section 71.1. The Class B airspace area listed in 
this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing United States 
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of United 
States standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of 
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with 
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's 
analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this proposed rule. The 
reasoning for this determination follows:
    After consultation with a diverse cross-section of stakeholders 
that participated in the Cleveland airport ad hoc advisory committee, 
in addition to thorough review of public comments as a result of an 
informal meeting, the FAA expects the proposed modifications to the 
Cleveland Class B airspace to result in minimal cost. Existing traffic 
flow modeling to CLE shows commercial aircraft routinely enter, exit 
and then reenter the current Class B airspace while flying published 
instrument approach procedures, contrary to FAA directives. The Class B 
extension proposed will increase safety by encompassing the actual 
flight paths of commercial aircraft on instrument approach. Commercial 
aircraft are already performing instrument approaches to CLE in 
accordance to the proposed extensions to Class B airspace.
    As a result of the aforementioned public meeting, only four 
commenters--all of whom are individual glider pilots--mentioned 
concerns over general aviation compression with the extended Class B 
airspace extension. However, the FAA discounts such compression 
arguments because as mentioned above current commercial procedures for 
approach to CLE are occurring in the proposed Class B extension. The 
FAA also adjusted the proposed extension of Class B airspace by 
bifurcation of the affected area and increasing the floor altitude from 
5,000 MSL to 6,000 MSL in the area most trafficked by the gliders out 
of Reader-Botsford Airport, to the south and to the west of the 
airport.
    Commenters worry a soaring club may discontinue operation resulting 
in a loss of revenue to the Village of Wellington, the landowner of 
Reader-Botsford Airport, as a result of the proposed extension. The FAA 
does not believe the proposed Class B extension will cause the soaring 
club to close down; therefore, the costs would be minimal, if any. The 
FAA included accommodations to the proposed extension. The area to the 
south and the west of Reader-Botsford Airport included in the proposed 
Class B airspace extension gives a 6,000 MSL minimal floor as compared 
to 5,000 MSL minimal floor in other portions of the proposed extension 
to the Class B airspace. This accommodation would allow for a vaster 
amount of airspace for gliders. Additionally, this rule does not 
regulate any nearby airspace outside of the current and proposed Class 
B airspace which is available to general aviation and gliders but not 
to commercial aircraft on approach to CLE.
    The benefits of the proposed extension of Cleveland Class B 
airspace far exceed any minimal cost associated with this proposed 
rule. As mentioned earlier this change is primarily to encapsulate 
already practiced instrument landing approaches thereby increasing the 
safety of not only the commercial traffic but also the general aviation 
community already being affected. The FAA also recognizes the

[[Page 20532]]

significant benefits of having increased number of simultaneous lateral 
approaches of commercial aircraft both for instrument approaches and 
visual approaches.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-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. Based on the Small Business Administration 
small entity criterion for small government jurisdictions the rule 
would impact a substantial number of small entities. Reader-Botsford 
Airport is a regional airport that's land is owned by a government with 
a population less than 50,000, the Village of Wellington, Ohio. The FAA 
does not believe Wellington will be significantly impacted by the 
proposed extension of Cleveland Class B airspace because the proposed 
rule would not force a local soaring club to cease operations. The FAA 
proposed a higher ceiling to accommodate the soaring club. 
Additionally, commercial flights are currently using the proposed Class 
B extended airspace. The FAA believes these changed patterns result in 
a minimal economic impact. Therefore the FAA certifies that this 
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. We request comments from the 
potentially affected entities which would include estimated compliance 
cost and revenue, such that we could provide a measure of economic 
impact.

International Trade Impact Assessment

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

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100 
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, 
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Conclusion

    FAA has, therefore, determined that the extension of Cleveland 
Class B airspace is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined 
in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as 
defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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


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 OH B Cleveland, OH [Modified]

Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 41[deg]24'34'' N., long. 81[deg]51'18'' W.)
Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport Runway 24L ILS/DME Antenna 
(I-HPI)
    (Lat. 41[deg]23'44'' N., long. 81[deg]52'18'' W.)
Gilbert Airport (Pvt)
    (Lat. 41[deg]22'00'' N., long. 81[deg]58'00'' W.)

Boundaries

    Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and 
including 8,000 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of I-HPI, excluding 
that airspace within a 1-mile radius of Gilbert Airport.
    Area B. That airspace extending upward from 1,900 feet MSL to 
and including 8,000 feet MSL within an 8.5-mile radius of I-HPI, 
excluding Area A previously described.
    Area C. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to 
and including 8,000 feet MSL within a 15-mile radius of I-HPI, 
excluding Areas A and B previously described.
    Area D. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to 
and including 8,000 feet MSL within a 20-mile radius of I-HPI, 
excluding Areas A, B, and C previously described.
    Area E. That airspace extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to 
and including 8,000 feet MSL starting at point lat. 41[deg]30'41'' 
N., long. 81[deg]27'22'' W., then northeast to point lat. 
41[deg]37'00'' N., long. 81[deg]16'29'' W., then northwest along the 
30-mile arc of I-HPI to point lat. 42[deg]47'20'' N., long. 
81[deg]27'36'' W., then southwest to point lat. 42[deg]40'43'' N., 
long. 81[deg]38'13'' W., then southeast along the

[[Page 20533]]

20-mile arc of I-HPI to the point of beginning.
    Area F. That airspace extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to 
and including 8,000 feet MSL starting at point lat. 41[deg]16'17'' 
N., long. 82[deg]16'56'' W., then southwest to point lat. 
41[deg]09'35'' N., long. 82[deg]27'23'' W., then southeast along the 
30-mile arc of I-HPI to point lat. 41[deg]04'24'' N., long. 
82[deg]22'43'' W., then northeast to point lat. 41[deg]10'52'' N., 
long. 82[deg]12'37'' W., then northwest along the 20-mile arc of I-
HPI to the point of beginning.
    Area G. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to 
and including 8,000 feet MSL starting at point lat. 41[deg]06'13'' 
N., long. 82[deg]05'07'' W., then southwest to point lat. 
40[deg]59'08'' N., long. 82[deg]15'03'' W., then northwest along the 
30-mile arc of I-HPI to point lat. 41[deg]04'24'' N., long. 
82[deg]22'43'' W., then northeast to point lat. 41[deg]10'52'' N, 
long. 82[deg]12'37'' W, then southeast along the 20-mile arc of I-
HPI to the point of beginning.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 13, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20AP10.007

[FR Doc. 2010-9024 Filed 4-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P