Amendment to Class B Airspace; Cleveland, OH, 8281-8288 [2011-3211]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8281-8288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3211]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

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


Amendment to Class B Airspace; Cleveland, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies the Cleveland, OH, Class B airspace area 
by expanding the existing airspace area to ensure containment of all 
published instrument procedures and the aircraft flying those 
instrument procedures within Class B airspace, and segregation of 
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft arriving/departing Cleveland-
Hopkins International Airport (CLE) and non-participating Visual Flight 
Rules (VFR) aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B 
airspace area. The additional Class B airspace will support 
simultaneous arrival and departure operations under VFR conditions and 
simultaneous IFR approaches during marginal VFR conditions using 
Precision Runway Monitor/Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches 
(PRM/SOIA). Geographic coordinates listed in the description are also 
updated to reflect current aeronautical database information. This 
action enhances safety, improves the flow of air traffic, and reduces 
the potential for midair collision in the Cleveland terminal area.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, April 7, 2011. The Director of the 
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and 
publication of conforming amendments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On April 20, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify the Cleveland, OH, Class 
B airspace area (75 FR 20528). The FAA proposed this action to ensure 
containment of turbo-jet IFR aircraft conducting instrument approaches 
to CLE within the confines of Class B airspace and better segregate IFR 
aircraft arriving/departing CLE and non-participating VFR aircraft 
operating in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B airspace area.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking 
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. In response to 
the NPRM, the FAA received 14 written comment submissions, including 
comments from Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the 
Soaring Society of America (SSA). Two comments received were duplicate 
documents submitted by two different commenters. Many of the commenters 
identified themselves as pilots who operate within, or through, the 
local area. All comments received were considered before making a 
determination on the final rule. An analysis of the comments received 
and the FAA's responses are contained in the ``Discussion of Comments'' 
section below.
    Subsequent to the NPRM publication, typographical errors were 
identified for two geographic coordinates proposed in the Area E 
description published in the regulatory text. The geographic 
coordinates that were published as ``lat. 42[deg]47'20'' N., long. 
81[deg]27'36'' W.'' in the NPRM should have been ``lat. 41[deg]47'20'' 
N., long. 81[deg]27'36'' W.'', and the geographic coordinates that were 
published as ``lat. 42[deg]40'43'' N., long. 81[deg]38'13'' W.'' should 
have been ``lat. 41[deg]40'43'' N., long. 81[deg]38'13'' W.''. The 
geographic coordinate errors are corrected in this action.

Discussion of Comments

    The AOPA cited the work of the FAA in developing this rule. They 
support the proposed modifications and appreciate the common sense 
approach the FAA adopted to include only that airspace required for the 
containment of arrivals and departures at CLE. Further, AOPA applauded 
the FAA's efforts to address and mitigate concerns raised by general 
aviation pilots regarding access to the airports affected by the 
redesign.
    Seven commenters objected to proposed Areas F and G. They argued 
the FAA proposed these areas significantly larger than required or 
presented previously. Six of the commenters wanted the lateral 
dimensions of the areas reduced to only five nautical mile (NM) 
extensions in length by five NM in width. One commenter argued that 
federal airways are established with four NM lateral widths from a 
radial of a navigation aid and that the FAA should reduce the widths of 
the areas to four NM also. Three commenters wanted Areas F and

[[Page 8282]]

G eliminated altogether if the lateral dimensions could not be reduced. 
And lastly, three commenters suggested the FAA define the boundaries of 
Areas F and G to coincide with visual landmarks to prevent inadvertent 
Class B airspace violations. Unless changed, the commenters believed 
the proposed Areas F and G would deteriorate safe flight operations 
beneath and in the vicinity of the Class B airspace extension.
    The FAA does not agree. For clarity, the lateral dimensions of 
Areas F and G as proposed in the NPRM are 10 NM in length, extending 
from the CLE Runway 24L ILS/DME antenna (I-HPI) 20 NM arc to the I-HPI 
30 NM arc. The areas are 6 NM in width, from the CLE Runway 6R 
localizer (I-CLE) signal extended to 6 NM north of the Runway 6L 
localizer (I-LIZ) signal extended for Area F and from the I-CLE signal 
extended to 6 NM south of the Runway 6R localizer (I-EYU) signal 
extended for Area G. These lateral dimensions were determined to be the 
absolute minimum essential to control IFR aircraft arriving from 
multiple arrival streams that are being sequenced in the traffic 
patterns for Precision Runway Monitor/Simultaneous Offset Instrument 
Approaches (PRM/SOIA) procedures into CLE. The length of these areas 
ensures the 15 to 18 percent of IFR aircraft arrivals that currently 
enter, exit, and re-enter the CLE Class B airspace (as noted in the 
NPRM) are fully contained within Class B airspace once they enter the 
traffic patterns to intercept the final approach course and the PRM/
SOIA procedures. During periods of moderate and heavy traffic, aircraft 
may be turned onto the PRM/SOIA finals as far as 25 NM to 30 NM from 
CLE, as is the case today. The width of these areas ensures IFR arrival 
aircraft conducting PRM/SOIA are contained within Class B airspace 
while flying in the traffic patterns and are safely separated, in 
accordance with aircraft separation standards and guidance, between 
non-participating VFR aircraft that may be flying along the boundaries 
of Areas F and G and IFR aircraft flying the instrument approach 
procedures to Runways 6L/6R. To reduce the lateral dimensions (length 
or width) of the Areas F or G Class B airspace extensions would be 
impractical.
    For the same reasons as discussed above, the FAA has determined the 
request to consider eliminating Areas F and G if they cannot be reduced 
in size is also impractical. The extensions are necessary in the 
interest of flight safety to contain all the instrument approach 
procedures and the IFR aircraft flying those procedures at CLE within 
Class B airspace, as well as segregate the IFR aircraft and non-
participating VFR aircraft flying in the vicinity of the CLE Class B 
airspace area.
    The FAA acknowledges the benefits of using visual landmarks for 
defining airspace boundaries and does so when possible. However, there 
are no prominent landmarks in the areas needed to mark the lateral 
boundaries of Areas F and G. Using the landmarks that the commenters 
noted would not define the minimum airspace needed as addressed above. 
Since there were no visual landmarks to define the boundaries of Areas 
F and G, the FAA used arcs and radials from existing CLE navigation 
aids to define them.
    Eight commenters suggested the split floor altitudes proposed for 
Areas F and G (5,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) and 6,000 feet MSL, 
respectively) would cause confusion and probably some inadvertent Class 
B airspace incursions. The commenters stated the split level proposed 
design still presented a safety infringement to the glider operations 
at Reader-Botsford airport (67D) and offered multiple recommendations 
for changing the floor altitudes to remedy their concerns. Two 
commenters recommended raising the floor of Areas F and G to 6,000 feet 
MSL and 7,000 feet MSL, respectively; two commenters recommended making 
both floor altitudes 6,000 feet MSL; and three commenters recommended 
raising the Area G floor only to 7,000 feet MSL.
    The FAA does not agree and has determined it is not possible to 
raise the floor altitude of either area without impacting the 
operational efficiency of the PRM/SOIA into CLE. Again, for clarity, 
the vertical dimensions of Areas F and G as proposed in the NPRM are 
from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 feet MSL for Area F and from 
6,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 feet MSL for Area G. Initially, 
the Class B airspace extension to the southwest in the same airspace 
proposed as Areas F and G was designed as a single area with a floor 
altitude of 5,000 feet MSL. After receiving public input from the ad 
hoc committee and public comments following the informal airspace 
meetings recommending the configuration proposed, the subdivision and 
altitudes of the two areas were proposed using the minimum amount of 
airspace necessary to contain PRM/SOIA procedures to Runways 6L/6R at 
CLE.
    Aircraft flying PRM/SOIA procedures cannot be assigned the same 
altitude during turn-on to the final approach course; they must be 
assigned an altitude that differs by at least 1,000 feet from the 
altitude of other aircraft conducting simultaneous approaches. Air 
traffic control must continue to maintain at least 1,000 feet vertical 
separation between aircraft flying PRM/SOIA procedures until they reach 
14 NM from CLE where the actively monitored No Transgression Zone 
between the approaches begins. Specifically, during an east flow at 
CLE, aircraft will be turned onto and established on final approach 
courses at 5,000 feet MSL and 7,000 feet MSL for Runway 6L, and 6,000 
feet MSL and 8,000 feet MSL for Runway 6R. For both runways, air 
traffic controllers may be sequencing aircraft from two or more arrival 
streams, necessitating the use of multiple altitudes in the arrival 
descent areas, until lateral separation is established. Under some 
projected traffic scenarios, multiple altitude downwind patterns will 
be utilized, with aircraft ``layered'' by altitude and worked by 
separate controllers. As the boundary between Areas F and G is based on 
the extended Runway 6R localizer I-CLE signal, the FAA continues to 
believe that Class B incursions will not become an issue.
    Lastly, as noted in the NPRM, the proposed Areas F and G are 
expected to provide the gliders operating at 67D with airspace 
supportive of their operations while at the same time ensuring the 
integrity of the CLE Class B airspace by containing all instrument 
procedures and the IFR aircraft flying the procedures at CLE.
    Eleven commenters stated that establishing the proposed Areas F and 
G extension would adversely affect flight safety beneath and in the 
near vicinity of the extension. The safety concerns cited included 
compression of general aviation aircraft under the extension where 
gliders operate, increased potential for mid-air collisions, wake 
turbulence effects on gliders from heavy aircraft arrivals on approach 
to CLE, and increased potential for off-field landings by glider pilots 
as a result of the extension overhead 67D.
    The FAA acknowledges that some compression will occur since non-
participating VFR general aviation and glider aircraft have their 
choice of flying either above or below the Class B airspace extension 
or circumnavigating it further west to remain clear should they decide 
not to contact the Cleveland Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) 
facility to receive Class B services. However, establishing the Class B 
airspace extensions is necessary, consistent with regulatory guidance, 
to contain all instrument procedures and the IFR turbo-jet aircraft 
flying the instrument approach procedures within

[[Page 8283]]

Class B airspace, and to enhance flight safety to all in the CLE 
terminal area by segregating the large turbo-jet aircraft and the non-
participating VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of the CLE Class B 
airspace areas.
    All aircraft operating beneath or in the vicinity of Areas F and G 
are expected to continue to comply with the regulatory requirements of 
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Sec.  91.111, 
titled Operating Near Other Aircraft, to avoid creating a collision 
hazard with other aircraft operating in the same airspace. 
Additionally, all aircraft operating in the same areas noted above are 
expected to continue complying with 14 CFR Sec.  91.113, titled Right-
of-Way Rules: Except Water Operations, to ``see and avoid'' other 
aircraft as well. The FAA believes that continued general aviation and 
glider operator compliance with established flight rules regulatory 
requirements, and these two regulations specifically, will overcome the 
mid-air collision and wake turbulence concerns raised by the 
commenters.
    Lastly, the FAA acknowledges the concerns of the glider community 
with the establishment of Class B airspace overhead 67D. However, the 
design of the Class B airspace extension to the southwest of CLE was 
minimized to the absolute essential dimensions operationally practical 
by incorporating the recommendations made by the glider community 
participating on the ad hoc committee and as requested during the 
informal airspace meetings. Since the majority of glider operations 
occur to the south and west of 67D and the redesigned configuration of 
the Class B airspace extension overlying 67D was raised to 6,000 feet 
MSL, the FAA believes impacts to local area or cross-country glider 
flight operation at 67D will be negligible and off-field landing will 
not be a factor.
    The FAA has considered the safety concerns cited above thoroughly 
and determined they do not negate the need for this action. At the 
present time, large turbo-jet air carrier, general aviation, and glider 
aircraft are flying simultaneously in the airspace proposed to become 
Areas F and G, due to the outdated design of the CLE Class B airspace 
area. The traffic compression, mid-air collisions, effects of wake 
turbulence on gliders, and off-field landings concerns raised by the 
commenters all exist today. Moving forward with the Class B airspace 
modifications in this action will enhance flight safety for all 
operators flying within, through, or near the CLE Class B airspace 
area.
    Six commenters stated that the proposed Class B airspace Areas F 
and G would establish Class B airspace directly over the airspace Fun 
Country Soaring (FCS) currently flies in and would diminish safe glider 
operations. The commenters argued that FCS would be forced to consider 
shutting down its operation or relocating away from 67D. The commenters 
further suggested that the loss of FCS would create personal financial 
hardships and result in financial impacts for the owner of 67D and the 
town of Wellington, OH.
    The FAA does not agree. As noted in the NPRM, the initial CLE Class 
B airspace extension extending to the southwest was proposed from 5,000 
feet MSL to 8,000 feet MSL. During the informal airspace meeting held 
in Wellington, OH, a member of the glider community suggested the 
airspace extension be split into a north section and a south section 
whereby the floor of the Class B airspace overlying 67D, where the 
gliders operate, could be raised to 6,000 feet MSL. This would provide 
glider operators over 5,000 feet of airspace to maneuver and minimize 
impacts to glider operations at 67D. Almost half of the comments 
received following the informal airspace meetings endorsed this 
recommendation, including the comments received from the Village of 
Wellington, OH, Administrator. The FAA adopted this suggestion and 
created Area F and Area G as proposed in the NPRM. Again, since most 
glider operations occur to the south and west of 67D, the Areas F and G 
proposed in the NPRM are expected to enable glider operations to 
continue with negligible impact to local area or cross-country flights. 
As such, the FCS operation at 67D is not expected to shut down or 
relocate and the financial impacts to the FCS members, owner of 67D, 
and town of Wellington, OH, that were alluded to by the commenters 
responding to the NPRM, would be averted.
    Seven commenters questioned the need for the proposed CLE Class B 
modifications in light of the United and Continental airlines merger. 
They suggested that the merger would include considerable consolidation 
and reduction of routes resulting in a lower traffic volume at CLE; 
making the Class B airspace expansion unnecessary. In addition, one 
commenter stated further that if the proposed Class B airspace 
extension areas were being used by air carriers currently, then they 
did not see the requirement to legislate the exclusion of general 
aviation flyers by initiating this rulemaking action. In essence they 
were, arguing this rulemaking action was not needed.
    The FAA does not agree. The FAA is taking action to modify the 
current Class B airspace area to contain all instrument procedures at 
CLE and the aircraft flying those instrument procedures to and from CLE 
within Class B airspace, consistent with FAA directives, based on the 
instrument approach and departure procedures in place today. This 
action overcomes IFR aircraft entering, exiting, and reentering the CLE 
Class B airspace area while flying published instrument approach 
procedures and the associated traffic patterns during arrival. 
Additionally, this action further enhance flight safety by segregating 
IFR aircraft flying instrument procedures into CLE and VFR aircraft 
operating in the vicinity of the CLE Class B airspace. The Class B 
airspace modifications in this rule represent the minimum airspace 
needed to reasonably accommodate the current operations, fleet mix, and 
existing flight tracks at CLE.
    AOPA recommended the FAA consider raising the portion of Area B 
north of the shoreline over Lake Erie from the existing 1,900 feet MSL 
to 3,000 feet MSL. A second commenter also requested the FAA lift the 
existing 1,900 feet MSL and 3,000 feet MSL Class B airspace floors over 
Lake Erie (Areas B and C, respectively), but did not indicate an 
alternative altitude. Both commenters stated that an alternative to 
raising the Class B floor altitudes over Lake Erie could be the 
addition of a VFR flyway. The second commenter also requested the FAA 
establish a VFR flyway between the eastern Cleveland suburban airports, 
Cuyahoga County Airport and Burke Lakefront Airport, and the greater 
Columbus and Cincinnati airports.
    The FAA has determined it is not possible to raise the floor 
altitudes for the CLE Class B airspace areas over Lake Erie, as 
requested. No modifications were proposed for these areas as the 
existing airspace structure was deemed sufficient to continue 
supporting and protecting IFR aircraft departing Runways 6L/6R and VFR 
aircraft flying along the Lake Erie shoreline. Although the commenters 
cited safety reasons as the basis for their recommendation and request, 
there are no known safety issues for that airspace today. The FAA 
recognizes that raising the CLE Class B Areas B and C airspace floors 
over Lake Erie would provide VFR pilots additional transit altitudes 
and airspace over Lake Erie to operate east and west along the 
shoreline north of Cleveland. However, the Class B airspace in Areas B 
and C protects the IFR aircraft departing Runways 6L/6R climbing and 
turning left over Lake Erie to transition

[[Page 8284]]

to westbound routings and the VFR aircraft flying in the vicinity of 
those Class B airspace areas from the IFR departures. Additionally, 
establishing VFR flyways is not a regulatory action and falls outside 
the scope of this rule. As such, the commenters' VFR flyway 
recommendations are being provided to the Cleveland TRACON facility for 
their consideration as appropriate, and are not addressed further in 
this action.
    One commenter questioned the adequacy of the air traffic controller 
and radar resources to safely control and separate the aircraft 
operating in the vicinity of the proposed Class B airspace Areas E, F, 
and G. The commenter was specifically concerned that establishing the 
new Class B airspace extensions without additional resources would 
increase the number of near mid-air collisions occurring in the 
airspace below the extensions due to increasing numbers of high 
performance aircraft skirting beneath the proposed Class B airspace 
extensions and impacting those aircraft already flying there.
    The FAA does not agree. Staffing and equipment resources are 
already in place and adequate to support the CLE Class B modifications 
and provide all Class B services without impacting safety or 
efficiency. The FAA does not expect either to be an issue for CLE. No 
air traffic control facility airspace sector changes will be required 
to handle the Class B airspace modifications; hence, the existing 
number of air traffic controllers assigned is sufficient. Additionally, 
since there are no changes to the current traffic flows associated with 
this Class B modification action, the existing radar sites, radar 
displays, navigation aids and communication equipment is also 
sufficient. However, should circumstances arise that indicate a need 
for additional air traffic controller or radar resources, action will 
be taken to obtain them.
    Three commenters stated that the geographic coordinates [latitude/
longitude] defining Areas F and G did not coincide with the text of the 
NPRM and needed to be redefined consistent with the dimensions briefed 
at the informal airspace meetings. Two of these commenters further 
noted that the southern boundary of Area G was not parallel with the 
Runway 6R centerline extended as proof the coordinates were in error.
    The FAA does not agree. The coordinates published in the NPRM 
regulatory text for defining Areas F and G were validated with the 
FAA's Aeronautical Navigation Procedures Group and found to be correct 
and consistent with the text published in the NPRM. The FAA 
acknowledges that Areas F and G proposed in the NPRM differ from what 
was presented during the informal airspace meetings. However, the 
proposed Areas F and G airspace published in the NPRM is the minimum 
necessary to reasonably contain IFR arrival aircraft flying PRM/SOIA 
procedures to runways 6L and 6R, and the geographic coordinates 
published accurately reflect these areas. With respect to the comments 
about the southern boundary of Area G, the commenters are correct that 
the boundary is not parallel to the runway 6R centerline extended. The 
northern and southern boundaries of the Area G are defined from 
different navigation aids. The northern boundary is defined by the 
Runway 6R localizer (I-CLE) signal extended, and the southern boundary 
is defined 6 miles south and parallel to the Runway 6R localizer (I-
EYU) signal extended. This accounts for the fact that the southern 
boundary of Area G is offset by 3 degrees and is not parallel to the 
northern boundary.
    One commenter requested the FAA consider opening a ``Window'' into 
the proposed Areas F and G to make that airspace available to glider 
pilots when CLE is landing on Runways 24L and 24R. The commenter based 
their request on what they noted as the FAA's practice of opening 
Windows into Class A airspace for glider operations under mountain wave 
conditions in Western States.
    Air traffic control has the authority to authorize, on a case by 
case basis, certain operations within Class B airspace pursuant to the 
regulatory requirements of 14 CFR part 91.131, Operations in Class B 
Airspace. Establishing operational procedures is not a regulatory 
action. As such, this commenter's request for operational procedures is 
being provided to the Cleveland TRACON for further consideration as 
appropriate.
    One commenter recommended that a steeper descent profile from the 
existing 3 degree glide slopes at CLE be used so as to enhance air 
carrier safety. The SSA was concerned that poor weather descents, with 
reduced aircraft performance in landing configurations, could result in 
air carrier crashes not being contained within airfield boundaries, 
risking the public and others.
    The FAA does not agree. Aircraft accidents and crash sites are 
influenced by many factors, i.e. nature of the emergency, altitude, 
airspeed, weight, phase of flight, distance from an airport, terrain, 
etc. Establishing steeper instrument approach descent profiles does not 
necessarily equate to a safer approach into an airport or less risk to 
the public. Additionally, glide slope angles above 3.1 degrees would 
result in the loss of approach minimums for category D and E aircraft. 
A 3 degree glide slope angle is the standard for safety, and increasing 
the angle of the glide slope is outside the scope of this airspace 
rule.
    Two commenters noted the dimensions of the airspace modifications 
[presumably Areas F and G] proposed in the NPRM were different from 
what the ad hoc committee discussed. One of the commenters went on to 
question whether the FAA had published the airspace extension 
descriptions in the NPRM with errors, while the other asserted that the 
passage of time since the ad hoc committee meeting in 2008 had 
diminished the public's awareness and participation in this proposed 
rulemaking. In addition, five commenters argued that the airspace 
modifications proposed in the NPRM did not reflect the correct 
dimensions the users agreed would be a workable revision. Two of these 
commenters further argued they did not think it was proper or legal for 
the FAA to force what they consider to be unacceptable, unsafe 
restrictions on pilots and air traffic by publishing incorrect 
information without re-engaging the public forum.
    The FAA acknowledges that the dimensions of the Class B airspace 
proposed in the NPRM are different from the initial airspace 
configuration dimensions discussed by the ad hoc committee. However, 
the FAA does not agree that the NPRM was published with errors in the 
proposed airspace extension descriptions, or that the public's 
awareness and participation in the rulemaking process has been 
diminished. An ad hoc committee was formed to solicit local input on an 
initial proposal and met in 2008 to develop recommendations to the FAA 
regarding the proposed design of the Class B airspace. The committee 
did not reach consensus on an airspace design, but did recommend a 
variety of alternatives for the FAA to consider. In addition, as 
announced in the Federal Register (73 FR 40446) on July 14, 2008, the 
FAA held Informal Airspace Meetings in the CLE local area on September 
16 and September 17, 2008, to inform users of the planned airspace 
changes and to gather facts and information relevant to the proposed 
airspace action. A comment period followed these informal airspace 
meetings to solicit comments or recommendations on the proposal from 
the public. Finally, the NPRM was published in the Federal Register (75 
FR 20528) on April 20, 2010, to again

[[Page 8285]]

inform users of the proposed airspace changes and provide a 60 day 
period for users to submit comments or recommendations on the proposal. 
All comments received were considered prior to the FAA's determination 
in this final rule action.
    The development of the CLE Class B airspace modification was a 
dynamic, iterative process of informing the public of the proposed 
airspace action, receiving comments and recommendations from the 
public, and considering the operational requirements in concert with 
public comments and recommendations received. The comments and 
recommendations received from the ad hoc committee were considered by 
the FAA in developing the proposed airspace action presented at the 
informal airspace meetings, and the public's comments and 
recommendations received following the informal airspace meetings were 
considered in the development of the proposed airspace action presented 
in the NPRM. As such, the proposed Class B airspace extension (Areas F 
and G) descriptions in the NPRM were not published with errors and the 
public's awareness and participation in this rulemaking action has not 
been diminished with the passage of time.
    One commenter questioned the total operations figure of 550,171 for 
CLE in 2008 that was cited in the Federal Register (75 FR 20528) 
notice. The commenter stated he was unable to find any traffic numbers 
near the figure presented, but did find a 200,268 total operations 
statistic for 2009 provided by the Hopkins International Airport 
website, as well as a Department of Transportation statistic that 
showed 104,823 total departures for CLE in 2008. The commenter further 
questioned that with actual traffic numbers less than half of the 
volume cited in the NPRM summary was the proposed change to the 
airspace really justified?
    The FAA source for the 550,171 total operations for CLE in 2008 
cited in the background section of the NPRM comes from the Air Traffic 
Activity Data Systems (ATADS). The FAA's ATADS contains the official 
National Airspace System (NAS) air traffic operations data available 
for public release. The total operations figure cited in the NPRM is in 
fact the total terminal operations for CLE; which is the sum of the 
tower operations (240,340) and the TRACON operations (309,831) using 
the Cleveland Class B airspace area. The total operations figure the 
commenter cited from the Hopkins International Airport website is the 
total airport operations; which reflect the IFR and VFR arrivals, 
departures, and local operations at the airport only. It does not 
account for any overflight operations flying in the vicinity of CLE 
that contribute to the traffic density or operational complexity.
    As noted in the NPRM, the procedural requirements for using PRM/
SOIA to establish aircraft on final at least 15 miles from CLE result 
in aircraft exceeding the lateral boundaries of the current Class B 
airspace by up to 10 miles during moderate levels of air traffic. Based 
on the total terminal operations figures above and the existing IFR 
traffic flows in the vicinity of CLE, the FAA has determined the 
proposed Class B airspace area modifications are justified and 
necessary. The Class B airspace extensions will enhance flight safety 
by containing all instrument procedures and the aircraft flying the 
instrument approach procedures within Class B airspace and ensuring the 
segregation of IFR aircraft arriving/departing CLE and VFR general 
aviation and glider aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Cleveland 
Class B airspace area.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 to modify the Cleveland, OH, 
Class B airspace area. This action (depicted on the attached chart) 
administratively corrects one area within the existing Cleveland Class 
B airspace area and establishes two airspace extensions (the first, 
Area E, to the northeast, and the second, defined by Areas F and G, to 
the southwest) in order to provide additional airspace needed to 
contain IFR aircraft conducting instrument approach operations within 
Class B airspace once they have entered it and to better segregate the 
IFR aircraft arriving/departing CLE and the non-participating VFR 
aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B airspace 
area. The modifications to the Cleveland Class B airspace area are 
discussed below.
    Areas A, C, and D. Areas A, C, and D are unchanged by this action.
    Area B. The FAA is correcting the legal description for Area B by 
removing the portion that excludes the airspace within a 2-mile radius 
of Burke Lakefront Airport. The Class B airspace within Area B does not 
overlap the airspace contained within a 2-mile radius of the Burke 
Lakefront Airport. Therefore, the Area B exclusion language addressing 
the airspace within a 2-mile radius of Burke Lakefront Airport is 
unnecessary.
    Area E. Area E is established to the northeast of CLE. This 
modification extends 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 
of this area is 6 miles north and parallel to the Runway 24R localizer 
(I-PVY) signal extended, and the southern boundary is 6 miles south and 
parallel to the Runway 24L localizer (I-FVZ) signal extended. This new 
area is 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 ensures IFR 
aircraft flying instrument approaches to runways 24L and 24R are 
contained within Class B airspace throughout the approach, segregates 
IFR aircraft arriving CLE and non-participating VFR aircraft operating 
in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B airspace area, and provides 
airspace below and above this area for non-participating VFR aircraft 
operations outside of Class B airspace.
    Area F. Area F is established to the southwest of CLE. This 
modification extends 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 6 miles north and parallel to the Runway 6L localizer (I-LIZ) signal 
extended, and the southern boundary is defined by the Runway 6R 
localizer (I-CLE) signal extended. This new area is established with 
the floor extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 
feet MSL, overlying to the north and west of Wellington, OH. Similar to 
the effect of Area E, this new area [with Area G described below] 
ensures IFR aircraft flying instrument approaches to runways 6L and 6R 
are contained within Class B airspace throughout the approach, 
segregates IFR aircraft arriving CLE and non-participating VFR aircraft 
operating in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B airspace area, and 
provides airspace below and above this area for VFR aircraft operations 
outside of Class B airspace.
    Area G. Area G is established to the southwest of CLE also. This 
modification extends 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 defined by the Runway 6R localizer (I-CLE) signal extended, and the 
southern boundary is defined 6 miles south and parallel to the Runway 
6R localizer (I-EYU) signal extended. This new area is established with 
the floor extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 
feet MSL, overlying the Reader-Botsford Airport in Wellington, OH. 
Similar to the effect of Areas E and F, this new area (with Area F 
described above) ensures

[[Page 8286]]

IFR aircraft flying instrument approaches to runways 6L and 6R are 
contained within Class B airspace throughout the approach, segregates 
IFR aircraft arriving CLE and non-participating VFR aircraft operating 
in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B airspace area, and provides 
airspace below and above this area for VFR aircraft operations outside 
of Class B airspace.
    Additionally, this action updates the CLE airport reference point 
and the CLE Runway 24L ILS/DME antenna (I-HPI) geographic coordinates 
listed in the airspace designation of the Cleveland Class B airspace 
area to reflect current NAS aeronautical data.

Environmental Review

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency 
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires 
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small 
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. 
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of 
the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning 
for this determination follows.
    This final rule enhances safety by improving the flow of air 
traffic, and reducing the potential for midair collision in the 
Cleveland terminal area. In the NPRM, we concluded that the benefits of 
the proposed rule exceeded any minimal cost associated with the 
requirements. One commenter indicated that a soaring club would be 
forced to consider shutting down or relocating operations as a result 
of the proposal. The company may decide not to relocate which would 
result in no additional costs. If a company changes locations, there 
would be relocation costs. However, as explained earlier, the final 
rule will continue to allow glider operations resulting in only a 
minimal impact.
    The FAA has determined establishing these requirements are 
essential to ensure flight safety and efficiency of the NAS in the CLE 
terminal airspace. Due to the efficiency and safety benefits, and 
because we have incorporated the recommendations of affected 
individuals into the requirements, there will only be minimal economic 
cost with substantial positive net benefits.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. 
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so 
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    Our initial determination was that the rule would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
One commenter indicated that a soaring club would be affected as a 
result of the proposal. We agree that, if a company changes locations, 
there would be some relocation cost. However, because we have 
incorporated the recommendations of affected individuals into the 
requirements, and we expect operations to continue, there will be 
minimal economic impact. As such, this final rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because the economic impact is expected to be minimal.
    Therefore, the FAA Administrator certifies that this final rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not

[[Page 8287]]

operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The 
statute also requires consideration of international standards and, 
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA 
has assessed the effect of this final rule and determined that it will 
enhance safety and is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to trade.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

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

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


Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

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

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B airspace

* * * * *

AGL 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. 41[deg]47'20'' N., long. 
81[deg]27'36'' W., then southwest to point lat. 41[deg]40'43'' N., 
long. 81[deg]38'13'' W., then southeast along the 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.
BILLING CODE-P

[[Page 8288]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE11.011

BILLING CODE C

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 7, 2011.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2011-3211 Filed 2-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P