[Federal Register: September 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 182)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57376-57383]
[DOCID:fr21se10-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

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

Modification of Class B Airspace; Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace and Rules
Group, Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

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

Discussion of Comments

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

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

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

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

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) part 71 to modify the Chicago Class B airspace area. This action
(depicted on the attached chart) modifies several areas within the
existing Chicago Class B airspace area and establishes two Class B
airspace extensions; one to the east and a second to the west to
provide necessary airspace for containment of turbo-jet IFR aircraft
conducting approach operations within the confines of Class B airspace
once they have entered it and to better segregate the IFR aircraft
arriving/departing ORD and the non-participating VFR aircraft operating
in the vicinity of the Chicago Class B airspace area. The modifications
to the Chicago Class B airspace area are discussed below.
    Area A. The northern boundary of Area A is modified by
incorporating the airspace east of U.S. Highway 12 between the 6 NM and
5 NM arcs of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna, from 2,500 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL, as part of Area G. The airspace east of
U.S. Highway 12 between the 6 NM and 5 NM arcs of the Chicago O'Hare
VOR/DME antenna, below 2,500 feet MSL, are returned to the NAS. This
modification of Area A raises the floor of the Class B airspace in the
affected segment from the surface to 2,500 feet MSL to provide
additional airspace to accommodate aircraft on the downwind traffic
pattern and circling approaches to Runway 34 at Chicago Executive
Airport, without entering Chicago Class B airspace.
    Area B. The northeast boundary of Area B is redefined using
visually identifiable railroad tracks that run from U.S. Highway 294 to
Willow Road (slightly east of the existing Area B, Area C, and current
Area E shared boundary). Additionally, Area B is expanded to
incorporate a portion of existing Class B airspace contained in the
current Area E (specifically, the airspace contained east of the
railroad tracks and south of Willow Road within the current Area E) and
lowers the floor of that affected airspace to 1,900 feet MSL. This
modification of Area B raises the floor of the Class B airspace west of
the railroad tracks westward to the existing shared boundary noted
above to 3,000 feet MSL, but lowers the floor of the Class B airspace
in the affected segment of the current Area E to 1,900 feet MSL. This
modification incorporates only that airspace deemed necessary from the
current Area E to ensure IFR arrival aircraft flying instrument
approaches to ORD Runway 22R are contained within the confines of Class
B airspace throughout the approach, and ensures segregation of IFR
arrival aircraft from VFR aircraft flying near the boundary of Class B
airspace. Additionally, this modification better defines the northeast
boundary of Area B using visual references.
    Area C. Area C is expanded by incorporating portions of existing
Class B airspace (Areas B and E), from 3,000 feet MSL to and including
10,000 feet MSL, commensurately. As described in the Areas B and H
modification paragraphs (above and below), the new shared boundary
follows railroad tracks that run northeast from U.S. Highway 294 to the
10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna. Other than re-defining
the shared boundary of the new Areas B, C, and H using a visual
reference for pilots flying in the vicinity of the Chicago Class B
airspace, there is no effect to IFR or VFR aircraft operations from
this modification.
    Area D. Area D is unchanged.
    Area E. Area E is a newly established airspace extension to the
east of the existing Chicago Class B airspace area over Lake Michigan.
This establishment extends Class B airspace from the existing Area D
boundary defined by the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna
to the 30 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna. The northern
boundary is defined by latitude/longitude points that lay along Federal
airways V-100/V-526, and the southern boundary is defined by latitude/
longitude points that lay along Federal airways V-6/V-10. This new

Area E extends upward from 4,000 feet MSL to and including a ceiling of
10,000 feet MSL to ensure IFR arrival aircraft flying simultaneous
instrument approaches to the existing runways 27R, 27L, and 28, as well
as the three additional parallel runways planned for the near future,
are contained within the confines of Class B airspace throughout their
approach; ensure segregation of IFR aircraft arriving ORD and non-
participating VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Chicago
Class B airspace area; and provide navigable airspace below and above
for VFR aircraft operations.
    Area F. Area F is expanded to the west of ORD to establish an
airspace extension to the west of the existing Chicago Class B airspace
area, similar to Area E to the east. Specifically, this modification
extends the western boundary of the current Area F to a uniform 25 NM
arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna and then further extends a
portion of the western boundary to include the airspace between the 25
NM and 30 NM arcs of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna. The northern
boundary of the extension to the 30 NM arc is defined by the
intersection of Interstate 90 and the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare
VOR/DME antenna, then due west to lat. 42[deg]07'21'' N., long.
88[deg]33'05'' W., on the 30 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME
antenna; and the southern boundary of the extension to the 30 NM arc is
defined by Illinois State Route 10 between the 25 NM and 30 NM arcs of
the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna. This new Area F extends upward from
4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 feet MSL to ensure IFR arrival
aircraft flying simultaneous instrument approaches to the existing
runways 9L, 9R, and 10, as well as the three additional parallel
runways planned for the near future, are contained within the confines
of Class B airspace throughout their approach; to ensure segregation of
IFR aircraft arriving ORD and non-participating VFR aircraft operating
in the vicinity of the Chicago Class B airspace area; and to provide
navigable airspace below and above for VFR aircraft operations.
    Area G. The southern boundary of Area G is modified by
incorporating the airspace contained in Area A that lies east of U.S.
Highway 12 between the 6 NM and 5 NM arcs of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME
antenna, extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL to and including 10,000
feet MSL. This modification of Area G raises the floor of the Class B
airspace in the affected segment from the surface to 2,500 feet MSL to
provide additional airspace to accommodate aircraft on the downwind
traffic pattern and circling approaches to Runway 34 at Chicago
Executive Airport, without entering Chicago Class B airspace.
    Area H. Area H is established from the existing northern portion of
the current Area E. This new area is bordered by the 10 NM arc of the
Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna on the east, Willow Road on the south,
and the railroad tracks (located slightly east of the existing Area B,
Area C, and Area E shared boundary) that run from U.S. Highway 294 to
the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME antenna on the west. This
new area extends upward from 2,500 feet MSL to and including 10,000
feet MSL.

Environmental Review

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows:
    This final rule enhances safety by containing all instrument
approach procedures and associated traffic patterns within the confines
of Class B airspace. The requirements support increased operations and
capacity to the current and planned parallel runways while better
segregating aircraft that will be operating in the affected airspace.
    As stated in the NPRM, we are aware that this final rule might
require small adjustments to existing VFR flyway planning charts and
perhaps some increased general aviation fuel consumption. After
consultation with a diverse cross-section of stakeholders that
participated in the ad hoc committee, and as we received no adverse
comments regarding the economic analysis, we have determined that this
final rule will result in minimal cost.
    This final rule will enhance safety, reduce the potential for a
midair collision in the Chicago terminal area, and will improve the
flow of air traffic. As such, we estimate a minimal impact with
substantial positive net benefits. The FAA has, therefore, determined
that this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as
defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not
``significant'' as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and

governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this
principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible
regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to
assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.'' The RFA
covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-
for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    Our initial determination was that the rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
We received no public comments regarding our initial determination. As
such, this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because the economic impact is
expected to be minimal.
    Therefore, the FAA Administrator certifies that this final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

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

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Rule

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

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

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B Airspace.

* * * * *

AGL IL B Chicago, IL

Chicago O'Hare International Airport (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 41[deg]58'54'' N., long. 87[deg]54'24'' W.)
Chicago Midway Airport
    (Lat. 41[deg]47'10'' N., long. 87[deg]45'09'' W.)
Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME
    (Lat. 41[deg]59'16'' N., long. 87[deg]54'17'' W.)
    Boundaries.
    Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and
including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning
at lat. 42[deg]04'10'' N., long. 87[deg]55'31'' W.; thence clockwise
along the 5 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to lat.
41[deg]59'15'' N., long. 87[deg]47'35'' W.; thence east to lat.
41[deg]59'15'' N., long. 87[deg]46'15'' W.; thence clockwise along
the 6 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to Interstate Highway 290
(lat. 41[deg]57'12'' N., long. 88[deg]01'56'' W.); thence north
along Interstate Highway 290 to the 6 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare
VOR/DME (lat. 42[deg]01'20'' N., long. 88[deg]01'51'' W.); thence
clockwise along the 6 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to U.S.
Highway 12 (lat. 42[deg]05'03'' N., long. 87[deg]56'26'' W.); thence
southeast along U.S. Highway 12 to the point of beginning.
    Area B. That airspace extending upward from 1,900 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway 294 and railroad
tracks at lat. 42[deg]03'58'' N., long. 87[deg]51'58'' W.; thence
northeast along the railroad tracks to Willow Road (lat.
42[deg]06'20'' N., long. 87[deg]49'38'' W.); thence east along
Willow Road to the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat.
42[deg]06'04'' N., long. 87[deg]44'28'' W.); thence clockwise along
the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the 5 NM radius of
Chicago Midway Airport (lat. 41[deg]49'34'' N., long. 87[deg]51'00''
W.); thence counterclockwise along the 5 NM radius of the Chicago
Midway Airport to the 10.5 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME
(lat. 41[deg]48'59'' N., long. 87[deg]51'22'' W.); thence clockwise
along the 10.5 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the 10 NM
radius of the Chicago Midway Airport (lat. 41[deg]49'11'' N., long.
87[deg]58'14'' W.); thence clockwise along the 10 NM radius of
Chicago Midway Airport to the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/
DME (lat. 41[deg]49'40'' N., long. 87[deg]58'05'' W.); thence
clockwise along the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to U.S.
Highway 12 (lat. 42[deg]08'02'' N., long. 88[deg]00'44'' W.); thence
southeast along U.S. Highway 12 to the 5 NM arc of the Chicago
O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 42[deg]04'10'' N., long. 87[deg]55'31'' W.);
thence clockwise along the 5 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to
the point of beginning, excluding that airspace designated as Area
A.
    Area C. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by the 15 NM
arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME, excluding that airspace
designated as Area A, Area B, Area G, and Area H.
    Area D. That airspace extending upward from 3,600 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 42[deg]07'52'' N., long. 88[deg]10'47'' W.; thence
northwest to the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat.
42[deg]15'40'' N., long. 88[deg]19'39'' W.); thence clockwise along
the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to lat. 41[deg]42'03''
N., long. 88[deg]18'34'' W.; thence northeast to the 15 NM arc of
the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 41[deg]49'53'' N., long.
88[deg]09'59'' W.); thence clockwise along the 15 NM arc of the
Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the point of beginning, excluding that
airspace designated as Area A, Area B, Area C, Area G, and Area H.
    Area E. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 42[deg]11'11'' N., long. 87[deg]24'46'' W.; thence
east to the 30 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat.
42[deg]10'39'' N., long. 87[deg]17'01'' W.); thence clockwise along
the 30 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/

DME to lat. 41[deg]46'38'' N., long. 87[deg]17'51'' W.; thence west
to the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 41[deg]46'40''
N., long. 87[deg]25'22'' W.); thence counterclockwise along the 25
NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the point of beginning.
    Area F. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 42[deg]07'52'' N., long. 88[deg]10'47'' W.; thence
northwest to the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat.
42[deg]15'40'' N., long. 88[deg]19'39'' W.); thence counterclockwise
along the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to Interstate 90
(lat. 42[deg]07'22'' N., long. 88[deg]26'01'' W.); thence west to
the 30 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 42[deg]07'21'' N.,
long. 88[deg]33'05'' W.); thence counterclockwise along the 30 NM
arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to Illinois State Route 10 (lat.
41[deg]49'49'' N., long. 88[deg]32'27'' W.); thence east along
Illinois State Route 10 to the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/
DME (lat. 41[deg]50'40'' N., long. 88[deg]25'44'' W.); thence
counterclockwise along the 25 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME
to lat. 41[deg]42'03'' N., long. 88[deg]18'34'' W.; thence northeast
to the 15 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 41[deg]49'53''
N., long. 88[deg]09'59'' W.); thence clockwise along the 15 NM arc
of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the point of beginning.
    Area G. That airspace extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 42[deg]04'14'' N., long. 87[deg]54'56'' W.; thence
northwest to the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat.
42[deg]09'00'' N., long. 87[deg]57'22'' W.); thence counterclockwise
along the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to U.S. Highway 12
(lat. 42[deg]08'02'' N., long. 88[deg]00'44'' W.); thence southeast
along U.S. Highway 12 to the 5 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME
(lat. 42[deg]04'10'' N., long. 87[deg]55'31'' W.); thence clockwise
along the 5 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the point of
beginning.
    Area H. That airspace extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of Willow Road and railroad tracks at
lat. 42[deg]06'20'' N., long. 87[deg]49'38'' W.; thence northeast
along the railroad tracks to the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare
VOR/DME (lat. 42[deg]08'06'' N., long. 87[deg]48'02'' W.); thence
clockwise along the 10 NM arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to
Willow Road (lat. 42[deg]06'04'' N., long. 87[deg]44'28'' W.);
thence west along Willow Road to the point of beginning.

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

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


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 20 (Friday, January 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5196-5197]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01780]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. DOT-NHTSA-2015-0010]

Notice and Request for Comments

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following information collection was published on
November 25, 2014, 79 FR 70275-70276.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Reid, Office of Defects
Investigation (NVS-210), National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W48-311, Washington, DC
20590. Randy Reid's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and his email address
is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g.
permitting electronic submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collection of information for which
the agency is seeking approval from
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0008.
    Title: Consumer Complaint Information.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Abstract: Chapter 301 of title 49 of the United States Code, the
Secretary of Transportation is authorized to require manufacturers of
motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to conduct owner
notification and remedy, i.e., a recall campaign, when it has been
determined that a safety defect exists in the performance,
construction, components, or materials in motor vehicles and motor
vehicle equipment. To make this determination, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) solicits information from vehicle
owners which is used to identify and evaluate possible safety-related
defects and provide the necessary evidence of the existence of such a
defect. Under the Authority of chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United
States Code, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to require
manufacturers of motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment which do not
comply with the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards or
contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety to notify each
owner that their vehicle contains a safety defect or noncompliance.
Also, the manufacturer of motor vehicle replacement equipment presented
for remedy pursuant to such notification shall cause such defect or
noncompliance to be remedied without charge. In the case of a motor
vehicle presented for remedy pursuant to such notification, the
manufacturer shall cause the vehicle remedied by whichever of the
following means he elects: (1) By repairing such vehicle; (2) by
replacing such motor vehicle without charge; or (3) by refunding the
purchase price less depreciation. To ensure these objectives are being
met, NHTSA audits recalls conducted by manufacturer. These audits are
performed on a randomly selected number of vehicle owners for
verification and validation purposes.
    Affected Public: Individuals and Households.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 11,814.
    Number of Respondents: 47,256.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

Randy Reid,
Chief, Correspondence Research Division, Office of Defects
Investigation.
[FR Doc. 2015-01780 Filed 1-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45605-45606]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18794]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL 9709-3]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Consent Decree; Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby
given of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Sierra
Club in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia:
Sierra Club v. Jackson, No. 1:11-cv-2000 (RMC) (D. DC). On January 16,
2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended complaint alleging that EPA
failed to take action on certain state implementation plan (``SIP'')
submissions for the States of Georgia and Alabama by the statutory
deadline established by CAA section 110(k)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(2).
The proposed consent decree establishes deadlines for EPA to take
action on the SIP submittals.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by August 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2012-0597, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method);
by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Anderson, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by the
Sierra Club seeking to compel the Administrator to take final action
under sections 110(k)(2) and (3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(2) and
(3), to approve or disapprove, in whole or in part, numerous SIP
submittals in the States of Georgia and Alabama identified in the
proposed consent decree. EPA has taken final action to approve several
SIP submissions from the States of Georgia and Alabama. On December 29,
2011, the State of Georgia withdrew its previously submitted 1997
annual particulate matter (``PM2.5'') National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (``NAAQS'') attainment demonstration, contingency measures,
reasonably available control measures/reasonably available control
technology (``RACM/RACT'') and reasonable further progress (``RFP'')
requirements for the Metro Atlanta area. The State of Georgia did not
withdraw any portions of its previous submittal for the Metro Atlanta
area that pertain to emissions inventories. On February 16, 2012 the
State of Georgia withdrew its previously submitted 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS attainment demonstration and volatile organic compound (``VOC'')
and nitrogen oxides (``NOX'') contingency measures for the
Metro Atlanta area.
    The proposed consent decree provides various dates by which EPA
shall sign one or more final rules to approve or disapprove, in whole
or in part, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(2) and (3), each SIP
submission or portion thereof on which EPA has not yet taken final
action. If any State withdraws any of the SIP submittals described in
the proposed consent decree, then EPA's obligation to take the
corresponding action on such SIP submittal is automatically terminated.
    The proposed consent decree requires that, following signature of
each final rule described in the proposed consent decree, EPA shall
promptly deliver the notice to the Office of the Federal Register for
review and publication in the Federal Register. After EPA fulfills its
obligations under the proposed consent decree, the consent decree shall
be terminated and the case dismissed with prejudice.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed

consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent to this consent decree should be
withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2012-0597) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in
the appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: July 26, 2012.
Lorie J. Schmidt,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-18794 Filed 7-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47618-47620]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22168]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0942]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, St. Louis, MO

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters on the Upper Mississippi River between mile marker
(MM) 183.7 and MM 185.1. This temporary safety zone is necessary to
provide for the safety of life and property on all navigable waters
near St. Louis, MO for dredging being conducted in the navigational
channel at the lower entrance of the Chain of Rocks Canal by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. During the period of enforcement, entry into
the safety zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) or other
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from October 13,
2017 through 7 a.m. on October 21, 2017. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from 5 p.m. on October 8, 2017
through October 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2017-0942 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, Sector Upper
Mississippi River, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers notified the Coast Guard on
September 28, 2017 that dredging would begin October 8, 2017 at 5 p.m.
at the lower entrance to the Chain of Rocks Canal, which would obstruct
the navigational channel to vessel traffic. Due to the risks associated
with this work in the navigational channel, a safety zone is needed. We
must establish this temporary safety zone by October 8, 2017 and lack
sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then
consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective
date of the rule is contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life and property from
the hazards associated with dredging in the navigational channel.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with dredging in the
navigational channel from 5 p.m. on October 8, 2017 through 7 a.m. on
October 21, 2017 will be a safety concern for all navigable waters of
the Upper Mississippi River between mile marker (MM) 183.7 and MM
185.1. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of life on the
navigable waters in the temporary safety zone before, during, and after
the dredging.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone each day from 5 p.m. to 7 a.m.
beginning on October 8, 2017 and ending on October 21, 2017, or until
conditions allow for safe navigation, whichever occurs earlier. The
safety zone will cover all navigable waters between MM 183.7 and MM
185.1 on the Upper Mississippi River in St. Louis, MO. The safety zone
is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters
during channel dredging operations. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative. Exact times of the closures
and any changes to the planned schedule will be communicated to
mariners using Broadcast and Local Notice to Mariners.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This temporary
final rule establishes a safety zone impacting a mile and a half area
on the Upper Mississippi River for a limited time period of fourteen
hours on fourteen separate days. During the enforcement period, vessels
are prohibited from entering into or remaining within the safety zone
unless specifically authorized by the COTP or other designated
representative.
    Additionally, notice of the safety zone or any changes in the
planned schedule will be made via Broadcast and Local Notice to
Mariners. Entry into this safety zone may be requested from the COTP or
other designated representative and will be considered on a case-by-
case basis.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding these rules. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of

power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We
have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is
consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone lasting fourteen hours on fourteen separate
nights that will prohibit entry from MM 183.7 to MM 185.1 on the UMR
from October 8, 2017 to October 21, 2017. It is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, and Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0942 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.08-0942  Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River, St. Louis, MO.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Upper Mississippi River between mile marker (MM) 183.7 to
MM 185.1, St. Louis, MO.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described
in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or a
designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Coast Guard Sector
Upper Mississippi River by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those in the
safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to
them by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 5 p.m.
on October 8, 2017, through 7 a.m. on October 21, 2017. It will be
enforced daily from 5 p.m. through 7 a.m.
    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to
mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any
changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

    Dated: October 6, 2017.
Scott A. Stoermer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi
River.
[FR Doc. 2017-22168 Filed 10-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P