[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1515-1517]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28278]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0745; FRL-10211-02-R9]

Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date, Clean Data
Determination, and Approval of Base Year Emissions Inventory for the
Imperial County, California Nonattainment Area for the 2012 Annual Fine
Particulate Matter NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is determining that
the Imperial County, California fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) nonattainment area (``Imperial PM2.5
nonattainment area'') attained the 2012 annual PM2.5
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or ``standard'') by its
December 31, 2021 ``Moderate'' area attainment date. This determination
is based upon ambient air quality monitoring data from 2019 through
2021. We are also making a clean data determination (CDD) based on our
determination that preliminary air quality monitoring data from 2022
indicate the Imperial PM2.5 nonattainment area continues to
attain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As a result of this CDD,
certain Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements that apply to the Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD or ``District'') are
suspended for so long as the area continues to meet the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. The area remains nonattainment for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS until the area is redesignated to
attainment. The EPA is also approving a revision to California's state
implementation plan (SIP) consisting of the 2012 base year emissions
inventory for the Imperial PM2.5 nonattainment area,
submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB or ``State'') on
July 18, 2018.

DATES: This rule is effective February 10, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0745. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 972-3964, or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Action
II. Public Comment
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of the Proposed Action

    For the reasons discussed in the proposed rulemaking, the EPA
proposed to determine that the Imperial PM2.5 nonattainment
area attained the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by its December
31, 2021 attainment date. We explained that, if finalized, this action
would fulfill the EPA's statutory obligation to determine whether the
Imperial PM2.5 nonattainment area attained the NAAQS by the
attainment date.
    As provided in 40 CFR 51.1015, we also proposed a CDD. We noted
that if the EPA finalized the proposal, the requirements for this area
to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available
control measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP) plan,
contingency measures, and any other SIP revisions related to the
attainment of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, would be
suspended so long as the Imperial PM2.5 nonattainment area
continues to meet the standard. We also explained that a CDD does not
constitute a redesignation to attainment, and that the Imperial
PM2.5 nonattainment area will remain designated
nonattainment for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS until such
time as the EPA determines, pursuant to sections 107 and 175A of the
CAA, that the Imperial PM2.5 nonattainment area meets the
CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment, including an approved
maintenance plan showing that the area will continue to meet the
standard for 10 years.
    Finally, we proposed to approve the 2012 base year emissions
inventory submitted by the State on July 18, 2018, as part of the
``Imperial County 2018 Annual Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns
In Diameter State Implementation Plan,'' (``Imperial PM2.5
Plan''), as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3). As
authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposed to approve
the submitted base year emissions inventory because we believe it
fulfills all relevant requirements.
    As described in Section I.B of the proposal, the EPA's May 7, 2018
finding of failure to submit triggered an obligation for the EPA to
issue a federal implementation plan (FIP). The District and CARB
ultimately fulfilled their obligation to submit a plan, but because the
EPA has not issued a final approval of the Imperial PM2.5
Plan and because the nonattainment plan requirements continued to
apply, our obligation to promulgate a FIP remained in place. We noted
that if we finalized the proposed CDD, the District's and State's
nonattainment planning obligations, except the requirement for a base
year emissions inventory and new source review, would be suspended.\1\
If, in addition to making a CDD, we were to finalize our proposed
approval of the base year emissions inventory, the EPA's FIP obligation
would be suspended until such time as the CDD is rescinded.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Section I.D. of the proposed rulemaking.
    \2\ On August 26, 2019, the EPA approved ICAPCD's amended Rule
207, ``New and Modified Stationary Source Review'' as meeting
applicable CAA requirements for New Source Review. 84 FR 44545.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please see our proposed rulemaking for more information concerning
the background for this action and for a

more detailed discussion of the rationale for these actions.

II. Public Comment

    The public comment period on the proposed rulemaking opened on
September 20, 2022, the date of its publication in the Federal
Register, and closed on November 21, 2022. We received one non-germane
public comment, which is posted in the docket for this action.

III. Final Action

    For the reasons discussed in detail in the proposed rulemaking and
summarized herein, the EPA is taking final action under CAA sections
179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) to determine that the Imperial PM2.5
nonattainment area attained the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS by
its December 31, 2021 attainment date. This action fulfills the EPA's
statutory obligation under CAA sections 179(c)(1) and 188(b)(2) to
determine whether the Imperial PM2.5 nonattainment area
attained the NAAQS by the attainment date.
    Preliminary data available in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) for
2022 (January through June) indicate that the area continues to show
concentrations consistent with attainment of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 standard; therefore, as provided in 40 CFR 51.1015, we
are also finalizing our CDD.\3\ Consequently, the requirements for this
area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated RACM, RFP plan,
contingency measures, and any other SIP revisions related to the
attainment of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, will be suspended
so long as this area continues to meet the standard. This CDD does not
constitute a redesignation to attainment. The Imperial PM2.5
nonattainment area will remain designated nonattainment for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as the EPA determines,
pursuant to sections 107 and 175A of the CAA, that the Imperial
PM2.5 nonattainment area meets the CAA requirements for
redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan
showing that the area will continue to meet the standard for 10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ AQS Design Value Report (AMP480), dated December 6, 2022
(User ID: STSAI Report Request ID: 2061805).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also approving the Imperial PM2.5 Plan's 2012
base year emissions inventory as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(3). As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the
EPA is approving the submitted base year emissions inventory based on
our determination that it fulfills all relevant requirements.
    As described in Section I.B of proposed rulemaking, the EPA's May
7, 2018 finding of failure to submit triggered an obligation for the
EPA to issue a FIP. The District and CARB ultimately fulfilled their
obligation to submit a plan, but because the EPA had not issued a final
approval of the Imperial PM2.5 Plan and because the
nonattainment plan requirements continued to apply, our obligation to
promulgate a FIP remained in place. As a result of this CDD, the
District's and State's nonattainment planning obligations, except the
requirement for a base year emissions inventory and new source review,
are suspended.\4\ In addition, as a result of our approval of the base
year emissions inventory and our previous new source review approval,
the EPA's FIP obligation will be suspended until such time as the EPA
determines that the area has reviolated the PM2.5 NAAQS and
rescinds the CDD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Section I.D. of the proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This rule does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA not already approved by the Office of Management and
Budget. This action finds that the Imperial PM2.5
nonattainment area attained the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date, determines the area has clean data, and
approves the base year emissions inventory. Thus, this action does not
establish any new information collection burden that has not already
been identified and approved in the EPA's information collection
request.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The approval
of the emissions inventory, the determination that the Imperial
PM2.5 nonattainment area attained by its attainment date,
and the CDD for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS does not in and of
itself create any new requirements beyond what is mandated by the CAA.
Instead, this rulemaking only makes factual determinations, and does
not directly regulate any entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any
state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states and tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. The division of responsibility between the Federal
Government and the states for the purposes of implementing the NAAQS is
established under the CAA.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications. It will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. There are no tribes
affected by this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994))
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States. The EPA's
evaluation of this issue is contained in the section of the preamble to
the proposed rule titled ``Environmental Justice Considerations.''

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This rule is exempt from the CRA because it is a rule of particular
applicability. The rule makes factual determinations for specific
entities and does not directly regulate any entities. The determination
of attainment, clean data determination, and emission inventory
approval do not in themselves create any new requirements beyond what
is mandated by the CAA.

L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 13, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Designations and classifications,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic
compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 21, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(593) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (593) The following plan was submitted on July 18, 2018, by the
Governor's designee, as an attachment to a letter dated July 16, 2018.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials. (A) Imperial County Air Pollution
Control District.
    (1) ``Imperial County 2018 Annual Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Microns In Diameter State Implementation Plan,'' adopted April 24,
2018, Chapter 3 (``Emissions Inventory'') excluding: Table 3-9a
(``Direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursor Emissions by
Major Source Category in the Imperial County PM2.5
Nonattainment Area, 2019 (Annual)''); Table 3-9b (``Condensible and
Filterable PM2.5 Emissions by Major Source Category in the
Imperial County PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, 2019 (Annual)'');
Table 3-10a (``Direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 Precursor
Emissions by Major Source Category in the Imperial County
PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, 2021 (Annual)''); Table 3-10b
(``Condensible and Filterable PM2.5 Emissions by Major
Source Category in the Imperial County PM2.5 Nonattainment
Area, 2021 (Annual)''); Table 3-11a (``Direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 Precursor Emissions by Major Source Category in the
Imperial County PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, 2022 (Annual)'');
Table 3-11b (``Condensible and Filterable PM2.5 Emissions by
Major Source Category in the Imperial County PM2.5
Nonattainment Area, 2022 (Annual)''); and Section 3.17 (``Evaluation of
Significant Precursors'').
    (2) [Reserved]
    (B) [Reserved]

0
3. Section 52.247 is amended by adding paragraph (q) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.247  Control strategy and regulations: Fine Particle Matter.

* * * * *
    (q) Determination of attainment. Effective February 10, 2023, the
EPA has determined that, based on 2019 to 2021 ambient air quality
data, the Imperial County PM2.5 nonattainment area has
attained the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Under the provisions
of the EPA's PM2.5 implementation rule (see 40 CFR 51.1015),
this determination suspends the requirements for this area to submit an
attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control
measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and
other planning SIPs related to attainment for as long as this area
continues to attain the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. If the EPA
determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that this area no
longer meets the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the corresponding
determination of attainment for that area shall be withdrawn.

[FR Doc. 2022-28278 Filed 1-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 93)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27229-27237]
[DOCID:fr14my10-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

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

Proposed Modification of Class B Airspace; Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

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

Availability of NPRMs

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

Background

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

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

Pre-NPRM Public Input

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

Discussion of Recommendations and Comments

Ad hoc Committee Recommendations

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

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

Informal Airspace Meeting Comments

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

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

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

The Proposal

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

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

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

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

estimate the additional fuel cost would be minimal.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

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

International Trade Impact Assessment

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

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

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

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B-Class B Airspace

* * * * *

AGL IL B Chicago, IL [Modified]

Chicago O'Hare International Airport (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 41[deg]58'46'' N., long. 87[deg]54'16'' W.)
Chicago Midway Airport
    (Lat. 41[deg]47'10'' N., long. 87[deg]45'08'' W.)
Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME
    (Lat. 41[deg]59'16'' N., long. 87[deg]54'17'' W.)

    Boundaries.
    Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and
including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line beginning
at lat. 42[deg]04'10'' N., long. 87[deg]55'31'' W.; thence clockwise
along the 5 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to lat.
41[deg]59'15'' N., long. 87[deg]47'35'' W.; thence east to lat.
41[deg]59'15'' N., long. 87[deg]46'15'' W.; thence clockwise along
the 6 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to Interstate
Highway 290 (lat. 41[deg]57'12'' N., long. 88[deg]01' 56'' W.);
thence north along Interstate Highway 290 to the 6 nautical mile arc
of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 42[deg]01'20'' N., long.
88[deg]01'51'' W.); thence clockwise along the 6 nautical mile arc
of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to U.S. Highway 12 (lat.
42[deg]05'03'' N., long. 87[deg]56'26'' W.); thence southeast along
U.S. Highway 12 to the point of beginning.
    Area B. That airspace extending upward from 1,900 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway 294 and railroad
tracks at lat. 42[deg]03'48'' N., long. 87[deg]52'03'' W.; thence
northeast along the railroad tracks to Willow Road (lat.
42[deg]06'20'' N., long. 87[deg]49'38'' W.); thence east along
Willow Road to the 10 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/
DME (lat. 42[deg]06'04'' N., long. 87[deg]44'28'' W.); thence
clockwise along the 10 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/
DME to the 5 nautical mile radius of Chicago Midway Airport (lat.
41[deg]49'34'' N., long. 87[deg]51'00'' W.); thence counterclockwise
along the 5 nautical mile radius of the Chicago Midway Airport to
the 10.5 nautical mile arc of the

Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 41[deg]48'59'' N., long. 87[deg]51'22''
W.); thence clockwise along the 10.5 nautical mile arc of the
Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the 10 nautical mile radius of the Chicago
Midway Airport (lat. 41[deg]49'11'' N., long. 87[deg]58'14'' W.);
thence clockwise along the 10 nautical mile radius of Chicago Midway
Airport to the 10 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME
(lat. 41[deg]49'40'' N., long. 87[deg]58'05'' W.); thence clockwise
along the 10 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to U.S.
Highway 12 (lat. 42[deg]08'02'' N., long. 88[deg]00'44'' W.); thence
southeast along U.S. Highway 12 to the 5 mile arc of the Chicago
O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 42[deg]04'10'' N., long. 87[deg]55'31'' W.);
thence clockwise along the 5 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare
VOR/DME to the point of beginning, excluding that airspace
designated as Area A.
    Area C. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by the 15
nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME, excluding that
airspace designated as Area A, Area B, Area G, and Area H.
    Area D. That airspace extending upward from 3,600 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 42[deg]07'52'' N., long. 88[deg]10'47'' W.; thence
northwest to the 25 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME
(lat. 42[deg]15'40'' N., long. 88[deg]19'39'' W.); thence clockwise
along the 25 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to lat.
41[deg]42'03'' N., long. 88[deg]18'34'' W.; thence northeast to the
15 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat.
41[deg]49'53'' N., long. 88[deg]09'59'' W.); thence clockwise along
the 15 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the point
of beginning, excluding that airspace designated as Area A, Area B,
Area C, Area G, and Area H.
    Area E. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 42[deg]11'11'' N., long. 87[deg]24'46'' W.; thence
east to the 30 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat.
42[deg]10'39'' N., long. 87[deg]17'01'' W.); thence clockwise along
the 30 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to lat.
41[deg]46'38'' N., long. 87[deg]17'51'' W.; thence west to the 25
nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 41[deg]46'40''
N., long. 87[deg]25'22'' W.); thence counterclockwise along the 25
nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the point of
beginning.
    Area F. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 42[deg]07'52'' N., long. 88[deg]10'47'' W.; thence
northwest to the 25 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME
(lat. 42[deg]15'40'' N., long. 88[deg]19'39'' W.); thence
counterclockwise along the 25 nautical mile arc of the Chicago
O'Hare VOR/DME to Interstate 90 (lat. 42[deg]07'22'' N., long.
88[deg]26'01'' W.); thence west to the 30 nautical mile arc of the
Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 42[deg]07'21'' N., long. 88[deg]33'05''
W.); thence counterclockwise along the 30 nautical mile arc of the
Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to Illinois State Route 10 (lat.
41[deg]49'49'' N., long. 88[deg]32'27'' W.); thence east along
Illinois State Route 10 to the 25 nautical mile arc of the Chicago
O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 41[deg]50'40'' N., long. 88[deg]25'44'' W.);
thence counterclockwise along the 25 nautical mile arc of the
Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to lat. 41[deg]42'03'' N., long.
88[deg]18'34'' W.; thence northeast to the 15 nautical mile arc of
the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 41[deg]49'53'' N., long.
88[deg]09'59'' W.); thence clockwise along the 15 nautical mile arc
of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the point of beginning.
    Area G. That airspace extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at lat. 42[deg]04'14'' N., long. 87[deg]54'56'' W.; thence
northwest to the 10 nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME
(lat. 42[deg]09'00'' N., long. 87[deg]57'22'' W.); thence
counterclockwise along the 10 nautical mile arc of the Chicago
O'Hare VOR/DME to U.S. Highway 12 (lat. 42[deg]08'02'' N., long.
88[deg]00'44'' W.); thence southeast along U.S. Highway 12 to the 5
nautical mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 42[deg]04'10''
N., long. 87[deg]55'31'' W.); thence clockwise along the 5 nautical
mile arc of the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME to the point of beginning.
    Area H. That airspace extending upward from 2,500 feet MSL to
and including 10,000 feet MSL within an area bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of Willow Road and railroad tracks at
lat. 42[deg]06'20'' N., long. 87[deg]49'38'' W.; thence northeast
along the railroad tracks to the 10 nautical mile arc of the Chicago
O'Hare VOR/DME (lat. 42[deg]08'06'' N., long. 87[deg]48'02'' W.);
thence clockwise along the 10 nautical mile arc of the Chicago
O'Hare VOR/DME to Willow Road (lat. 42[deg]06'04'' N., long.
87[deg]44'28'' W.); thence west along Willow Road to the point of
beginning.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
BILLING CODE P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP14MY10.000

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


[Federal Register: August 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 51126-51128]
[DOCID:fr18au10-163]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62706; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-76]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. Amending Rule
6.24 Exercise of Options Contracts

August 12, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on August 3, 2010, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.24--Exercise of Options
Contracts. The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit
5 to the 19b-4 form. A copy of this filing is available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal
office, at the Commission's Public Reference Room, and on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 6.24 in
order to, (i) extend the cut-off time to submit Contrary Exercise
Advices (``CEA'') \4\ to the Exchange, and (ii) make a technical change
to the rule by revising all Pacific Time (``PT'') references to reflect
Eastern Time (``ET'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Contrary Exercise Advices are also referred to as Expiring
Exercise Declarations (``EED'').
    \5\ Presently, all referenced times in Rule 6.24 are noted in
Pacific Time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change in Cut-Off Time
    The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') has an established
procedure, under OCC Rule 805, that provides for the automatic exercise
of certain options that are in-the-money by a specified amount known as
``Exercise-by-Exception'' or ``Ex-by-Ex.'' Under the Ex-by-Ex process,
options holders holding option contracts that are in-the-money by a
requisite amount and who wish to have their contracts automatically
exercised need take no further action. However, under OCC Rule 805,
option holders who do not want their options automatically exercised or
who want their options to be exercised under different parameters than
that of the Ex-by-Ex procedures must instruct OCC of their ``contrary
intention.''
    In addition to and separately from the OCC requirement, under NYSE
Arca Rule 6.24 option holders must file a CEA with the Exchange
notifying it of the contrary intention. Rule 6.24 is designed, in part,
to deter individuals from taking improper advantage of late breaking
news by requiring evidence of an option holder's timely decision to
exercise or not exercise expiring equity options. OTP Holders and OTP
Firms \6\ satisfy this evidentiary requirement by submitting a CEA form
directly to the Exchange, or by electronically submitting the CEA to
the Exchange through OCC's electronic communications system. The
submission of the CEA allows the Exchange to satisfy its regulatory
obligation to verify that the decision to make a contrary exercise was
made timely and in accordance with Rule 6.24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term OTP refers to an Options Trading Permit issued by
the Exchange for effecting securities transactions on the Exchange.
OTP Holders and OTP Firms have the status of ``member'' of the
Exchange as that term is defined in Section 3 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule 6.24, option holders have until 2:30 p.m. PT (5:30 p.m.
ET) on the last business day before their expiration to make a final
decision to exercise or not exercise an expiring option that would
otherwise either expire or be automatically exercised. OTP Holders may
not accept CEA instructions from their customer or non-customer
accounts after 2:30 p.m. PT (5:30 p.m. ET). However, the current rule
gives OTP Holders and OTP Firms additional time to submit the CEA
instructions if they use an electronic submission process.\7\
Specifically, an OTP Holder or OTP Firm may currently submit CEA
instructions until 3:30 p.m. PT (6:30 p.m. ET) when using an electronic
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If an OTP Holder does not employ an electronic submission
procedure, they are required to submit CEAs for non-customer
accounts by the 2:30 p.m. (5:30 p.m. ET) deadline. This deadline for
manual submission is required in order to prevent firms from
improperly extending the 2:30 p.m. (5:30 p.m. ET) deadline to
exercise or not exercise an option. This requirement is based on the
difficulty in monitoring a manual procedure that has different times
for deciding whether or not to exercise the option and for the
submission of the CEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This current process allowing OTP Holders and OTP Firms an
additional one hour after the decision making cut off time of 2:30 p.m.
PT (5:30 p.m. ET) to submit a CEA to the various options exchanges was
approved by the Commission in 2003.\8\ In 2003, the Ex-by-Ex thresholds
were $0.75 for customers and $0.25 for broker-dealer accounts. In 2009,
the Ex-by-Ex threshold is $0.01 for all accounts. This decrease in the
Ex-by-Ex threshold, coupled with the dramatic increase in option
trading volume from 2003 to 2009, has led to a larger number of CEA
instructions and has increased the

burden on firms to process and submit instructions timely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 47885 (May 16,
2003), 68 FR 28309 (May 23, 2003) (SR-Amex-2001-92); 48505
(September 17, 2003), 68 FR 55680 (September 26, 2003) (SR-ISE-2003-
20); 48640 (October 16, 2003), 68 FR 60757 (October 23, 2003) (SR-
PCX-2003-47); and 48639 (October 16, 2003), 68 FR 60764 (October 23,
2003) (SR-Phlx-2003-65).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to extend the current 3:30 p.m. PT (6:30 p.m.
ET) deadline for submitting CEA instructions to the Exchange by one
additional hour, up to 4:30 p.m. PT (7:30 p.m. ET). The Exchange
believes that this proposed rule change is necessary to address
concerns that, given the decrease in the Ex-by-Ex threshold and the
increase in trading, the existing deadline for submitting CEAs to the
Exchange is problematic for timely back-office processing. The proposed
additional one hour will address this concern by further enabling firms
to more timely manage, process, and submit the instructions to the
Exchange. The Exchange also proposes to modify the language in
subsection (g) of the current rule, which allows OTP Holders and OTP
Firms up to 2 hours and 30 minutes to submit a CEA to the Exchange in
the event of a modified close of trading on the day of expiration, by
removing the two hour and thirty minute restriction and allowing for
submission of a CEA to the Exchange in the event of a modified close of
trading of up to the proposed 4:30 p.m. PT (7:30 p.m. ET) deadline.
This will make consistent the submission deadline for both regular and
modified close expiration days. Moreover, this will provide uniformity
with submission deadlines for both regular and modified close
expiration days which will remove any possibility for error when
determining what the submission deadline is on any modified close
expiration day.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to revise Commentary .04(i) to
reflect that OTP Holders and OTP Firms, who electronically submit
Contrary Exercise Advice decisions on behalf of non-customer option
holders, will now have one additional hour, until 4:30 p.m. PT (7:30
p.m. ET), to submit such decisions to the Exchange.
    This proposal does not change the substantive requirement that
option holders make a final decision by 2:30 p.m. PT (5:30 p.m. ET).
The options exchanges currently enforce the 2:30 p.m. PT (5:30 p.m. ET)
requirement while giving members additional time to process and submit
the CEA instructions. This proposal seeks to increase that additional
submission time by one hour, and the Exchange believes that this
proposal will be beneficial to the marketplace, particularly as it
concerns back-office processing. The initiative to address OTP Holder
concerns is industry-wide. The International Securities Exchange
recently adopted a rule change which extended, by one hour, the
submission time for CEAs.\9\ NYSE Arca anticipates that all other
options exchanges will also propose similar rule changes. This
additional processing time and Exchange submission deadline will not
conflict with OCC submission rules or cause any OCC processing issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 61710 (March 15,
2010), 75 FR 13636 (March 22, 2010) Approval order for SR-ISE-2010-
02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Technical Changes Related to Time Zones
    All time references in current Rule 6.24 are reflected in Pacific
Time. Rule 6.24 dates back to when NYSE Arca (f/k/a The Pacific
Exchange) was headquartered in California and all business on the
Exchange was conducted on the physical trading floor.
    While the Exchange still operates a trading floor in California,
OTP Holders and OTP Firms are no longer geographically limited to
California and able to conduct business from remote locations
throughout the country. NYSE Arca now proposes to remove references to
Pacific Time in Rule 6.24 and replace them with the more commonly
recognized Eastern Time. All existing and proposed time references in
Rule 6.24 will now be reflected as Eastern Time. This is simply a
technical change and does not alter the period of time that OTP Holders
and OTP Firms are afforded when making decisions to exercise options
contracts.
Implementation of Proposed Rule Change
    If the operative date of this proposed rule change is more than
five business days prior to the date of the next options expiration
Friday, i.e., the third Friday of the month (``Expiration
Friday''),\10\ the Exchange will implement the rule change so as to be
effective for that Expiration Friday. If the operative date of this
proposed rule change is five business days or less prior to the date of
the next Expiration Friday, the Exchange will implement the rule change
so as to be effective for the following Expiration Friday. NYSE Arca
will notify OTP Holders of the implementation date of the rule change
via a Regulatory Bulletin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For example, Expiration Friday for August 2010 options will
be August 20, 2010, Expiration Friday for September 2010 options
will be September 17, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\11\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\
in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. This proposed
rule change will foster coordination with back office personnel engaged
in processing information and is consistent with the facilitating of
transactions in securities as set forth in Section 6(b)(5) in that it,
by providing OTP Holders and OTP Firms an additional hour within which
to complete the necessary processing of CEAs, will thereby decrease the
burden of processing an increasing number of contrary exercise advices
and enable OTP Holders and OTP Firms to more easily manage and process
these instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments Regarding the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such

action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-76 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-76. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSEArca-2010-76 and should be submitted on or before September 8,
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-20470 Filed 8-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41402-41403]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17188]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9003-9]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 07/02/2012 Through 07/06/2012
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is seeking agencies to participate in
its e-NEPA electronic EIS submission pilot. Participating agencies can
fulfill all requirements for EIS filing, eliminating the need to submit
paper copies to EPA Headquarters, by filing documents online and
providing feedback on the process. To participate in the pilot,
register at: https://cdx.epa.gov.

EIS No. 20120223, Draft EIS, USFWS, TX, Edwards Aquifer Recovery
Implementation Program Habitat Conservation Plan, Application for an
Incidental Take Permit of 11 Federally Listed or Petitioned Species,
Several Counties, Texas, Comment Period Ends: 10/10/2012, Contact: Adam
Zerrenner<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120224, Draft EIS, FHWA, IL, Illiana Corridor Project Tier
One Transportation System Improvements, Will and Kankakee Counties, IL
and Lake County, IN, Comment Period Ends: 08/29/2012, Contact: Norman
Stoner<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120225, Draft EIS, USFS, AZ, Bill Williams Mountain
Restoration Project, Kaibab National Forest, Coconino County, AZ,
Comment Period Ends: 08/27/2012, Contact: Martie Schramm<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120226, Final EIS, USFS, CA, Creeks II Forest Restoration
Project, Proposal to Protect Rural Communities from Hazards by
Constructing Fuel Breaks known as Defensible Fuel Profile Zones
(DFPZs), Lassen National Forest, Almanor Ranger District, Plumas
County, CA, Review Period Ends: 08/13/2012, Contact: Al Vazquez 530-
258-2141.
EIS No. 20120227, Draft EIS, USMC, GA, Proposed Modernization and
Expansion of Townsend Bombing Range, Acquiring Additional Property and
Constructing Infrastructure to Allow the Use of Precision-Guided
Munitions, McIntosh and Long Counties, GA, Comment Period Ends: 08/27/
2012, Contact: Veronda Johnson<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20120228, Final EIS, NHTSA, 00, Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards Passenger Cars and Light Truck, Model Years 2017-2025, To
Reduce National Energy Consumption by Increasing the Fuel Economy of
Passenger Cars and Light Trucks sold in the U.S., Review Period Ends:
08/13/2012, Contact: James MacIsaac<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy.

EIS No. 20120229, Draft EIS, FHWA, CA, I-710 Corridor Project,
Improvements, from Ocean Boulevard in the City of Long Beach to State
Route 60 in East Los Angeles, Funding, Los Angeles County, CA, Comment
Period Ends: 08/27/2012, Contact: Cesar E. Perez<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20120161, Draft EIS, USFS, NM, North Fork Eagle Creek Wells,
Special Use Authorization Project, Operation of Four Municipal Supply
Water Wells, Lincoln National Forest, Lincoln County, NM, Comment
Period Ends: 09/07/2012, Contact: Dave Warnack<PHONE_NUMBER> Revision to
FR Notice Published 5/25/2012; Extending Comment Period to 09/07/2012.
EIS No. 20120196, Draft EIS, NPS, OH, Cuyahoga Valley National Park
Comprehensive Trail Management Plan, Cuyahoga and Summit Counties, OH,
Comment Period Ends: 08/20/2012, Contact: Stan Austin<PHONE_NUMBER>
Revision to FR Notice Published 06/22/2012; Change Comment Period from
08/06/201 to 8/20/2012.

    Dated: July 10, 2012.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2012-17188 Filed 7-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P