[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77310-77312]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26406]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-90509; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2020-056]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Extend Its Early Trading Session

November 24, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 16, 2020, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'') proposes to
extend its Early Trading Session. The text of the proposed rule change
is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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 Exchange 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 these 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend its Early Trading Session hours.
The Exchange currently offers four distinct trading sessions where the
Exchange accepts orders for potential execution: (1) The ``Early
Trading Session,'' which begins at 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time (``ET'') and
continues until 8:00 a.m. ET,\3\ (2) the ``Pre-Opening Session,'' which
begins at 8:00 a.m. ET and continues until 9:30 a.m. ET,\4\ (3)
``Regular Trading Hours,'' which begin at 9:30 a.m. ET and continue
until 4:00 p.m. ET,\5\ and (4) the ``Post-Closing Trading Session,''
which begins at 4:00 p.m. ET and continues until 8:00 p.m. ET.\6\ Users
\7\ may designate when their orders are eligible for execution by
selecting their desired Time-in-Force instruction.\8\ The proposed rule
change amends Rule 1.5(ii), which defines the Early Trading Session, to
allowing trading to begin at 4:00 a.m. ET. In addition to this, the
proposed rule change amends the time when orders may start to be
entered into the System prior to the Early Trading Session in Rule
11.1(a)(1), from 6:00 a.m. ET to 3:30 a.m. ET. The proposed rule change
also updates Rule 11.1(a)(1) and Rule 14.1(c)(2) to reflect the
proposed Early Trading Session and order acceptance times, where
applicable. Orders entered for participation in the Early Trading
Session will continue to be handled in the same manner as they are
today. The proposed rule change merely permits the Exchange to begin
order acceptance and commence trading at earlier times, thereby
providing additional time for market participants to source and access
liquidity on the Exchange outside of Regular Trading Hours. The
Exchange

therefore believes that amending Rule 1.5(ii) to extend the Exchange's
trading hours will be benefit investors that will now be able to trade
on the Exchange earlier in the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Early Trading Session'' means the time between 7:00 a.m.
and 8:00 a.m. ET. See Rule 1.5(ii).
    \4\ ``Pre-Opening Session'' means the time between 8:00 a.m. and
9:30 a.m. ET. See Rule 1.5(s).
    \5\ ``Regular Trading Hours'' means the time between 9:30 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m. ET. See Rule 1.5(y).
    \6\ ``Post-Closing Trading Session'' means the time between 4:00
p.m. and 8:00 p.m. ET. See Rule 1.5(r).
    \7\ ``User'' means any Member or Sponsored Participant who is
authorized to obtain access to the System pursuant to Rule 11.3. See
Rule 1.5(ee).
    \8\ See Rule 11.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the extended Early Trading Session hours
are consistent with the early trading session hours currently in place
on other equities exchanges. For example, NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E (a)(1)
provides that NYSE Arca's early trading session begins 4:00 a.m. ET and
concludes at the commencement of NYSE Arca's regular trading hours at
9:30 a.m. ET, and Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') Rule 4701(g)
provides that Nasdaq's early trading session begins at 4:00 a.m. and
continues until the 9:30 a.m. commencement of Nasdaq's regular trading
hours. Additionally, NYSE Arca Rule 7.34-E(a)(1) provides that the
exchange begins accepting orders 30 minutes before its early trading
session (i.e., 3:30 a.m. ET).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, 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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change to extend the Exchange's
Early Trading Session hours will remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and national market system and will
benefit investors by providing market participants with additional
opportunities to source and access liquidity for their orders on the
Exchange. All orders entered during the proposed acceptance period and
extended Early Trading Session hours will continue to be handled in the
same manner as they are today. In addition to this, the proposed rule
change will not affect the protection of investors as it is consistent
with early trading session hours, as well as the System acceptance
time, already in place under the rules of other equities exchanges, as
previously filed with the Commission. Finally, the Exchange notes that
updating the references to Early Trading Session operation times in
Rule 11.1 and 14.1 will also remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and national market system and
benefit investors because the updates ensure that the Exchange Rules
properly reflect the proposed changes to the Early Trading Session
hours.

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. Particularly, the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because all Members will be able
to enter orders earlier in the day for System acceptance and for
execution in the lengthened Early Trading Session. As stated, the
proposed rule change does not alter the manner in which a User's orders
are handled. The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule
change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, and
may promote competition, because the proposed trading hours are
identical to those of early trading sessions currently in place on
other equities exchanges.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
Because the 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, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\17\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative immediately. The Exchange asserts that
the proposed rule change does not introduce any new or novel issues.
Rather, the Exchange states that it is proposing extend its Early
Trading Session hours to the same as those on other equities exchanges.
The Exchange represents that this proposal would not alter the manner
in which Users' orders will be handled for acceptance or execution in
the Early Trading Session. The Exchange further states that waiving the
operative delay will allow it to implement these extended hours as soon
as practicable, with a target implementation date of December 7, 2020.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).

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

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2020-056 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2020-056. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email 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 website (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 website 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 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2020-056, and should be
submitted on or before December 22, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-26406 Filed 11-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64737-64749]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22779]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0999; Airspace Docket No. 22-AWA-2]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class C Airspace; Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Chicago Midway International
Airport, IL (MDW) Class C airspace area by extending the existing MDW
Class C airspace shelf within 10 nautical miles (NM) of MDW from the
southeast counterclockwise to the northeast. The FAA is proposing this
action to reduce the risk of midair collisions and enhance the
efficient management of air traffic operations in the MDW terminal
area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-0999; Airspace Docket No. 22-AWA-2, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the airspace structure as necessary to
preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National
Airspace System (NAS).

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-

2022-0999; Airspace Docket No. 22-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
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 FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0999; Airspace Docket No. 22-AWA-2.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date 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 comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's website at
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
9:00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective
September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

Background

    In 1988, the FAA issued a final rule that established the Chicago
Midway Airport, IL, Airport Radar Service Area (ARSA) (53 FR 11020;
April 4, 1988). As a result of the Airspace Reclassification final rule
(56 FR 65638; December 17, 1991), which became effective in September
1993, the term ``Airport Radar Service Area'' was replaced by ``Class C
airspace area.'' Further, as a result of the Terminal Airspace
Reconfiguration final rule (57 FR 38962; August 27, 1992), also
effective in September 1993, the Chicago Midway Airport, IL, ARSA was
amended to lower the ceiling from 4,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) to
3,600 feet MSL so it would not overlap the floor of the Chicago O'Hare
International Airport, IL, Terminal Control Area (TCA), which is the
Chicago, IL, Class B airspace area today. The Chicago Midway Airport,
IL, ARSA is now the MDW Class C airspace area.
    As with the former ARSA, the primary purpose of a Class C airspace
area is to reduce the potential for midair collisions in terminal areas
and promote the efficient management of air traffic in those areas.
Pilots are required to establish two-way radio communications with air
traffic control (ATC) before entering Class C airspace and they must
maintain two-way radio communications with ATC while operating in Class
C airspace. These requirements are designed to keep ATC informed of all
aircraft operating within the Class C airspace area.

Developments Since the Designation of the MDW Class C Airspace Area

    Despite increases in aircraft operations and passenger
enplanements, as well as establishment and amendment of instrument
arrival procedures at MDW over the years, the MDW Class C airspace area
has not been modified since 1993.
    Prior to 2014, the proximity of buildings in the downtown Chicago
area precluded the establishment of ground based precision instrument
approach procedures to Runway (RWY) 22L at MDW. As a result, instrument
flight rules (IFR) aircraft landing RWY 22L had to conduct an
instrument approach to RWY 31C and then circled the airport to land RWY
22L. Although this procedure was necessary when weather or airfield
conditions dictated the use of RWY 22L for arriving aircraft, the
circling maneuver was considered inefficient and was avoided whenever
possible.
    The incorporation of Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning
System (GPS) systems within the aviation industry and the FAA's
implementation of three new RNAV standard instrument approach
procedures to RWY 22L in February 2014, eliminated the circling
maneuver that was necessary when using the ground based system. These
new Performance Based Navigation (PBN) approaches featured a curved
course to avoid the obstructions in downtown Chicago and have accounted
for approximately one-third of MDW's annual IFR arrivals from 2017 to
2022.
    The MDW RNAV RWY 22L approach procedures provide a significant
benefit to the airlines and general aviation aircraft landing MDW, but
have created safety concerns within the airspace east of the MDW Class
C airspace between RWY 22L arriving IFR aircraft and visual flight
rules (VFR) general aviation aircraft operating along the Lake Michigan
shoreline. The flight tracks of the RNAV RWY 22L approaches for
arrivals from the east trace a descending path for IFR aircraft that
crosses the Lake Michigan shoreline from east to west. While at the
same time, general aviation VFR aircraft use the Lake Michigan
shoreline as a visual reference to transit along a north-south flow
east of the MDW Class C airspace.

Impact of MDW Class C Airspace Area Configuration on Operations

    The current MDW Class C airspace area surrounds MDW within 5 NM of
the airport from the surface to 3,600 feet MSL and within 5 NM to 10 NM
around MDW from 1,900 feet MSL to 3,600 feet MSL beginning at a line 2
NM northeast of and parallel to the MDW RWY 31C localizer course
clockwise to the boundary of the Chicago, IL, Class B airspace area.
The MDW Class C airspace area encompasses the final approach courses
for runways 4, 13, and 31, but does not include the final approach
course for IFR arrivals conducting instrument approach procedures to
RWY 22L. The MDW Class C airspace has not kept pace with PBN procedures
development, increasing operations, or newer aircraft designs.
    The MDW Class C airspace design provides VFR aircraft the maximum
use of the airspace located east of MDW and south of downtown Chicago
along the Lake Michigan shoreline without the requirement to be in two-
way communication with ATC. This was possible because the VFR flyway
located along the Lake Michigan shoreline did not conflict with inbound
IFR aircraft conducting an approach to RWY 31C

and then circling MDW to land RWY 22L.
    With the implementation of RNAV approaches to RWY 22L at MDW, IFR
arrival aircraft are now routinely descending east to west across the
VFR flyway along the Lake Michigan shoreline that is often densely
populated with itinerant VFR aircraft. Although the VFR flyway is
charted along the Lake Michigan shoreline with recommended altitude
information ``AT OR BELOW 2,000 [feet MSL]'', VFR aircraft routinely
operate to the base of the overlying Chicago, IL, Class B airspace at
3,600 feet MSL. The combination of IFR aircraft flying RNAV approaches
to land RWY 22L and VFR aircraft using the VFR flyway along the Lake
Michigan shoreline, sometimes upwards to the overlying Chicago, IL,
Class B airspace, has increased the possibility of loss of separation,
near midair, or midair collision situations between IFR and VFR
aircraft over Chicago. Under this proposal, the final approach courses
for all RNAV RWY 22L approaches would be encompassed in Class C
airspace and VFR aircraft desiring to fly within the proposed Class C
airspace shelf would be required to establish two-way communications
with ATC so all aircraft, IFR and VFR, would be communicating with ATC
within the proposed Class C airspace shelf extension; enabling greater
safety and efficiency for all.

Benefits of Modifying the MDW Class C Airspace Area

    Modifications of the current MDW Class C airspace area would
enhance safety by lessening the likelihood of IFR aircraft flying RNAV
procedures to RWY 22L encountering VFR aircraft, that are not in
contact with ATC, flying along the Lake Michigan shoreline. The unique
combination of high volumes of general aviation and commercial
operations within the immediate vicinity of the MDW terminal area
support a proposal to expand the MDW Class C airspace area in the
interest of safety and the efficient use of the airspace.
    The FAA believes that all users would benefit from participation in
the proposed expanded availability of Class C airspace and services
around MDW which include: sequencing of all aircraft to the primary
airport (MDW); standard IFR services to IFR aircraft; separation,
traffic advisories, and safety alerts between IFR and VFR aircraft;
and, traffic advisories and safety alerts between VFR aircraft.

Pre-NPRM Public Input

    In 2019, the FAA initiated an action to form an Ad Hoc Committee
(Committee) to seek input and recommendations from representatives of
effected aviation segments for the FAA to consider in designing
proposed modifications to the Class C airspace surrounding MDW. The
Committee, composed of local airspace users and aviation interested
organizations, was formed and held two meetings. The basis for the
FAA's proposed action was aimed at addressing issues associated with
IFR aircraft (communicating with ATC) flying MDW RNAV RWY 22L
approaches inbound from over Lake Michigan receiving Traffic Alert and
Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) Resolution Advisory (RA) warnings for
VFR aircraft (not communicating with ATC) flying along the Lake
Michigan shoreline. Participants in the Committee included
representatives from the Chicago Area Business Aviation Association,
Illinois Department of Transportation, Chicago Department of Aviation,
Chicago Executive Airport (PWK), Gary/Chicago International Airport
(GYY), Waukegan National Airport (UGN), Southwest Airlines, Walsh
Group/Griffith Aviation, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA),
and congressional staff members from three aviation interested
Congressional offices.

Discussion of Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations

    The Committee submitted a recommended airspace design for
consideration, as well as five requested items for the FAA to consider
in designing the proposed modifications of the MDW Class C airspace
area.
    The Committee recommended that the FAA align the boundaries of the
Class C airspace with prominent geographical features (visual
landmarks) whenever possible. After considering the Chicago, IL, Class
B airspace floor over the airspace between MDW and Lake Michigan; the
MDW RNAV RWY 22L approaches and associated descent points; and the VFR
aircraft flying along the Lake Michigan shoreline using the charted VFR
flyway, sometimes operating upwards to the floor of the Chicago Class B
airspace, the Committee agreed with FAA's proposed action, but
recommended extending the MDW Class C airspace shelf between 5 NM and
10 NM further around the east side of MDW to Interstate 290. The
recommended altitudes for the portion of the proposed Class C airspace
shelf extension over land would remain consistent with the existing
airspace shelf, having a 1,900 foot MSL floor and a 3,600 foot MSL
ceiling. The recommended altitudes for the portion of the proposed MDW
Class C airspace shelf extension over Lake Michigan would have a 2,300
foot MSL floor and a 3,600 foot MSL ceiling. The Committee offered that
this would encompass the MDW RNAV RWY 22L approaches for IFR aircraft
landing at MDW, enable VFR aircraft to continue to use the Lake
Michigan shoreline for reference in circumnavigating the MDW Class C
airspace if they did not want to establish two-way communications with
ATC to operate in the MDW Class C airspace shelf, and allow aerial
sightseeing operations north of Interstate 290 to continue unhampered.
    The FAA agrees and tries to adopt the use of geographical features
whenever possible, but acknowledges that the proposed Class C airspace
area that overlies Lake Michigan lacks prominent landmarks. However,
there are currently four VFR checkpoints and multiple geographic
references on the shoreline, including Interstate 290, Soldier Field,
the Navy Pier located north of Interstate 290, and the electric power
plant located southeast of MDW depicted on the VFR Flyway Planning
Chart in the MDW area. All of these reference points would aid in VFR
pilots determining the boundary of the proposed Class C airspace shelf
extension.
    The Committee recommended that the FAA update the Chicago VFR
Flyway Planning Chart in the MDW area to reflect the status of the MDW
RNAV RWY 22L approaches to provide awareness for the VFR aircraft using
the charted VFR flyway along the Lake Michigan shoreline, as well as
the VFR aircraft operating in the Class E airspace beneath the Chicago,
IL, Class B airspace and east of the MDW Class C airspace.
    The FAA agrees with this recommendation and has already adopted
charting the MDW RNAV RWY 22L approach paths to the Lake Michigan
shoreline and the VFR flyway depicted on the Chicago VFR Flyway
Planning Chart and the Chicago Terminal Area Chart. The charted
approach paths will continue to be charted and updated on future charts
as required should the approaches be amended from the existing
depiction. The FAA does not support extending the charted approach
paths beyond the Lake Michigan shoreline or VFR flyway due to the chart
clutter that would be created in the charted area east of MDW. The FAA
continues to urge VFR pilots to use the charted VFR flyway along the
Lake Michigan shoreline and to comply with the recommended altitudes as
the

proposed Class C airspace shelf is considered for adoption to support
the safety and efficiency of IFR and VFR aircraft operations in the
airspace east of the existing MDW Class C airspace area.
    The Committee also recommended that anytime an IFR aircraft is
arriving to MDW from the east and is approved to fly visually to RWY
22L, that ATC require the inbound IFR aircraft to maintain 3,000 feet
MSL to the Lake Michigan shoreline or the DXXON Fix before initiating
its descent to MDW. Specifically, this would keep IFR aircraft arriving
to MDW from the east from descending early and causing potential loss
of separation, near midair, or midair collision situations with VFR
aircraft operating on the chart VFR flyway at the recommended
altitudes.
    The FAA does not agree with this recommendation. Currently, ATC
requires inbound IFR aircraft on a visual approach to RWY 22L to
maintain 2,500 feet MSL until contacting Midway Airport Traffic Control
Tower (ATCT) for landing or a lower altitude assignment. A Letter of
Agreement between the Chicago Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON)
and Midway ATCT requires that IFR aircraft cleared for a visual
approach to maintain 2,500 feet MSL for all landing runways. This
requirement ensures appropriate separation between MDW IFR arrivals
worked by Chicago TRACON and VFR traffic worked by Midway ATCT is
provided. Additionally, the 2,500-foot MSL altitude restriction keeps
all MDW IFR arrivals conducting a visual approach above the VFR flyway
recommended altitude of 2,000 feet MSL along the Lake Michigan
shoreline. Finally, visual approaches to MDW RWY 22L are infrequently
issued due to the proximity of RWY 22L approach course to IFR traffic
inbound to Chicago O'Hare International Airport to their runways used
during west flow operations. MDW IFR arrivals on a visual approach
maintain 2,500 feet MSL until a lower altitude is assigned by Midway
ATCT, e.g., clearance to land.
    The Committee further recommended that when RWY 22L is not being
used, and traffic flows allow, that ATC (Midway ATCT and Chicago
TRACON) allow aircraft to fly through the proposed Class C airspace
shelf east of the Lake Michigan shoreline. This would support an
efficient use of the airspace by enabling VFR aircraft flying north and
south along the shoreline, ensure ATC is aware of and communicating
with VFR aircraft within the Class C airspace shelf, and not interrupt
IFR aircraft arrival operations to the other runways that may be in
use. The recommendation was aimed at ensuring the efficient use of the
regularly congested airspace east of MDW, while supporting ATC, IFR
aircraft, and VFR aircraft operating requirements all at the same time.
    The FAA agrees with the Committee's recommendation and encourages
VFR pilots to establish two-way communications with ATC to fly through
the proposed Class C airspace shelf, if established, along the Lake
Michigan shoreline in the interest of flight safety for IFR and VFR
aircraft alike. As the Committee noted, the airspace east of MDW,
included in the proposed MDW Class C airspace shelf extension, is
regularly congested. Safety of both IFR and VFR aircraft operating in
the proposed MDW Class C airspace shelf is the goal of this proposed
action.
    The Committee also recommended the FAA work with the appropriate
organizations and agency offices that coordinate and produce the
Oshkosh Airshow Notice to Air Missions (NOTAMs) to ensure detailed
information and instructions for IFR and VFR pilots to fly through the
airspace proposed for the Class C airspace shelf extension is included.
As the Oshkosh Airshow is conducted annually in Oshkosh, WI, and draws
a high volume of general aviation enthusiasts, providing detailed
information and instructions to transit the airspace east of MDW is
vital to ensuring flight safety and efficiency in that congested
airspace area.
    Planning for the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) AirVenture
event at Oshkosh, WI, is a yearlong process that includes collaboration
between ATC, EAA, the U.S. military, and pilots who support and attend
EAA's AirVenture. Public outreach is accomplished by a Notice published
in the Domestic Notices link of the Air Traffic Plans and Publications
website at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ and a NOTAM booklet
with detailed information for aircraft transitioning the Lake Michigan
shoreline and nearby airspace. In the 2022 EAA AirVenture Oshkosh
Notice and NOTAM booklet, a ``VFR Transition through Chicago Approach''
section details how pilots are urged to use the Chicago VFR Flyway
Planning Chart for the Chicago area. Specifically addressed for
aircraft transiting the shoreline is to listen to the MDW Airport
Traffic Information System (ATIS), as well as information addressing
jet traffic crossing the shoreline at 3,000 feet MSL if MDW is landing
on RWY 22L. It further urges pilots to comply with the VFR flyway
altitudes south of the Navy Pier and north of the Electric Power Plant,
as published. The Chicago TRACON will continue to collaborate with EAA
on future AirVenture Oshkosh events to ensure flight safety is
maintained in the congested airspace east along the Lake Michigan
shoreline.
    Lastly, the Committee recommended ATC use of a single frequency VFR
aircraft operations using the VFR flyway or using the Lake Michigan
shoreline for reference as they transit north and south along the
shoreline. The Committee acknowledged and understood that ATC has a
staffing issue currently that prevents the use of a single frequency,
but wanted the recommendation to be considered for implementation
should the FAA make a determination to adopt the proposed amendment
action.
    The FAA is unable to adopt the Committee's recommendation for
operational reasons. The Chicago TRACON has two separate low altitude
sectors, one northeast of Chicago O'Hare International Airport and one
southeast of the airport, that work VFR traffic transitioning the Lake
Michigan shoreline below the Chicago, IL, Class B airspace. Both low
altitude sectors, which use separate frequencies, will continue to use
the existing frequencies even if the proposed MDW Class C airspace
shelf extension is established. It is not possible to combine these two
low altitude sectors in order to use a single frequency due to the
complexity, traffic volume, and geographic size of each of the sectors.
Pilots would continue to be able to fly along the shoreline underneath
the proposed Class C airspace shelf with no change in their operating
practice. For the pilots flying along the shoreline that would be
within the proposed Class C airspace shelf, they would be required to
establish two-way communication with ATC for their transition. The use
of the existing frequencies along the Lake Michigan shoreline is based
on the ATC sectors and facilities providing service, not on staffing
issues.
    After full consideration of the Committee's discussions and
recommendations, the FAA decided to pursue the Committee's proposed
airspace configuration. However, rather than extending the Class C
airspace shelf between 5 NM and 10 NM at MDW further around the east
side of MDW to Interstate 290, the FAA proposes to extend it to a point
short of the interstate defined by the 090[deg] bearing of the
intersection of the 10-mile radius around the Chicago O'Hare
International Airport and the 5-mile radius of the Chicago Midway
International Airport. The FAA supports the altitudes recommended by
the Committee for the proposed Class C airspace shelf extension for the
portions over land and

over Lake Michigan. This alternative would still provide the benefits
of using geographic landmarks, while keeping the Class C airspace
extension from extending beyond what is necessary for encompassing the
MDW RNAV RWY 22L approaches for IFR aircraft and enabling the VFR
sightseeing operations north of Interstate 290 from being affected.
This NPRM proposes modifications to the MDW Class C airspace shelf.

Discussion of Informal Airspace Meeting Comments

    As announced in the Federal Register on August 23, 2021 (86 FR
47043), the FAA conducted two virtual informal airspace meetings using
the Zoom teleconferencing tool: September 28, 2021, beginning at 1:00
p.m. (Central Time) and on September 29, 2021, beginning at 6:00 p.m.
(Central Time). The virtual informal airspace meetings were also
available to watch on the FAA's Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube social
media channels. These meetings provided interested airspace users with
an opportunity to present their views and offer recommendations
regarding the planned modification of the MDW Class C airspace area.
The FAA received comments from 32 individuals in response to the 2
meetings and all substantive comments received were considered in
developing this proposal.
    Seven commenters, including AOPA, commended the FAA for its efforts
in developing this proposal, the public outreach and inclusion in
developing the proposal, and the professional and courteous ATC
services they receive. One of the commenters thanked the FAA for
switching to the RNAV RWY 22L approaches instead of the RWY 31C
localizer approach to then circling to RWY 22L when arriving from the
east. A second commenter, who flies a local news helicopter, thought
the proposal is a great idea. Two other commenters appreciated the
opportunity to establish two-way communications with ATC while
operating within the Class C shelf as they transited the Lake Michigan
shoreline; one further acknowledging the benefit of doing that so
they're not flying too low, and the other seeing the proposal as an
opportunity to educate the pilot community and increase VFR pilots' ATC
communications proficiency. A commenter shared that he had initial
concerns about the impact of the proposal on recreational pilots;
however, he now understands the FAA's IFR/VFR traffic safety related
concerns and has determined it will not significantly affect the
freedom of shoreline flights and is in full support of the proposal.
    The FAA appreciates the positive comments received acknowledging
the FAA's work on this proposal so far, the public outreach efforts to
include the local flying community in the proposal development process,
and the efforts to minimize impacts to the VFR general aviation traffic
flying along the Lake Michigan shoreline, or lakefront.
    Two commenters challenged the basis for the proposed Class C
airspace shelf being extended to cover the east side of MDW. The first
commenter alluded that the increase in IFR traffic to MDW RWY 22L is
due to the change in Chicago O'Hare International Airport's arrival
traffic due to the change in runways, which are all on an east/west
orientation. The commenter stated further, previously, many airliners
would come in from the southeast for landing. The second commenter
asserted that besides the increase in safety margin for IFR traffic
from VFR traffic, this proposal was indirectly trying to reduce VFR
traffic flying along the Lake Michigan shoreline.
    The FAA does not agree with these comments. The purpose of Class C
airspace is to reduce the risk of midair collisions in the terminal
area. A number of considerations are evaluated before determining
whether an airport qualifies for the establishment or modification of a
Class C airspace area. Proposed Class C airspace area designs are based
on site-specific factors and for MDW it is specifically due to the
development and availability of RNAV approach procedures to MDW RWY 22L
that did not exist prior to 2014. The arrival flow at Chicago O'Hare
International Airport (ORD) may affect the approach procedures in use
at MDW; however, the proposal to extend the MDW Class C airspace shelf
to include the east side of MDW is due to the RNAV RWY22L arrival
procedures. The ORD arrivals still arrive from the southeast, mostly
using the WATSN ARRIVAL (RNAV) procedure; flying from the southeast
over Lake Michigan and then turning straight in to land on one of the
ORD west runways.
    The assertion this proposal was indirectly aimed at reducing VFR
traffic along the Lake Michigan shoreline is not correct. With IFR
aircraft inbound to MDW flying RNAV RWY 22L procedures, the aircraft
begin descending out of 3,000 feet MSL, east to west, as they cross the
VFR flyway which is often times full of itinerate VFR aircraft at and
above the recommended 2,000 feet MSL altitude and not communicating
with ATC. The Class C airspace shelf is intended to enhance flight
safety by ensuring all aircraft, IFR and VFR, that are flying in the
area surrounding where the MDW RNAV RWY 22L approaches cross the VFR
flyway are communicating with ATC. The FAA remains committed to
providing Class C services in a manner that keeps the area safe for all
users.
    Two commenters questioned the floor altitude of the proposed Class
C airspace shelf over Lake Michigan, while two additional commenters
addressed the airspace shelf in general. The first two commenters were
interested in why the floor altitude of the airspace shelf over Lake
Michigan was proposed to extend upward from 2,300 feet MSL. One of the
two commenters went on to ask further if a higher floor could be
considered, sharing that a 2,600-foot floor would still provide a 400-
foot buffer below the RNAV RWY 22L procedures and allow VFR aircraft to
transition at 2,500 feet MSL. The two additional commenters asked if
there was any consideration taken for airline pilots flying the RNAV Z
RWY 22L procedure in the proposal, and were departure and missed
approach procedures considered in the extension of the Class C airspace
shelf or just IFR arrivals.
    The proposed Class C airspace area boundaries, and the proposed
altitude of the airspace areas, are shaped by the operational
requirements of aviation users at and around MDW; the MDW terminal
airspace environment; and the geographic, operation, and procedural
factors specific to MDW. The 2,300-foot MSL Class C airspace shelf
floor over Lake Michigan was a Committee recommendation that the FAA
adopted. The proposed 2,300-foot floor of the airspace shelf over Lake
Michigan ensures a safe operating environment for all aircraft flying
within the shelf by enabling timely and effective traffic advisories
for VFR overflight aircraft and IFR arrival aircraft operating in two-
way communication with ATC. Further, it provides a higher Class C
airspace shelf floor for VFR aircraft to transit below the Class C
airspace from what was originally being considered. The original design
the FAA provided to the Committee, as a starting point, was a single
airspace shelf between 5 NM and 10 NM of MDW that extended from the
Chicago, IL, Class B airspace northwest of MDW all the way around to
the Chicago O'Hare Class B airspace northeast of MDW from 1,900 feet
MSL to 3,600 feet MSL. With respect to the question of whether a higher
airspace shelf floor could be considered from that proposed, the FAA
offers that as noted above in the Comments Invited section, the
proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments
received.

    In the development of the proposed Class C airspace shelf extension
around the east side of MDW, the FAA considered all of the RNAV and
conventional IFR arrival and departure procedures operating within the
proposed airspace area to ensure the IFR aircraft receive the
communications benefit of the ATC traffic advisory exchanges with VFR
overflight aircraft also operating with the Class C airspace area.
Additionally, the FAA considered the impacts associated with the VFR
aircraft operating along the VFR flyway and proposed Class C airspace
shelf floor altitudes with the intention of enabling enough airspace
for VFR aircraft that opt to not establish two-way communications with
ATC to fly beneath the Class C airspace or farther offshore safely.
    One commenter asked whether the Class C airspace expansion would
result in increased ATC staffing levels; thereby making VFR flight
following request for VFR aircraft transiting the area more likely to
be supported by ATC on a workload basis.
    The ATC facility staffing levels are determined by numerous factors
and criteria, and classification of airspace is only one factor
considered. Based on the extent of the proposed Class C airspace shelf
extension, the FAA does not anticipate this proposed action to affect
the Chicago TRACON or Midway ATCT staffing levels. Further, the FAA
does not expect an increase in VFR aircraft flying outside the Chicago,
IL, Class B airspace area or the proposed Chicago Midway Class C
airspace shelf requesting flight following. The Chicago TRACON will
continue to provide VFR aircraft flight following services on a
workload basis. Likewise, the FAA does not anticipate a large number of
VFR aircraft seeking flight following within the proposed Class C
airspace shelf. However, those VFR pilots who opt to fly within the
proposed Class C airspace shelf and establish two-way communications
with ATC will receive Class C services commensurate with the service
provided in the existing MDW Class C airspace area.
    Five commenters raised questions about airspace violations and
aircraft conflicts in the airspace area of the proposed Class C
airspace shelf. One commenter asked if there had been any studies or
surveys to show actual airspace violations or aircraft conflicts and
another commenter stated the ATO should make available all Class C and
Class B airspace incursions within 15 NM from MDW between the 000
bearing to the 180 bearing. Two commenters asked about documented
conflicts and TCAS RA warnings, and the nature of the conflicts,
occurring under the current airspace configuration. One of those
commenters went on to ask if there was a plan to use the RNAV (RNP) X
RWY 22L approach more when aircraft are arriving from the west to avoid
crossing over the shoreline and VFR traffic flying in that area. A
final commenter asked if the affected area east of MDW along the
shoreline had any accident history.
    The FAA finds that the questions and comments addressing studies,
surveys, or reporting of airspace violations in the airspace of the
proposed Class C airspace shelf to be outside the scope of this
rulemaking. The airspace area of the proposed Class C airspace shelf is
currently Class E airspace and there is no requirement to obtain a
clearance or establish two-way communications with ATC to operate
within that airspace area.
    To the comments addressing aircraft conflicts and RAs, the FAA
offers the following. On May 18, 2018, the Chicago TRACON accomplished
a staff study to initiate consideration of this proposal. In the staff
study, the TRACON reported 69 TCAS RA events by IFR aircraft landing
MDW RWY 22L between September 1, 2016, and August 31, 2017, with the
Midway ATCT reporting 17 additional TCAS RA events during the same time
period. With a total of 86 TCAS RA events occurring between IFR
arrivals descending to MDW flying RNAV RWY 22L procedures and VFR
transient traffic flying near the Lake Michigan shoreline for the
timeframe reported, that amounts to just over 7 incidents per month, on
average. Since then, there have been an additional 89 TCAS RA events,
collectively, by IFR aircraft landing MDW RWY 22L; further confirming
the necessity for the proposed MDW Class C airspace shelf in this
action.
    Normally, the TCAS RA results in the IFR pilot conducting a climb
or descent evasive maneuver. In rare cases, the IFR pilots may also
turn the aircraft. If the IFR aircraft is near MDW when the TCAS RA
event occurs, then often the IFR pilots must conduct a missed approach.
This proposal to establish the Class C airspace shelf is intended to
avoid these aircraft conflicts between MDW RWY 22L arrivals and VFR
traffic operating near the MDW RWY 22L final approach course, and to
avoid IFR aircraft arriving to MDW RWY 22L conducting missed approaches
due to TCAS RA events.
    It should be noted that the vast majority of ``conflicts'' are
actually ``potential conflicts'' in which an air traffic controller
detects that two or more aircraft will come within unsafe proximity of
each other unless some type of control action is taken, and then the
controller takes that action. The number of documented conflicts only
include TCAS RA events and close-proximity events involving non-TCAS-
equipped aircraft and not events where air traffic controllers took
action to prevent such events. As a result, considering TCAS RA events
only does not reflect the actual safety risk mitigated by this
proposal.
    With respect to the comment reference using the RNAV (RNP) X RWY
22L approach more when aircraft are arriving from the west, the Chicago
TRACON controllers use the MDW RNAV (RNP) X RWY 22L approach as often
as possible. From an ATC and airspace efficiency perspective, this is
the preferred approach for MDW RWY 22L arrivals from the west, but it
cannot be used when arrivals from the west need to be sequenced further
out to land behind arrivals from the southeast and east.
    Five commenters expressed concerns resulting from VFR aircraft
being pushed lower to remain below the proposed Class C airspace shelf
floors (1,900 feet MSL and 2,300 feet MSL) and compressed into more
congested airspace closer to the ground. Two of the five commenters
also asked if any studies had been accomplished addressing the effect
of restricting VFR aircraft below the proposed airspace shelf with the
1,900-foot MSL floor and the 2,300-foot MSL floor. One of those
commenters was concerned with VFR aircraft flying over Lake Michigan
being able to remain within glide distance of shore; whereas the other
commenter was concerned with VFR aircraft ``forced'' to fly below the
proposed airspace shelf over land. Another of the commenters asked if
the FAA anticipated more VFR aircraft conflicts under the proposed
airspace shelf, with another of the commenters asking if ATC would be
able to handle the increase in flight following requests caused by the
higher density of VFR traffic in an already congested area. Finally, a
sixth commenter raised a concern that some aircraft would not be able
to accomplish flying southbound along the lakeshore below the Chicago
O'Hare Class B airspace shelf with a 3,000-foot floor, then descend
below the proposed MDW Class C airspace shelf with a 2,300-foot floor,
then climb above the Gary/Chicago Class D airspace with a 3,100-foot
ceiling in the distance required.
    The FAA does not agree. VFR aircraft are not being restricted below
or forced to fly lower to remain below the proposed Class C airspace
shelf; rather,

VFR pilots that operate within the airspace proposed to become Class C
airspace are encouraged to establish two-way communications with MDW
approach and use the services provided by ATC. The FAA recognizes that
some pilots may opt to fly below the proposed Class C airspace shelf,
but the safety provided by all pilots, IFR and VFR, within the Class C
airspace shelf communicating with ATC is necessary and outweighs the
concerns associated with establishing the proposed airspace shelf. The
FAA audited 7 random weeks from 2019 and 2021 (2020 was not included
due to pandemic related flight reductions) and the survey showed, on
average, approximately 23 aircraft per day operating at and below 1,900
feet MSL under the proposed airspace shelf while only 10 aircraft per
day operating between 2,300 feet MSL and 3,000 feet MSL. As such, the
FAA does not anticipate an appreciable increase in VFR traffic
operating lower over Lake Michigan. Additionally, the FAA does not
anticipate more VFR conflicts below the proposed Class C airspace
shelf, as well. Lastly, reference the concern of VFR aircraft not being
able to navigate south along the Lake Michigan shoreline, or lakefront,
making the altitude changes resulting from the proposal in the distance
provided, the existing VFR flyway supports and provides exactly what
the commenter stated concern over. The FAA anticipates VFR aircraft
will plan accordingly to make the recommended altitudes to remain under
the Chicago O'Hare Class B airspace, under the proposed MDW Class C
airspace shelf, and over the Gary/Chicago Class D in the distance
provided.
    The FAA acknowledges that some compression may occur and that non-
participating VFR traffic may have to fly below or circumnavigate the
proposed MDW Class C airspace shelf in order to remain clear of it
should they decide not to establish two-way communications with ATC to
seek Class C airspace services. All aircraft operating beneath or in
the vicinity of the proposed Class C airspace shelf are expected to
continue to comply with the regulatory requirements of 14 CFR 91.111,
titled Operating Near Other Aircraft, to avoid creating a collision
hazard with other aircraft operating in the same airspace.
Additionally, all aircraft operating in the same areas noted above are
expected to continue complying with the requirements in 14 CFR 91.113,
Right-of-Way Rules: Except Water Operations, to ``see and avoid'' other
aircraft as well. The FAA believes that continued VFR pilot compliance
with established flight rules regulatory requirements, and these two
regulations specifically, will overcome the compression and mid-air
collision concerns raised by the commenters.
    Ultimately, it is the pilot's responsibility to evaluate all
factors that could affect a planned flight and determine the safest
course of action whether it is circumnavigating the Class C, flying
beneath the airspace shelf area, utilizing the charted VFR flyway, or
establishing two-way communications with ATC and requesting Class C
services.
    One commenter referenced 14 CFR 91.119, Minimum safe altitudes:
General, highlighting that over any congested area of a city, town or
settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an aircraft must
fly an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a
horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. The commenter used
that reference to argue that the airspace below the proposed Class C
airspace shelf with a 1,900-foot floor is in effect unusable given the
height of obstructions above sea level within that sector.
    The FAA does not agree. There are only two charted obstructions
that fall approximately 1 NM within the proposed 1,900-foot floor Class
C airspace shelf boundary northeast of MDW and are located southwest
and west of Soldier Field. The remaining portion of Class E airspace
that would fall under the proposed Class C airspace shelf is unaffected
by the commenter's concern. The Class E airspace that would remain
beneath the proposed Class C airspace shelf with a 1,900-foot floor
would be navigable by VFR aircraft, as it is under the current Class C
airspace shelf that extends upward from 1,900 feet MSL, for pilots who
elect not to establish two-way communications with MDW approach to fly
within the proposed Class C airspace shelf. Additionally, flight around
the two charted obstructions noted above would be still be possible
using the existing VFR flyway along the Lake Michigan shoreline.
    Two commenters addressed the use of visual landmarks in their
comments. The first commenter argued how pilots were to know where the
10 NM radius of MDW was located for the airspace shelf outer boundary
over Lake Michigan. He further noted that aircraft not utilizing GPS
navigation might have difficulty recognizing the Class C airspace shelf
outer boundary; noting the CRIB and EAST CRIB VFR checkpoints may be
helpful, but encouraged the FAA to consider other mitigations that
might be possible. The second commenter shared that the recommendation
offered by the Committee on the airspace shelf floor altitude, as well
as the use of visual landmarks as reference points, were very positive
developments.
    The FAA acknowledges it is difficult to provide visual landmarks
over Lake Michigan to determine the Class C airspace shelf 10 NM
boundary. As such, pilots who do fly over Lake Michigan are encouraged
to use GPS, Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), or other electronic
means to determine spatial awareness of their location and the Class C
airspace shelf boundary.
    As noted previously in response to the Committee's recommendation
to use visual landmarks when able, the FAA tries to adopt the use of
geographical features whenever possible and acknowledges that the
proposed Class C airspace area that overlies Lake Michigan lacks
prominent landmarks. However, there are currently four VFR checkpoints
(CRIB, EAST CRIB, NAVY PIER, and LAKE CALUMET) that could be used to
roughly interpolate the airspace shelf boundary over Lake Michigan.
Additionally, there are multiple geographic references on the
shoreline, including Interstate 290 and Soldier Field located north of
Interstate 290 and the electric power plant located southeast of MDW
that could also be used. All of these reference points would aid VFR
pilots in determining the boundary of the proposed Class C airspace
shelf extension.
    One commenter shared that MDW RWY 22L is used much of the time when
RWY 13C would be the best runway for winds. The commenter argued that
using RWY 13C would avoid the shoreline no matter if aircraft were
coming from the east or west and there are Instrument Landing System
(ILS), RNAV Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV), and
RNAV-Required Navigation Performance (RNP)-Authorization Required (AR)
approaches available.
    The FAA does not agree. The decision for selecting the MDW runway
in use between RWY 13C and RWY 22L is made primarily on landing
aircraft into the wind. When the winds are directly out of the south,
there are ATC procedures that favor using MDW RWY 22L for operational
efficiency reasons. There is no correlation between the proximity of
Chicago O'Hare International Airport and the MDW RWY13C final approach
course to the selection of the MDW landing runway. Additionally, any
impacts to the Chicago O'Hare International Airport operations caused
by MDW landing aircraft using RWY 13C have been

mostly mitigated and are not significant enough to favor the selection
or use of one MDW runway over the other.
    Two commenters asked about the current RWY 22L approach procedures
and how/if they are expected to change with regard to this proposal.
The first commenter was concerned about impacts that may be expected to
aircraft flying the RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 22L approach versus the RNAV (RNP)
X RWY 22L. The other commenter asked if the RNAV RWY 22L procedures
were new, stating further that aircraft flying the procedures to RWY 31
and then circling to land RWY 22L have always been common in the past.
    The FAA is not proposing or making any changes to any of the RNAV
RWY 22L procedures. To the first commenter's question, the MDW RNAV
(RNP) X RWY 22L procedure is used for aircraft arriving from the west
when RWY 22L is in use; whereas, the MDW RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 22L procedure
is used for aircraft arriving from the east when RWY 22L is in use. The
procedures both support RWY 22L operations and cater to arrival
aircraft depending on which direction they are arriving from. In
response to the other commenter's question and statement, the RNAV RWY
22L procedures have been available for use since 2014. Additionally,
rather than requiring pilots to fly a conventional or RNAV approach to
RWY 31C and then circle the airport to land on RWY 22L, both ATC and
pilots prefer to use the RNAV RWY 22L approaches to RWY 22L. The FAA
believes using the RNAV RWY 22L procedures when RWY 22L is the runway
in use, instead of having aircraft circle the airport visually from an
approach flown to RWY 31C, is a much safer operation and provides an
orderly, efficient arrival flow to MDW.
    Six commenters questioned the ATC services to be provided by the
FAA with the proposal. One commenter stated ATC currently makes transit
of the MDW Class C nearly impossible for aircraft not landing at MDW
and asked about the considerations made for the safety of flight issues
for VFR aircraft transiting the lakeshore. Another commenter was
concerned about ATC being able to handle the increase in flight
following requests that the proposal was expected to incur. Three other
commenters were concerned about air traffic controllers vectoring
small, VFR aircraft further out over Lake Michigan and asking if MDW
approach would still approve lakefront transitions similar to how they
are currently, as well as be willing to extend traffic advisories
beyond the proposed Class C airspace boundaries. The fifth commenter
questioned if MDW would have increased ATC responsibilities north of
Montrose Harbor, located east of Chicago O'Hare International Airport,
with the proposed Class C airspace shelf.
    The FAA audited VFR aircraft operations in the proposal airspace
area for 7 random weeks from 2019 and 2021 (2020 was not included due
to pandemic related flight reductions). The audit results showed
approximately 23 aircraft operations per day in the proposed airspace
at and below 1,900 feet MSL and 10 aircraft operations per day between
2,300 feet MSL and 3,000 feet MSL. With that, the FAA does not
anticipate there will be an appreciable increase in VFR traffic forced
lower or pushed over the lake.
    The FAA remains committed to providing ATC services to all
aircraft, IFR and VFR, in the interest of flight safety in congested
airspace areas. Since the proposed Class C airspace shelf is in an area
that is currently Class E airspace, it is difficult to assert that ATC
routinely denies entry into or makes it harder to enter MDW Class C
airspace. The only Class C airspace currently east of MDW is the 5 NM
surface area airspace located immediately around MDW from the surface
upward to the base of the overlying Chicago O'Hare Class B airspace
shelf. This is very congested airspace around the MDW airport and the
FAA suspects it may explain why some aircraft may be denied entry into
MDW Class C airspace. Again, the FAA encourages VFR pilots flying along
the Lake Michigan shoreline consider establishing two-way
communications with ATC to fly within the proposed Class C airspace
shelf in the interest of flight safety for IFR and VFR aircraft alike.
    Air traffic controllers are trained to consider many factors
associated with operational situations as they control the aircraft
within their responsible airspace sectors. However, if ATC should
provide a control instruction that a pilot feels would jeopardize
flight safety or their ability to comply, it is incumbent on the pilot
to advise ATC of this and take appropriate action. Midway ATCT and
Chicago TRACON will continue to provide lakefront transitions as they
do today and continue to provide traffic advisories for the airspace
under their control on a traffic and workload permitting basis.
Typically, aircraft operating outside of the airspace under an air
traffic controller's control will not be provided traffic advisories.
    Lastly, Montrose Harbor is located north of the proposed Class C
airspace shelf boundary in Class E airspace underlying the Chicago
O'Hare Class B airspace area. As such, it is not anticipated that ATC
will have increased ATC responsibilities in that area.
    One commenter challenged the suggestion that this proposal wouldn't
impact traffic. The commenter stated that if effective, the increased
IFR/VFR traffic separation made possible by the changes would in fact
allow more curved approaches instead of reducing the use of them and
would increase aircraft capacity within MDW Class C airspace via closer
spacing of IFR approaches.
    The FAA notes that the proposed action is aimed at enhancing flight
safety for all by lessening the likelihood of IFR aircraft flying RNAV
procedures to RWY 22L encountering VFR aircraft flying along the Lake
Michigan shoreline and not in contact with ATC. It is not aimed at
enabling more curved approaches. Further, IFR approach spacing is
determined by two factors, (1) separation standards found in FAA Order
JO 7110.65, Air Traffic Control, and (2) the operational demand of
aircraft flying in the same airspace area. IFR arrival aircraft to RWY
22L can be no closer than 3 NM separation and due to operational demand
of aircraft flying in the vicinity of MDW, they are typically further
separated than that in the interest of flight safety in the MDW
terminal area. Only during high demand ``rush'' periods will multiple
IFR arrival aircraft 3 NM in trail of other IFR arrival aircraft be
observed.
    Two comments were received addressing ATC frequencies for the VFR
aircraft that fly the Lake Michigan shoreline. One commenter was
interested in knowing if the frequencies would be changed and how, if
changing, while a second commenter asked if there were any plans to
implement a Chicago shoreline common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF)
for use similar to the ``Watson Island'' frequency in Miami.
    The FAA does not intend to change the frequencies currently in use
along the Lake Michigan shoreline since there are multiple ATC sectors
and facilities controlling different airspace areas along the
shoreline; which requires the use of the existing frequencies.
Additionally, the FAA is not planning to add a common use frequency
along the Lake Michigan shoreline similar to the ``Watson Island''
frequency noted on the Miami Terminal Area Chart. The FAA has opted to
continue using the existing frequencies noted on the Chicago Terminal
Area Chart to avoid potential frequency confusion that

could occur with the existing frequency that is published in the chart
note for aircraft flying within 15 NM of MDW requesting services in
Class C airspace.
    Three comments addressed the proposed Class C airspace shelf
boundary and the associated VFR flyway on the Chicago VFR Flyway
Planning Chart. The first commenter simply asked if the existing Class
C airspace shelf boundary located southeast of MDW would be removed
should the FAA determine to extend the airspace shelf with a 1,900-foot
floor further around the east side of MDW. The second commenter
questioned if the VFR Flyway Planning Chart would change and if notes
at the north and south ends of the VFR flyway would be added
recommending how pilots should transit the proposed Class C airspace
shelf area. The third commenter recommended charting a frequency for
transitioning VFR aircraft to use to self-announce their intentions as
the flight volume would be squeezed in that area.
    The FAA offers that should the Class C airspace shelf be extended
as proposed, the airspace shelf boundary line located southeast of MDW
would be removed and the new airspace shelf boundary with a 1,900-foot
MSL floor (over land) and 2,300-foot floor (over water) between 5 NM
and 10 NM of MDW would be charted at the 090[deg] bearing of the
intersection of the 10-mile radius around the Chicago O'Hare
International Airport and the 5-mile radius around the Chicago Midway
International Airport. The VFR Flyway Planning Chart would change with
the new Class C airspace shelf boundaries depicted, but the FAA does
not intend to pursue adding chart notes at the north and south ends of
the VFR flyway as recommended. The existing chart note with the
frequency and who to contact to enter the Class C airspace would remain
and apply to the extended Class C airspace shelf. Chart notes
recommending how VFR pilots should transit the Class C airspace area
are also not planned. The decision of whether to fly through the Class
C airspace shelf or avoid entering the Class C airspace is up to each
pilot after they flight plan and consider all factors. The FAA
encourages VFR pilots to consider establishing two-way communications
with ATC for Class C services in the proposed MDW Class C airspace
shelf to enhance the flight safety in that area, especially when there
is IFR traffic flying RNAV RWY 22L approaches inbound to MDW. Lastly,
the FAA does not anticipate transitioning VFR aircraft to be squeezed
below the Class C airspace shelf; therefore, the FAA intends to retain
the VFR flyway outside the airspace shelf with a 1,900-foot MSL floor
as charted for VFR pilots should they opt to not establish two-way
communications with MDW approach for Class C services.
    Two commenters were concerned about the environmental analysis
conducted in support of the proposed Class C airspace shelf extension
around MDW. The first commenter asked what type of environmental
factors the FAA addresses for amending the airspace. The second
commenter shared that the proposal lowers the shelf from 3,600 feet MSL
to 1,900 feet MSL over south side [Chicago] neighborhoods and that VFR
traffic would be flying substantially lower outside the Class C as a
result. The commenter asked if consideration is given to the noise
impact over the neighborhoods under the shelf.
    The FAA's environmental review for the proposed Class C airspace
amendment is conducted in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requirements and considers several different
categories which include, but are not limited to, biological resources,
air quality, historical resources, and noise. With respect to the
question of noise impact considerations over the south side
neighborhoods under the proposed Class C airspace shelf, the FAA does
not anticipate any adverse noise impacts from what is experienced
today. As mentioned previously, based upon our traffic audit, the
majority of VFR flights above 1,900 feet MSL today occur over Lake
Michigan and most VFR flights over land today occur between 1,500 feet
MSL and 1,900 feet MSL.
    One commenter shared their concern that if this proposal was to
overcome a safety of flight concern, why does it take two years to
accomplish the proposed change. The commenter thought the airspace
changes should be accomplished quicker.
    The FAA acknowledges the concern for how long it appears to take to
accomplish the rulemaking requirements to effect Class C airspace
changes. The FAA does not take the regulatory requirements for changing
airspace classifications and establishing operating rules and
requirements in new airspace areas lightly. There are established
regulatory processing procedures and timelines associated with ensuring
public engagement and notice, as well as the opportunity to comment on
proposed actions in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act
requirements contained in Title 5 of United States Code 553, while a
proposal is being considered. Further, the processing steps are
developed to prevent arbitrary and capricious decision making that
result in needless or unnecessary airspace changes. The rulemaking
process includes public engagement to aid the FAA in developing its
proposed airspace amendments (ad hoc committee) and then public
opportunities to comment on the proposed action for consideration by
the FAA (informal airspace meetings and notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM)) as it reviews and evaluates all inputs prior to making a
determination. Additionally, the FAA must accomplish and consider
regulatory evaluations of Class C airspace proposals (initial and
final), required NEPA reviews and considerations, and legal sufficiency
reviews before publishing its regulatory determination. As Class C
airspace actions tend to be controversial, rulemaking to establish or
modify Class C airspace can take 24-36 months or more depending on the
extent of the proposal.
    One commenter recommended the FAA create a new program to replace
Operation Rain Check (an FAA program to enhance pilot awareness of NAS
functions, safety, and airspace procedures) and coordinate a program
every 90 days that conducts a virtual fly-in and virtual community of
that event.
    This comment falls outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    One commenter recommended establishing a VFR helicopter corridor on
the north side of the MDW Class C airspace like the some of the
corridors in the New York area in 14 CFR part 93, subpart W--New York
Class B Airspace Hudson River and East River Exclusion Special Flight
Rules Area. The location of the recommended VFR corridor was from the
Lake Michigan shoreline in the vicinity of Soldier Field to the
Vertiport Chicago Heliport.
    The FAA does not agree. The VFR helicopter corridors in the New
York area mentioned by the commenter are for access to Class B airspace
by helicopters without talking to ATC. A VFR corridor is defined as
airspace through Class B airspace, with defined vertical and lateral
boundaries, in which aircraft may operate without an ATC clearance or
communication with ATC. These corridors are, in effect, a ``hole''
through Class B airspace. The recommended VFR helicopter corridor is
located within Class E and Class G airspace below the proposed MDW
Class C airspace shelf, as well as the overlying Chicago O'Hare Class B
airspace. As such, the FAA has determined a VFR helicopter corridor, as
recommended, is unnecessary.

    One commenter was concerned how the MDW Class C airspace proposal
might impact the large volume of VFR traffic that traverses the VFR
flyway along the Lake Michigan shoreline during the Experimental
Aircraft Association's (EAA) Annual AirVenture ``Oshkosh'' event in
Oshkosh, WI.
    The FAA expects any impacts associated with the proposal to amend
the MDW Class C airspace shelf around the east side of MDW to be
minimal. As noted in response to the Committee's recommendation on the
same issue, planning for the EAA AirVenture event at Oshkosh, WI, is a
yearlong process that includes collaboration between ATC, EAA, the U.S.
military, and pilots who support and attend EAA's AirVenture. Public
outreach is accomplished by a Notice published in the Domestic Notices
link of the Air Traffic Plans and Publications website at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ and a NOTAM booklet with detailed information
for aircraft transitioning the Lake Michigan shoreline and nearby
airspace, including the MDW and Chicago TRACON controlled airspace
areas. The 2022 EAA AirVenture Oshkosh Notice and NOTAM booklet that
are published contain a ``VFR Transition through Chicago Approach''
section that details how pilots are urged to use the Chicago VFR Flyway
Planning Chart for the Chicago area. It specifically addressed VFR
aircraft transiting the shoreline to listen to the MDW ATIS transit
guidance, as well as information addressing jet traffic crossing the
shoreline at 3,000 feet MSL if MDW is landing on RWY 22L. The Notice
and NOTAM booklet further urge pilots to comply with the VFR flyway
altitudes south of the Navy Pier and north of the Electric Power Plant,
as published. The Chicago TRACON will continue to collaborate with EAA
on future AirVenture Oshkosh events and the FAA anticipates the event
Notice and NOTAM booklet information to remain consistent with respect
to guidance for transiting the lakefront (Lake Michigan shoreline) area
even if the proposed MDW Class C airspace shelf would be established.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to modify the
Chicago, IL, Class C airspace area by extending the airspace shelf
around Chicago Midway International Airport further around the airport
on the east side to end northeast of the airport. This amendment is
proposed to enhance flight safety in the Chicago Midway International
Airport terminal area (see the attached chart).
    The current Chicago Class C airspace consists of a surface area and
airspace shelf centered on the airport reference point: (1) that
airspace extending upward from the surface to 3,600 feet MSL within a 5
NM radius of the airport; and (2) that airspace extending upward from
1,900 feet MSL to 3,600 feet MSL between 5 NM and 10 NM from 2-miles
northeast of and parallel to the MDW RWY 31C localizer course southeast
of the airport, clockwise to the Chicago O'Hare Class B airspace area
northwest of the airport. The Class C airspace area excludes the
airspace within the Chicago, IL, Class B airspace area. The footprint
of the proposed Class C airspace area would be expanded to include an
airspace shelf east of MDW, but the current 3,600-foot MSL ceiling of
the Class C airspace area and Chicago Class B airspace exclusion would
be retained. The proposed modifications are described below. In
developing these modifications, the FAA has considered the comments,
questions, and recommendations received from the Committee and the
informal airspace meetings.
    This proposal would reconfigure the Class C airspace area by
extending the existing airspace shelf between 5 NM and 10 NM further
around MDW on the east side from the existing boundary located 2 NM
northeast of and parallel to the MDW RWY 31C localizer course to a new
boundary defined by the 090[deg] bearing of the intersection of the 10-
mile radius around the Chicago O'Hare International Airport and the 5-
mile radius around the Chicago Midway International Airport. This
proposed new Class C airspace shelf would extend from the Chicago Class
B airspace located northwest of MDW counterclockwise around MDW to a
boundary slightly south of Interstate 290 located northeast of MDW and
include the airspace over Chicago and Lake Michigan between 5 NM and 10
NM of MDW. The portion of the proposed airspace shelf over land would
retain the existing airspace shelf altitudes extending upward from
1,900 feet MSL to 3,600 feet MSL, and the portion of the extended
airspace shelf over Lake Michigan would extend upward from 2,300 feet
MSL to 3,600 feet MSL. The exclusion of the airspace within the
Chicago, IL, Class B airspace area would also be retained.
    This proposed airspace shelf would enhance flight safety in the MDW
terminal area by encompassing the MDW RNAV RWY 22L approaches for IFR
aircraft, retaining a VFR flyway along the Lake Michigan shoreline
outside Class C airspace for VFR pilots that elect not to fly within
the proposed Class C airspace and communicating with ATC, and
preserving the VFR sightseeing operations north of Interstate 290
without impact.
    Class C Airspace areas are published in paragraph 4000 of FAA Order
JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class C airspace
area modifications proposed in this document would be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

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. The FAA has determined that
there would be no new requirement for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Federal agencies consider impacts of regulatory actions under a
variety of executive orders and other requirements. First, Executive
Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the 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 of 1979 (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, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in
any one year. The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is
$165,000,000, using the most current (2021) Implicit Price Deflator for
the Gross Domestic Product.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
rule: (1) will

generate benefits that justify costs; (2) is not an economically
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866; (3) will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities; (4) will not create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and
(5) will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector.
    The benefits of the proposed regulation are the value of the risk
reductions resulting from modification of the MDW Class C airspace
area. These benefits include the value of avoiding accident
consequences (e.g., fatalities, injuries, and property damage) that
could occur in the absence of the rule. As an example, the FAA
estimates the value of reducing the risk of fatalities using the
``value of statistical life,'' currently $11.8 million.\1\ The FAA is
proposing the rule to reduce the risk of midair collisions in an area
in which there is a high volume of commercial and general aviation
traffic. As described above regarding the staff study, the FAA
identified an average of over 7 incidents (TCAS RA events) per month
from 2016 to 2017 and additional subsequent events, which do not
include events for which air traffic controllers took action to prevent
such events. Midair collisions may result in fatalities, injuries, and
property damage both to persons in the aircraft and on the ground.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See: U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) March 2021,
Treatment of the Value of Preventing Fatalities and Injuries in
Preparing Economic Analyses. Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of the proposed rule are the value of resources needed to
comply with the airspace changes. In this case, VFR pilots desiring to
fly at their current altitudes that would be within the proposed Class
C airspace would be required to establish two-way communications with
ATC. VFR pilots flying in the vicinity of MDW are likely equipped for
this communication and as such this change would involve only minimal
time for awareness and planning. The FAA also does not anticipate
increased staffing needs. Therefore, costs are likely minimal.
    The FAA welcomes comments on the benefits and costs of this
proposal.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94
Stat. 1164 (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat.
857, Mar. 29, 1996), and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L.
111-240, 124 Stat. 2504 Sept. 27, 2010), requires Federal agencies to
consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and
other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact.
The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses and not-for-
profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are
not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
    Agencies must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA) if a proposed rule will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. However, if not, the head of the
agency may so certify per section 605(b) of the RFA. The certification
must include a statement providing the factual basis for the
determination,
    The proposed rule does not impose requirements on small businesses,
not-for-profit organizations, or governments. Therefore, per section
605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that the proposed rule would not
result in 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 U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this rule and determined that it will
improve aviation safety and does not exclude imports that meet this
objective. As a result, the FAA does not consider this rule as creating
an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.

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 $165 million in lieu of $100
million. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State,
local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs
without the Federal government having first provided the funds to pay
those costs. The FAA determined that the proposed rule will not result
in the expenditure of $165,000,000 or more by State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.
Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 do not apply.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15,
2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 4000--Subpart C--Class C Airspace.

* * * * *

AGL IL C Chicago, IL [Amended]

Chicago Midway International Airport, IL
    (Lat. 41[deg]47'10'' N, long. 087[deg]45'09'' W)
    That airspace extending upward from the surface to 3,600 feet
MSL within a 5-mile radius of the Chicago Midway International
Airport; that airspace extending upward from 1,900 feet MSL to 3,600
feet MSL within an area beginning at a point north of Chicago Midway
International Airport at the intersection of the 10-mile radius
around a point centered at lat. 41[deg]59'16 '' N, long.
087[deg]54'17'' W and the 5-mile radius of the Chicago Midway
International Airport, thence extending on a 090[deg] bearing to the
Lake Michigan shoreline at lat. 41[deg]52'09'' N, long.
087[deg]36'59'' W, thence southward following the shoreline to the
10-mile radius of the Chicago Midway International Airport at lat.
41[deg]44'59'' N, long. 087[deg]32'06'' W, thence clockwise along
that 10-mile radius to the intersection with the 10.5-mile radius
around a point centered at lat. 41[deg]59'16'' N, long.
087[deg]54'17'' W, thence counterclockwise along that 10.5-mile
radius to the intersection with the 5-mile radius of the Chicago
Midway International Airport, thence counterclockwise along that 5-
mile radius to the intersection with the 10-mile radius around a
point centered at lat. 41[deg]59'16'' N, long. 087[deg]54'17'' W;
and that airspace extending upward from 2,300 feet MSL to 3,600 feet
MSL within an area beginning at a point on the Lake Michigan
shoreline at lat. 41[deg]52'09'' N, long. 087[deg]36'59'' W, thence
extending on a 090[deg] bearing to the 10-mile radius of the Chicago
Midway International Airport, thence clockwise along that 10-mile
radius to the Lake Michigan shoreline at lat. 41[deg]44'59'' N,
long. 087[deg]32''06'' W, thence northward following the shoreline
to lat. 41[deg]52'09'' N, long. 087[deg]36'59'' W. This Class C
airspace area excludes the airspace within the Chicago, IL, Class B
airspace area.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP26OC22.012

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 17, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-22779 Filed 10-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29714]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13802]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 744

Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based

CFR Correction

0
 In Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 300 to 799,
revised as of January 1, 2017, on page 498, in supplement number 4 to
part 744, under United Arab Emirates, remove the entry for ``Indira
Mirchandani''.

[FR Doc. 2017-13802 Filed 6-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1301-00-P