[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8281-8288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3211]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA-2009-0514; Airspace Docket No. 07-AWA-1]
RIN 2120-AA66
Amendment to Class B Airspace; Cleveland, OH
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action modifies the Cleveland, OH, Class B airspace area
by expanding the existing airspace area to ensure containment of all
published instrument procedures and the aircraft flying those
instrument procedures within Class B airspace, and segregation of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft arriving/departing Cleveland-
Hopkins International Airport (CLE) and non-participating Visual Flight
Rules (VFR) aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B
airspace area. The additional Class B airspace will support
simultaneous arrival and departure operations under VFR conditions and
simultaneous IFR approaches during marginal VFR conditions using
Precision Runway Monitor/Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches
(PRM/SOIA). Geographic coordinates listed in the description are also
updated to reflect current aeronautical database information. This
action enhances safety, improves the flow of air traffic, and reduces
the potential for midair collision in the Cleveland terminal area.
DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, April 7, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace, Regulations,
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone: (202) 267-8783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On April 20, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify the Cleveland, OH, Class
B airspace area (75 FR 20528). The FAA proposed this action to ensure
containment of turbo-jet IFR aircraft conducting instrument approaches
to CLE within the confines of Class B airspace and better segregate IFR
aircraft arriving/departing CLE and non-participating VFR aircraft
operating in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B airspace area.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. In response to
the NPRM, the FAA received 14 written comment submissions, including
comments from Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and the
Soaring Society of America (SSA). Two comments received were duplicate
documents submitted by two different commenters. Many of the commenters
identified themselves as pilots who operate within, or through, the
local area. All comments received were considered before making a
determination on the final rule. An analysis of the comments received
and the FAA's responses are contained in the ``Discussion of Comments''
section below.
Subsequent to the NPRM publication, typographical errors were
identified for two geographic coordinates proposed in the Area E
description published in the regulatory text. The geographic
coordinates that were published as ``lat. 42[deg]47'20'' N., long.
81[deg]27'36'' W.'' in the NPRM should have been ``lat. 41[deg]47'20''
N., long. 81[deg]27'36'' W.'', and the geographic coordinates that were
published as ``lat. 42[deg]40'43'' N., long. 81[deg]38'13'' W.'' should
have been ``lat. 41[deg]40'43'' N., long. 81[deg]38'13'' W.''. The
geographic coordinate errors are corrected in this action.
Discussion of Comments
The AOPA cited the work of the FAA in developing this rule. They
support the proposed modifications and appreciate the common sense
approach the FAA adopted to include only that airspace required for the
containment of arrivals and departures at CLE. Further, AOPA applauded
the FAA's efforts to address and mitigate concerns raised by general
aviation pilots regarding access to the airports affected by the
redesign.
Seven commenters objected to proposed Areas F and G. They argued
the FAA proposed these areas significantly larger than required or
presented previously. Six of the commenters wanted the lateral
dimensions of the areas reduced to only five nautical mile (NM)
extensions in length by five NM in width. One commenter argued that
federal airways are established with four NM lateral widths from a
radial of a navigation aid and that the FAA should reduce the widths of
the areas to four NM also. Three commenters wanted Areas F and
[[Page 8282]]
G eliminated altogether if the lateral dimensions could not be reduced.
And lastly, three commenters suggested the FAA define the boundaries of
Areas F and G to coincide with visual landmarks to prevent inadvertent
Class B airspace violations. Unless changed, the commenters believed
the proposed Areas F and G would deteriorate safe flight operations
beneath and in the vicinity of the Class B airspace extension.
The FAA does not agree. For clarity, the lateral dimensions of
Areas F and G as proposed in the NPRM are 10 NM in length, extending
from the CLE Runway 24L ILS/DME antenna (I-HPI) 20 NM arc to the I-HPI
30 NM arc. The areas are 6 NM in width, from the CLE Runway 6R
localizer (I-CLE) signal extended to 6 NM north of the Runway 6L
localizer (I-LIZ) signal extended for Area F and from the I-CLE signal
extended to 6 NM south of the Runway 6R localizer (I-EYU) signal
extended for Area G. These lateral dimensions were determined to be the
absolute minimum essential to control IFR aircraft arriving from
multiple arrival streams that are being sequenced in the traffic
patterns for Precision Runway Monitor/Simultaneous Offset Instrument
Approaches (PRM/SOIA) procedures into CLE. The length of these areas
ensures the 15 to 18 percent of IFR aircraft arrivals that currently
enter, exit, and re-enter the CLE Class B airspace (as noted in the
NPRM) are fully contained within Class B airspace once they enter the
traffic patterns to intercept the final approach course and the PRM/
SOIA procedures. During periods of moderate and heavy traffic, aircraft
may be turned onto the PRM/SOIA finals as far as 25 NM to 30 NM from
CLE, as is the case today. The width of these areas ensures IFR arrival
aircraft conducting PRM/SOIA are contained within Class B airspace
while flying in the traffic patterns and are safely separated, in
accordance with aircraft separation standards and guidance, between
non-participating VFR aircraft that may be flying along the boundaries
of Areas F and G and IFR aircraft flying the instrument approach
procedures to Runways 6L/6R. To reduce the lateral dimensions (length
or width) of the Areas F or G Class B airspace extensions would be
impractical.
For the same reasons as discussed above, the FAA has determined the
request to consider eliminating Areas F and G if they cannot be reduced
in size is also impractical. The extensions are necessary in the
interest of flight safety to contain all the instrument approach
procedures and the IFR aircraft flying those procedures at CLE within
Class B airspace, as well as segregate the IFR aircraft and non-
participating VFR aircraft flying in the vicinity of the CLE Class B
airspace area.
The FAA acknowledges the benefits of using visual landmarks for
defining airspace boundaries and does so when possible. However, there
are no prominent landmarks in the areas needed to mark the lateral
boundaries of Areas F and G. Using the landmarks that the commenters
noted would not define the minimum airspace needed as addressed above.
Since there were no visual landmarks to define the boundaries of Areas
F and G, the FAA used arcs and radials from existing CLE navigation
aids to define them.
Eight commenters suggested the split floor altitudes proposed for
Areas F and G (5,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) and 6,000 feet MSL,
respectively) would cause confusion and probably some inadvertent Class
B airspace incursions. The commenters stated the split level proposed
design still presented a safety infringement to the glider operations
at Reader-Botsford airport (67D) and offered multiple recommendations
for changing the floor altitudes to remedy their concerns. Two
commenters recommended raising the floor of Areas F and G to 6,000 feet
MSL and 7,000 feet MSL, respectively; two commenters recommended making
both floor altitudes 6,000 feet MSL; and three commenters recommended
raising the Area G floor only to 7,000 feet MSL.
The FAA does not agree and has determined it is not possible to
raise the floor altitude of either area without impacting the
operational efficiency of the PRM/SOIA into CLE. Again, for clarity,
the vertical dimensions of Areas F and G as proposed in the NPRM are
from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 feet MSL for Area F and from
6,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000 feet MSL for Area G. Initially,
the Class B airspace extension to the southwest in the same airspace
proposed as Areas F and G was designed as a single area with a floor
altitude of 5,000 feet MSL. After receiving public input from the ad
hoc committee and public comments following the informal airspace
meetings recommending the configuration proposed, the subdivision and
altitudes of the two areas were proposed using the minimum amount of
airspace necessary to contain PRM/SOIA procedures to Runways 6L/6R at
CLE.
Aircraft flying PRM/SOIA procedures cannot be assigned the same
altitude during turn-on to the final approach course; they must be
assigned an altitude that differs by at least 1,000 feet from the
altitude of other aircraft conducting simultaneous approaches. Air
traffic control must continue to maintain at least 1,000 feet vertical
separation between aircraft flying PRM/SOIA procedures until they reach
14 NM from CLE where the actively monitored No Transgression Zone
between the approaches begins. Specifically, during an east flow at
CLE, aircraft will be turned onto and established on final approach
courses at 5,000 feet MSL and 7,000 feet MSL for Runway 6L, and 6,000
feet MSL and 8,000 feet MSL for Runway 6R. For both runways, air
traffic controllers may be sequencing aircraft from two or more arrival
streams, necessitating the use of multiple altitudes in the arrival
descent areas, until lateral separation is established. Under some
projected traffic scenarios, multiple altitude downwind patterns will
be utilized, with aircraft ``layered'' by altitude and worked by
separate controllers. As the boundary between Areas F and G is based on
the extended Runway 6R localizer I-CLE signal, the FAA continues to
believe that Class B incursions will not become an issue.
Lastly, as noted in the NPRM, the proposed Areas F and G are
expected to provide the gliders operating at 67D with airspace
supportive of their operations while at the same time ensuring the
integrity of the CLE Class B airspace by containing all instrument
procedures and the IFR aircraft flying the procedures at CLE.
Eleven commenters stated that establishing the proposed Areas F and
G extension would adversely affect flight safety beneath and in the
near vicinity of the extension. The safety concerns cited included
compression of general aviation aircraft under the extension where
gliders operate, increased potential for mid-air collisions, wake
turbulence effects on gliders from heavy aircraft arrivals on approach
to CLE, and increased potential for off-field landings by glider pilots
as a result of the extension overhead 67D.
The FAA acknowledges that some compression will occur since non-
participating VFR general aviation and glider aircraft have their
choice of flying either above or below the Class B airspace extension
or circumnavigating it further west to remain clear should they decide
not to contact the Cleveland Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON)
facility to receive Class B services. However, establishing the Class B
airspace extensions is necessary, consistent with regulatory guidance,
to contain all instrument procedures and the IFR turbo-jet aircraft
flying the instrument approach procedures within
[[Page 8283]]
Class B airspace, and to enhance flight safety to all in the CLE
terminal area by segregating the large turbo-jet aircraft and the non-
participating VFR aircraft operating in the vicinity of the CLE Class B
airspace areas.
All aircraft operating beneath or in the vicinity of Areas F and G
are expected to continue to comply with the regulatory requirements of
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Sec. 91.111,
titled Operating Near Other Aircraft, to avoid creating a collision
hazard with other aircraft operating in the same airspace.
Additionally, all aircraft operating in the same areas noted above are
expected to continue complying with 14 CFR Sec. 91.113, titled Right-
of-Way Rules: Except Water Operations, to ``see and avoid'' other
aircraft as well. The FAA believes that continued general aviation and
glider operator compliance with established flight rules regulatory
requirements, and these two regulations specifically, will overcome the
mid-air collision and wake turbulence concerns raised by the
commenters.
Lastly, the FAA acknowledges the concerns of the glider community
with the establishment of Class B airspace overhead 67D. However, the
design of the Class B airspace extension to the southwest of CLE was
minimized to the absolute essential dimensions operationally practical
by incorporating the recommendations made by the glider community
participating on the ad hoc committee and as requested during the
informal airspace meetings. Since the majority of glider operations
occur to the south and west of 67D and the redesigned configuration of
the Class B airspace extension overlying 67D was raised to 6,000 feet
MSL, the FAA believes impacts to local area or cross-country glider
flight operation at 67D will be negligible and off-field landing will
not be a factor.
The FAA has considered the safety concerns cited above thoroughly
and determined they do not negate the need for this action. At the
present time, large turbo-jet air carrier, general aviation, and glider
aircraft are flying simultaneously in the airspace proposed to become
Areas F and G, due to the outdated design of the CLE Class B airspace
area. The traffic compression, mid-air collisions, effects of wake
turbulence on gliders, and off-field landings concerns raised by the
commenters all exist today. Moving forward with the Class B airspace
modifications in this action will enhance flight safety for all
operators flying within, through, or near the CLE Class B airspace
area.
Six commenters stated that the proposed Class B airspace Areas F
and G would establish Class B airspace directly over the airspace Fun
Country Soaring (FCS) currently flies in and would diminish safe glider
operations. The commenters argued that FCS would be forced to consider
shutting down its operation or relocating away from 67D. The commenters
further suggested that the loss of FCS would create personal financial
hardships and result in financial impacts for the owner of 67D and the
town of Wellington, OH.
The FAA does not agree. As noted in the NPRM, the initial CLE Class
B airspace extension extending to the southwest was proposed from 5,000
feet MSL to 8,000 feet MSL. During the informal airspace meeting held
in Wellington, OH, a member of the glider community suggested the
airspace extension be split into a north section and a south section
whereby the floor of the Class B airspace overlying 67D, where the
gliders operate, could be raised to 6,000 feet MSL. This would provide
glider operators over 5,000 feet of airspace to maneuver and minimize
impacts to glider operations at 67D. Almost half of the comments
received following the informal airspace meetings endorsed this
recommendation, including the comments received from the Village of
Wellington, OH, Administrator. The FAA adopted this suggestion and
created Area F and Area G as proposed in the NPRM. Again, since most
glider operations occur to the south and west of 67D, the Areas F and G
proposed in the NPRM are expected to enable glider operations to
continue with negligible impact to local area or cross-country flights.
As such, the FCS operation at 67D is not expected to shut down or
relocate and the financial impacts to the FCS members, owner of 67D,
and town of Wellington, OH, that were alluded to by the commenters
responding to the NPRM, would be averted.
Seven commenters questioned the need for the proposed CLE Class B
modifications in light of the United and Continental airlines merger.
They suggested that the merger would include considerable consolidation
and reduction of routes resulting in a lower traffic volume at CLE;
making the Class B airspace expansion unnecessary. In addition, one
commenter stated further that if the proposed Class B airspace
extension areas were being used by air carriers currently, then they
did not see the requirement to legislate the exclusion of general
aviation flyers by initiating this rulemaking action. In essence they
were, arguing this rulemaking action was not needed.
The FAA does not agree. The FAA is taking action to modify the
current Class B airspace area to contain all instrument procedures at
CLE and the aircraft flying those instrument procedures to and from CLE
within Class B airspace, consistent with FAA directives, based on the
instrument approach and departure procedures in place today. This
action overcomes IFR aircraft entering, exiting, and reentering the CLE
Class B airspace area while flying published instrument approach
procedures and the associated traffic patterns during arrival.
Additionally, this action further enhance flight safety by segregating
IFR aircraft flying instrument procedures into CLE and VFR aircraft
operating in the vicinity of the CLE Class B airspace. The Class B
airspace modifications in this rule represent the minimum airspace
needed to reasonably accommodate the current operations, fleet mix, and
existing flight tracks at CLE.
AOPA recommended the FAA consider raising the portion of Area B
north of the shoreline over Lake Erie from the existing 1,900 feet MSL
to 3,000 feet MSL. A second commenter also requested the FAA lift the
existing 1,900 feet MSL and 3,000 feet MSL Class B airspace floors over
Lake Erie (Areas B and C, respectively), but did not indicate an
alternative altitude. Both commenters stated that an alternative to
raising the Class B floor altitudes over Lake Erie could be the
addition of a VFR flyway. The second commenter also requested the FAA
establish a VFR flyway between the eastern Cleveland suburban airports,
Cuyahoga County Airport and Burke Lakefront Airport, and the greater
Columbus and Cincinnati airports.
The FAA has determined it is not possible to raise the floor
altitudes for the CLE Class B airspace areas over Lake Erie, as
requested. No modifications were proposed for these areas as the
existing airspace structure was deemed sufficient to continue
supporting and protecting IFR aircraft departing Runways 6L/6R and VFR
aircraft flying along the Lake Erie shoreline. Although the commenters
cited safety reasons as the basis for their recommendation and request,
there are no known safety issues for that airspace today. The FAA
recognizes that raising the CLE Class B Areas B and C airspace floors
over Lake Erie would provide VFR pilots additional transit altitudes
and airspace over Lake Erie to operate east and west along the
shoreline north of Cleveland. However, the Class B airspace in Areas B
and C protects the IFR aircraft departing Runways 6L/6R climbing and
turning left over Lake Erie to transition
[[Page 8284]]
to westbound routings and the VFR aircraft flying in the vicinity of
those Class B airspace areas from the IFR departures. Additionally,
establishing VFR flyways is not a regulatory action and falls outside
the scope of this rule. As such, the commenters' VFR flyway
recommendations are being provided to the Cleveland TRACON facility for
their consideration as appropriate, and are not addressed further in
this action.
One commenter questioned the adequacy of the air traffic controller
and radar resources to safely control and separate the aircraft
operating in the vicinity of the proposed Class B airspace Areas E, F,
and G. The commenter was specifically concerned that establishing the
new Class B airspace extensions without additional resources would
increase the number of near mid-air collisions occurring in the
airspace below the extensions due to increasing numbers of high
performance aircraft skirting beneath the proposed Class B airspace
extensions and impacting those aircraft already flying there.
The FAA does not agree. Staffing and equipment resources are
already in place and adequate to support the CLE Class B modifications
and provide all Class B services without impacting safety or
efficiency. The FAA does not expect either to be an issue for CLE. No
air traffic control facility airspace sector changes will be required
to handle the Class B airspace modifications; hence, the existing
number of air traffic controllers assigned is sufficient. Additionally,
since there are no changes to the current traffic flows associated with
this Class B modification action, the existing radar sites, radar
displays, navigation aids and communication equipment is also
sufficient. However, should circumstances arise that indicate a need
for additional air traffic controller or radar resources, action will
be taken to obtain them.
Three commenters stated that the geographic coordinates [latitude/
longitude] defining Areas F and G did not coincide with the text of the
NPRM and needed to be redefined consistent with the dimensions briefed
at the informal airspace meetings. Two of these commenters further
noted that the southern boundary of Area G was not parallel with the
Runway 6R centerline extended as proof the coordinates were in error.
The FAA does not agree. The coordinates published in the NPRM
regulatory text for defining Areas F and G were validated with the
FAA's Aeronautical Navigation Procedures Group and found to be correct
and consistent with the text published in the NPRM. The FAA
acknowledges that Areas F and G proposed in the NPRM differ from what
was presented during the informal airspace meetings. However, the
proposed Areas F and G airspace published in the NPRM is the minimum
necessary to reasonably contain IFR arrival aircraft flying PRM/SOIA
procedures to runways 6L and 6R, and the geographic coordinates
published accurately reflect these areas. With respect to the comments
about the southern boundary of Area G, the commenters are correct that
the boundary is not parallel to the runway 6R centerline extended. The
northern and southern boundaries of the Area G are defined from
different navigation aids. The northern boundary is defined by the
Runway 6R localizer (I-CLE) signal extended, and the southern boundary
is defined 6 miles south and parallel to the Runway 6R localizer (I-
EYU) signal extended. This accounts for the fact that the southern
boundary of Area G is offset by 3 degrees and is not parallel to the
northern boundary.
One commenter requested the FAA consider opening a ``Window'' into
the proposed Areas F and G to make that airspace available to glider
pilots when CLE is landing on Runways 24L and 24R. The commenter based
their request on what they noted as the FAA's practice of opening
Windows into Class A airspace for glider operations under mountain wave
conditions in Western States.
Air traffic control has the authority to authorize, on a case by
case basis, certain operations within Class B airspace pursuant to the
regulatory requirements of 14 CFR part 91.131, Operations in Class B
Airspace. Establishing operational procedures is not a regulatory
action. As such, this commenter's request for operational procedures is
being provided to the Cleveland TRACON for further consideration as
appropriate.
One commenter recommended that a steeper descent profile from the
existing 3 degree glide slopes at CLE be used so as to enhance air
carrier safety. The SSA was concerned that poor weather descents, with
reduced aircraft performance in landing configurations, could result in
air carrier crashes not being contained within airfield boundaries,
risking the public and others.
The FAA does not agree. Aircraft accidents and crash sites are
influenced by many factors, i.e. nature of the emergency, altitude,
airspeed, weight, phase of flight, distance from an airport, terrain,
etc. Establishing steeper instrument approach descent profiles does not
necessarily equate to a safer approach into an airport or less risk to
the public. Additionally, glide slope angles above 3.1 degrees would
result in the loss of approach minimums for category D and E aircraft.
A 3 degree glide slope angle is the standard for safety, and increasing
the angle of the glide slope is outside the scope of this airspace
rule.
Two commenters noted the dimensions of the airspace modifications
[presumably Areas F and G] proposed in the NPRM were different from
what the ad hoc committee discussed. One of the commenters went on to
question whether the FAA had published the airspace extension
descriptions in the NPRM with errors, while the other asserted that the
passage of time since the ad hoc committee meeting in 2008 had
diminished the public's awareness and participation in this proposed
rulemaking. In addition, five commenters argued that the airspace
modifications proposed in the NPRM did not reflect the correct
dimensions the users agreed would be a workable revision. Two of these
commenters further argued they did not think it was proper or legal for
the FAA to force what they consider to be unacceptable, unsafe
restrictions on pilots and air traffic by publishing incorrect
information without re-engaging the public forum.
The FAA acknowledges that the dimensions of the Class B airspace
proposed in the NPRM are different from the initial airspace
configuration dimensions discussed by the ad hoc committee. However,
the FAA does not agree that the NPRM was published with errors in the
proposed airspace extension descriptions, or that the public's
awareness and participation in the rulemaking process has been
diminished. An ad hoc committee was formed to solicit local input on an
initial proposal and met in 2008 to develop recommendations to the FAA
regarding the proposed design of the Class B airspace. The committee
did not reach consensus on an airspace design, but did recommend a
variety of alternatives for the FAA to consider. In addition, as
announced in the Federal Register (73 FR 40446) on July 14, 2008, the
FAA held Informal Airspace Meetings in the CLE local area on September
16 and September 17, 2008, to inform users of the planned airspace
changes and to gather facts and information relevant to the proposed
airspace action. A comment period followed these informal airspace
meetings to solicit comments or recommendations on the proposal from
the public. Finally, the NPRM was published in the Federal Register (75
FR 20528) on April 20, 2010, to again
[[Page 8285]]
inform users of the proposed airspace changes and provide a 60 day
period for users to submit comments or recommendations on the proposal.
All comments received were considered prior to the FAA's determination
in this final rule action.
The development of the CLE Class B airspace modification was a
dynamic, iterative process of informing the public of the proposed
airspace action, receiving comments and recommendations from the
public, and considering the operational requirements in concert with
public comments and recommendations received. The comments and
recommendations received from the ad hoc committee were considered by
the FAA in developing the proposed airspace action presented at the
informal airspace meetings, and the public's comments and
recommendations received following the informal airspace meetings were
considered in the development of the proposed airspace action presented
in the NPRM. As such, the proposed Class B airspace extension (Areas F
and G) descriptions in the NPRM were not published with errors and the
public's awareness and participation in this rulemaking action has not
been diminished with the passage of time.
One commenter questioned the total operations figure of 550,171 for
CLE in 2008 that was cited in the Federal Register (75 FR 20528)
notice. The commenter stated he was unable to find any traffic numbers
near the figure presented, but did find a 200,268 total operations
statistic for 2009 provided by the Hopkins International Airport
website, as well as a Department of Transportation statistic that
showed 104,823 total departures for CLE in 2008. The commenter further
questioned that with actual traffic numbers less than half of the
volume cited in the NPRM summary was the proposed change to the
airspace really justified?
The FAA source for the 550,171 total operations for CLE in 2008
cited in the background section of the NPRM comes from the Air Traffic
Activity Data Systems (ATADS). The FAA's ATADS contains the official
National Airspace System (NAS) air traffic operations data available
for public release. The total operations figure cited in the NPRM is in
fact the total terminal operations for CLE; which is the sum of the
tower operations (240,340) and the TRACON operations (309,831) using
the Cleveland Class B airspace area. The total operations figure the
commenter cited from the Hopkins International Airport website is the
total airport operations; which reflect the IFR and VFR arrivals,
departures, and local operations at the airport only. It does not
account for any overflight operations flying in the vicinity of CLE
that contribute to the traffic density or operational complexity.
As noted in the NPRM, the procedural requirements for using PRM/
SOIA to establish aircraft on final at least 15 miles from CLE result
in aircraft exceeding the lateral boundaries of the current Class B
airspace by up to 10 miles during moderate levels of air traffic. Based
on the total terminal operations figures above and the existing IFR
traffic flows in the vicinity of CLE, the FAA has determined the
proposed Class B airspace area modifications are justified and
necessary. The Class B airspace extensions will enhance flight safety
by containing all instrument procedures and the aircraft flying the
instrument approach procedures within Class B airspace and ensuring the
segregation of IFR aircraft arriving/departing CLE and VFR general
aviation and glider aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Cleveland
Class B airspace area.
The Rule
The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 to modify the Cleveland, OH,
Class B airspace area. This action (depicted on the attached chart)
administratively corrects one area within the existing Cleveland Class
B airspace area and establishes two airspace extensions (the first,
Area E, to the northeast, and the second, defined by Areas F and G, to
the southwest) in order to provide additional airspace needed to
contain IFR aircraft conducting instrument approach operations within
Class B airspace once they have entered it and to better segregate the
IFR aircraft arriving/departing CLE and the non-participating VFR
aircraft operating in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B airspace
area. The modifications to the Cleveland Class B airspace area are
discussed below.
Areas A, C, and D. Areas A, C, and D are unchanged by this action.
Area B. The FAA is correcting the legal description for Area B by
removing the portion that excludes the airspace within a 2-mile radius
of Burke Lakefront Airport. The Class B airspace within Area B does not
overlap the airspace contained within a 2-mile radius of the Burke
Lakefront Airport. Therefore, the Area B exclusion language addressing
the airspace within a 2-mile radius of Burke Lakefront Airport is
unnecessary.
Area E. Area E is established to the northeast of CLE. This
modification extends from the existing Area D boundary defined by the
20-mile arc of I-HPI to the 30-mile arc of I-HPI. The northern boundary
of this area is 6 miles north and parallel to the Runway 24R localizer
(I-PVY) signal extended, and the southern boundary is 6 miles south and
parallel to the Runway 24L localizer (I-FVZ) signal extended. This new
area is established with the floor extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL
to and including 8,000 feet MSL, overlying the Willoughby Lost Nation
Airport in Willoughby, OH. The effect of this new area ensures IFR
aircraft flying instrument approaches to runways 24L and 24R are
contained within Class B airspace throughout the approach, segregates
IFR aircraft arriving CLE and non-participating VFR aircraft operating
in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B airspace area, and provides
airspace below and above this area for non-participating VFR aircraft
operations outside of Class B airspace.
Area F. Area F is established to the southwest of CLE. This
modification extends from the existing Area D boundary defined by the
20-mile arc of I-HPI to the 30-mile arc of I-HPI. The northern boundary
is 6 miles north and parallel to the Runway 6L localizer (I-LIZ) signal
extended, and the southern boundary is defined by the Runway 6R
localizer (I-CLE) signal extended. This new area is established with
the floor extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000
feet MSL, overlying to the north and west of Wellington, OH. Similar to
the effect of Area E, this new area [with Area G described below]
ensures IFR aircraft flying instrument approaches to runways 6L and 6R
are contained within Class B airspace throughout the approach,
segregates IFR aircraft arriving CLE and non-participating VFR aircraft
operating in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B airspace area, and
provides airspace below and above this area for VFR aircraft operations
outside of Class B airspace.
Area G. Area G is established to the southwest of CLE also. This
modification extends from the existing Area D boundary defined by the
20-mile arc of I-HPI to the 30-mile arc of I-HPI. The northern boundary
is defined by the Runway 6R localizer (I-CLE) signal extended, and the
southern boundary is defined 6 miles south and parallel to the Runway
6R localizer (I-EYU) signal extended. This new area is established with
the floor extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 8,000
feet MSL, overlying the Reader-Botsford Airport in Wellington, OH.
Similar to the effect of Areas E and F, this new area (with Area F
described above) ensures
[[Page 8286]]
IFR aircraft flying instrument approaches to runways 6L and 6R are
contained within Class B airspace throughout the approach, segregates
IFR aircraft arriving CLE and non-participating VFR aircraft operating
in the vicinity of the Cleveland Class B airspace area, and provides
airspace below and above this area for VFR aircraft operations outside
of Class B airspace.
Additionally, this action updates the CLE airport reference point
and the CLE Runway 24L ILS/DME antenna (I-HPI) geographic coordinates
listed in the airspace designation of the Cleveland Class B airspace
area to reflect current NAS aeronautical data.
Environmental Review
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there
is no new information collection requirement associated with this final
rule.
Regulatory Evaluation Summary
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows.
This final rule enhances safety by improving the flow of air
traffic, and reducing the potential for midair collision in the
Cleveland terminal area. In the NPRM, we concluded that the benefits of
the proposed rule exceeded any minimal cost associated with the
requirements. One commenter indicated that a soaring club would be
forced to consider shutting down or relocating operations as a result
of the proposal. The company may decide not to relocate which would
result in no additional costs. If a company changes locations, there
would be relocation costs. However, as explained earlier, the final
rule will continue to allow glider operations resulting in only a
minimal impact.
The FAA has determined establishing these requirements are
essential to ensure flight safety and efficiency of the NAS in the CLE
terminal airspace. Due to the efficiency and safety benefits, and
because we have incorporated the recommendations of affected
individuals into the requirements, there will only be minimal economic
cost with substantial positive net benefits.
The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
Our initial determination was that the rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
One commenter indicated that a soaring club would be affected as a
result of the proposal. We agree that, if a company changes locations,
there would be some relocation cost. However, because we have
incorporated the recommendations of affected individuals into the
requirements, and we expect operations to continue, there will be
minimal economic impact. As such, this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the economic impact is expected to be minimal.
Therefore, the FAA Administrator certifies that this final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not
[[Page 8287]]
operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The
statute also requires consideration of international standards and,
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA
has assessed the effect of this final rule and determined that it will
enhance safety and is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to trade.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p.389.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B airspace
* * * * *
AGL OH B Cleveland, OH [Modified]
Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport (Primary Airport)
(Lat. 41[deg]24'34'' N., long. 81[deg]51'18'' W.)
Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport Runway 24L ILS/DME Antenna
(I-HPI)
(Lat. 41[deg]23'44'' N., long. 81[deg]52'18'' W.)
Gilbert Airport (Pvt)
(Lat. 41[deg]22'00'' N., long. 81[deg]58'00'' W.)
Boundaries
Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and
including 8,000 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of I-HPI, excluding
that airspace within a 1-mile radius of Gilbert Airport.
Area B. That airspace extending upward from 1,900 feet MSL to
and including 8,000 feet MSL within an 8.5-mile radius of I-HPI,
excluding Area A previously described.
Area C. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to
and including 8,000 feet MSL within a 15-mile radius of I-HPI,
excluding Areas A and B previously described.
Area D. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 8,000 feet MSL within a 20-mile radius of I-HPI,
excluding Areas A, B, and C previously described.
Area E. That airspace extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to
and including 8,000 feet MSL starting at point lat. 41[deg]30'41''
N., long. 81[deg]27'22'' W., then northeast to point lat.
41[deg]37'00'' N., long. 81[deg]16'29'' W., then northwest along the
30-mile arc of I-HPI to point lat. 41[deg]47'20'' N., long.
81[deg]27'36'' W., then southwest to point lat. 41[deg]40'43'' N.,
long. 81[deg]38'13'' W., then southeast along the 20-mile arc of I-
HPI to the point of beginning.
Area F. That airspace extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to
and including 8,000 feet MSL starting at point lat. 41[deg]16'17''
N., long. 82[deg]16'56'' W., then southwest to point lat.
41[deg]09'35'' N., long. 82[deg]27'23'' W., then southeast along the
30-mile arc of I-HPI to point lat. 41[deg]04'24'' N., long.
82[deg]22'43'' W., then northeast to point lat. 41[deg]10'52'' N.,
long. 82[deg]12'37'' W., then northwest along the 20-mile arc of I-
HPI to the point of beginning.
Area G. That airspace extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL to
and including 8,000 feet MSL starting at point lat. 41[deg]06'13''
N., long. 82[deg]05'07'' W., then southwest to point lat.
40[deg]59'08'' N., long. 82[deg]15'03'' W., then northwest along the
30-mile arc of I-HPI to point lat. 41[deg]04'24'' N., long.
82[deg]22'43'' W., then northeast to point lat. 41[deg]10'52'' N,
long. 82[deg]12'37'' W, then southeast along the 20-mile arc of I-
HPI to the point of beginning.
BILLING CODE-P
[[Page 8288]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE11.011
BILLING CODE C
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 7, 2011.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2011-3211 Filed 2-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P