65270 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 3, 2016, and 

effective September 15, 2016, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace 

Designated as Surface Areas. 

* * * * * 

AWP CA E2 Truckee, CA [New] 

Truckee-Tahoe Airport, CA 

(Lat. 39°19′12′′ N., long. 120°08′22′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface within a 4.2-mile radius of TruckeeTahoe Airport. 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward from 700 feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

AWP CA E5 Truckee, CA [Modified] 

Truckee-Tahoe Airport, CA 

(Lat. 39°19′12′′ N., long. 120°08′22′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 4.2-mile 

radius of Truckee-Tahoe Airport, and within 

2 miles each side of the Truckee-Tahoe 

Airport 015° bearing extending from the 4.2- 

mile radius to 19 miles north of the airport, 

and within 2 miles each side of the airport 

328° bearing extending from the 4.2-mile 

radius to 16.5 miles northwest of the airport. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 

16, 2016. 

Richard Roberts, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

Western Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2016–22726 Filed 9–21–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0742; Airspace 

Docket No. 14–ASW–5] 

Establishment of Class D and E 

Airspace; Brookshire, TX 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class 

D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, 

and Class E airspace extending upward 

from 700 feet above the surface at 

Brookshire, TX, to accommodate the 

new air traffic control tower at Houston 

Executive Airport. The FAA is taking 

this action for the safe and efficient use 

of the airspace to contain Instrument 

Flight Rule (IFR) arrival and departure 

operations at the airport. 

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 

10, 2016. The Director of the Federal 

Register approves this incorporation by 

reference action under title 1, Code of 

Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to 

the annual revision of FAA Order 

7400.11 and publication of conforming 

amendments. 

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, and subsequent amendments can 

be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/ 

air_traffic/publications/. For further 

information, you can contact the 

Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: 1–800–647–5527, or 202– 

267–8783. The Order is also available 

for inspection at the National Archives 

and Records Administration (NARA). 

For information on the availability of 

FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 

202–741–6030, or go to http://

www.archives.gov/federal_register/ 

code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_

locations.html. FAA Order 7400.11, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, is published yearly and effective 

on September 15. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul 

Garza, Jr., Central Service Center, 

Operations Support Group, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Southwest 

Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort 

Worth, TX 76177; telephone: (817) 222– 

5874. 

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 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 establishes 

controlled airspace at Houston 

Executive Airport, Brookshire, TX. 

History 

On March 28, 2016, the FAA 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

to establish Class D and Class E 

Airspace at Houston Executive Airport, 

Brookshire, TX (81 FR 17114) Docket 

No. FAA–2014–0742. Houston 

Executive Airport opened an operating 

control tower October 1, 2014. Federal 

regulations (14 CFR 91.126, 91.127, and 

91.129) establish airspace requirements 

around an operating tower. Interested 

parties were invited to participate in 

three informal meetings with the local 

community held on June 17, June 18, 

and December 15, 2015, during the 

course of establishing this airspace, and 

in this rulemaking effort by submitting 

written comments on the proposal to the 

FAA. 146 comments were received by 

the end of the comment period May 12, 

2016. An additional five comments were 

received after the comment period (one 

having 322 signatures on a petition 

opposing the upper altitude limit of 

2,700 feet MSL; the petition supports 

2,000 feet MSL as acceptable and safer). 

One commenter requested to withdraw 

his request. Of the 150 comments, many 

voiced opinions on different aspects of 

the proposal as described in more detail 

below. 

Summary of Comments 

The FAA received multiple comments 

from 150 commenters that have been 

grouped to reflect general subject areas. 

The groups are categorized as follows; 

1. Support of the Class D proposal at 

2,500 feet 

2. Support of the Class D airspace at 

2,000 feet 

3. Support of the Class D proposal at 

1,700 feet 

4. Support for Class D at 2,500 but with 

Full Circle (4 miles) Airspace 

without cutout for Sport Flyers 

Airport 

5. Concerns of east-west VFR corridor 

compression 

6. Increase airspace to match Class B 

airspace 

7. Support for Class E airspace only 

8. No support for any change to the 

present airspace allocation 

9. Airspace compression in the 

northeast quadrant under Class B 

1. Comment: Support of the Class D 

proposal at 2,500 feet. 

Fifty-one comments supported the 

proposal, as is, with a top of 2,500 feet 

MSL. The positive comments ranged 

from support of the proposal at 2,500 

feet MSL to extending and expanding 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 65271 

controlled airspace to 2,700 feet MSL. 

One commenter proposed to increase 

the upper limit to 2,700 feet MSL. There 

were a variety of reasons cited in 

support of the proposal, including the 

following: 

(a) Confusing to have an air traffic 

control tower but no Class D airspace 

surrounding the airport. Establishing 

class D airspace on the FAA sectionals 

charts will better identify the air traffic 

control tower to our transient and 

overflying aircraft. 

(b) The air traffic control tower will 

enhance the safety of the operations and 

support the continued growth of the 

airport. Standard clearance from 

Houston Executive Airport is to 

maintain heading to 2,000 feet. Don’t 

want aircraft at 2,100 feet. Aircraft 

transitioning along I–10 are in the direct 

flight path of departing traffic off TME 

RWY 18. Aircraft flying over I–10 at 

2,000 feet without communicating with 

the tower could easily result in mid-air 

collision with departing traffic. 

(c) Limiting airspace to 2,000 feet will 

only encourage pilots to transition the 

airspace with no communication, which 

is dangerous. 

(d) A few miles north of the airport 

the Class B airspace begins at 3,000 feet 

but the majority of the Class B area over 

the airport is 4,000 feet. 

(e) Simply requesting a transition to 

the tower will make everyone aware of 

the transitioning aircraft. 

(f) The airspace is usually congested 

with pilots landing or departing 

Houston Executive Airport or nearby 

airports and pilots flying VFR along 

I–10 at 2,500 feet Class D ceiling is the 

ceiling pilots have been taught to fly. 

(g) Should declare the full circle of 4 

NM radius as Class D, including surface 

to 2,700 feet MSL as done at KHY, 

KAFW, KFWS, KADS. 

(h) The rule if adopted would make 

the controlled airspace around Houston 

Executive Airport consistent with 

comparable towered airfields in the U.S. 

Sugarland and Conroe were given 

higher ceiling altitudes than 2,500 feet. 

(i) Houston Executive Airport is only 

airport on the west side of Houston on 

the I–10 corridor with the ability to 

handle large cabin class aircraft and a 

runway length of 6,610 feet. 

(j) Not true that having the top of the 

Class D airspace at 2,500 feet ‘‘squeezes 

VFR aircraft into a narrow band.’’ It is 

a simple matter to call Houston 

Executive Tower and coordinate a 

clearance to transit the Class D airspace 

or call Houston Approach and get a 

clearance to transit through the Class B 

airspace. Support for Class D Airspace, 

but radar is necessary. 

FAA response: An operating tower 

that meets 14 CFR part 91 regulations is 

entitled to the establishment of airspace 

around the tower. Houston Executive 

Airport (TME) became operational on 

October 1, 2014. Unless otherwise 

authorized or required by ATC, 14 CFR 

91.126 and FAA Order 7400.2 states that 

no person may operate an aircraft to, 

from, or through, an airport having an 

operational control tower unless twoway radio communications are 

maintained between that aircraft and the 

control tower. Communications must be 

established prior to 4-nautical miles 

from the airport, up to and including 

2,500 feet AGL. 

Although the FAA initially 

considered a top altitude of 2,700 feet, 

based on feedback from the first 

informal meeting and considerations for 

the safe and efficient use of airspace, the 

FAA determined that 2,500 feet, as 

provided in 14 CFR 91.126, is an 

appropriate altitude for the operations at 

the airport based on further information 

received from informal meetings, radar 

operating practices, and surveillance 

equipment. The airspace was tailored to 

provide minimum inconvenience while 

optimizing safety. Radar equipment is 

not a requirement for a control tower. 

This particular tower is a Non Federal 

Contract Tower; the FAA is not 

responsible for providing this type of 

equipment. Currently, airport traffic 

activity does not meet the threshold for 

establishing a radar environment. 

2. Comment: Support of the Class D 

airspace at 2,000 feet. 

Seventy-six comments opposed the 

2,500-foot top and another 322 signed a 

late-filed petition opposing the altitude 

of 2,500 feet. This group of 398 did 

support the creation of the airspace if 

the top altitude was 2,000 feet MSL. 

They said reducing tower coordination 

with a 2,000-foot altitude, and allowing 

for more separation of airspace between 

Class B and Class D, would provide a 

greater and safer transition for aircraft 

flying along Houston’s east/west 

corridor. 

Some of the reasons for limiting top 

of airspace to 2,000 included: 

(a) Other airports (DWH, HQZ, GKY, 

and SGR) have a top altitude of 2,000 

feet. 

(b) A 2,500 foot MSL will severely 

restrict approaches and departures at 

IWS. 

(c) A 2,000 foot ceiling or lower could 

lessen the effect on the KIWS traffic 

located 12 NM E of TME, which has a 

high proportion of VFR and sport pilot 

traffic. Most IFR departures from KIWS 

(Runway 15) are cleared to enter 

controlled airspace heading 270 degrees 

at 2,000 feet. 

(d) Industry standard for Class D is a 

tower with a 4-NM radius and 2,000 feet 

MSL. 

(e) The most commonly used altitudes 

are around 1,500 feet; this ensures 

clearance along the entire route of class 

B at 2,000 feet and 1000 feet minimum 

altitude over densely populated terrain. 

It is also common for westbound traffic 

to stay just north of I–10 and east-bound 

traffic stays south of I–10. Much of this 

VFR traffic doesn’t want to 

communicate with the KTME tower. 

The wisdom of providing only 500 feet 

of space between the top of class D and 

the base of Class B (3,000 feet MSL) 

within two Victor Airways is in 

question. By establishing the upper 

limit of the Class D Airspace to 2,000 

feet MSL, pilots would have a 500-foot 

separation from traffic in both Class B 

and Class D airspace, instead of only 

250 feet separation under the proposal. 

FAA response: Transiting VFR aircraft 

are able to fly through this airspace at 

2,000 feet by establishing radio 

communications and receiving approval 

by the tower based on the air traffic 

situation. The same aircraft can fly over 

the airspace at 2,501 feet without 

communicating with the tower. The 

potential for aircraft to be departing 

Houston Executive Airport and climbing 

to 2,000 feet with aircraft overflying the 

same area at 2,001 feet does not provide 

an adequate safety net. Although there 

was a comment that Sugar Land Airport 

had a 2,000 foot top altitude, a review 

of this comment reveals a top altitude 

up to, but not including 2,600 feet. 

David Wayne Hooks Airport does have 

up to but not including a 2,000 foot top 

altitude; however, this airport underlies 

Class B airspace that begins at 2,000 

feet. An IFR exit to the west of DWH is 

capped at 2,000 feet. In making its 

decision, the FAA reviewed the 

operations at the airport, informal 

meeting notes, radar operating practices, 

and surveillance equipment. With 

respect to the comment about victor 

airways, they are in a small section of 

the class D footprint. Approximately 10 

percent underlie Class B Shelf at 3,000 

feet. Controlled traffic on V–68 and 

V–222 will be at 3,000 feet or higher. 

VFR aircraft are knowledgeable about 

these airways and are to maneuver 

themselves to be clear of other aircraft, 

see and avoid. The airspace was tailored 

to provide minimum inconvenience 

while optimizing safety. The FAA has 

determined that 2,500 feet is an 

appropriate altitude to enhance safety 

and allow flexibility to the VFR pilot. 

3. Comment: Support of the Class D 

proposal at 1,700 feet. 

One commenter supported Class D 

airspace with an altitude of 1,700 feet. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65272 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

FAA response: 14 CFR 91.129 sets 

minimum altitudes when operating in 

Class D airspace, unless otherwise 

required, by the distance from cloud 

criteria; each pilot of a turbine-powered 

airplane and each pilot of a large 

airplane must climb to an altitude of 

1,500 feet above the surface as rapidly 

as possible. The FAA has determined 

that 2,500 feet is an appropriate altitude 

to enhance safety and allow flexibility 

to the VFR pilot. 

4. Comment: Support for Class D at 

2,500 feet but with Full Circle (4 miles) 

Airspace without Cutout for Sport 

Flyers Airport. 

FAA response: The informal meetings 

with the community resulted in 

reducing the size of the proposed Class 

D to its current cutout shape. This 

proposal reduces the allowed 4-nautical 

mile radius around TME to assist the 

operators transitioning in and out of 

Sport Flyers Airport without the need of 

establishing radio communications with 

TME. The proposed cutout also allows 

for accommodation of a private airstrip 

to the southwest of TME. This cutout 

complies with established rules in FAA 

Order 7400.2K Chapter 17–2–3, 

SATELLITE AIRPORTS, paragraph a. 

Using shelves and/or cutouts to the 

extent practicable, exclude satellite 

airports from the Class D airspace area. 

5. Comment: Concerns of east-west 

VFR corridor compression. 

Forty-eight comments were received 

as to this loss of airspace and to the 

creation of airspace above 2,000 feet as 

a safety issue, having a major impact on 

the VFR community. They commented 

that the east/west corridor along I–10 

has long been a familiar route for VFR 

pilots transitioning through the airspace 

for the last thirty years; they enjoy the 

visual reference and not having to 

communicate with small airports at the 

accustomed altitude of 2,000 feet. 

Comments included: 

(a) Compressing transient VFR traffic 

along I–10 corridor to 500′ vertically 

will increase risk of collision. 

(b) Will make flying cross country 

more stressful. 

(c) Proposed airspace is dangerous 

because it sits at the mouth or exit of the 

VFR corridor between the two huge 

Class B airspaces over Houston. 

(d) KTME does not need Class D 

because it does not have a lot of traffic 

and it is not for the common good of all. 

(e) Proposed airspace significantly 

reduces usable airspace for the majority 

to accommodate a few elite jets; Safety 

should be for the most pilots, not the 

richest. There are only a few IFR days 

where Class D might be beneficial; but 

there are many VFR flyers. 

(f) Class D should not be implemented 

until tower existence is published. 

(g) Will cause transition to South and 

cause flights and noise over residential 

areas of Katy, Cinco Ranch, and 

Brookshire. Should consider these 

alternatives: (1) No Class D; (2) Class D 

ceiling 1,500 AGL rather than 2,000 

AGL; (3) Make southern border of Class 

D align with northern edge of I–10. 

(h) VFR traffic will deviate around the 

south side putting west and east-bound 

traffic on potential collision course for 

the following reasons: 

(1) By establishing Class D around 

KTME, this VFR traffic will choose to 

deviate around the south side of the 

proposed Class D. That will put westand east-bound traffic on a potential 

collision course. Although in practice 

VFR traffic is often at 1,500′ even this 

far out west, it could fly at a higher 

altitude. However, even the Houston 

VFR flyway chart encourages VFR traffic 

to stay below 2,500′ in this area. 

Adhering to that recommended altitude 

would still require a deviation south 

around the proposed KTME Class-D, so 

the safety concern noted above still 

stands. 

(2) VFR aircraft flying in opposite 

directions would normally have a 1,000 

ft. separation between themselves 

(whole altitudes + 500 ft.). With only 

1,500 foot above TME (2,500 ft to 4,000 

ft) . . . what are the procedures for safe 

separation??? IFR are at the whole 

altitudes! So . . . If TME Class D has a 

ceiling of 2,500 ft, 2,600 ft to 3,900 ft is 

all that is left! In such a case. Only one 

VFR altitude is available [Eastbound: 

3,500 ft] [FAR Part 91.159] and that 

leaves Westbound VFR traffic with 

dangerous choices. VFR traffic flying 

over TME at 2,100 with a 2,000 ft. 

corridor above TME is less likely than 

VFR traffic using 2,600 or 3,900 in a 

1,500 ft. corridor. Westbound VFR won’t 

have any option that will give them 

more than 400 ft. separation from 

Eastbound VFR or IFR traffic. 

(i) Would have to drop 1,500 feet in 

order to land at West Houston Airport 

when coming from the West. Would we 

be better off with this traffic flying over 

Houston at 10,000 feet or around the 

Class B airspace? 

(j) This would interfere with all the 

commercial flights coming into IAH and 

HOU. 

(k) Directly effects VFR traffic on 

Victor airways. 

(l) Rather than speak with the tower 

at KTME, aircraft will in all likelihood 

divert either north or south. This then 

increases over flights to X09 and the 

Gloster (1XO7) skydive location JIM 

MAIM. 

(m) Eliminates practice area used by 

local pilots. 

(n) IFR has no priority over VFR in 

uncontrolled airspace. 

(o) Same result can be achieved by 

Class E controlled airspace to the 

ground, not just at nighttime like in this 

proposal, but for 24/24 instead of a 

daytime Class D. I would therefore 

propose to change the controlled 

airspace for KTME to Class E 24h 

instead of day Class D/Night Class E. 

(p) IFR pilots could use Hobby. 

(q) IFR pilots have the same obligation 

as VFR pilots to ‘‘See and Avoid’’ when 

in VMC. 

(r) Aircraft diverting either north or 

south would put aircraft closer to the 

instrument approaches for KTME. 

FAA response: The term corridor is 

generally used for the portion of I–10 

that is underneath the Class B airspace; 

when the Class B airspace terminates, so 

does the corridor. It is important to note 

that the portion of the east/west I–10 

corridor that lies inside the Class D does 

not underlie Class B. The VFR operation 

can still occur along I–10 either by 

circumnavigating the area 

approximately 14 flying miles or by 

establishing radio communications with 

the operating tower according to 14 CFR 

91.126 or (if Class E airspace) 14 CFR 

91.127. Since this area is not charted 

and the opening of TME was not widely 

known, the FAA has provided relief 

during this period by waiving the 

requirement to establish radio 

communications with the control tower 

during the airspace rulemaking process. 

14 CFR 91.129 set minimum altitudes 

when operating in Class D airspace, 

unless otherwise required by the 

distance from cloud criteria, each pilot 

of a turbine-powered airplane and each 

pilot of a large airplane must climb to 

an altitude of 1,500 feet above the 

surface as rapidly as possible. The 

distance needed to climb to 1,500 feet 

does not make the option to cap the 

southern border at I–10 feasible. VFR 

aircraft departing to and from West 

Houston Airport could have a normal 

climb/descent profile by communicating 

with TME tower and receiving 

permission to transition through the 

airspace; this should not be approved if 

aircraft activity is in the same area. This 

would maintain or increase safety from 

today’s environment. 

This airspace action is not expected to 

cause any potentially significant 

environmental impacts, including no 

significant noise impacts. No 

extraordinary circumstances exists that 

warrant preparation of an 

environmental assessment. 

When operating in VFR weather 

conditions, it is the pilot’s responsibility 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 65273 

to be vigilant so as to see and avoid 

other aircraft (14 CFR 91.113(a)). The 

Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) 

recommends that for aircraft 8,000 feet 

AGL and below, extra vigilance be 

maintained and that monitoring an 

appropriate control frequency is to the 

VFR pilot’s advantage to ‘‘get the picture 

of traffic in the area.’’ VFR pilots are to 

see and avoid other aircraft and to be 

extremely vigilant in congested VFR 

areas and Victor airways. Once again, an 

operating tower that meets the 

requirements of FAA Order 7400.2K, 

Chapter 17, is authorized Class D 

airspace. This proposal will have Class 

D airspace during tower operating hours 

and Class E surface area airspace during 

non-operating hours. The proposed 

altitude of 2,500 does not interfere with 

commercial traffic landing or departing 

IAH or HOU. The formal establishment 

of Class D airspace will allow for 

charting of the airspace dimensions and 

altitude which will provide notice to 

pilots to communicate or 

circumnavigate this area. The pilot will 

not be affected if the aircraft flies above 

2,500 feet. The FAA acknowledges the 

inconvenience to the VFR pilot of flying 

at or above 2,500 feet and establishing 

radio communications with control 

towers. 14 CFR 91.126, Class G airspace; 

14 CFR 91.127, Class E airspace require 

communication with the operating 

control tower (TME) unless otherwise 

authorized by ATC. The FAA does not 

agree that altitude compression will be 

constrained in this area since the floor 

of the Class B airspace is southeast of 

the proposed Class D airspace. 

6. Comment: Three commenters stated 

that the proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

should be to establish Class B Airspace 

in the Brookshire, TX area, instead of 

Class D and Class E Airspace. The 

commenters preferred to have the entire 

airspace controlled by the FAA. Some of 

the reasons cited in favor of Class B 

airspace were: 

(a) A few miles north of the airport, 

the Class B airspace begins at 3,000 feet 

but the majority of the Class B area over 

the airport is 4,000 feet. 

(b) Raising the top to meet the Class 

B further removes any confusion to 

transient traffic. 

(c) TME, with its physical location 

near Houston’s Corporate Energy 

Corridor and ample 6,610′ × 100′ 

runway, is attracting an ever growing 

number of larger and faster aircraft 

(turboprops and jets). 

(d) Class D airspace tends to have less 

recreational flyers and experimental 

traffic that tend to increase immediate 

airport traffic congestion and noise with 

constant circling for touch and goes, etc. 

FAA response: This airport and its 

location do not meet criteria for Class B 

airspace. 

7. Comment: Supports Class E 

airspace only. 

Five comments received supported 

the proposal of 2,500 feet if the airspace 

would be classified as Class E airspace. 

FAA response: The requirement for 

VFR aircraft to establish radio 

communications is still in effect for 

Class G and/or Class E airspace; 14 CFR 

91.126 and 14 CFR 91.127. Establishing 

the proposed Class D airspace will 

reduce the overall airspace dimensions. 

Approval to transit the area is still 

required; the benefit will be that all 

aircraft will have access to VFR charts 

and the airspace would be depicted. 

14 CFR 91.127, Operating on or in the 

vicinity of an airport in Class E airspace, 

states: 

(c) Communications with control 

towers. Unless otherwise authorized or 

required by ATC, no person may operate 

an aircraft to, from, through or on an 

airport having an operational control 

tower unless two-way radio 

communications are maintained 

between that aircraft and the control 

tower. Communications must be 

established prior to 4 nautical miles 

from the airport, up to and including 

2,500 feet AGL. However, if the aircraft 

radio fails in flight, the pilot in 

command may operate that aircraft and 

land if weather conditions are at or 

above basic VFR weather minimums, 

visual contact with the tower is 

maintained, and a clearance to land is 

received. If the aircraft radio fails while 

in flight under IFR, the pilot must 

comply with 14 CFR 91.185. 

8. Comment: No support for any 

change to the present airspace 

allocation. 

Thirty-one comments received 

rejected the proposal entirely. An 

immediate return to the status quo was 

requested based on the long standing 

operations in this area. Additionally, 

many commenters cited the east/west I– 

10 corridor and the compression of the 

VFR navigable air space in the northeast 

affected area as a concern. The majority 

of comments provided for an alternate 

choice of a top altitude of 2,000 feet. 

FAA response: The TME control 

tower opened October 1, 2014, and is 

operational; the status quo can no longer 

be maintained. The FAA is complying 

with all appropriate regulations. 

9. Comment: Airspace compression in 

the northeast quadrant under Class B. 

Twenty comments received 

concerned the compression of navigable 

airspace under Class B and Class D 

airspace around TME. Cited were safety 

concerns for VFR aircraft to squeeze into 

an already congested airspace. The 

concerns were departures of airports 

underneath the Class B, practice areas 

for student training, and the airspace 

compression along the east west I–10 

corridor. 

FAA response: The FAA has reviewed 

these concerns and agrees this is a 

compression of airspace with the 

establishment of Class D airspace. The 

proposal notes that 10 percent of the 

Class D footprint sits below the Class B 

shelf at 3,000 feet. The east/west I–10 

corridor underlies Class B airspace; 

however, the portion of I–10 that does 

underlie the proposed Class D does not 

underlie Class B airspace. During the 

informal meetings this factor was taken 

into consideration and resulted in the 

proposed airspace being lowered from 

2,700 feet to 2,500 feet to allow for more 

airspace. The compression to the 

northeast underlying Class B airspace is 

not considered the VFR corridor. The 

FAA believes this to have minimal 

impact on those aircraft that would have 

to fly around or over the proposed 

airspace. 

The tower at Houston Executive 

Airport is established and the Class D 

and E airspace areas are being provided 

according to federal regulations. The 

Class D proposal to reduce the allowed 

footprint of the airspace provides for 

safe and efficient use of airspace. Class 

D enhances safety by setting VFR 

weather minima specified in 14 CFR 

91.155 and through the communications 

and other requirements in 14 CFR 

91.129 (and 14 CFR 91.127 for E 

airspace). Once Class D airspace is 

charted, the information is accessible to 

all pilots. The FAA understands the 

concerns of the commenters. However, 

the FAA chose the upper limit of the 

airspace at 2,500 feet to establish higher 

weather minima for VFR aircraft, 

transitioning above the airspace thus 

restricting access to VFR flights in the 

airspace while IFR operations are in 

progress. VFR aircraft transitioning at 

2,000 feet through the airspace will still 

be allowed to do so as long as radio 

communications are established with 

the tower prior to the aircraft entering 

the Class D airspace, and no additional 

conflicts with other airspace users arise. 

Class D and Class E airspace 

designations are published in paragraph 

5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of 

FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 

2016, and effective September 15, 2016, 

which is incorporated by reference in 14 

CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace 

designations listed in this document 

will be published subsequently in the 

Order. 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
65274 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

Availability and Summary of 

Documents for Incorporation by 

Reference 

This document amends FAA Order 

7400.11A, airspace Designations and 

Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, 

and effective September 15, 2016. FAA 

Order 7400.11A is publicly available as 

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists 

Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, 

air traffic service routes, and reporting 

points. 

The Rule 

This amendment to Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 

establishes Class D airspace, and Class 

E surface area airspace extending 

upward from the surface to and 

including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4- 

mile radius of Houston Executive 

Airport, excluding that airspace west 

and northwest, to accommodate the 

establishment of an airport traffic 

control tower. This action reduces the 

allowed 4 nautical mile radius around 

Houston Executive Airport to assist the 

operators transitioning in and out of 

Sport Flyers Airport without the need of 

establishing radio communications with 

Houston Executive Airport. The 

proposed cutout also allows for 

accommodation for a private airstrip to 

the southwest of Houston Executive 

Airport. This amendment to Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

part 71 also establishes Class E airspace 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth within a 

6.6-mile radius of Houston Executive 

Airport, to accommodate standard 

instrument approach procedures. 

Controlled airspace is needed for the 

safety and management of IFR 

operations at the airport. 

Class D and E airspace areas are 

published in paragraph 5000, 6002, and 

6005, respectively, of FAA Order 

7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and 

effective September 15, 2016, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designations 

listed in this document will be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) 

does not warrant preparation of a 

Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated 

impact is so minimal. Since this is a 

routine matter that only affects air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has determined that this 

action qualifies for categorical exclusion 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act in accordance with FAA 

Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental 

Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’ 

paragraph 5–6.5a. This airspace action 

is not expected to cause any potentially 

significant environmental impacts, and 

no extraordinary circumstances exists 

that warrant preparation of an 

environmental assessment. 

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (air). 

Adoption of 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for 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. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 3, 2016, effective 

September 15, 2016, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. 

ASW TX D Brookshire, TX [New] 

Houston Executive Airport, TX 

(Lat. 29°48′18′′ N., long. 95°53′52′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL 

bounded by a line beginning at lat. 29°46′44′′ 

N., long. 95°58′06′′ W., to lat. 29°47′35′′ N., 

long. 95°55′49′′ W., to lat. 29°51′55′′ N., long. 

95°55′52′′ W., thence clockwise along the 4- 

mile radius of Houston Executive Airport to 

the point of beginning. This Class D airspace 

area is effective during the specific dates and 

times established in advance by a Notice to 

Airmen. The effective date and time will 

thereafter be continuously published in the 

Chart Supplement. 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace 

Designated as Surface Areas. 

ASW TX E2 Brookshire, TX [New] 

Houston Executive Airport, TX 

(Lat. 29°48′18′′ N., long. 95°53′52′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from the 

surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL 

bounded by a line beginning at lat. 29°46′44′′ 

N., long. 95°58′06′′ W., to lat. 29°47′35′′ N., 

long. 95°55′49′′ W., to lat. 29°51′55′′ N., long. 

95°55′52′′ W., thence clockwise along the 4- 

mile radius of Houston Executive Airport, to 

the point of beginning. This Class E airspace 

area is effective during the specific dates and 

times established in advance by a Notice to 

Airmen. The effective date and time will 

thereafter be continuously published in the 

Chart Supplement. 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

ASW TX E5 Brookshire, TX [New] 

Houston Executive Airport, TX 

(Lat. 29°48′18′′ N., long. 95°53′52′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile 

radius of Houston Executive Airport. 

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on September 14, 

2016. 

Vonnie L. Royal, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO 

Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2016–22723 Filed 9–21–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2016–5388; Airspace 

Docket No. 16–ACE–4] 

Revocation of Class E Airspace; 

Alliance, NE; and Amendment of Class 

E Airspace for the Following Nebraska 

Towns; Albion, NE; Alliance, NE; 

Gothenburg, NE; Holdrege, NE; 

Imperial, NE; Lexington, NE; and 

Millard Airport, Omaha, NE 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action removes Class E 

surface area airspace at Alliance 

Municipal Airport, Alliance, NE; and 

modifies Class E airspace extending 

upward from 700 feet above the surface 

at Albion Municipal Airport, Albion, 

NE; Alliance Municipal Airport, 

Alliance, NE; Quinn Field, Gothenburg, 


ehiers on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES