58694 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

10 CFR Part 140

Criminal penalties, Extraordinary

nuclear occurrence, Insurance,

Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear

materials, Nuclear power plants and

reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble and under the authority of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,

as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC

is proposing to adopt the following

amendments to 10 CFR parts 50 and

140.

PART 50—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF

PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION

FACILITIES

1. The authority citation for Part 50

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161,

182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938,

948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec.

234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233,

2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended,

202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended 1244,

1246, (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95–

601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).

Sections 50.10 also issued under secs. 101,

185, 68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91–190, 83 Stat.

853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13,

50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec.

108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2138). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56

also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42

U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and

Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub.

L. 91–190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under

sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).

Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued

under Pub. L. 97–415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42

U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under

sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).

Sections 50.80–50.81 also issued under sec.

184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2234). Appendix F also issued under sec.

187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

2. In § 50.54(w), paragraph (5) is

added to read as follows:

§ 50.54 Conditions of licenses.

* * * * *

(w) * * *

(5) For the specified reactor

configurations during permanent

shutdown, licensees shall maintain the

following insurance requirements

notwithstanding paragraph (w)(1):

(i) For Reactor Configuration 1: when

the reactor is defueled, permanently

shutdown, and the spent fuel cladding

temperature in the spent fuel pool is

565°C or greater for a postulated loss of

spent fuel pool cooling event, the

insurance coverage must be as specified

in paragraph (w)(1).

(ii) For Reactor Configuration 2: when

the reactor is defueled and permanently

shutdown, no operating reactors are on

the site, and the spent fuel cladding

temperature in the spent fuel pool does

not exceed 565°C for a postulated lossof-spent-fuel-pool-cooling event, the

minimum insurance coverage limit for

each reactor must be $50 million.

(iii) For Reactor Configuration 3:

when the reactor is defueled and

permanently shutdown, no operating

reactors are on the site, no fuel is in the

spent fuel pool, and the radioactive

liquid inventory onsite is 1,000 gallons

or greater, the minimum insurance

coverage for each reactor must be $50

million.

(iv) For Reactor Configuration 4: when

the reactor is defueled and permanently

shutdown, no operating reactors are on

the site, no fuel is in the spent fuel pool,

and the radioactive liquid inventory

onsite is less than 1,000 gallons, the

minimum insurance coverage for each

reactor must be $25 million. For sites

awaiting license termination, no

insurance coverage is required if the

licensee has completed its terminal

radiation survey and the site is ready for

the confirmatory survey for license

termination.

* * * * *

PART 140—FINANCIAL PROTECTION

REQUIREMENTS AND INDEMNITY

AGREEMENTS

1. The authority citation for Part 140

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 161, 170, 68 Stat. 948, 71

Stat. 576, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2210);

secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as

amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842).

2. In § 140.11(a), remove ‘‘and’’ at the

end of paragraph (3), change ‘‘.’’ at end

of paragraph (4) to ‘‘; and’’ and add

paragraph (5) to read as follows:

§ 140.11 Amounts of financial protection

for certain reactors.

(a) * * *

(5) For the specified reactor

configurations during permanent

shutdown of nuclear power reactors

(such reactors being classified as having

zero electric power level rated capacity)

that were covered during their operation

by paragraph (a)(4):

(i) For Reactor Configuration 1: when

the reactor is defueled, permanently

shutdown, and the spent fuel cladding

temperature in the spent fuel pool is

565°C or greater for a postulated loss of

spent fuel pool cooling event, in the

amount as specified in paragraph (a)(4).

(ii) For Reactor Configuration 2: when

the reactor is defueled and permanently

shutdown, no operating reactors are on

the site, and the spent fuel cladding

temperature in the spent fuel pool does

not exceed 565°C for a postulated lossof-spent-fuel-pool-cooling event, in the

amount of $100 million for each reactor.

(iii) For Reactor Configuration 3:

when the reactor is defueled and

permanently shutdown, no operating

reactors are on the site, no fuel is in the

spent fuel pool, and the radioactive

liquid inventory onsite is 1,000 gallons

or greater, in the amount of $50 million

for each reactor.

(iv) For Reactor Configuration 4: when

the reactor is defueled and permanently

shutdown, no operating reactors are on

the site, no fuel is in the spent fuel pool,

and the radioactive liquid inventory

onsite is less than 1,000 gallons, in the

amount of $25 million for each reactor.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of October, 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 97–28679 Filed 10–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95–AWA–1]

RIN 2120–AA66

Proposed Modification of the Houston

Class B Airspace Area; Texas

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

modify the Houston, TX, (IAH) Class B

airspace area. Specifically, this action

proposes to reconfigure two existing

subarea boundaries and create an

additional subarea within the Houston

Class B airspace area. The FAA is

proposing this action to enhance safety,

reduce the potential for midair collision,

and to better manage air traffic

operations into, out of, and through the

Houston Class B airspace area while

accommodating the concerns of airspace

users.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before December 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 58695

Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket,

AGC–200, Airspace Docket No. 95-

AWA–1, 800 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20591. The

official docket may be examined in the

Rules Docket, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Room 916, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC,

weekdays, except Federal holidays,

between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. An

informal docket may also be examined

during normal business hours at the

Office of the Regional Air Traffic

Division.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Sheri A. Edgett Baron, Airspace and

Rules Division, ATA–400, Office of Air

Traffic Airspace Management, Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591: telephone: (202)

267–8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy-related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this notice must submit

with those comments a self-addressed,

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95–

AWA–1.’’ The postcard will be date/

time stamped and returned to the

commenter. All communications

received on or before the specified

closing date for comments will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposal contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of comments received. All comments

submitted will be available for

examination in the Rules Docket both

before and after the closing date for

comments. A report summarizing each

substantive public contact with FAA

personnel concerned with this

rulemaking will also be filed in the

docket.

Availability of NPRM’s

Any person may obtain a copy of this

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

by submitting a request to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of Air

Traffic Airspace Management, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling

(202) 267–8783. Communications must

identify the notice number of this

NPRM. Persons interested in being

placed on a mailing list for future

NPRM’s should call the FAA’s Office of

Rulemaking, (202) 267–9677, for a copy

of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution

System, that describes the application

procedure.

Background

On December 17, 1991, the FAA

published the Airspace Reclassification

Final Rule (56 FR 65655). This rule

discontinued the use of the term

‘‘Terminal Control Area’’ (TCA) and

replaced it with the designation ‘‘Class

B airspace area.’’ This change in

terminology is reflected in this NPRM.

The Class B airspace area program

was developed to reduce the potential

for midair collision in the congested

airspace surrounding airports with high

density air traffic by providing an area

wherein all aircraft are subject to certain

operating rules and equipment

requirements.

The density of traffic and the type of

operations being conducted in the

airspace surrounding major terminals

increase the probability of midair

collisions. In 1970, an extensive study

found that the majority of midair

collisions occurred between a general

aviation (GA) aircraft and an air carrier

or military aircraft, or another GA

aircraft. The basic causal factor common

to these conflicts was the mix of aircraft

operating under visual flight rules (VFR)

and aircraft operating under instrument

flight rules (IFR). Class B airspace areas

provide a method to accommodate the

increasing number of IFR and VFR

operations. The regulatory requirements

of Class B airspace areas afford the

greatest protection for the greatest

number of people by giving air traffic

control (ATC) increased capability to

provide aircraft separation service,

thereby minimizing the mix of

controlled and uncontrolled aircraft.

On May 21, 1970, the FAA published

the Designation of Federal Airways,

Controlled Airspace, and Reporting

Points Final Rule (35 FR 7782). This

rule provided for the establishment of

TCAs. To date, the FAA has established

a total of 29 Class B airspace areas. The

FAA is proposing to take action to

modify or implement the application of

these proven control areas to provide

greater protection for air traffic in the

airspace areas most commonly used by

passenger-carrying aircraft.

The standard configuration of a Class

B airspace area contains three

concentric circles centered on the

primary airport extending to 10, 20, and

30 nautical miles (NM), respectively.

The standard vertical limits of the Class

B airspace area normally should not

exceed 10,000 feet mean sea level

(MSL), with the floor established at the

surface in the inner area and at levels

appropriate for the containment of

operations in the outer areas. Variations

of these criteria may be utilized

contingent on the terrain, adjacent

regulatory airspace, and factors unique

to the terminal area.

The coordinates for this airspace

docket are based on North American

Datum 83. Class B airspace areas are

published in paragraph 3000 of FAA

Order 7400.9E, dated September 10,

1997, and effective September 16, 1997,

which is incorporated by reference in 14

CFR section 71.1. The Class B airspace

area listed in this document would be

published subsequently in the Order.

Related Rulemaking Actions

On June 21, 1988, the FAA published

the Transponder with Automatic

Altitude Reporting Capability

Requirement Final Rule (53 FR 23356).

This rule requires all aircraft to have an

altitude encoding transponder when

operating within 30 NM of any

designated TCA primary airport from

the surface up to 10,000 feet MSL. This

rule excluded those aircraft that were

not originally certificated with an

engine driven electrical system, (or

those that have not subsequently been

certified with such a system), balloons,

or gliders.

On October 14, 1988, the FAA

published the TCA Classification and

TCA Pilot and Navigation Equipment

Requirements Final Rule (53 FR 40318).

This rule, in part, removed the different

classifications of TCAs, and requires the

pilot-in-command of a civil aircraft

operating within a TCA to hold at least

a private pilot certificate, except for a

student pilot who has received certain

documented training.

Pre-NPRM Public Input

In June 1992, an ad hoc committee

was formed, representing airspace users,

to analyze the Houston Class B airspace

area and develop recommendations for

modifying the existing airspace design.

The ad hoc committee met on several

occasions and submitted written
58696 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

recommendations for modifying the

Houston Class B airspace area.

As announced in the Federal Register

on January 28, 1994 (59 FR 4134), a preNPRM informal airspace meeting was

held on April 19, 1994, in Pasadena, TX,

to provide local airspace users an

opportunity to present input on the

design of the planned modifications of

the Houston Class B airspace area.

All comments received during the

informal airspace meetings and the

subsequent comment period were

considered and incorporated, in part, in

this NPRM. Verbal and written

comments were received, and the FAA’s

findings are summarized below.

Analysis of Comments

One commenter recommended

realigning the existing 30 NM arc

boundary east-southeast of the George

Bush Intercontinental Airport (formerly

Houston Intercontinental Airport), in

the vicinity of the Baytown Airport, and

R.W.J. Airpark.

The FAA supports this

recommendation and proposes to

realign a portion of the east-southeast

boundary of the Houston Class B

airspace area defined as (a portion of)

the Humble Very High Frequency

Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air

Navigation (VORTAC) 30 NM arc, at the

point where it intercepts Interstate 10

(I–10). From this point, the boundary

would continue along the Humble

VORTAC 30 NM arc until it intercepts

the 20 NM arc of the Hobby Very High

Frequency Omnidirectional Range/

Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/

DME). In this area the FAA proposes to

establish the floor at 4,000 feet MSL, to

allow nonparticipating aircraft ingress

and egress out of Bayton Airport and

R.W.J. Airpark.

Several commenters suggested that a

portion of the surface area around

William P. Hobby Airport and Ellington

Airport be raised to support ingress and

egress at Ellington Airport.

The FAA does not agree with this

suggestion because airspace down to the

surface is necessary to protect for

aircraft operations into and out of

William P. Hobby Airport (the

secondary airport of the Houston Class

B airspace area). However, the FAA

proposes to modify a portion of Area A

around William P. Hobby Airport, by

reconfiguring its eastern boundary and

providing Ellington Airport

approximately 11⁄2–NM of additional

airspace to its west. This would provide

aircraft operators utilizing Ellington

Airport additional airspace for

operations into and out of Ellington

Airport.

In addition, the FAA proposes to

create an additional subarea within the

Houston Class B airspace area,

southwest of William P. Hobby Airport,

in the vicinity of Southwest Airport,

and raise the subarea floor to 2,500 feet

MSL. This proposed subarea would

allow sufficient airspace for aircraft

operations at Southwest Airport without

entering the Class B airspace area.

The Proposal

The FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR

part 71 by modifying the Houston Class

B airspace area. Specifically, this action

proposes to reconfigure two existing

subarea boundaries, and create an

additional subarea within the existing

Houston Class B airspace area in the

vicinity southwest of the William P.

Hobby Airport. The FAA is proposing

this action to enhance safety, reduce the

potential for midair collision, and to

better manage air traffic operations into,

out of, and through the Houston Class

B airspace area while accommodating

the concerns of airspace users. This

proposal would realign a portion of the

eastern boundary defined as the Humble

VORTAC 30 NM arc, located eastsoutheast of Houston, in the vicinity of

Bayton Airport and R.W.J. Airpark,

where it intercepts I–10. The FAA

proposes to continue the boundary

along the Humble VORTAC 30 NM arc

until it intercepts the 20 NM arc of the

Hobby VOR/DME. In addition to this

realignment, the FAA proposes to

expand the existing floor to 4,000 feet

MSL in this area. The floor at 4,000 feet

MSL would allow nonparticipating

aircraft ingress and egress out of the

Bayton Airport and R.W.J. Airpark.

Additionally, the FAA proposes to

reconfigure a portion of Area A around

William P. Hobby Airport by

reconfiguring its eastern boundary. This

modification would provide aircraft

operators utilizing Ellington Airport

approximately 1 1/2-miles of additional

airspace for aircraft operations west of

Ellington Airport. Further, the FAA

proposes to create a new subarea in the

vicinity of Southwest Airport with a

floor of 2,500 feet MSL. This

modification would provide additional

airspace for nonparticipating aircraft

operating below the floor of the Houston

Class B airspace area.

Area A is unchanged except for the

eastern boundary around William P.

Hobby Airport and the change to the

legal description of Area A. Area B

remains unchanged except where the

proposed modification aligns with Area

A (around William P. Hobby Airport),

and where it is proposed to create the

additional subarea to the southwest of

William P. Hobby Airport. Area C

remains unchanged. Area D remains

unchanged except in that area along the

30 NM arc east-southeast of Houston, in

the vicinity of Bayton Airport and

R.W.J. Airpark.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Proposed 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 requires agencies to analyze the

economic effect of regulatory changes

on small entities. Third, the Office of

Management and Budget directs

agencies to assess the effect of

regulatory changes on international

trade. In conducting these analyses, the

FAA has determined that this NPRM: (1)

would generate benefits that justify its

costs and is not ‘‘a significant regulatory

action’’ as defined in the Executive

Order; (2) is not significant as defined

in Department of Transportation’s

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (3)

would not have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities;

(4) would not constitute a barrier to

international trade; and (5) would not

contain any Federal intergovernmental

or private sector mandate. Therefore, the

requirements of Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not

apply. These analyses are summarized

here in the preamble and the full

Regulatory Evaluation is in the docket.

This draft Regulatory Evaluation

analyzes the potential costs and benefits

of the NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 71.

The proposed rule would reconfigure

two subareas and create an additional

subarea within the Houston, TX, Class

B airspace area. The proposal would

reconfigure subarea A, expand subarea

D, and establish a subarea E with a floor

of 2,500 feet MSL.

The FAA has determined that aircraft

operators would not incur any

additional navigational or equipment

costs as a result of the reconfiguration

of subareas A and D or the

establishment of the new subarea E. The

proposed rule would establish lateral

boundaries for subareas D and E. The

FAA concludes that the reconfigured

subarea D and the newly created

subarea E are small in area, and would

not impose any additional avionics

equipment or circumnavigation cost

onto operators. The reconfiguration of

subarea A would move the lateral

boundary inward (west), subsequently

reducing the overall size of the subarea.

The FAA contends that the reduction of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 58697

the subarea A lateral boundary may

reduce circumnavigation cost for GA

operations.

This NPRM would not impose any

additional administrative costs onto the

FAA for personnel, facilities, or

equipment. The modification of

subareas A, D and E would only slightly

expand the overall size of the Class B

airspace area. This proposed action

would provide additional ATC

participation in subareas D and E with

higher operations complexity, but

would not expand the Class B airspace

area lateral boundaries beyond the 30-

NM arc.

In view of the potential benefits of

enhanced aviation safety and increased

operational efficiency and the negligible

cost of compliance, the FAA has

determined that this proposed rule

would be cost-beneficial.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) was enacted by Congress to

ensure that small entities are not

unnecessarily and disproportionately

burdened by Federal regulations. The

RFA requires regulatory agencies to

review rules which may have ‘‘a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.’’

FAA Order 2100.14A outlines the FAA’s

procedures and criteria for

implementing the RFA.

The FAA’s criteria for a ‘‘substantial

number’’ is a number that is not less

than 11 and that is more than one third

of the small entities subject to the

NPRM. The small entities that could be

potentially affected by implementation

of this proposed rule are unscheduled

operators of aircraft for hire owning

nine or fewer aircraft.

The FAA has determined that this

NPRM would not have an adverse effect

on a substantial number of small

entities. This assessment is based on the

premise that potentially impacted

operators regularly fly into airports

where radar approach control services

have already been established. In

addition, increasing the overall size of

the Class B airspace area by such a small

area would not impose any additional

cost on circumnavigating operators for

time and fuel. The FAA contends that

the proposed rule would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities, in

view of the zero cost of compliance.

The FAA has determined that this

NPRM would not result in a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities; therefore, a

regulatory flexibility analysis is not

required under the terms of the RFA.

International Trade Impact Assessment

The NPRM would neither constitute a

barrier to international trade for the

export of American goods and services

to foreign countries, nor for the import

of foreign goods and services into the

United States. The NPRM would not

impose costs on aircraft operators or

aircraft manufacturers in the U.S. or

foreign countries. The proposed

modifications of the Houston Class B

airspace area would only affect GA

aircraft utilizing U.S. VFR procedures.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as

Pub. L. 104–4 on March 22, 1995,

requires each Federal agency, to the

extent permitted by law, to prepare a

written assessment of the effects of any

Federal mandate in a proposed or final

agency rule that may result in the

expenditure of $100 million or more

adjusted annually for inflation in any

one year by State, local, and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector. Section 204(a) of the Act,

2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal

agency to develop an effective process

to permit timely input by elected

officers (or their designees) of State,

local and tribal governments on a

proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental

mandate.’’ A ‘‘significant

intergovernmental mandate’’ under the

Act is any provision in a Federal agency

regulation that would impose an

enforceable duty upon State, local, and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, (of

$100 million adjusted annually for

inflation) in any one year. Section 203

of the Act, 203 U.S.C 1533, which

supplements section 204(a), provides

that before establishing any regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, the

agency shall have developed a plan that

among other things provides for notice

to potentially affected small

governments, if any, and for a

meaningful and timely opportunity to

provide input in the development of

regulatory proposals.

This proposed rule does not contain

any Federal intergovernmental

mandates, but does contain a private

sector mandate. However, because

expenditures by the private sector will

not exceed $100 million annually, the

requirements of Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not

apply.

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,

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING

POINTS

1. The authority citation for part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9E, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated September 10, 1997, and effective

September 16, 1997, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B—Class B

Airspace

* * * * *

ASW TX B Houston, TX [Revised]

George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH)

(Primary Airport)

(Lat. 29°58′50′′ N., long. 95°20′23′′ W.)

William P. Hobby Airport (Secondary

Airport)

(Lat. 29°38′44′′ N., long. 95°16′44′′ W.)

Ellington Field

(Lat. 29°36′27′′ N., long. 95°09′32′′ W.)

Humble VORTAC (IAH)

(Lat. 29°57′25′′ N., long. 95°20′45′′ W.)

Hobby VOR/DME (HUB)

(Lat. 29°39′01′′ N., long. 95°16′45′′ W.)

Boundaries

Area A. That airspace extending upward

from the surface to and including 10,000 feet

MSL bounded by a line beginning at the

intersection of the Humble VORTAC 8-mile

arc and the 090° radial; thence clockwise

along the Humble VORTAC 8-mile arc to the

Humble VORTAC 069° radial; thence east

along the Humble VORTAC 069° radial to the

10-mile arc of Humble VORTAC; thence

clockwise along the 10-mile arc to the

Humble VORTAC 090° radial; thence west to

the point of beginning; and that airspace

bounded by a line beginning at lat. 29°45′37′′

N., long. 95°21′58′′ W.; to lat. 29°45′46′′ N.,

long. 95°11′47′′ W.; thence clockwise along

the Hobby VOR/DME 8-mile DME arc to

intercept the Hobby VOR/DME 056° radial;

thence southwest along the Hobby VOR/DME

056° radial to the 5.1 NM fix, thence direct

to the Hobby VOR/DME 131°/005.8 NM fix;

thence southeast along the Hobby VOR/DME

131° radial to intercept the Hobby VOR/DME

7 NM arc; thence clockwise on the 7 NM arc

to the Hobby VOR/DME 156° radial; thence

north along the Hobby VOR/DME 156° radial

to the Hobby VOR/DME 6-mile fix; thence

clockwise along the Hobby VOR/DME 6 NM

arc to the Hobby VOR/DME 211° radial;
58698 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules

thence south along the Hobby VOR/DME

211° radial to the Hobby VOR/DME 8-mile

arc clockwise to the point of beginning.

Area B. That airspace extending upward

from 2,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000

feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the

intersection of State Highway 59 (SH 59) and

the Hobby VOR/DME 15-mile arc; thence

counterclockwise along the Hobby VOR/DME

15-mile arc to the intersection of the Hobby

VOR/DME 15-mile arc and the Humble

VORTAC 15-mile arc; thence

counterclockwise along the Humble

VORTAC 15-mile arc to the intersection of

the Humble VORTAC 15-mile arc and

Westheimer Road lat. 29°44′07′′ N., long.

95°28′47′′ W.; thence southwest to and along

SH 59 to the point of beginning, excluding

Areas A, C and E.

Area C. That airspace extending upward

from 3,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000

feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the

intersection of SH 59 and the Humble

VORTAC 20-mile DME arc; thence clockwise

along the Humble VORTAC 20-mile DME arc

to the intersection of the Humble VORTAC

20-mile DME arc and Interstate 10 (I–10),

west on I–10 to the Hobby VOR/DME 15-mile

arc; thence counterclockwise along the

Hobby VOR/DME 15-mile arc to the Humble

VORTAC 15-mile DME arc; thence

counterclockwise along the Humble

VORTAC 15-mile DME arc to the intersection

of the Humble VORTAC 15 NM DME arc and

Westheimer Road; thence southwest to and

along SH 59 to the point of beginning; and

that airspace beginning at the intersection of

the Hobby VOR/DME 15-mile arc and 156°

radial; thence north along the Hobby VOR/

DME 156° radial to the Hobby VOR/DME 10-

mile arc clockwise along the Hobby VOR/

DME 10-mile arc to the Hobby VOR/DME

211° radial; thence south along the Hobby

VOR/DME 211° radial to intersect the 15-mile

arc to the point of beginning.

Area D. That airspace extending upward

from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000

feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the

intersection of SH 59 and the Humble

VORTAC 30-mile DME arc; thence clockwise

along the Humble VORTAC 30-mile DME arc

to the intersection of the Humble VORTAC

30 NM arc and the Hobby VOR/DME 20 NM

arc; thence clockwise along the Hobby VOR/

DME 20-mile arc to SH 59; thence southwest

on SH 59 to the point of beginning, excluding

Areas B, C, and E.

Area E. That airspace extending upward

from 2,500 feet MSL to and including 10,000

feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the

intersection of the Hobby VOR/DME 15 NM

arc and State Road 6 (SR 6); thence southeast

along SR 6 to the intersection of Farm Road

521 (FR 521); thence south along FR 521 to

the intersection of the Hobby VOR/DME 15

NM arc; thence counterclockwise along the

Hobby VOR/DME 15 NM arc to the point of

the beginning.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 22,

1997.

Reginald C. Matthews,

Acting Program Director for Air Traffic

Airspace Management.

Note: This Appendix will not appear in the

Code of Federal Regulations.

Appendix—Houston, TX, Class B

Airspace Area

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 210 / Thursday, October 30, 1997 / Proposed Rules 58699

[FR Doc. 97–28753 Filed 10–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C