Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 59783

Worth, Texas; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.

(i) This amendment becomes effective on

December 10, 1997.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 30,

1997.

Eric Bries,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–29237 Filed 11–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 97–AGL–59]

Modification of Class D Airspace;

Minot, ND

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action reinstates

controlled airspace extending upward

from the surface at Minot Air Force Base

(AFB), ND. The airspace areas are

necessary to accommodate precision

standard instrument approach

procedures (SIAP) serving Minot AFB.

The affected airspace, formerly surface

area extensions to the Minot AFB

Control Zone, was inadvertently omitted

from United States controlled airspace

during Airspace Reclassification in

1993. This action corrects that omission.

DATES: Effective date: November 5,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michelle M. Behm, Air Traffic Division,

Airspace Branch, AGL–520, Federal

Aviation Administration, 2300 East

Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois

60018, telephone (847) 294–7573.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Rule

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by

reinstating controlled airspace

extending upward from the surface at

Minot AFB, ND. The affected airspace,

formerly surface area extensions to the

Minot AFB Control Zone, was

inadvertently omitted from United

States controlled airspace during

Airspace Reclassification in 1993. This

action corrects that error.

Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) Order 7400.6G, dated September

4, 1990, and now obsolete, described a

Control Zone serving Minot AFB which

consisted of a circle with a 5 Statute

Mile (SM) radius and two extensions,

one to the southeast and one to the

northwest, each of which was 5 SM

wide and extended from the radius to 7

SM southeast and northwest

respectively of the Deering Tactical Air

Navigation (TACAN) facility. The

Deering TACAN is located near the

center of the 5 SM radius circle. The

Minot AFB Control Zone, as described

in FAA Order 7400.6G, was established

by a final rule published in the Federal

Register on August 12, 1970 (35 FR

12751).

In accordance with the Airspace

Reclassification final rule published

December 17, 1991, and effective

September 16, 1993 (56 FR 65638),

distances were converted from SM to

Nautical Miles (NM), and Control Zones

were generally redesignated as Class D

airspace areas, and most Control Zone

extensions were redesignated as Class E

airspace areas.

In preparation for Airspace

Reclassification, the FAA redrafted the

legal descriptions of all airspace areas

under United States jurisdiction. Part of

this process involved dividing Control

Zones into Class D and E airspace areas

where necessary. In redrafting the legal

description for the Minot AFB Control

Zone, the FAA redesignated the 5 SMradius circle as a 4.5 NM-radius Class D

airspace area. The FAA did not,

however, redesignate the Control Zone

extensions as Class E airspace areas.

This omission was unintentional as the

surface area extensions remained, and

continue to be, necessary to

accommodate SIAP’s serving Minot

AFB. The FAA has never purposely and

affirmatively acted to revoke the

controlled airspace.

The fact that the Control Zone

extensions were not redesignated as

Class E airspace, and that consequently

the affected areas are currently Class G

airspace, was discovered in a recent

joint FAA/Air Force review of the

airspace requirements for Minot AFB.

As a result of the discovery, the FAA

and the Air Force have been forced to

discontinue use of all precision SIAP’s

serving Minot AFB pending

reinstatement of the controlled airspace

areas.

The precision SIAP’s at Minot AFB

serve important flight safety and

national security interests. Airspace

standards, however, require that the

SIAP’s be contained entirely within

controlled airspace. The FAA finds that

the safety and national security

concerns created by the lack of a

precision SIAP at Minot AFB, combined

with the fact that the agency did not

intend to permit the affected airspace to

revert to uncontrolled status, makes

notice and public procedure under 5

U.S.C 553(b) impractical and contrary to

the public interest. Furthermore, for the

reasons listed above, the FAA finds that

good cause exists, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

553(d), to make this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

The coordinates for this airspace

docket are based on North American

Datum 83. Class D airspace designations

are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA

Order 7400.9E dated September 10,

1997, and effective September 16, 1997,

which is incorporated by reference in 14

CFR 71.1 The Class D airspace

designations listed in this document

will be published subsequently in the

Order. Under the circumstances

presented, the FAA concludes that there

is an immediate need to modify these

Class D airspace areas in order to

promote the safe and efficient handling

of air traffic in these areas.

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 will only affect air

traffic procedures and air navigation, it

is certified that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List 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—[AMENDED]

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 5000 Class D Airspace

* * * * *
59784 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

AGL ND D Minot AFB, ND [Revised]

Minot AFB, ND

(lat. 48°24′56′′N, long. 101°21′28′′W)

Deering TACAN

(lat. 48°24′54′′N, long. 101°21′54′′W)

That airspace extending upward from the

surface to and including 4,200 feet MSL

within a 4.5-mile radius of Minot AFB, and

within 2.2 miles each side of the Deering

TACAN 113° radial extending from the 4.5-

mile radius to 6.1 miles southeast of the

TACAN, and within 2.2 miles each side of

the Deering TACAN 303° radial, extending

from the 4.5-mile radius to 6.1 miles

northwest of the TACAN. This Class D

airspace area is effective during the specific

dates and times established in advance by a

Notice to Airmen. The effective dates and

times will thereafter be continuously

published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

* * * * *

Issued in Des Plaines Illinois on October

14, 1997.

Maureen Woods,

Manager, Air Traffic Division.

[FR Doc. 97–29195 Filed 11–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 255

[Docket OST–96–1145 [49812]]

RIN 2105–AC35

Computer Reservations System (CRS)

Regulations

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department is adopting a

rule that will prohibit each computer

reservations system (CRS) from adopting

or enforcing contract clauses that bar a

carrier from choosing a level of

participation in that system that would

be lower than the carrier’s level of

participation in any other system, if

neither the carrier nor any affiliate of

the carrier owns or markets a CRS. The

Department believes that this rule is

necessary to promote competition in the

CRS and airline industries, since the

contract clauses at issue unreasonably

limit the ability of airlines without CRS

interests to choose how to distribute

their services through travel agencies.

This rule will allow a CRS to enforce

such a contract clause against an airline

that owns or markets a competing CRS

or that has an affiliate that owns or

markets a CRS. The Department is

acting on a rulemaking petition filed by

Alaska Airlines.

DATES: This rule is effective December 5,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Ray, Office of the General

Counsel, 400 Seventh St. SW.,

Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366–4731.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

Almost all airlines in the United

States depend heavily on travel agencies

for the distribution of their services, and

travel agencies in turn rely heavily on

computer reservations systems (CRSs) in

responding to their customers’ requests

for information on airline services and

for booking seats. The large majority of

travel agencies use only one CRS (the

agencies using a system are called

‘‘subscribers’’). As a result, virtually

every airline must make its services

available through each of the four CRSs

operating in the United States in order

to distribute its services through the

travel agencies using each system (the

airlines that make their services

available through a system are called

‘‘participating airlines’’). Because each

airline must participate in each system,

the systems do not compete with each

other for airline participants and have

long been able to dictate the terms for

participation (in contrast, the systems

compete for travel agency users). Each

of the systems is controlled by one or

more airlines or airline affiliates, which

can use their market power over airline

participants to distort airline

competition. We therefore have rules

regulating CRS operations. 14 CFR Part

255, adopted by 57 FR 43780,

September 22, 1992, after publication of

a notice of proposed rulemaking, 56 FR

12586, March 26, 1991.

Alaska Airlines asked us to amend

those rules by adding a prohibition of

parity clauses—contract terms imposed

by three of the four CRSs operating in

the United States that require a

participating airline to purchase at least

as high a level of service from it as the

airline does from any other system. We

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

that tentatively determined to adopt

such a rule. 61 FR 42197, August 14,

1996. Our proposed rule stated: ‘‘No

system may require a carrier to maintain

any particular level of participation in

its system on the basis of participation

levels selected by that carrier in any

other system.’’ We tentatively

determined that the proposed rule

would make airline operations more

efficient and promote competition in the

CRS and airline industries.

However, airlines that own or market

a CRS (or have an affiliate that does so)

may limit their participation in a

competing system in order to frustrate

that system’s ability to obtain travel

agency subscribers. Our notice therefore

asked whether we should allow a

system to enforce a parity clause against

an airline that owned or marketed a

competing system.

After considering the comments and

reply comments, we have determined to

prohibit parity clauses, subject to an

exception allowing a system to impose

such a clause on an airline that owns or

markets a competing system (this

reference to airlines that own or market

a system, and other such references in

this document, include airlines with

affiliates that own or market a system).

Since the parity clauses are currently

injuring some carriers, we are making a

final decision now on Alaska’s

rulemaking petition rather than waiting

for the completion of other pending CRS

proceedings.

As explained in more detail below,

parity clauses cause airlines either to

buy more CRS services than they wish

to buy from some systems or to stop

buying services from other systems that

they would like to buy, which creates

economic inefficiencies and injures

airline competition. In addition, the

clauses eliminate competition between

the systems for higher levels of

participation. Without the clauses, such

competition would exist, since the

airlines’ need to participate in systems

does not compel them to buy the higher

levels of service from each system. For

these reasons the Department of Justice,

several smaller airlines, and the CRS

that does not use a parity clause,

Galileo, support our proposal.

We have considered the arguments

made by the parties opposing the

proposal, but we have determined that

the rule would benefit competition and

airline efficiency. None of the

opponents denies that the parity clauses

compel airlines to buy services that they

do not want and that the clauses

provide no significant benefit to

airlines. We also conclude that our rule

will not adversely affect travel agencies.

Each airline’s interest in facilitating

travel agency sales of its services should

ensure that no important airline will

reduce its participation in any system

by enough to seriously interfere with the

efficiency of travel agency operations.

By adopting this rule we are following

our long-standing policy of promoting

the ability of airlines to choose how

they will distribute information on their

services and enable travel agencies to

carry out booking and ticketing

transactions through electronic means.

Parity clauses unreasonably interfere

with the ability of individual airlines

without CRS ties to choose the level of

CRS service they will buy and to choose

how best to communicate with travel