Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 6861

inadvertent distinction made in the

definition based on whether the

institution’s deposits are FDIC-insured

is neither required nor appropriate. In

order to eliminate the distinction and

treat all U.S. branches and agencies of

foreign banks equally, the Finance

Board is amending the definition of

‘‘deposits in banks or trusts’’ in § 931.5

to include as eligible investments for

purposes of section 11(g) of the Bank

Act, FHLBank deposits in any U.S.

branch or agency of a foreign bank that

has legal authority to accept deposits or

engage in federal funds transactions. To

achieve this result, the Finance Board

has added a new § 931.5(c)(3) that

includes expressly a deposit in, or

federal funds transactions with, a U.S.

branch or agency of a foreign bank that

is subject to the supervision of the

Board of Governors and is designated by

a FHLBank’s board of directors. The

terms ‘‘branch,’’ ‘‘agency,’’ and ‘‘foreign

bank’’ have the same meaning as in the

International Banking Act of 1978, as

amended. See 12 U.S.C. 3101(1), (3), (7).

The changes made by the interim final

rule also are consistent with the

provisions of federal law that require

the treatment of all U.S. branches and

agencies of foreign banks to be similar

to the treatment of domestic depository

institutions.

III. Notice and Public Participation

The Finance Board finds that the

notice and comment procedure required

by the Administrative Procedure Act is

unnecessary, impracticable, and

contrary to the public interest in this

instance because the change made by

the interim final rule is technical in

nature and applies only to the

FHLBanks. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In

addition, as explained above, the

changes made by the interim final rule

are necessary to comply with various

provisions of federal law. Nevertheless,

because the Finance Board believes

public comments aid in effective

rulemaking, it will accept written

comments on the interim final rule on

or before March 17, 1997.

IV. Effective Date

For the reasons stated in part III

above, the Finance Board for good cause

finds that the interim final rule should

become effective on February 14, 1997.

See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Finance Board is adopting the

technical amendment to part 931 in the

form of an interim final rule and not as

a proposed rule. Therefore, the

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act do not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2),

603(a).

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

No collections of information

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 are contained in this interim

final rule. See 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

Consequently, the Finance Board has

not submitted any information to the

Office of Management and Budget for

review.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 931

Banks, banking, Federal home loan

banks.

Accordingly, the Federal Housing

Finance Board hereby amends title 12,

chapter IX, part 931 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 931—DEFINITIONS

1. The authority citation for part 931

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1422a, 1422b, 1427,

and 1431(g).

2. Section 931.5 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 931.5 Deposits in banks or trust

companies.

Include:

(a) A deposit in another Bank;

(b) A demand account in a Federal

Reserve Bank; and

(c) A deposit in, or a sale of federal

funds to:

(1) An insured depository institution,

as defined in section 2(12)(A) of the Act,

that is designated by a Bank’s board of

directors;

(2) A trust company that is a member

of the Federal Reserve System or

insured by the Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation, and is

designated by a Bank’s board of

directors; or

(3) A U.S. branch or agency of a

foreign bank, as defined in the

International Banking Act of 1978, as

amended (12 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.), that

is subject to the supervision of the

Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System, and is designated by a

Bank’s board of directors.

By the Board of Directors of the Federal

Housing Finance Board

Bruce A. Morrison,

Chairperson.

[FR Doc. 97–3403 Filed 2–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6725–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 96–NM–153–AD; Amendment

39–9925; AD 97–04–01]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing

Model 737 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain Boeing Model 737

series airplanes, that requires

modification of the aileron centering

spring and trim mechanism. This

amendment is prompted by a review of

the design of the flight control systems

on Model 737 series airplanes. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent jamming of the

aileron control system during flight due

to fracturing of the springs in the aileron

centering units; this condition, if not

corrected, could result in reduced

lateral control of the airplane.

DATES: Effective March 21, 1997.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of March 21,

1997.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,

Washington 98124–2207. This

information may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the Office of

the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don

Kurle, Senior Engineer, Systems and

Equipment Branch, ANM–130S, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (206) 227–2798;

fax (206) 227–1181.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain Boeing

Model 737 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

August 28, 1996 (61 FR 44247). That

action proposed to require modification
6862 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

of the aileron centering spring and trim

mechanism.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Request To Revise Statement of

Findings of Critical Design Review

Team

One commenter requests the second

paragraph of the Discussion section that

appeared in the preamble to the

proposed rule be revised to accurately

reflect the findings of the Critical Design

Review (CDR) team. The commenter

asks that the FAA delete the one

sentence in that paragraph, which read:

‘‘The recommendations of the team

include various changes to the design of

the flight control systems of these

airplanes, as well as correction of

certain design deficiencies.’’ The

commenter suggests that the following

sentences should be added: ‘‘The team

did not find any design issues that

could lead to a definite cause of the

accidents that gave rise to this effort.

The recommendations of the team

include various changes to the design of

the flight control systems of these

airplanes, as well as incorporation of

certain design improvements in order to

enhance its already acceptable level of

safety.’’

The FAA does not find that a revision

to this final rule in the manner

suggested by the commenter is

necessary, since the Discussion section

of a proposed rule does not reappear in

a final rule. The FAA acknowledges that

the CDR team did not find any design

issue that could lead to a definite cause

of the accidents that gave rise to this

effort. However, as a result of having

conducted the CDR of the flight control

systems on Boeing Model 737 series

airplanes, the team indicated that there

are a number of recommendations that

should be addressed by the FAA for

each of the various models of the Model

737. In reviewing these

recommendations, the FAA has

concluded that they address unsafe

conditions that must be corrected

through the issuance of AD’s. Therefore,

the FAA does not concur that these

design changes merely ‘‘enhance [the

Model 737’s] already acceptable level of

safety.’’

Request To Withdraw the Proposal

One commenter contends that the

proposal is not justified since it cannot

be supported by data. The commenter

does not consider that the proposal

contributes to improving the safety

aspects of Model 737 airplanes. The

commenter states that the Critical

Design Review (CDR) team’s report does

not indicate that there is any evidence

to tie the referenced service documents

to any in-service problems or accidents.

The commenter adds that the FAA has

not indicated that it has reviewed any

routine component tear-down reports

that would support the proposed

actions. The commenter concludes that

the FAA does not understand the

enormity of the proposed action. The

FAA infers from these remarks that the

commenter requests the proposed rule

be withdrawn.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA

has received at least 26 reports from two

operators of Model 737 series airplanes

indicating that fractured springs were

found in the aileron centering units. The

cause of the fracturing was attributed to

fatigue cracking. Two of the reports

indicated that the fractured springs had

become lodged in a centering cam hole,

which caused binding of the aileron

control system. The FAA’s position is

that this condition is a potential unsafe

condition that must be corrected in

order to ensure the safety of the affected

fleet.

Request To Delay Issuance of the Final

Rule

The Air Transport Association (ATA)

of America, on behalf of two of its

members, requests that the FAA

postpone issuing the final rule until

Boeing revises the service bulletin cited

in the proposal to incorporate the three

Notice of Status Change documents

referenced in the proposed AD. The

ATA indicates that this will ensure no

confusion exists concerning service

bulletin recommendations.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenter’s request to delay issuance

of the final rule. The FAA has been

advised that Boeing has no plans to

revise the referenced service bulletin to

incorporate the Notice of Status Change

documents. To delay this action would

be inappropriate, since the FAA has

determined that an unsafe condition

exists and that the required

modification must be accomplished to

ensure continued safety.

Requests To Revise Compliance Time

One commenter requests that the

proposed compliance time be shortened

from 18 months to 12 months to provide

an acceptable level of safety. The

commenter provides no data in support

of its request.

A second commenter requests that the

proposed compliance time be extended

beyond 18 months to ensure that

adequate parts and trained personnel

are available to accomplish the

modification. The commenter did not

submit data to substantiate its request.

The FAA does not concur with the

commenters’ requests to revise the

compliance time. As explained in the

preamble to the proposal, the FAA’s

intent is that the modification be

performed during a regularly scheduled

maintenance visit for the majority of the

affected fleet when the airplanes would

be located at a base where special

equipment and trained personnel would

be readily available, if necessary. The

FAA finds that 18 months corresponds

closely to the interval representative of

most of the affected operators’ normal

maintenance schedules. The FAA

considers that this interval will provide

an acceptable level of safety.

Request To Allow Measurement of

Thickness of Aileron Centering Spring

The ATA, on behalf of one of its

members, requests that operators be

allowed to measure the thickness of the

aileron centering spring in lieu of

determining the part number. The ATA

indicates that the part number of the

aileron centering spring cannot be

determined by inspecting the part

because it is impossible to read the part

number on the spring. However, the

difference in diameter between the

spring having part number 69–39429–2

and the spring having part number 69–

39429–3 can be distinguished by

measurement. The ATA states that if a

part has a thickness greater than 0.13

inch, this should constitute compliance

with the AD. One ATA member

indicates that drawings show that the

spring having part number 69–39429–2

is made from 0.125-inch diameter wire,

and that the spring having part number

69–39429–3 is made from 0.135-inch

diameter wire.

The FAA does not concur. The FAA

acknowledges that, except for a

removable tag, the spring is not marked

with a part number. However, it is not

necessary to read the part number of the

spring. If an operator previously has

performed the actions described in the

referenced service bulletin, the correct

spring should be installed on the

airplane; if not, an incorrect spring

would have been installed. In the

unlikely event that the spring has been

changed due to a maintenance action

apart from incorporation of the

referenced service bulletin, it is difficult

to determine which spring is installed.

The only way to ensure that the proper

spring is installed is to perform the

actions of the referenced service

bulletin. Further, the FAA does not

agree that the springs having part

numbers 69–39429–2 and 69–39429–3

are made from different diameter wire;
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 6863

the FAA has determined that both

springs are made from 0.135-inch

diameter wire.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 1,631 Model

737 series airplanes of the affected

design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA

estimates that 830 airplanes of U.S.

registry will be affected by this AD.

The FAA estimates that 485 Group 1

airplanes will be affected by this AD.

For Group 1 airplanes, the FAA

estimates that it will take approximately

2 work hours per airplane to accomplish

the required actions, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost approximately

$707 per airplane. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the AD on

U.S. operators of Group 1 airplanes is

estimated to be $401,095, or $827 per

airplane.

The FAA estimates that 345 Group 2

airplanes will be affected by this AD.

For Group 2 airplanes, the FAA

estimates that it will take approximately

2 work hours per airplane to accomplish

the required actions, and that the

average labor rate is $60 per work hour.

Required parts will cost approximately

$224 per airplane. Based on these

figures, the cost impact of the AD on

U.S. operators of Group 2 airplanes is

estimated to be $118,680, or $344 per

airplane.

The cost impact figures discussed

above are based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (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)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

97–04–01 Boeing: Amendment 39–9925.

Docket 96–NM–153–AD.

Applicability: Model 737 series airplanes;

as listed in Boeing Service Bulletin 737–27–

1155, dated October 26, 1989; as revised by

Notices of Status Change No. 737–27–

1155NSC1, dated January 25, 1990, No. 737–

27–1155NSC2, dated February 15, 1990, and

No. 737–27–1155NSC3, dated May 17, 1990;

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in

the area subject to the requirements of this

AD. For airplanes that have been modified,

altered, or repaired so that the performance

of the requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent jamming of the aileron control

system during flight, which could result in

reduced lateral control of the airplane,

accomplish the following:

(a) Within 18 months after the effective

date of this AD, accomplish the requirements

of paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this

AD, as applicable, in accordance with Boeing

Service Bulletin 737–27–1155, dated October

26, 1989; as revised by Notice of Status

Change No. 737–27–1155NSC1, dated

January 25, 1990, and Notice of Status

Change No. 737–27–1155NSC2, dated

February 15, 1990, and Notice of Status

Change No. 737–27–1155NSC3, dated May

17, 1990.

(1) For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes: Replace

the aileron centering springs, part number (P/

N) 69–39429–2, with improved springs, P/N

69–39429–3, in accordance with the service

bulletin and Notices of Status Change.

(2) For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes: Install a

two-piece plug, P/N 69–78072–1, in the

weight reduction hole in the feel cam in

accordance with the service bulletin and

Notices of Status Change.

(3) For Group 1 airplanes: Replace the two

eyebolts, P/N 69–39423–1, of the aileron

centering spring attachment with new

eyebolts, P/N 69–74646–1, in accordance

with the service bulletin and Notices of

Status Change.

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install the items specified in

paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD on any

airplane, as specified:

(1) For Groups 1 and 2 airplanes: Aileron

centering springs having P/N 69–39429–2

shall not be installed.

(2) For Group 1 airplanes: Eyebolts, P/N

69–39423–1, of the aileron centering spring

attachment shall not be installed.

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Seattle

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Seattle ACO.

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(e) The replacement and installation shall

be done in accordance with Boeing Service

Bulletin 737–27–1155, dated October 26,

1989; as revised by Notice of Status Change

No. 737–27–1155NSC1, dated January 25,

1990, and Notice of Status Change No. 737–

27–1155NSC2, dated February 15, 1990, and

Notice of Status Change No. 737–27–

1155NSC3, dated May 17, 1990. This

incorporation by reference was approved by

the Director of the Federal Register in

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR

part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing

Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707,

Seattle, Washington 98124–2207. Copies may

be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite

700, Washington, DC.
6864 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(f) This amendment becomes effective on

March 21, 1997.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February

4, 1997.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–3267 Filed 2–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96–AEA–15]

Establishment of Class E Airspace;

Stuart, VA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class

E airpsace at Stuart, VA, to

accommodate a Global Positioning

System (GPS) Standard Instrument

Approach Procedure (SIAP) to Runway

(RWY) 26 at Micro Airport. The

intended effect of this action is to

provide adequate controlled airspace for

instrument flight rules (IFR) operations

at the airport.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, May 22,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Frances Jordan, Airspace Specialist,

Operations Branch, AEA–530, Air

Traffic Division, Eastern Region, Federal

Aviation Administration, Federal

Building #111, John F. Kennedy

International Airport, Jamaica, New

York 11430, telephone: (718) 553–4521.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On January 3, 1997, the FAA

proposed to amend Part 71 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

Part 71) by establishing Class E airspace

at Stuart, VA (62 FR 348). This action

would provide adequate Class E

airspace for IFR operations at Micro

Airport.

Interested parties were invited to

participate in this rulemaking

proceeding by submitting written

comments on the proposal to the FAA.

No comments objecting to the proposal

were received.

Class E airspace areas designations are

published in paragraph 6605 of FAA

Order 7400.9D, dated September 4,

1996, and effective September 16, 1996,

which is incorporated by reference in 14

CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace

designation listed in this document will

be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

This amendment to Part 71 of the

Federal Aviation Regulation (14 CFR

part 71) establishes Class E airspace area

at Stuart, VA, to accommodate a GPS

RWY 26 and for IFR operations at Micro

Airport.

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. Therefore, this regulation—(1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘singificant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 10034; 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

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibliity 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 14 CFR

Part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9D, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated September 4, 1996, and effective

September 16, 1996, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AEA VA E5 Stuart, VA [New]

Micro Airport, VA

(lat. 36°44′07′′N., long. 80°26′56′′W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within a 8-mile radius

of Micro Airport and within 4.5 miles each

side of the 072° bearing from the airport from

the 8-mile radius to 15 miles northeast of the

airport.

* * * * *

Issued in Jamaica, New York on February

3, 1997.

James K. Buckles,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Eastern

Region.

[FR Doc. 97–3750 Filed 2–13–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96–AEA–16]

Establishment of Class E Airspace;

Johnstown, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class

E airspace at Johnstown, NY, to

accommodate Global Positioning

System (GPS) Standard Instrument

Approach Procedures (SIAP) to Runway

(RWY) 10 and RWY 28 at Fulton County

Airport. The intended effect of this

action is to provide adequate controlled

airspace for instrument flight rules (IFR)

operations at the airport.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, May 22,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Frances Jordan, Airspace Specialist,

Operations Branch, AEA–530, Air

Traffic Division, Eastern Region, Federal

Aviation Administration, Federal

Building #111, John F. Kennedy

International Airport, Jamaica, New

York 11430, telephone: (718) 553–4521.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On January 3, 1997, the FAA

proposed to amend Part 71 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

Part 71) by establishing Class E airspace

at Johnstown, NY (62 FR 347). This

action would provide adequate Class E

airspace for IFR operations at Fulton

County Airport.

Interested parties were invited to

participate in this rulemaking

proceeding by submitting written

comments on the proposal to the FAA.

No comments objecting to the proposal

were received.

Class E airspace areas designations are

published in paragraph 6005 of FAA

Order 7400.9D, dated September 4,

1996, and effective September 16, 1996,

which is incorporated by reference in 14

CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace

designation listed in this document will

be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

This amendment to Part 71 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR