27516 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules

in accordance with Executive Order

12612, it is determined that this

proposal would 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) if

promulgated, 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 copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action has been placed in the Rules

Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 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 a new airworthiness directive

(AD) to read as follows:

Alexander Schleicher Segelflugzeugbau:

Docket No. 98–CE–05–AD.

Applicability: Model ASW–19 sailplanes,

serial numbers 19001 through 19405,

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each sailplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

sailplanes 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 (e) 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 within the next 90

days after the effective date of this AD, unless

already accomplished.

To prevent premature release of the tow

cable during take-off, which could result in

loss of the sailplane, accomplish the

following:

(a) Inspect the tow release cable guide

fittings for front or rear mount on the

bulkhead of the sailplane in accordance with

the Actions section in Alexander Schleicher

Technical Note (TN) No. 18, dated July 3,

1984.

Note 2: It is recommended that the

maintenance manual pages called out in the

INSTRUCTIONS section of Alexander

Schleicher TN No. 18 be exchanged with the

current pages in the maintenance manual.

(b) If the cable guide fitting is mounted on

the front of the bulkhead, prior to further

flight, remove the fitting and remount the

cable guide fitting on the rear of the bulkhead

in accordance with the Actions section in

Alexander Schleicher TN No. 18, dated July

3, 1984.

(c) After remounting the cable fitting, prior

to further flight, check the neutral travel of

the cable and adjust if necessary, in

accordance with the Actions section in

Alexander Schleicher TN No. 18, dated July

3, 1984.

(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 sailplane

to a location where the requirements of this

AD can be accomplished.

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an equivalent level of safety may be

approved by the Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate, FAA, 1201 Walnut, suite 900,

Kansas City, Missouri 64106. The request

shall be forwarded through an appropriate

FAA Maintenance Inspector, who may add

comments and then send it to the Manager,

Small Airplane Directorate.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Small Airplane

Directorate.

(f) Questions or technical information

related to Alexander Schleicher Technical

Note No. 18, dated July 3, 1984, should be

directed to Alexander Schleicher

Segelflugzeugbau, 6416 Poppenhausen,

Wasserkuppe, Federal Republic of Germany;

telephone: 49.6658.890 or 49.6658.8920;

facsimile: 49.6658.8923 or 49.6658.8940.

This service information may be examined at

the FAA, Central Region, Office of the

Regional Counsel, Room 1558, 601 E. 12th

Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in German AD No. 84–115, dated July 16,

1984.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May

11, 1998.

Marvin R. Nuss,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–13198 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–78–AD]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model

A300–600 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This document proposes the

adoption of a new airworthiness

directive (AD) that is applicable to

certain Airbus Model A300–600 series

airplanes. This proposal would require

repetitive inspections to detect cracking

of the doubler angle and discrepancies

of the fasteners that connect the doubler

angle and the bottom panel of the center

wing box, and corrective actions, if

necessary. This proposal is prompted by

issuance of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information by a foreign

civil airworthiness authority. The

actions specified by the proposed AD

are intended to detect and correct

fatigue cracking in the doubler angle

and discrepancies of the fasteners that

connect the doubler angle and the

bottom panel of the center wing box.

Such cracking and discrepancies could

result in reduced structural integrity of

the airplane.

DATES: Comments must be received by

June 18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

78–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Comments may be inspected at this

location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, except

Federal holidays.

The service information referenced in

the proposed rule may be obtained from

Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice

Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France.

This information may be examined at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27517

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Communications shall

identify the Rules Docket number and

be submitted in triplicate to the address

specified above. All communications

received on or before the closing date

for comments, specified above, will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposals contained

in this notice may be changed in light

of the comments received.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the proposed rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report

summarizing each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this

proposal will be filed in the Rules

Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 98–NM–78–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

ANM–114, Attention: Rules Docket No.

98–NM–78–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue,

SW., Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

Discussion

The Direction Ge ́ne ́rale de l’Aviation

Civile (DGAC), which is the

airworthiness authority for France,

notified the FAA that an unsafe

condition may exist on certain Airbus

Model A300–600 series airplanes. The

DGAC advises that, during full-scale

fatigue testing of the Airbus Model A300

series airplane, cracking was found on

the forward doubler angle at the

junction with the lower surface of the

wing. This cracking originated in the

seventh fastener hole, starting from the

front, on the face of the doubler angle

that is attached to the lower surface of

the wing. The DGAC has received

reports of cracking in the same location

on in-service airplanes, which has been

attributed to fatigue caused by the

relative movement between the fuselage

skin panel and the lower wing skin.

Such fatigue cracking, if not corrected,

could result in reduced structural

integrity of the airplane.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin

A300–53–6110, dated April 8, 1997,

which describes procedures for

performing repetitive detailed visual

inspections to detect cracking of the

doubler angle, and repetitive detailed

external visual inspections to detect

discrepancies (i.e., damage, stretching,

cracking, or distortion) of the fasteners

that connect the doubler angle and the

bottom panel of the center wing box.

This service bulletin also describes

procedures for replacing discrepant

fasteners with new fasteners, and

performing follow-on corrective actions.

(These follow-on actions include

performing a rotating probe inspection

of the fastener hole to detect cracking or

distortion and repairing the fastener

hole, if cracking is detected.)

The DGAC classified Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–53–6110 as mandatory

and issued French airworthiness

directive 97–383–240(B), dated

December 17, 1997, in order to assure

the continued airworthiness of these

airplanes in France.

Airbus also has issued Service

Bulletin A300–53–6063, dated

December 12, 1996, which describes

procedures for replacing the existing

doubler angle with a longer splice plate

and an improved doubler angle.

Accomplishment of this replacement

would eliminate the need for the

repetitive inspections described

previously.

FAA’s Conclusions

This airplane model is manufactured

in France and is type certificated for

operation in the United States under the

provisions of section 21.29 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.29) and the applicable bilateral

airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to

this bilateral airworthiness agreement,

the DGAC has kept the FAA informed

of the situation described above. The

FAA has examined the findings of the

DGAC, reviewed all available

information, and determined that AD

action is necessary for products of this

type design that are certificated for

operation in the United States.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

accomplishment of the actions specified

in the service bulletin described

previously, except as discussed below.

This proposed AD also would provide

for an optional terminating action for

the repetitive inspections.

Operators should note that, in

consonance with the findings of the

DGAC, the FAA has determined that the

repetitive inspections proposed by this

AD can be allowed to continue in lieu

of accomplishment of a terminating

action. In making this determination,

the FAA considers that, in this case,

long-term continued operational safety

will be adequately assured by

accomplishing the repetitive inspections

to correct cracking before it represents a

hazard to the airplane.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Service Bulletin

Operators should note that, unlike the

procedures described in Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–53–6110, this proposed

AD would not permit further flight if

any crack is found in the doubler angle,

or if any discrepancy is found in the

fastener holes or the fasteners that

connect the doubler angle and the

bottom panel of the center wing box.

The FAA has determined that, because

of the safety implications and

consequences associated with such

cracking or discrepancies, any subject

doubler angle that is found to be

cracked or any fastener that is found to

be discrepant must be replaced prior to

further flight.

Operators also should note that,

although Airbus Service Bulletin A300–

53–6110 specifies that the manufacturer

may be contacted for disposition of

certain repair conditions, this proposal

would require the repair of those

conditions to be accomplished in

accordance with a method approved by

the FAA.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 54 airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD, that it would take

approximately 2 work hours per

airplane to accomplish the proposed

inspections, and that the average labor

rate is $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

inspections proposed by this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $6,480, or

$120 per airplane, per inspection cycle.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted.

Should an operator elect to

accomplish the optional terminating
27518 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules

action specified in Airbus Service

Bulletin A300–53–6063 that would be

provided by this AD action, it would

take approximately 109 work hours to

accomplish it, at an average labor rate of

$60 per work hour. The cost of required

parts would be approximately $4,028

per airplane. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of that optional terminating

action would be $10,568 per airplane.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would 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

proposal would not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation (1)

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

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

promulgated, 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 copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 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:

Airbus Industrie: Docket 98–NM–78–AD.

Applicability: Model A300–600 series

airplanes, on which Airbus Modification

11044 or Airbus Modification 11045

(reference Airbus Service Bulletin A300–53–

6063, dated December 12, 1996) has not been

accomplished, 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 (f) 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 detect and correct fatigue cracking of

the doubler angle and discrepancies of the

fasteners that connect the doubler angle and

the bottom panel of the center wing box,

which could result in reduced structural

integrity of the airplane, accomplish the

following:

(a) Perform a detailed visual inspection to

detect cracking of the doubler angle, and a

detailed external visual inspection to detect

discrepancies of the fasteners that connect

the doubler angle and the bottom panel of the

center wing box, on the left and right sides

of the airplane, in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A300–53–6110, dated April

8, 1997, at the time specified in paragraph

(a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as applicable.

Thereafter, repeat the inspections of the

doubler angle and fasteners at intervals not

to exceed 2,400 flight cycles.

(1) For airplanes on which a detailed visual

inspection has been performed within the

last 2,400 flight cycles prior to the effective

date of this AD, in accordance with

Structural Significant Item (SSI) 57–10–19 of

the Airbus A300–600 Maintenance Review

Board (MRB) Document: Inspect within 2,400

flight cycles after the most recent SSI

inspection.

(2) For airplanes on which a detailed visual

inspection has not been performed within the

last 2,400 flight cycles prior to the effective

date of this AD, in accordance with

Structural Significant Item (SSI) 57–10–19 of

the Airbus A300–600 Maintenance Review

Board (MRB) Document: Inspect at the time

specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), or

(a)(2)(iii), as applicable.

(i) For airplanes that have accumulated

6,600 or more total flight cycles as of the

effective date of this AD: Inspect within 750

flight cycles after the effective date of this

AD.

(ii) For airplanes that have accumulated

more than 3,100 total flight cycles, but less

than 6,600 total flight cycles as of the

effective date of this AD: Inspect within

1,500 flight cycles after the effective date of

this AD.

(iii) For airplanes that have accumulated

3,100 total flight cycles or less as of the

effective date of this AD: Inspect prior to the

accumulation of 4,600 total flight cycles.

(b) If any discrepancy is found in a fastener

that connects the doubler angle and the

bottom panel of the center wing box during

any detailed external visual inspection

performed in accordance with paragraph (a)

of this AD: Prior to further flight, remove the

discrepant fastener, and perform a rotating

probe inspection to detect discrepancies of

the fastener holes, in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A300–53–6110, dated April

8, 1997.

(1) If no discrepancy is found in any

fastener hole, prior to further flight, install a

new fastener, in accordance with the service

bulletin. Thereafter, repeat the inspections

required by paragraph (a) of this AD at

intervals not to exceed 2,400 flight cycles.

(2) If any discrepancy is found in any

fastener hole, prior to further flight, except as

provided by paragraph (e) of this AD, repair

in accordance with the service bulletin, and

accomplish the actions required by paragraph

(c) of this AD.

(c) If any crack is found in the doubler

angle during any detailed visual inspection

performed in accordance with paragraph (a)

of this AD, prior to further flight, modify the

doubler angle in accordance with Airbus

Service Bulletin A300–53–6063, dated

December 12, 1996. Accomplishment of the

modification constitutes terminating action

for both repetitive inspection requirements of

this AD.

(d) Accomplishment of the modification in

accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin

A300–53–6063, dated December 12, 1996,

constitutes terminating action for the

repetitive inspection requirements of this

AD.

(e) If any discrepancy of a fastener hole is

found during any inspection of a discrepant

fastener as required by paragraph (b) of this

AD, and the service bulletin specifies to

contact Airbus for appropriate action: Prior to

further flight, repair in accordance with a

method approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate.

(f) 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,

International Branch, ANM–116. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

(g) 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.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in French airworthiness directive 97–383–

240(B), dated December 17, 1997.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Proposed Rules 27519

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 13,

1998.

John J. Hickey,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–13311 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 97–AWA–6]

RIN 2120 AA66

Proposed Modification of the San

Diego Class B Airspace Area; CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: This notice proposes to

modify the San Diego, CA, Class B

airspace area. Specifically, this action

proposes to lower the upper limit of the

San Diego Class B airspace area from

12,500 feet mean sea level (MSL) to

10,000 feet MSL; expand the western

and eastern boundaries of the airspace

area; and move the southern boundary

north to align with the POGGI Very

High Frequency Omnidirectional Range

Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC). The

FAA is proposing this action to improve

the flow of air traffic, enhance safety,

and reduce the potential for midair

collision in the San Diego Class B

airspace area while accommodating the

concerns of airspace users.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket,

AGC–200, Airspace Docket No. 97–

AWA–6, 800 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington DC 20591. Comments

may also be sent electronically to the

following Internet address:

nprmcmts@mail.hq.faa.gov. 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: Ken

McElroy, 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 should 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. 97–

AWA–6.’’ 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

An electronic copy of this document

may be downloaded from the FAA

regulations section of the Fedworld

electronic bulletin board service

(telephone: 703–321–3339) or the

Federal Register’s electronic bulletin

board service (telephone: 202–512–

1661), using a modem and suitable

communications software.

Internet users may reach the FAA’s

web page at http://www.faa.gov or the

Federal Register’s web page at http://

www.access.gpo.gov/suldocs for

access to recently published rulemaking

documents.

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’’ 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

increases 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 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

Class B airspace areas. 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