40640 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Frequency

Field strength (volts

per meter)

peak average

The field strengths

are expressed in

terms of peak rootmean-square (rms)

values.

or,

(2) The applicant may demonstrate by

a system test and analysis that the

electrical and electronic systems that

perform critical functions can withstand

a minimum threat of 100 volts per

meter, peak electrical field strength,

from 10 KHz to 18 GHz. When using

this test to show compliance with the

HIRF requirements, no credit is given

for signal attenuation due to

installation.

A preliminary hazard analysis must

be performed by the applicant, for

approval by the FAA, to identify

electrical and/or electronic systems that

perform critical functions. The term

‘‘critical’’ means those functions whose

failure would contribute to, or cause, a

failure condition that would prevent the

continued safe flight and landing of the

airplane. The systems identified by the

hazard analysis that perform critical

functions are candidates for the

application of HIRF requirements. A

system may perform both critical and

non-critical functions. Primary

electronic flight display systems, and

their associated components, perform

critical functions such as attitude,

altitude, and airspeed indication. The

HIRF requirements apply only to critical

functions.

Compliance with HIRF requirements

may be demonstrated by tests, analysis,

models, similarity with existing

systems, or any combination of these.

Service experience alone is not

acceptable since normal flight

operations may not include an exposure

to the HIRF environment. Reliance on a

system with similar design features for

redundancy as a means of protection

against the effects of external HIRF is

generally insufficient since all elements

of a redundant system are likely to be

exposed to the fields concurrently.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special

conditions are applicable to the Beech

Model 3000. Should Raytheon Aircraft

Company apply at a later date for a

supplemental type certificate or

amended type certificate to modify any

other model that may be included on

this Type Certificate incorporating, the

same novel or unusual design feature,

the special conditions would apply to

that model as well under the provisions

of § 21.101(a)(1).

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel

or unusual design features on one model

of airplane. It is not a rule of general

applicability and affects only the

applicant who applied to the FAA for

approval of these features on the

airplane.

The substance of these special

conditions has been subjected to the

notice and comment period in several

prior instances and has been derived

without substantive change from those

previously issued. It is unlikely that

prior public comment would result in a

significant change from the substance

contained herein. For this reason, and

because a delay would significantly

affect the certification of the airplane,

which is imminent, the FAA has

determined that prior public notice and

comment are unnecessary and

impracticable, and good cause exists for

adopting these special conditions upon

issuance. The FAA is requesting

comments to allow interested persons to

submit views that may not have been

submitted in response to the prior

opportunities for comment described

above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and

symbol

Citation

The authority citation for these

special conditions is as follows:

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

44701; 14 CFR part 21, §§ 21.16 and 21.17;

and 14 CFR part 11, §§ 11.28 and 11.49.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the following special

conditions are issued as part of the type

certification basis for the Raytheon

Aircraft Company, Beech Model 3000

airplane.

1. Protection of Electrical and

Electronic Systems from High Intensity

Radiated Fields (HIRF). Each system

that performs critical functions must be

designed and installed to ensure that the

operations, and operational capabilities

of these systems to perform critical

functions, are not adversely affected

when the airplane is exposed to high

intensity radiated electromagnetic fields

external to the airplane.

2. For the purpose of these special

conditions, the following definition

applies: Critical Functions: Functions

whose failure would contribute to, or

cause, a failure condition that would

prevent the continued safe flight and

landing of the airplane.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on July 14,

1998.

Marvin Nuss,

Assistant Manager, Small Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–20345 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–212–AD; Amendment

39–10676; AD 98–16–01]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model MD–11 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model MD–11 series airplanes.

This action requires repetitive

inspections to measure for free play

(wear on nut assembly) of the horizontal

stabilizer actuator assembly, and

corrective actions, if necessary. This

amendment is prompted by reports of

wear of the horizontal stabilizer actuator

assembly due to a jackscrew surface

finish that was manufactured

incorrectly. The actions specified in this

AD are intended to prevent excessive

free play and wear of the horizontal

stabilizer actuator assembly, which

could result in a free-floating horizontal

stabilizer, and consequent loss of

aircraft pitch control.

DATES: Effective August 14, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of August 14,

1998.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

September 28, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, ANM–114,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 98–NM–

212–AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

The service information referenced in

this AD may be obtained from The

Boeing Company, Douglas Products
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 40641

Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard,

Long Beach, California 90846,

Attention: Technical Publications

Business Administration, Dept. C1–L51

(2–60). This information may be

examined at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at

the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800

North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700,

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Y. J. Hsu, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712–4137; telephone (562)

627–5323; fax (562) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

has received numerous reports of the

actuator nut assembly of the horizontal

stabilizer prematurely wearing out on

McDonnell Douglas Model MD–11

series airplanes. In one of these

incidents, the nut assembly had

completely worn through. The cause of

such wear and resultant excessive free

play has been attributed to a jackscrew

surface finish that was out of design

specification tolerance, as a result of a

manufacturing process error. If not

corrected, this condition, in conjunction

with a failure of the opposite side

jackscrew assembly, could result in a

free-floating horizontal stabilizer, and

consequent loss of aircraft pitch control.

Explanation of Relevant Service

Information

The FAA has reviewed and approved

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

MD11–27–067, dated July 31, 1997;

McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

MD11–27–067, Revision 01, dated

February 24, 1998; McDonnell Douglas

Alert Service Bulletin MD11–27A067,

Revision 02, dated May 18, 1998; and

McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin MD11–27A067, Revision 03,

dated June 9, 1998. These service

bulletins describe procedures for

repetitive inspections to measure for

free play (wear on nut assembly) of the

horizontal stabilizer actuator assembly,

and corrective actions, if necessary.

These corrective actions include

replacing the actuator assembly with a

new actuator assembly, repairing the

jackscrew assembly, and replacing the

nut assembly with a new nut assembly.

Accomplishment of the actions

specified in these service bulletins is

intended to adequately address the

identified unsafe condition.

Explanation of the Requirements of the

Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design, this AD is being issued to

prevent excessive free play and wear of

the horizontal stabilizer actuator

assembly, which could result in a freefloating horizontal stabilizer, and

consequent loss of aircraft pitch control.

The actions are required to be

accomplished in accordance with the

service bulletins described previously,

except as discussed below. This AD also

requires that operators submit a report

of the results of the initial inspection

required by this AD to the FAA.

Differences Between Proposed Rule and

Service Bulletins

Operators should note that although

the service bulletins specify that the

manufacturer may be contacted for

disposition of certain repair/

modification conditions, this AD

requires the repair of those conditions to

be accomplished in accordance with a

method approved by the FAA.

Determination of Rule’s Effective Date

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this 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

under the caption ADDRESSES. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

evaluating the effectiveness of the AD

action and determining whether

additional rulemaking action would be

needed.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the rule that might suggest a need to

modify the 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 that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this AD

will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this rule must

submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 98–NM–212–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

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.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and that it is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866. It has been determined

further that this action involves an

emergency regulation under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is

determined that this emergency

regulation otherwise would be

significant under DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures, a final

regulatory evaluation will be prepared

and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it, if filed, 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:
40642 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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:

98–16–01 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment

39–10676. Docket 98–NM–212–AD.

Applicability: Model MD–11 series

airplanes, as listed in McDonnell Douglas

MD–11 Alert Service Bulletin MD11–

27A067, Revision 03, dated June 9, 1998;

certificated in any category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

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

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 (i) 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 excessive play and wear on the

horizontal stabilizer actuator assembly,

which could result in a free-floating

horizontal stabilizer, and consequent loss of

aircraft pitch control, accomplish the

following:

Note 2: Where there are differences

between the service bulletins and the AD, the

AD prevails.

(a) Within 30 days after the effective date

of this AD: Perform an inspection to measure

for free play (wear on nut assembly) of the

horizontal stabilizer actuator assembly, left

and right sides, in accordance with any of the

following McDonnell Douglas service

bulletins:

• McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

MD11–27–067, dated July 31, 1997;

• McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

MD11–27–067, Revision 01, dated February

24, 1998;

• McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin MD11–27A067, Revision 02, dated

May 18, 1998; or

• McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin MD11–27A067, Revision 03, dated

June 9, 1998.

(b) For airplanes that have accumulated

2,000 or more total landings at the time of

accomplishment of the inspection required

by paragraph (a) of this AD: If any wear is

detected during the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD, and it is less than

or within the limits identified in Table 1,

Condition 1, of the Work Instructions of any

service bulletin listed in paragraph (a) of this

AD, no further action is required by this AD.

(c) For airplanes that have accumulated

less than 2,000 total landings at the time of

accomplishment of the inspection required

by paragraph (a) of this AD: If any wear is

detected during any inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD, and it is less than

or within the limits identified in Table 1,

Condition 1, of the Work Instructions of any

service bulletin listed in paragraph (a) of this

AD, repeat the inspection required by

paragraph (a) of this AD prior to the

accumulation of 2,400 total landings.

(d) Condition 2. If any wear is detected

during any inspection required by paragraph

(a) or (c) of this AD, and it is within the

limits identified in Table 1, Condition 2, of

the Work Instructions of any service bulletin

listed in paragraph (a) of this AD, within 500

landings following accomplishment of the

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, accomplish paragraph (d)(1), (d)(2),

(d)(3), (d)(4), or (d)(5) of this AD.

(1) Option 1. Replace the actuator assembly

with a new actuator assembly, in accordance

with any service bulletin listed in paragraph

(a) of this AD.

(2) Option 2. Repair the jackscrew

assembly of the horizontal stabilizer and

install it utilizing the existing nut assembly

in accordance with either:

(i) A method approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),

FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; or

(ii) Option 2, Procedure 2, of the Work

Instructions of any service bulletin listed in

paragraph (a) of this AD.

(3) Option 3. Repair the jackscrew

assembly of the horizontal stabilizer and

install it utilizing a new nut assembly in

accordance with either:

(i) A method approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles ACO; or

(ii) Option 3, Procedure 2, of the Work

Instructions of any service bulletin listed in

paragraph (a) of this AD.

(4) Option 4. Replace the nut assembly

with a new nut assembly, in accordance with

any service bulletin listed in paragraph (a) of

this AD. Within 1,500 landings following

accomplishment of the replacement, repeat

the inspection required by paragraph (a) of

this AD.

(5) Option 5. Repeat the inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500

landings.

(e) Condition 3. If any wear is detected

during the inspection required by paragraph

(a) or (c) of this AD, and it is within the

limits identified in Table 1, Condition 3, of

the Work Instructions of any service bulletin

listed in paragraph (a) of this AD, within 250

landings following accomplishment of the

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, accomplish either paragraph (e)(1),

(e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4), or (e)(5) of this AD.

(1) Option 1. Replace the actuator assembly

with a new actuator assembly, in accordance

with any service bulletin listed in paragraph

(a) of this AD.

(2) Option 2. Repair the jackscrew

assembly of the horizontal stabilizer and

install it utilizing the existing nut assembly

in accordance with either:

(i) A method approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles ACO; or

(ii) Option 2, Procedure 2, of the Work

Instructions of any service bulletin listed in

paragraph (a) of this AD.

(3) Option 3. Repair the jackscrew

assembly of the horizontal stabilizer and

install it utilizing a new nut assembly in

accordance with either:

(i) A method approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles ACO; or

(ii) Option 3, Procedure 2, of the Work

Instructions of any service bulletin listed in

paragraph (a) of this AD.

(4) Option 4. Replace the nut assembly

with a new nut assembly, in accordance with

any service bulletin listed in paragraph (a) of

this AD. Within 1,500 landings following

accomplishment of the replacement, repeat

the inspection required by paragraph (a) of

this AD.

(5) Option 5. Repeat the inspection

required by paragraph (a) of this AD

thereafter at intervals not to exceed 250

landings.

(f) Condition 4. If any wear is detected

during the inspection required by paragraph

(a) or (c) of this AD, and it is within the

limits identified in Table 1, Condition 4, of

the Work Instructions of any service bulletin

listed in paragraph (a) of this AD, within 100

landings following accomplishment of the

inspection required by paragraph (a) of this

AD, accomplish paragraph (f)(1), (f)(2), or

(f)(3) of this AD.

(1) Option 1. Replace the actuator assembly

with a new actuator assembly, in accordance

with any service bulletin listed in paragraph

(a) of this AD.

(2) Option 3. Repair the jackscrew

assembly of the horizontal stabilizer and

install it utilizing a new nut assembly in

accordance with either:

(i) A method approved by the Manger, Los

Angeles ACO; or

(ii) Option 3, Procedure 2, of the Work

Instructions of any service bulletin listed in

paragraph (a) of this AD.

(3) Option 4. Replace the nut assembly

with a new nut assembly, in accordance with

any service bulletin listed in paragraph (a) of

this AD.

(i) For airplanes that have accumulated

1,500 or more landings at the time of the last

inspection: Within 1,500 landings following

accomplishment of the replacement, repeat

the inspection required by paragraph (a) of

this AD.

(ii) For airplanes that have accumulated

less than 1,500 landings at the time of the last

inspection: Following accomplishment of the

replacement, repeat the inspection required

by paragraph (a) of this AD within the

number of landings accumulated at the time

of the last inspection.

(g) If any wear is detected during the

inspection required by paragraph (a) or (c) of

this AD, and it exceeds the limits identified

in Table 1, Condition 4, of the Work

Instructions of any service bulletin listed in

paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to further

flight, repair in accordance with a method

approved by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

(h) Within 10 days after accomplishment of

the initial inspection required by paragraph

(a) of this AD, submit a report of the

inspection results (positive or negative) to the

Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 146 /Thursday, July 30, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 40643

Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; fax (562) 627–5210.

Information collection requirements

contained in this regulation have been

approved by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.) and have been assigned OMB

Control Number 2120–0056.

(i) 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, Los

Angeles ACO. Operators shall submit their

requests through an appropriate FAA

Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may

add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Los Angeles ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.

(j) 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.

(k) Except as provided by paragraphs

(d)(2)(i), (e)(2)(i), and (g) of this AD, the

actions shall be done in accordance with the

following service bulletins:

• McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

MD11–27–067, dated July 31, 1997;

• McDonnell Douglas Service Bulletin

MD11–27–067, Revision 01, dated February

24, 1998;

• McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin MD11–27A067, Revision 02, dated

May 18, 1998; or

• McDonnell Douglas Alert Service

Bulletin MD11–27A067, Revision 03, dated

June 9, 1998.

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 The Boeing Company, Douglas Products

Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long

Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration, Dept.

C1–151 (2–60). Copies may be inspected at

the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Transport

Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office, 3960 Paramount

Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

(l) This amendment becomes effective on

August 14, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 21,

1998.

S. R. Miller,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–19924 Filed 7–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 98–ACE–17]

Amendment to Class D and Class E

Airspace; Fort Leonard Wood, MO;

Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of

effective date and correction.

SUMMARY: This notice confirms the

effective date of a direct final rule which

revises Class D and Class E airspace at

Fort Leonard Wood, MO, and corrects

the name of the airport from Fort

Leonard Wood, Forney Army Airfield to

Waynesville Regional Airport at Forney

Field. An editorial revision to the Class

E surface airspace area is included in

the document.

DATES: The direct final rule published at

63 FR 27474 is effective on 0901 UTC,

October 8, 1998.

This correction is effective on October

8, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division,

Airspace Branch, ACE–520C, Federal

Aviation Administration, 601 East 12th

Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;

telephone: (816) 426–3408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May

19, 1998, the FAA published in the

Federal Register a direct final rule;

request for comments which modified

the Class D and Class E airspace at Fort

Leonard Wood, MO (FR Document 98–

13272, 63 FR 27474, Airspace Docket

No. 98–ACE–17). After the document

was published in the Federal Register,

the name of the airport was changed

from Fort Leonard Wood, Forney Army

Airfield, MO, to Waynesville Regional

Airport at Forney Field, MO. In

addition, to more clearly define the

Class E surface airspace area, an

editorial revision is included. The FAA

has determined that these corrections

will not change the meaning of the

action nor add any additional burden on

the public beyond that already

published. This action corrects the

name of the airport and confirms the

effective date of the direct final rule.

The FAA uses the direct final

rulemaking procedure for a noncontroversial rule where the FAA

believes that there will be no adverse

public comment. This direct final rule

advised the public that no adverse

comments were anticipated, and that

unless a written adverse comment, or a

written notice of intent to submit such

an adverse comment, were received

within the comment period, the

regulation would become effective on

October 8, 1998. No adverse comments

were received, and thus this notice

confirms that this direct final rule will

become effective on that date.

Correction

In rule FR Doc. 98–13272 published

in the Federal Register on May 19,

1998, 63 FR 27474, make the following

correction to the Fort Leonard Wood,

MO, Class D and Class E airspace

designation incorporated by reference in

14 CFR 71.1:

§ 71.1 [Corrected]

ACE MO D Fort Leonard Wood, MO

[Corrected]

On page 27476, in the first column,

under ‘‘ACE MO D Fort Leonard Wood,

MO [Revised]’’, line 3, remove ‘‘Fort

Leonard Wood, Forney Army Airfield,’’

and add in its place ‘‘Waynesville

Regional Airport at Forney Field.’’

On page 27476, in the first column,

line 3 and 4 of the airspace designation,

remove ‘‘Forney Army Airfield’’ and

add in its place ‘‘Waynesville Regional

Airport at Forney Field.’’

ACE MO E4 Fort Leonard Wood, MO

[Corrected]

On page 27476, in the first column,

under ‘‘ACE MO E4 Fort Leonard Wood,

MO [Revised]’’, line 3, remove Fort

Leonard Wood, Forney Army Airfield,’’

and add in its place ‘‘Waynesville

Regional Airport at Forney Field.’’

On page 27476, in the first column,

line 4 of the airspace designation,

remove ‘‘Forney Army Airfield’’ and

add in its place ‘‘Waynesville Regional

Airport at Forney Field.’’

On page 27476, in the first column,

line 8 and 9 of the airspace designation,

remove the words ‘‘extending from the

4-mile radius of the airport’’.

ACE MO E5 Fort Leonard Wood, MO

[Corrected]

On page 27476, in the first column,

under ‘‘ACE MO E5 Fort Leonard Wood,

MO [Revised]’’, line 3, remove ‘‘Fort

Leonard Wood, Forney Army Airfield,’’

and add in its place ‘‘Waynesville

Regional Airport at Forney Field.’’

On page 27476, in the first column,

line 3 of the airspace designation,

remove ‘‘Forney Army Airfield’’ and

add in its place ‘‘Waynesville Regional

Airport at Forney Field.’’