Proposed Establishment of Class C Airspace and Revocation of Class D Airspace, Springfield Regional Airport, MO

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes to establish a Class C airspace area and

revoke the existing Class D airspace area at the Springfield Regional

Airport, Springfield, MO. The Springfield Regional Airport is a public-

use facility with an operating control tower served by a Level III

Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility (TRACON). The establishment of

this Class C airspace area would require pilots to maintain two-way

radio communications with air traffic control (ATC) while in the Class

C airspace area. Implementation of the proposed Class C airspace area

would promote the efficient control of air traffic and reduce the risk

of midair collision in the terminal area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, Attention: Rules

Docket, AGC-200, Airspace Docket No. 95-AWA-10, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington DC 20591. The official docket may be examined

in the Rules Docket, Office of the Chief Counsel, Room 916, 800

Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, weekdays, except Federal

holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. An informal docket may also

be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Regional

Air Traffic Division.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Brown, Airspace and Rules

Division, ATA-400, Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, Federal

Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC

20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed

rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they

may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the

views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing

reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are

specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing

the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must

submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which

the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-

AWA-10.'' 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 be filed in the

docket.

Availability of NPRM's

Any person may obtain a copy of this 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. This circular describes the application

procedure.

Background

On April 22, 1982, the National Airspace Review (NAR) plan was

published in the Federal Register (47 FR 17448). The plan encompassed a

review of airspace use and procedural aspects of the ATC system. Among

the main objectives of the NAR was the improvement of the ATC system by

increasing efficiency and reducing complexity. In its review of

terminal airspace, NAR Task Group 1-2 concluded that Terminal Radar

Service Areas (TRSA's) should be replaced. Four types of airspace

configurations were considered as replacement candidates, of which

Model B, since designated Airport Radar Service Area (ARSA), was

recommended by a consensus of the task group.

The FAA published NAR Recommendation 1-2.2.1, ``Replace Terminal

Radar Service Areas with Model B Airspace and Service'' in Notice 83-9

(48 FR 34286, July 28, 1983) proposing the establishment of ARSA's at

the Robert Mueller Municipal Airport, Austin, TX, and the Port of

Columbus International Airport, Columbus, OH. ARSA's were designated at

these airports on a temporary basis by SFAR No. 45 (48 FR 50038,

October 28, 1983) to provide an operational test bed of the ARSA

concept for potential application on a national basis.

Following a confirmation period of more than a year, the FAA

adopted the NAR recommendation and, on February 27, 1985, issued a

final rule (50 FR 9252; March 6, 1985) defining ARSA airspace and

establishing air traffic rules for operation within such an area.

Concurrently, by separate rulemaking action, ARSA's were

permanently established at the Austin, TX, Columbus, OH, and the

Baltimore/Washington International Airports (50 FR 9250; March 6,

1985). The FAA stated that future notices would propose ARSA's for

other airports at which TRSA procedures were in effect.

Additionally, the NAR Task Group recommended that the FAA develop

quantitative criteria for proposing to establish ARSA's at locations

other than those which were included in the TRSA replacement program.

The task group

[[Page 64827]]

recommended that these criteria include, among other things, traffic

mix, flow and density, airport configuration, geographical features,

collision risk assessment, and ATC capabilities to provide service to

users. These criteria have been developed and are being published via

the FAA directives system.

The FAA has established ARSA's at 121 locations under a paced

implementation plan to replace TRSA's with ARSA's. This is one of a

series of notices to implement ARSA's at locations with or without

TRSA's that warrant implementation of an ARSA.

The airspace reclassification initiative, effective September 16,

1993, reclassified ARSA's as Class C airspace areas. This change in

terminology is reflected in the remainder of this NPRM.

This NRPM proposes Class C designation at a location which was not

identified as a candidate for Class C airspace in the preamble to

Amendment No. 71-10 (50 FR 9252). Other candidate locations will be

proposed in future NPRM's published in the Federal Register.

Pre-NPRM Public Input

As announced in the Federal Register on July 21, 1994 (59 FR

37282), a pre-NPRM airspace meeting was held on September 7, 1994, in

Springfield, MO. The purpose of this meeting was to provide local

airspace users an opportunity to present input on the planned

establishment of the Springfield Class C airspace area prior to

issuance of an NPRM. All comments received during the pre-NPRM informal

airspace meeting were considered and incorporated, in part, in this

NPRM. An analysis of the comments received during this effort are

summarized below.

Discussion of Comments

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Experimental

Aircraft Association (EAA), Missouri Pilots Association (MPA), and

other individuals opposed the planned Class C airspace area at

Springfield Regional Airport. These commenters believe that the FAA has

not used alternate nonrulemaking solutions to meet safety issues

concerning Springfield Regional Airport and enplanement numbers should

not be the only criteria used.

The FAA does not agree, and further believes that all nonrulemaking

alternatives to provide for an acceptable level of safety have been

exhausted. For example, over the past several years, the FAA has

updated its equipment, improved its radar services, and in the last

year alone, held at least seven meetings in the Springfield area

informing the public of its growing safety concerns. These concerns are

centered around: (1) potential conflicts between en route visual flight

rules (VFR) traffic using the Springfield Very High Frequency

Omnidirectional Range (VOR) navigational aid and arriving traffic; (2)

conflicts between aircraft on instrument approach to Runway 20 and the

VFR flyway area to the southeast; (3) conflicts between aircraft using

the localizer procedure and transiting aircraft for the Springfield

Downtown Airport; and (4) congestion caused by military use of

Springfield Regional Airport for practice approaches and training. In

addition, Springfield Regional Airport is the only airport in southwest

Missouri that has a radar facility. This capability attracts several

aviation flight training schools, thus adding to a mixed traffic

environment.

For a site to be a candidate for Class C airspace consideration, it

must have an airport with an operational airport traffic control tower

(ATCT) that is serviced by a radar approach control and meet one of the

following: (1) 75,000 annual instrument operations count at the primary

airport; (2) 100,000 annual instrument operations count at the primary

and secondary airport in the terminal area hub; or (3) 250,000 annual

enplaned passengers at the primary airport. In this case, Springfield

Regional Airport meets the FAA criteria and qualifies as a candidate

for Class C airspace.

Several commenters believe the construction of two new airports

would affect traffic at Springfield Regional Airport. The FAA disagrees

with these concerns. Currently, there are no new airport proposals,

private or public, on file. At one point, there had been proposals for

new airports (Stone County and Four Cities Regional). However, these

sites were either found unacceptable and a new site was not selected,

or the sponsor elected not to file an extension on the airport

proposal.

One commenter did not object to the Class C airspace area; however,

he requested that Bird Field Airport be excluded from the Class C

airspace surface area. The FAA concurs with this recommendation. The

Bird Field Airport is located near the 5 NM outer boundary, and there

are only three private ``Cherokee'' type of aircraft that routinely use

this airport and generally would not require ATC services. The airspace

above this airport is not needed for the proposed Class C area;

therefore, under this proposal, appropriate airspace surrounding the

Bird Field Airport for 1 NM is excluded.

None of the airlines were represented at the informal airspace

meeting, and one commenter interpreted their absence as a statement

that safety must be adequate at Springfield Regional Airport and,

consequently, that Class C airspace would not be necessary.

The FAA disagrees with this interpretation. Conversely, the FAA

agrees with several other commenters in their belief that establishing

Class C airspace will enhance safety in this mixed airspace environment

and that the requirements imposed on pilots outweigh the perceived

complexities and costs associated with the safety characteristics

achieved within a Class C airspace area. Additionally, this action is

supported by US Air Express, American Airlines, the Airport Manager of

the Springfield Downtown Airport, and other entities that use the

Springfield Regional Airport.

The Proposal

The FAA is proposing an amendment to part 71 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish a Class C airspace

area and revoke the Class D airspace area at Springfield Regional

Airport located in Springfield, MO. Springfield Regional Airport is a

public-use facility with an operating control tower served by a Level

III TRACON. Implementation of the proposed Springfield Class C airspace

area would promote the efficient control of air traffic and further

reduce the risk of midair collision in the terminal area.

The FAA published a final rule (50 FR 9252, March 6, 1985) that

defines Class C airspace and prescribes operating rules for aircraft,

ultralight vehicles, and parachute jump operations in Class C airspace

areas. The final rule provides, in part, that all aircraft arriving at

any airport in Class C airspace or flying through Class C airspace

must: (1) prior to entering the Class C airspace, establish two-way

radio communications with the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the

area and (2) while in Class C airspace, maintain two-way radio

communications with that facility. For aircraft departing from the

primary airport within Class C airspace, or a satellite airport with an

operating control tower, two-way radio communications must be

established and maintained with the control tower and thereafter as

instructed by ATC while operating in Class C airspace. For aircraft

departing a satellite airport without an operating control tower and

within Class C airspace, two-way communications must be established

with the ATC facility jurisdiction over the area as soon as practicable

after takeoff and thereafter maintained while

[[Page 64828]]

operating within the Class C airspace (14 CFR 91.130).

Pursuant to the Federal Aviation Regulations Sec. 91.130 (14 CFR

part 91) all aircraft operating within Class C airspace are required to

comply with Secs. 91.129 and 91.13. Ultralight vehicle operations and

parachute jumps in Class C airspace areas may only be conducted under

the terms of an ATC authorization.

The FAA adopted the NAR Task Group recommendation that each Class C

airspace area be of the same airspace configuration insofar as is

practicable. The standard Class C airspace area consists of that

airspace within 5 nautical miles (NM) of the primary airport, extending

from the surface to an altitude of 4,000 feet above airport elevation

(AAE), and that airspace between 5 and 10 NM from the primary airport

from 1,200 feet above ground level (AGL) to an altitude of 4,000 feet

AAE. Proposed deviations from this standard have been necessary at some

airports because of adjacent regulatory airspace, international

boundaries, topography, or unusual operational requirements.

Definitions and operating requirements applicable to Class C

airspace may be found in Sec. 71.51 of part 71 and Secs. 91.1 and

91.130 of part 91 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR parts 71,

91). The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North

American Datum 83. Class C and Class D airspace designations are

published, respectively, in paragraphs 4000 and 5000 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 C and

Class D airspace designations listed in this document would be

published or removed subsequently from the Order.

The volume of passenger enplanements at Springfield Regional

Airport has steadily increased. In 1993, it was 309,440; in 1994,

343,671; and in 1995, 328,766. This volume of passenger enplanements

meets the FAA criteria for establishing Class C airspace. Establishment

of the proposed Springfield Regional Airport Class C airspace area

would contribute to the improvement in aviation safety.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several

economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned

determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its

costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies

to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities.

Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess

the effect of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting

these analyses, the FAA has determined that this proposed rule is not

``a significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order

and the Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and

Procedures; would not have a significant impact on a substantial number

of small entities; and would not constitute a barrier to international

trade. These analyses, available in the docket, are summarized below.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost

The FAA has determined that the establishment of the proposed

Springfield, MO, Class C airspace area at the Springfield Regional

Airport would impose a one-time FAA administrative cost of $575 (1995

dollars). The FAA has also determined that the proposed rule would not

impose any cost impact on the aviation community (namely, aircraft

operators and fixed based operators). The potential costs of the

proposed Class C airspace area are discussed below.

For the proposed Springfield Class C airspace, the FAA does not

expect to incur any additional costs for ATC staffing, training, or

facility equipment. The FAA is confident that it can accommodate any

additional traffic that would participate in radar services at the

proposed Class C airspace area through more efficient use of personnel

at current authorized staffing levels. The FAA expects to train its

controller force in Class C airspace procedures during regularly

scheduled briefing sessions routinely held at the airport. Thus, no

additional training costs or equipment requirements are anticipated.

Establishment of Class C airspace throughout the country has made

it necessary to revise sectional charts by removing existing airspace

configurations and incorporating the new Class C airspace boundaries.

The FAA currently revises these sectional charts every six months to

reflect changes to the airspace environment. Changes required to depict

Class C airspace are made routinely during these charting cycles. The

periodic changes to these charts are considered as routine operating

expenses of the FAA. Thus, the FAA does not expect to incur any

additional charting costs as a result of the proposed Springfield Class

C airspace area.

The FAA holds an informal public meeting at each proposed Class C

airspace location. These meetings provide pilots with the best

opportunity to learn about Class C airspace operating procedures. The

routine expenses associated with these public meetings are incurred

regardless of whether Class C airspace is ultimately established. Thus,

the expenses from these meetings are considered routine costs to the

FAA. If the proposed Springfield Class C airspace area were to become a

final rule, the FAA would distribute a ``Letter To Airmen'' to all

pilots residing within 50 miles of the Class C airspace site that would

explain the operation and airspace configuration of the proposed Class

C airspace area. The ``Letter to Airmen'' costs would be about $575

(1995 dollars). This one-time negligible cost would be incurred upon

the establishment of the proposed Class C airspace area.

The FAA anticipates that some pilots who currently transit the

terminal area without establishing radio communications may choose to

circumnavigate the proposed Springfield Class C airspace area. However,

the FAA contends that these operators could circumnavigate the proposed

Class C airspace area without significantly deviating from their

regular flight paths. Operators could remain clear of the proposed

Class C airspace area by flying above the ceiling of 5,300 feet MSL,

flying west beneath the outer floor of 2,500 feet MSL, or flying just

beyond the lateral boundaries. The operators who choose to fly beyond

the lateral boundaries would be required to navigate an additional 5

NM, adding an additional 10 minutes of flight time. The FAA has

determined that the proposed rule would have a negligible, if any, cost

impact on non-participating general aviation (GA) aircraft operations

because of these small deviations from current flight paths.

The Springfield Regional Airport is designated as a ``high-

passengertraffic'' airport under Phase II of the Mode C Rule

(``Transponder With Automatic Altitude Reporting Capability

Requirement''--53 FR 23356, June 21, 1988) which went into effect on

December 30, 1990. Phase II of the Mode C Rule requires aircraft

operators to have Mode C transponders in and above Class C airspace up

to 10,000 feet MSL. When the proposed Springfield Class C airspace is

established, it would continue to be subject to Phase II of the Mode C

Rule. Since the cost of the Mode C requirement has already been

addressed (Phase II of the Mode C Rule),

[[Page 64829]]

it will not be considered as part of this proposal in order to avoid

double-counting the cost of one action. The FAA assumes that nearly all

aircraft operating in the vicinity of the proposed Springfield Class C

airspace area already have Mode C transponders and two-way radio

communications capability. This assessment is based on the most recent

General Aviation and Avionics Survey Report. The report indicates an

estimated 82 percent of all GA aircraft operators are already equipped

with two-way radios. In addition, Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance

Systems (TCAS) allow air carriers, commuter airplanes, and corporate

aircraft to determine the position of other aircraft from the signal

emitted by Mode C transponders. The FAA has adopted regulations

requiring certain aircraft operators to install TCAS (54 FR 940,

January 10, 1989). As of December 30, 1990, all aircraft (except those

aircraft without an electrical systems), balloons, and gliders flying

in the vicinity of the Springfield Regional Airport must have a Mode C

transponder (14 CFR 91.215). The FAA has traditionally accommodated GA

aircraft operators without two-way radio communication equipment via

letters of agreement, when practical to do so without jeopardizing

aviation safety. Since not all GA aircraft operators receive letters of

agreement, such operators would be required to use circumnavigation

procedures.

The establishment of the proposed Springfield Class C airspace area

is not expected to have any adverse impacts on the operations at Bird

Field. Bird Field is a small satellite airport, approximately 5 NM

north of Springfield Regional Airport. The proposed Class C airspace

would place a 1 NM exclusion area around Bird Field. Most pilots using

this airport would probably circumnavigate the proposed Class C

airspace without participating in radar services.

Benefits

The benefits of the proposed Springfield Class C airspace area

would be enhanced aviation safety (lowered risk of midair collisions)

and improved operational efficiency (higher air traffic controller

productivity with existing resources). The potential benefits of this

proposed rule are discussed below.

The NAR Task Group found that airspace users, especially GA users,

encountered significant problems with terminal radar services.

Different levels of radar service offered within terminal areas caused

confusion about existing restrictions and privileges. The

standardization and simplification of operating procedures provided by

Class C airspace is expected to alleviate many of these problems. As

both pilots and controllers become familiar with Class C airspace

operating procedures, air traffic would flow more efficiently and

expeditiously. The benefits of the Class C airspace program cannot be

specifically attributed to individual airports. Rather, the benefits

would result from overall improvements in terminal area ATC procedures

realized as Class C airspace is implemented throughout the country.

Establishment of the proposed Springfield Class C airspace area would

contribute to these overall improvements.

The proposed Springfield Class C airspace area would lower the risk

of midair collisions due to increased positive control of airspace

around the Springfield Regional Airport. Due to the proactive nature of

the proposed Class C airspace area, the potential safety benefits are

difficult to quantify in monetary terms. Since traffic trends indicate

an increased risk of a midair collision at the airport, the FAA created

Class C airspace areas for the purpose of reducing the likelihood of

this potential safety problem. These traffic trends consist of an

increased volume of passenger enplanements and an increased complexity

of aircraft operations. Complexity refers to air traffic conditions

resulting from a mix of controlled and uncontrolled aircraft that vary

widely in speed and maneuverability. Enplanements at the airport were

328,766 in 1995; 343,671 in 1994; and 309,440 in 1993. The current

volume of passenger enplanements have made the airport eligible to

become Class C airspace.

The FAA has conservatively estimated that the Class C airspace

program would reduce the risk of midair collision by 50 percent at

Class D airspace locations. This estimate is based on before and after

studies of near midair collision (NMAC) trends and radar tracking data

from the original Columbus, OH, Class C airspace area location and a

review of the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) midair

collision accident records from January 1978 to October 1984. This 50

percent reduction translates into one midair collision prevented

nationally every one to two years. The FAA currently values the

prevention of a human fatality at $2.7 million and the prevention of a

serious injury at $518,000. The quantifiable benefits of preventing a

midair collision (based on the aforementioned reports) can range from

less than $177,000 (1995 dollars), a minor non-fatal accident between

two GA aircraft in which both aircraft need to be replaced, to $452

million (1995 dollars), the weighted average of a midair collision

between an air carrier and a GA aircraft in which there are no

survivors. The benefits of the proposed Springfield Class C airspace

area and other designated airspace actions that require Mode C

transponders cannot be separated from the benefits of the Mode C Rule

and the TCAS Rule. These rules work together to prevent midair

collisions from occurring. These airspace actions would share potential

benefits totaling $4.66 billion (discounted 7%, 15 years, 1995

dollars).

Conclusion

The FAA has determined that in view of the minimal cost of

compliance, enhanced aviation safety and operational efficiency, the

proposed establishment of Springfield Regional Airport Class C airspace

area would be cost-beneficial. The establishment of the Springfield

Class C airspace would impose a negligible, if any, cost on the

aviation community and a cost of about $575 on the agency. When this

cost estimate of $575 is added to the total cost of the Class C

airspace program, the Class B airspace program, the Mode C Rule, and

the TCAS Rule, the combined cost would still be less than their total

potential safety benefits.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by

Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and

disproportionately burdened by Federal regulations. The RFA requires a

regulatory flexibility analysis if a proposed rule would have ``a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities.'' FAA Order 2100.14A outlines the FAA's procedures and

criteria for implementing the RFA. Small entities are small businesses

and small not-for-profit organizations which are independently owned

and operated, and small government jurisdictions. A substantial number

of small entities means a number which is not less than eleven and

which is more than one-third of the small entities subject to a

proposed or existing rule. A significant economic impact refers to the

annualized threshold assigned to each entity group potentially impacted

by the rulemaking actions.

For the purpose of this evaluation, the small entities that would

be potentially affected by the proposed rule are defined as fixed-base

operators, airport operators, flight schools, agricultural operators,

and other small aviation businesses operating in the vicinity of

[[Page 64830]]

the proposed Springfield Class C airspace area. Sport aviation

interests that may be affected include ballooning, parachuting, and

gliding. Mandatory participation in the proposed Class C airspace area

and special conditions around the Springfield Regional Airport could

potentially impose certain costs (i.e., avionics equipment) on aircraft

operators. Based on historical experience of other Class C airspace

areas, the FAA would develop special procedures to accommodate these

operators through local agreements between ATC and the affected

entities. Since the proposed Springfield Class C airspace area falls in

this category, the FAA does not anticipate any adverse impacts to occur

as a result of the Class C airspace area.

The FAA has determined that the proposed rule would not result in a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the

terms of the RFA.

International Trade Impact Assessment

The proposed rule would not constitute a barrier to international

trade, including the export of American goods and services to foreign

countries and the import of foreign goods and services into the United

States. The proposed rule would not impose costs on aircraft operators

or aircraft manufacturers in the U.S. or foreign countries. The

establishment of the proposed Class C airspace area would only affect

U.S. terminal airspace operating procedures at and in the vicinity of

Springfield, MO. The proposed rule would not have international trade

ramifications because it is a domestic airspace matter that would not

impose additional costs or requirements on affected entities.

Federalism Implications

This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the

States, the relationship between the national government and the

States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive

Order 12612 (52 FR 41695; October 30,1987), it is determined that this

proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to

warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--[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; 14 CFR 11.69.

Sec. 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the 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 4000--Subpart C-Class C Airspace

* * * * *

ACE MO C Springfield, MO [New]

Springfield Regional Airport, MO

(lat. 37 deg.14'39''N., long. 93 deg.23'13''W.)

Bird Field Airport

(lat. 37 deg.19'00''N., long. 93 deg.25'00''W.)

Springfield VORTAC

(lat. 37 deg.21'22''N., long. 93 deg.20'24''W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to, and

including, 5,300 feet MSL within a 5 NM radius of Springfield

Regional Airport, excluding that airspace within a 1 NM radius of

the Bird Field Airport and that airspace extending upward from 2,500

feet MSL to, and including, 5,300 feet MSL within a 10-mile radius

of Springfield Regional Airport. This Class C airspace area is

effective during the specific dates and times established in advance

by a Notice to Airman. The effective date and time will thereafter

be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

* * * * *

Paragraph 5000--Subpart D-Class D Airspace

* * * * *

ACE MO D Springfield, MO [Removed]

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 20, 1996.

Harold W. Becker,

Acting Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace Management.

Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of

Federal Regulations.

Appendix--Class C Airspace Area.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 64831]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09DE96.003

[FR Doc. 96-30374 Filed 12-6-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C