[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 237 (Monday, December 9, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64826-64831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30374]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 237 / Monday, December 9, 1996 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 64826]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95-AWA-10]
RIN 2120-AA66


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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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