Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 27199

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, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

98–11–02 Fokker: Amendment 39–10529.

Docket 98–NM–153–AD.

Applicability: All Model F28 Mark 0070

and Mark 0100 series airplanes, 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 (b) 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 inadvertent deployment of the

liftdumpers during approach for landing, and

consequent reduced controllability and

performance of the airplane, accomplish the

following:

(a) Within 5 days after the effective date of

this AD, revise the Limitations and Normal

Procedures sections of the FAA-approved

Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) in accordance

with paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD.

This may be accomplished by inserting a

copy of this AD in the AFM.

(1) Add the following information to

section 5—NORMAL PROCEDURES, subSection APPROACH AND LANDING, after

the subject APPROACH:

‘‘BEFORE LANDING

WARNING: DO NOT ARM THE

LIFTDUMPER SYSTEM BEFORE LANDING

GEAR DOWN SELECTION.

Selecting Landing Gear DOWN after

arming the liftdumper system may result in

inadvertent deployment of the liftdumpers,

because the liftdumper arming test may be

partially ineffective.’’

(2) Add the following information to the

LIMITATIONS section:

‘‘LIFTDUMPER SYSTEM

DO NOT ARM THE LIFTDUMPER SYSTEM

BEFORE LANDING GEAR DOWN

SELECTION.’’

(b) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators

shall submit their requests through an

appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, International Branch,

ANM–116.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the International Branch,

ANM–116.

(c) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Dutch airworthiness directive 1998–042

(A), dated April 10, 1998.

(d) This amendment becomes effective on

June 2, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 11,

1998.

Darrell M. Pederson,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–13062 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–V

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95–AWA–10]

RIN 2120–AA66

Establishment of Class C Airspace and

Revocation of Class D Airspace,

Springfield-Branson Regional Airport;

MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action establishes a Class

C airspace area and revokes the existing

Class D airspace area at the SpringfieldBranson Regional Airport, Springfield,

MO. The Springfield-Branson 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 will require pilots to maintain twoway radio communications with air

traffic control (ATC) while in Class C

airspace. The FAA is taking this action

to promote the efficient control of air

traffic and reduce the risk of midair

collision in the terminal area.

Additionally, this action corrects several

inadvertent editorial errors.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, June 18,

1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sheri Edgett Baron, 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:

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, and Model B, the Airport

Radar Service Area (ARSA)

configuration, was recommended by a

consensus of the task group.

The FAA published NAR

Recommendation 1–2.2.1, ‘‘Replace
27200 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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

Special Federal Aviation Regulation No.

45 (48 FR 50038; October 28, 1983) to

provide an operational confirmation 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 it would propose ARSA’s for

other airports at which TRSA

procedures were in effect in future

notices.

The NAR Task Group also

recommended that the FAA develop

quantitative criteria for establishing

ARSA’s at locations other than those

which were included in the TRSA

replacement program. The task group

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 published

via the FAA directives system (Order

7400.2, Procedures for Handling

Airspace Matters).

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 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.

Related Rulemaking Actions

On December 17, 1991, the FAA

published the Airspace Reclassification

Final Rule (56 FR 65638). This rule, in

part, discontinued the use of the term

‘‘airport radar service area’’ and

replaced it with the designation ‘‘Class

C airspace area.’’ This change in

terminology is reflected in the

remainder of this final rule.

Public Input

As announced in the Federal Register

on July 21, 1994 (59 FR 37282), a preNPRM airspace meeting was held on

September 7, 1994, in Springfield, MO.

This meeting provided local airspace

users an opportunity to present input on

the design of the planned establishment

of the Springfield, MO, Class C airspace

area.

On December 9, 1996, the FAA

published an NPRM (61 FR 237, Notice

95–AWA–10) that proposed to establish

a Class C airspace area at the

Springfield-Branson Regional Airport,

MO. Interested parties were invited to

participate in this rulemaking effort by

submitting comments on the proposal to

the FAA. In response to this NPRM, the

FAA received twelve written comments.

All comments were considered before

making any final determination on this

final rule. The comments received are

analyzed below.

Analysis of Comments

The FAA received several comments

from the Air Line Pilots Association and

local business operators, which were in

support of establishing Class C airspace

at Springfield-Branson Regional Airport.

The FAA also received several

comments from local businesses

recommending the installation of an

instrument landing system (ILS)

precision approach to runway 20, and

lengthening the primary runway at

Springfield-Branson Regional Airport.

While the FAA appreciates these

comments, they are outside of the scope

of the Notice, and should be directed to

the operator of the Springfield-Branson

Regional Airport.

The FAA received several comments

stating that the FAA has not used

alternate nonrulemaking solutions to

address safety issues concerning

Springfield-Branson Regional Airport,

and disagreed with the use of

enplanement numbers as the only

criteria to determine the need for Class

C airspace.

The FAA does not agree with these

commenters. The FAA has exhausted all

nonrulemaking alternatives to provide

for an acceptable level of safety at

Springfield-Branson Regional Airport.

For example, over the past several years,

the FAA has updated its equipment and

improved its radar services. In addition,

the FAA has routinely conducted user

meetings and safety seminars to address

local issues and safety concerns. The

FAA held meetings in the Springfield

area concerning: (1) potential conflicts

between en route visual flight rules

(VFR) aircraft 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 operating to and from the

Springfield Downtown Airport; and, (4)

congestion caused by military aircraft

operating to and from the SpringfieldBranson Regional Airport for practice

approaches and training. In addition,

Springfield-Branson 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.

Regarding the criteria used to

determine candidacy for Class C

airspace areas, an airport must have 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. The

Springfield-Branson Regional Airport

meets two of the FAA criteria and

qualifies as a candidate for a Class C

airspace area based on passenger

enplanements (326,038 for calendar year

1996), and instrument operations

(149,356 for calendar year 1997).

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots

Association commented that the FAA

should delay establishing a Class C

airspace at Springfield-Branson

Regional Airport based on: (1) a

proposal to establish commercial air

service at M. Graham Clark Airport,

located approximately 2 miles from

Springfield-Branson Regional Airport;

and, (2) the potential establishment of a

new airport in close proximity to

Springfield-Branson Regional Airport.

The FAA does not agree with this

commenter, or that the establishment of

the Class C airspace area should be

delayed. Currently, there are no new

airport proposals, private or public, for

the Springfield-Branson area.

The FAA is aware that commercial air

service at M. Graham Clark is proposed

to begin during the summer of 1998. If

this operation commences, the FAA will

monitor the situation to assess any

impact on operations at Springfield-
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 27201

Branson Regional Airport. Further, the

FAA believes that timely establishment

of a Class C airspace area will promote

the efficient control of air traffic and

reduce the risk of midair collision in the

terminal area.

The Manager of Mountain Grove

Memorial Airport commented that only

one public meeting had taken place, and

another individual said they had not

been informed of any public meetings.

The FAA does not agree with these

commenters. Prior to issuing the NPRM

the FAA held seven public meetings

(meeting dates: January 30, February 27,

March 17, April 24, June 23, August 25

and September 22, 1997) in the

Springfield area to inform the public of

its growing safety concerns and the need

to change the designation of the airspace

area. Further, a Notice of Informal

Airspace Meeting was published in the

Federal Register on July 21, 1994. Also,

notices of meetings were sent to pilots

with Class 2 medical certificates within

a 70-mile radius of Springfield-Branson

Regional Airport. The FAA believes that

every effort was made to inform and

involve the public of this rulemaking

effort.

The Manager of Mountain Grove

Airport also objected to the

establishment of Class C airspace,

because it would require pilots to

maintain two-way radio

communications with ATC.

The FAA does not agree with this

objection. The requirement to maintain

two-way radio communications with

ATC exists in the current Class D

airspace, and the establishment of Class

C airspace will continue this

requirement.

One commenter stated that safety

concerns would be mitigated by

extending the Class D airspace area to

the VOR where it is currently Class E

airspace.

The FAA does not agree. In Class D

airspace areas there are no separation

services provided to VFR aircraft. In

contrast, a Class C airspace area will

provide a controlled environment where

separation services are provided to both

VFR and IFR aircraft.

Several commenters expressed a

belief that the economic impact of

establishing Class C airspace will be

greater than the FAA’s estimate of

$575.00 as stated in the NPRM, and will

warrant the establishment of a clearance

delivery position.

The FAA does not agree with these

commenters. The FAA is confident that

it can accommodate any additional

increase in air operations caused by the

establishment of this Class C airspace

area at current authorized staffing

levels. There are two positions already

in place at the Springfield ATCT that

could deliver clearances without an

increase of personnel or equipment.

Several individuals suggested that the

establishment of Class C airspace would

result in a pay raise for the controllers

at Springfield ATCT.

The FAA does not agree with these

commenters. The purpose of

establishing a Class C airspace area at

this airport is to promote the efficient

control of air traffic and reduce the risk

of midair collision in the terminal area.

One commenter believes that many of

the aircraft based at airports within 20

miles of Springfield-Branson Regional

Airport have no electrical systems, and

it would be financially difficult to equip

them with radios and transponders

required to enter Class C airspace.

Another commenter believes that the

cost of circumnavigating the Class C

airspace will not be negligible.

The FAA does not agree with this

comment. Currently, Title 14 CFR

section 91.215 sets out requirements for

ATC transponder and altitude reporting

equipment and use. This regulation

includes procedures whereby aircraft

not equipped with the required

transponder equipment may get relief

from the stipulated requirements.

Additionally, those aircraft transiting

the area that do not want to establish

radio communication with ATC may

also choose to circumnavigate the Class

C airspace area. As set out in the

associated Regulatory Evaluation

Summary for this regulatory effort, the

FAA believes that any costs associated

with circumnavigation will be

negligible.

The Rule

This amendment to part 71 of 14 CFR

part 71 establishes a Class C airspace

area and revokes the Class D airspace

area at Springfield-Branson Regional

Airport located in Springfield, MO.

Springfield-Branson Regional Airport is

a public-use facility with an operating

control tower served by a Level III

TRACON. The establishment of this

Class C airspace area will require pilots

to establish two-way radio

communications with the ATC facility

providing air traffic services prior to

entering the airspace and thereafter

maintain those communications while

within the Class C airspace area.

Implementation of the Class C airspace

area will promote the efficient control of

air traffic and reduce the risk of midair

collision in the terminal area.

Additionally, this action correctly

identifies this Class C airport as the

Springfield-Branson Regional Airport.

The notice inadvertently listed the

airport name incorrectly. This rule also

corrects the coordinates for the

Springfield-Branson Regional Airport,

the Bird Field Airport, and also deletes

the reference to the Springfield

VORTAC coordinates. Further, this final

rule correctly identifies the Class C

airspace area as a continuous operation.

Definitions and operating

requirements applicable to Class C

airspace can be found in section 71.51

of part 71 and sections 91.1 and 91.130

of part 91 of the FAR. 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 7400.9E

dated September 10, 1997, and effective

September 16, 1997, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class C airspace area listed in

this document will be published

subsequently in the Order and the Class

D airspace area listed in this document

will be removed subsequently from the

Order.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

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 final rule

is not ‘‘a significant regulatory action’’

as defined in the Executive Order and

by the Department of Transportation

Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

This rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities; will not constitute a barrier to

international trade and does not contain

any Federal intergovernmental or

private sector mandate. These analyses,

available in the docket, are summarized

below.

The FAA has determined that the

establishment of the Springfield, MO,

Class C airspace area at the SpringfieldBranson Regional Airport will impose a

one-time FAA administrative cost of

$600 (1997 dollars). The FAA has also

determined that this rule will impose a

negligible cost on the aviation

community (aircraft operators and fixed

based operators).

The FAA will distribute a ‘‘Letter To

Airmen’’ to all pilots residing within 50

miles of the Class C airspace site that
27202 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

will explain the operation and airspace

configuration of the Class C airspace

area. The ‘‘Letter to Airmen’’ costs will

be about $600 (1997 dollars). This onetime negligible cost will be incurred

upon the establishment of the Class C

airspace area.

To establish a Class C airspace area at

Springfield-Branson Regional Airport,

MO, the FAA does not expect to incur

any additional costs for ATC staffing,

training, or facility equipment. The FAA

can accommodate participating traffic

with current staffing levels. The FAA

will 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.

The establishment of Class C airspace

throughout the country has required

sectional charts to be revised by

removing existing airspace

configurations and incorporating the

new Class C airspace boundaries. The

FAA currently revises sectional charts

every 6 months to reflect changes to the

airspace environment. Those changes

required to depict Class C airspace are

made routinely during these charting

cycles. The periodic changes to these

charts are considered routine operating

expenses of the FAA. Thus, the FAA

does not expect to incur any additional

charting costs as the result of the

Springfield-Branson Regional Airport

Class C airspace area.

Most aircraft operating in the vicinity

of the Springfield-Branson Regional

Airport Class C airspace area already

have an altitude encoding transponder

and two-way radio communications

capability. Therefore, there will be no

equipment costs to aircraft operators as

a result of this rule.

The FAA anticipates that some pilots

who currently transit the terminal area

without establishing radio

communications may choose to

circumnavigate the Springfield-Branson

Regional Airport Class C airspace area.

However, the FAA contends that these

operators could circumnavigate the

Class C airspace area without

significantly deviating from their regular

flight paths. The operators who choose

to fly beyond the lateral boundaries will

be required to navigate an additional 1

to 6 nautical miles, adding an additional

2 to 12 minutes of flight time per trip.

For aircraft costing approximately $75

per hour to operate, the

circumnavigation cost amounts to an

additional $2.50 to $15.00 per flight.

Operators could remain clear of the

Class C airspace area by flying above the

ceiling of 5,300 feet mean sea level

(MSL), beneath the outer floor of 2,500

feet MSL, or beyond the lateral

boundaries. Thus, the FAA believes that

any circumnavigation costs due to this

rulemaking will be negligible.

The establishment of the SpringfieldBranson Regional Airport Class C

airspace area is not expected to have

any adverse impacts on the operations

at Bird Field. Bird Field is a satellite

airport, approximately 5 nautical miles

north of Springfield-Branson Regional

Airport. The Class C airspace area will

exclude the airspace encompassing a 1-

mile radius around Bird Field. Most

pilots using this airport will probably

circumnavigate the Class C airspace

area.

The benefits of the SpringfieldBranson Regional Airport, MO, lass C

airspace area are enhanced aviation

safety and improved operational

efficiency. The Springfield-Branson

Regional Airport Class C airspace area

will lower the risk of midair collisions

as a result of increased positive control

of airspace around the SpringfieldBranson Regional Airport.

The establishment of the SpringfieldBranson Regional Airport Class C

airspace area will impose a negligible, if

any, cost on the aviation community

and a cost of about $600 on the FAA.

The FAA has determined that in view

of the negligible cost of compliance,

enhanced aviation safety and

operational efficiency, establishment of

the Springfield-Branson Regional

Airport Class C airspace area will be

cost-beneficial.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) was enacted by Congress to

ensure that small businesses and other

small entities are not unnecessarily or

disproportionately burdened by Federal

regulations. The RFA requires a

Regulatory Flexibility analysis if a rule

will have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

The FAA certifies that this final rule

will impose negligible additional costs

upon some operators in the SpringfieldBranson Regional Airport Class C

airspace area, therefore, the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Initial Trade Impact Assessment

The rule will not constitute a barrier

to international trade, including the

export of U.S. goods and services to

foreign countries or the import of

foreign goods and services into the

United States.

Unfunded Mandate Assessment

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as

Pub. L. 104–4 on March 22, 1995,

requires each Federal agency, to the

extent permitted by law, to prepare a

written assessment of the effects of any

Federal mandate in a proposed or final

agency rule that may result in the

expenditure of $100 million or more

(when adjusted annually for inflation)

in any one year by State, local, and

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

by the private sector. Section 204(a) of

the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the

Federal agency to develop an effective

process to permit timely input by

elected officers (or their designees) of

State, local, and tribal governments on

a proposed ‘‘significant

intergovernmental mandate.’’ A

‘‘significant intergovernmental

mandate’’ under the Act is any

provision in a Federal agency regulation

that would impose an enforceable duty

upon State, local, and tribal

governments in the aggregate of $100

million adjusted annually for inflation

in any one year. Section 203 of the Act,

2 U.S.C. 1533, which supplements

section 204(a), provides that, before

establishing any regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, the

agency shall have developed a plan that,

among other things, provides for notice

to potentially affected small

governments, if any, and for a

meaningful and timely opportunity to

provide input in the development of

regulatory proposals.

This rule does not contain any

Federal intergovernmental or private

sector mandates. Therefore, the

requirements of Title II of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not

apply.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 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.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the

Federal Aviation Administration

Order 7400.9E, Airspace Designations
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 27203

and Reporting Points, dated September

10, 1997, and effective September 16,

1997, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 4000 Subpart C—Class C

Airspace.

* * * * *

ACE MO C Springfield-Branson Regional

Airport, MO [New]

Springfield-Branson Regional Airport, MO

(Lat. 37°14′40′′ N., long. 93°23′13′′ W.)

Bird Field Airport

(Lat. 37°19′12′′ N., long. 93°25′12′′ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the

surface to, and including, 5,300 feet MSL

within a 5-mile radius of Springfield-Branson

Regional Airport, excluding that airspace

within a 1-mile 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-Branson Regional Airport.

* * * * *

Paragraph 5000 Subpart D-Class D

Airspace.

* * * * *

ACE MO D Springfield, MO [Removed]

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 13,

1998.

John S. Walker,

Program Director for Air Traffic Airspace

Management.

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
27204 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

[FR Doc. 98–13139 Filed 5–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C