[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 42 (Friday, March 5, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12868-12879]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03968]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0490; Airspace Docket No. 18-AWA-2]
RIN 2120-AA66


Proposed Amendment of Class B Airspace; Miami, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Miami International 
Airport, FL (MIA) Class B airspace area to ensure the containment of 
aircraft conducting instrument procedures. The FAA is proposing this 
action to improve the flow of air traffic, enhance safety, and reduce 
the potential for midair collision in the MIA terminal area. This 
action also proposes changes to the MIA Class B airspace area to ensure 
the containment of arriving and departing aircraft within Class B 
airspace as required by FAA directives contained in FAA Order 7400.2M. 
This proposed action is separate and distinct from the Florida 
Metroplex Project.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; 
telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA 
Docket No. FAA-2020-0490 and Airspace Docket No. 18-AWA-2 at the 
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the 
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and 
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the 
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National 
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the 
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d6b0b3b2a4b3b1f8bab3b1b7ba96b8b7a4b7f8b1b9a0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="91f7f4f5e3f4f6bffdf4f6f0fdd1fff0e3f0bff6fee7">[email protected]</span></a>, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations 
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's 
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described 
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, 
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of 
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the 
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that 
authority as it would modify the MIA Class B airspace area to improve 
the flow of air traffic and enhance safety within the National Airspace 
System (NAS).

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 both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. 
FAA-2020-0490 and Airspace Docket No. 18-AWA-2) and be submitted in 
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for 
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the 
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments 
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, 
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments 
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0490 and Airspace Docket No. 18-AWA-2.'' 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 action may be changed in light of 
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for 
examination in the public 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 NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the 
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking 
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any 
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets 
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 
9:00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal 
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal 
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal 
Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, 
GA, 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace 
Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective 
September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed 
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists 
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and 
reporting points.

Background

    In 1973, the FAA issued a final rule that established the Miami, 
FL, Terminal Control Area (TCA) (38 FR 3588, February 8, 1973). As a 
result of the Airspace Reclassification final rule, which became 
effective in 1993, the term ``Terminal Control Area'' was replaced by 
``Class B airspace area.'' (56 FR 65638, December 17, 1991). As with

[[Page 12869]]

the former TCA, the primary purpose of a Class B airspace area is to 
reduce the potential for midair collisions in the airspace surrounding 
airports with high-density air traffic operations by providing an area 
in which all aircraft are subject to the same operating rules and 
equipment requirements.
    In 1975, the FAA issued a final rule modifying the Miami, FL TCA 
(40 FR 4119, January 28, 1975). Based on changes in approach 
procedures, and a re-evaluation of the airspace needed to contain large 
turbine-powered aircraft, the FAA implemented numerous changes to the 
Miami, FL TCA. These included redefining various lateral boundaries and 
altitude floors of the TCA, and the removal of airspace not needed for 
the containment of aircraft. The revised configuration is similar to 
the current MIA Class B airspace area.
    In 1983, the FAA issued a final rule that established a new ``Area 
H'' that raised the floor of the then Miami, FL TCA from 1,500 feet 
mean sea level (MSL), to 2,000 feet MSL in an area west of Miami-Opa 
Locka Executive Airport (OPF) (48 FR 5540, February 7, 1983). This 
change allowed aircraft to fly the Instrument Landing System (ILS) 
approach to OPF Runway 09L without entering the Miami, FL TCA.
    A 1996 final rule corrected the legal description of the MIA Class 
B airspace area. The final rule was necessary due to the 
decommissioning of the Biscayne Bay, FL, Very High Frequency 
Omnidirectional Range (VOR), and the Miami, FL, VOR, navigation aids 
(NAVAID) that had been used to define the lateral limits of the 
airspace (61 FR 5934, February 15, 1996). The 1996 final rule simply 
replaced obsolete NAVAID references in the Class B description but it 
did not alter the actual vertical or lateral limits of the MIA Class B 
airspace area.

Developments Since the Last MIA Class B Airspace Area Modification

    The last substantial change to the MIA Class B airspace area was 
the 1975 rule. That rule was based on air traffic activity levels from 
the 1970s. The following developments have taken place since its 
enactment:

--In 2003, a third parallel runway (08L/26R) was commissioned at MIA, 
which increased airport capacity by bringing the number of runways to 
four.
--Over 100 airlines are now serving MIA. MIA operations increased from 
278,005 in 2015 to 416,773 in 2019. Passenger enplanements rose from 
20,875,813 in 2016 to 21,021,640 in 2018.
--The South Florida area has seen significant growth in general 
aviation activity.
--Implementation of Area Navigation/Required Navigation Performance 
(RNAV/RNP) approach procedures at MIA.
--Advances in flight deck technology that allow aircraft automation to 
manage both the lateral and vertical flight path.
--Air carriers' adoption of ``optimized profile descent'' procedures 
that provide a constant angle, uninterrupted descent from cruising 
altitude into the terminal area. The newer generation aircraft utilize 
a shallower descent at reduced power settings resulting in a more fuel-
efficient profile.
--Industry-wide migration to satellite-based global positioning system 
(GPS) RNAV procedures, and RNP procedures have replaced procedures that 
rely on ground-based navigational facilities.
--Introduction of several new capabilities at MIA that are expect to 
boost arrival capacity, including Simultaneous Instrument Approaches to 
Runway 9/27, Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), and 
Wake Recategorization (RECAT)/Consolidated Wake Turbulence procedural 
changes.

Impact of MIA Class B Airspace Area Configuration on Operations

    Despite the continued growth in air traffic operations and 
passenger enplanements over the years, the FAA has not substantially 
modified the MIA Class B airspace area since the 1975 rule. The current 
MIA Class B airspace area configuration and operational demand has the 
following effects:

--The MIA Class B airspace area does not fully contain aircraft flying 
instrument procedures at MIA as required by FAA directives contained in 
FAA Order 7400.2M. Aircraft executing instrument approaches routinely 
exit and re-enter Class B airspace on final approach.
--Controllers must vector large turbine-powered aircraft beyond the 
outer limit of Class B airspace during periods of moderate to heavy 
arrival demand in order to comply with final approach course 
interception procedures and separation standards.
--If large turbine-powered aircraft are vectored or descended outside 
the Class B airspace, controllers must advise pilots when leaving and 
re-entering the airspace. This contributes to increased controller 
workload as well as radio transmission congestion.
--At times, controllers must keep arrivals above their normal descent 
profiles in order to contain them within Class B airspace. This negates 
the benefits of optimized profile descents and is detrimental to newer 
aircraft types that require longer/shallower descent profiles in order 
to dissipate energy during the descent.
--Aircraft on downwind leg being vectored to Runway 30 often times exit 
the Class B airspace during busy arrival and departure times, due to 
the spacing procedures required when conducting Converging Runway 
Operations.
--Large turbine-powered aircraft may be placed in areas where non-
participating aircraft may be operating.
--When simultaneous approaches to Runways 9 and 8L/R are in progress, 
the requirement to remain at 5,000 feet MSL requires controllers to 
have pilots expedite their descent from 5,000 feet MSL to 3,000 feet 
MSL, which the aircraft landing on Runway 9/27 must reach before 
turning onto the base leg.
--The limitations imposed by these existing 5,000 foot MSL and 4,000 
foot MSL Class B airspace area floors requires controllers to vector 
aircraft on close-in downwind legs and/or restrict their altitudes to 
contain them in the Class B, thus increasing the possibility of 
unstable approaches.

Proposed Changes to the MIA Class B Airspace Area

    To improve the flow of air traffic, enhance safety, and reduce the 
potential for midair collision in the MIA terminal area, consistent 
with the directive to contain arriving and departing aircraft within 
Class B, the FAA is proposing a number of changes to the MIA Class B 
airspace configuration, including:

--Expanding the existing 20 nautical mile (NM) outer boundary of the 
MIA Class B airspace area to 25 NM east and west of MIA for containment 
of aircraft in MIA Class B airspace.
--Lowering the floor of MIA Class B airspace area from the current 
5,000 feet MSL to 3,000 feet MSL in the area north of Miami Executive 
Airport (TMB); and from the current 4,000 feet MSL to 3,000 feet MSL in 
the area northwest of MIA.

An analysis of existing MIA traffic flow shows that the proposed MIA 
Class B airspace area modifications would enhance safety by containing 
instrument procedures within MIA Class B airspace area, and provide 
better segregation between instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft 
arriving and departing MIA, and

[[Page 12870]]

visual flight rules (VFR) aircraft operating in the vicinity of the MIA 
Class B airspace area. The MIA Class B airspace modifications proposed 
in this NPRM are intended to, in the most safe and efficient manner, 
expand Class B airspace area, where necessary, to contain large, 
turbine-powered aircraft while minimizing the impact on the use of the 
airspace by other aircraft.

Clarification of Terms

    A review of comments received during the pre-NPRM public input 
phase revealed that some misunderstanding exists of several terms that 
apply to published VFR routes. The confusion has arisen because, over 
time, the terms have often been used interchangeably. Since the terms 
are used in this NPRM, the FAA is clarifying the meaning of these 
terms.
    A VFR Corridor is airspace through a Class B airspace area with 
defined vertical and lateral boundaries in which a VFR aircraft may 
operate without an air traffic control (ATC) clearance or communication 
with ATC. A VFR Corridor is, in effect, a ``tunnel'' or ``hole'' 
through Class B airspace. Due to heavy traffic volume and the 
procedures necessary to manage the flow of traffic, it has not been 
possible to incorporate VFR Corridors in MIA Class B airspace areas.
    A VFR Flyway is a general flight path, not defined as a specific 
course, for use by pilots planning flights into, out of, through, or 
near complex terminal airspace in order to avoid Class B airspace. An 
ATC clearance is not required to fly these routes. Where established, 
VFR Flyways are depicted on the reverse side of the VFR Terminal Area 
Chart (TAC). These routes are designed to assist pilots in planning 
flights under or around Class B airspace areas without actually 
entering Class B airspace.
    A Class B Airspace Area VFR Transition Route is a route depicted on 
a TAC to accommodate VFR aircraft transiting through a Class B airspace 
area. The route includes a specific flight course and specific ATC-
assigned altitudes. Pilots must obtain an ATC clearance prior to 
entering Class B airspace on the route.
    See the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) for more details 
about these routes.

Airport Location Identifiers

    For ease of reference, the following airport identifiers are used 
in this NPRM:

FLL Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport
FXE Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport
HST Homestead Air Reserve Base
HWO North Perry Airport
MIA Miami International Airport
TMB Miami Executive Airport (formerly Miami, Kendall-Tamiami 
Executive Airport)
TNT Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport
X51 Miami Homestead General Aviation Airport

Pre-NPRM Public Input

    In 2010, the FAA formed an Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) to seek 
input and recommendations from representatives of affected aviation 
segments for the FAA to consider in designing proposed modifications to 
the MIA Class B airspace area. At that time, the FAA was considering a 
proposal that would expand the MIA Class B airspace area as well as 
convert the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport (FLL) Class 
C airspace area to a Class B airspace area. Participants in the 
Committee included representatives from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
Association (AOPA), Miami-Dade Aviation Department, Miami-Dade Police 
Department Aviation Unit, Florida DOT, Broward County Aviation 
Department, Opa-Locka Helicopters, ADF Airways, Sheltair Aviation, 
National Jets, Aerial Banners, Delta Connection, Florida Aero Club, and 
Van Wagner Aerial Media.

Discussion of Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations

    On September 1, 2010, the Committee submitted three recommendations 
for the FAA to consider in designing proposed modifications of the MIA 
and FLL airspace.
    The Committee recommended that the FAA align the boundaries of the 
MIA Class B airspace with prominent geographical features (visual 
landmarks) whenever possible.
    The FAA agreed with the recommendation and, to the extent possible, 
adopted the use of geographical features in this proposal. However, 
areas that overlie the Atlantic Ocean and the Florida Everglades lack 
prominent landmarks. Currently, there are approximately 25 VFR 
checkpoints, 4 VFR waypoints, and 5 latitude/longitude points depicted 
on the VFR Flyway Planning Chart in the MIA/FLL area. The FAA is 
considering additional points to enhance VFR navigation in the area.
    The Committee also recommended that the FAA establish a VFR 
Corridor between 3,000 feet MSL and 5,000 feet MSL that extends from 
the northern edge of FLL's airspace to the southern edge of MIA's 
airspace, to permit north-south transition of aircraft. The Committee 
suggested that this would be similar to the Los Angeles Special Flight 
Rules Area which traverses the Los Angeles Class B airspace area.
    The FAA could not adopt this recommendation because VFR Corridors 
do not apply to Class C airspace areas. Separately, with regard to the 
specific proposed location, a VFR Corridor is not feasible for this 
area based on operational constraints such as traffic volume and 
traffic flows. MIA arrival traffic descends from 8,000 feet MSL to 
3,000 feet MSL in the downwind leg. Departures climb to 5,000 feet MSL 
initially, and aircraft executing a go-around climb to either 3,000 
feet MSL or 4,000 feet MSL. For FLL, arrivals descend from 6,000 feet 
MSL to 3,000 feet MSL in the downwind leg. Departures climb to 3,000 
feet MSL initially, and aircraft executing a go-around climb to 2,000 
feet MSL or 3,000 feet MSL. Since aircraft could operate in the 
corridor without an ATC clearance or communication with ATC, this would 
present a safety hazard.
    Alternatively, currently there is a charted VFR Flyway below 3,000 
feet MSL, running generally north and south, that is located beneath 
the western side of the MIA Class B airspace area. Additionally, an 
east-west oriented Flyway below 2,000 feet MSL is located to the south 
of Hollywood North Perry airport (HWO), and to the north of Miami-Opa 
Locka Executive airport (OPF).
    The Committee recommended that the FAA develop ``shoreline 
transitions'' for VFR aircraft through the Class B airspace. 
Specifically, this would accommodate pilots who desire to operate over 
or near the shoreline east of FLL. The Committee added that the FAA 
should publish information on Sectional and TAC to advise aircraft 
requesting shoreline transitions to contact MIA approach; including 
frequencies, designated entry and exit points, expected altitudes, and 
times requests may be approved.
    The FAA reviewed this recommendation and, although shoreline 
transitions do exist in the Miami area, the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood 
International Airport runways are only 1 to 2 NM from the shoreline. 
Aircraft flying the Instrument Landing System approaches to Runways 28L 
and 28R are descending to the minimum approach altitudes in the 
vicinity of the shoreline, while aircraft departing on Runways 10L and 
10R are in a critical phase of flight during initial climbout in that 
same area. For these reasons, a shoreline transition is not feasible in 
that area.

[[Page 12871]]

    After full consideration of the Committee's discussions and 
recommendations, the FAA decided to pursue an alternative airspace 
design.

Informal Airspace Meetings

    As announced in the Federal Register on December 4, 2012, the FAA 
conducted three informal airspace meetings: January 28, 2013, at the 
Wings Over Miami Air Museum, Miami, FL; January 29, 2013, at Miami Dade 
College, Miami, FL; and January 30, 2013, Miramar Town Center, Miramar, 
FL. (77 FR 71734). Additionally, as announced in the Federal Register 
on April 1, 2019, the FAA also held one informal airspace meeting on 
June 12, 2019, at Broward College, Pembroke Pines, FL. (84 FR 12146). 
These meetings provided interested airspace users with an opportunity 
to present their views and offer recommendations regarding the planned 
modification of the MIA Class B airspace area. The FAA received 
comments from 32 individuals in response to the four meetings.

Discussion of January 2013 Informal Airspace Meeting Comments

    The FAA received a number of comments from the January 2013 
meetings that pertained specifically to the proposed modification of 
the FLL Class C airspace area. Those comments will be addressed in a 
separate NPRM to be published by the FAA. Comments concerning the 
proposed modification of the MIA Class B airspace area are discussed 
below.
    Several commenters were concerned about the proposed expansion of 
the western Class B boundary from the current 20 NM radius of MIA to 
the 25 NM radius. This would require northbound and southbound VFR 
pilots to fly farther out over the Everglades at relatively low 
altitudes (i.e., below 3,000 feet MSL) over ``unlandable'' terrain.
    The FAA acknowledges these concerns. The proposed 25 NM radius on 
the west side of the Class B is based on an analysis of MIA traffic and 
is designed to contain MIA arrivals within Class B airspace. A 
northbound/southbound oriented charted VFR Flyway, below 3,000 feet 
MSL, has since been added closer in to MIA (inside the 20 NM radius). A 
good operating practice for VFR aircraft operating west of MIA is to 
contact MIA Approach for Class B clearance and flight following service 
above 3,000 feet MSL, which provides safety alerts and traffic 
advisories.
    One commenter wrote that there should be a special route for 
aircraft transitioning to land at Miami Executive (TMB), OPF, North 
Perry (HWO), and Miami Homestead General Aviation (X51) airports.
    As discussed above, the Committee had similar concerns about North-
South transitions through the area. As previously noted, in addition to 
the North-South oriented charted VFR Flyway, an East-West oriented 
flyway has been charted situated north of OPF and south of HWO. This 
VFR Flyway connects to the North-South flyway. Use of these flyways 
should provide access to the four airports identified by the commenter.
    One commenter suggested that, instead of making changes to the 
Class B boundaries to keep aircraft within Class B airspace, the glide 
path angle (GPA) for instrument approaches should be raised from 3.0 
degrees to 3.25 degrees. The commenter added that, if increasing the 
GPA is unacceptable, the FAA should lower the floors of the Class B 
shelves using increments of 100 feet rather than 1,000 feet, and that 
lateral boundaries should be adjusted the minimum amount necessary.
    The FAA does not agree. According to instrument approach procedure 
design criteria, the standard GPA is 3.00 degrees. A GPA greater than 
3.00 degrees is authorized when needed for obstacle clearance purposes. 
Since obstacle clearance is not an issue, and south Florida terrain is 
virtually flat, all ILS and RNP procedures at MIA utilize a 3.00 degree 
GPA. The suggestion to lower the floors of the Class B shelves in 100-
foot increments would provide additional complexity with no benefit as 
altitude assignments are in 500-foot increments for VFR, and 1,000-foot 
cardinal altitudes for IFR. The Class B lateral boundary adjustments 
are proposed for containment of aircraft within the Class B and are 
based on an analysis of traffic at MIA.
    Four commenters expressed concern about the proposed expansion of 
the eastern boundary of Area F from a 6 NM radius to a 7 NM radius of 
MIA; and about the proposed expansion of the eastern boundary of Area B 
from the 10 NM radius to the 13 NM radius of MIA. Two commenters wrote 
that the expanded Area F, with its 1,000-foot floor would affect a 
scenic tourist route, therefore the Class B floor in that area should 
remain at 1,500 feet MSL. Two commenters objected to the expansion of 
Area B, with its 1,500-foot floor, into what is now the 3,000-foot 
floor of Area D. The commenters wrote that the Class B floor in that 
area should be set at 2,000 feet MSL instead of 1,500 feet MSL.
    The FAA does not agree with the commenters. The objective of the 
proposed Class B modification is to provide the least restrictive, yet 
safe operation around MIA. The proposed floors for Areas B and F are 
needed to ensure that aircraft on final approach to MIA remain inside 
Class B airspace, and to separate non-participating aircraft from MIA 
arrivals. Aircraft on instrument approach are in descent below 3,000 
feet MSL to 1,500 feet MSL at the Final Approach Fix (FAF) for Runway 
26R; to 1,600 feet MSL at the FAF for Runway 26L and Runway 30; or 
1,700 feet MSL at the FAF for Runway 27. Raising the proposed floor to 
2,000 feet MSL, as suggested, would cause an unsafe situation between 
IFR aircraft arriving and departing MIA, and VFR aircraft. Pilots could 
elect to request a clearance through the Class B and receive separation 
services.
    Several commenters were concerned that the proposed MIA Class B 
modifications would prevent the use of easily recognizable landmarks, 
and VFR checkpoints for identifying the Class B boundaries. 
Specifically, they were concerned that the ability to use Krome Avenue 
as a reference for the western boundary of the 1,500 foot shelf, and 
the use of the twin diagonal canals as the western boundary of the 
3,000 foot shelf would be lost.
    Unfortunately, Krome Avenue is not located far enough west to 
provide a safe distance from traffic landing at MIA when on an east 
operation. The proposed Class B floors are based on aircraft altitudes 
and approach procedures. Aircraft arriving at MIA begin final approach 
descent 9.0 NM from Runway 9 at the GRITT DME fix. The 1,500 foot Class 
B floor is necessary in that area to avoid conflict with non-
participating aircraft. Landmarks could still be used if pilots desire 
to contact MIA Approach for clearance to enter the Class B airspace. 
Nevertheless, the FAA is considering the addition of waypoints to 
assist with VFR navigation.
    One commenter asserted that ATC never clears pilots through Class B 
or Class C airspace, except for occasional direct overflights.
    VFR clearances through the MIA Class B airspace are approved on 
occasion, based on traffic volume, weather, and controller workload. 
Because MIA is a busy international airport, averaging approximately 
1,200 operations a day, it can be difficult to accommodate a VFR 
transition. Even so, some 75% of the approximately 7-8 requests 
received per day are approved. VFR Flyways around the MIA Class B have 
been published on the Miami VFR TAC chart to provide alternate routes. 
Also, in conjunction with the proposed changes to the MIA Class B 
airspace, the FAA is considering

[[Page 12872]]

the addition of published VFR transitions and flyways to help enhance 
situational awareness. Additionally, VFR transitions are accommodated 
daily over FLL through the Class C airspace at 2,500 feet, or low-level 
along the shoreline, while in 2-way communication with ATC.
    Several commenters explained that the proposed expansion of the 
Class B surface area (Area A) from the current 6 NM radius of MIA to a 
7 NM radius would impact operations at Miami Executive Airport (TMB) 
bringing the Dadeland Shopping Center inside the Class B surface area. 
The commenter further noted that Dadeland Shopping Center is a charted 
VFR checkpoint that helps keep pilots clear of the Class B airspace, 
and it should remain outside the Class B.
    The FAA agrees with the comments. Under the current proposal the 
southern boundaries of Areas A and F will be adjusted northward along 
an East-West line at latitude 25[deg]42'18'' N (SW 72nd Street in the 
Cities of Sunset and South Miami). This would accommodate traffic 
transitioning to and from TMB, and keep the Dadeland Shopping Center 
outside the Class B airspace.
    One commenter asked the FAA to consider designating charted ``VFR 
transition corridors'' both within and underneath the Class B airspace, 
to include VFR GPS named waypoints that would show up in navigation 
databases. The commenter suggested a Northeast-Southwest ``corridor'' 
through the Class B passing overhead MIA at 1,500 feet MSL (one way) 
and 2,000 feet MSL (opposite direction). The commenter suggested this 
change might reduce VFR congestion low along the coast. Another 
commenter suggested flyways be created for both VFR and IFR traffic 
whose destinations are within the South Florida area, to directly 
overfly MIA at 3,000 feet MSL to 5,000 feet MSL.
    There currently exists a North-South oriented charted VFR Flyway 
west of MIA, below the 3,000-foot MSL Class B floor. Aircraft could not 
be accommodated over the top of MIA at 1,500 feet MSL and 2,000 feet 
MSL; or between 3,000 feet MSL to 5,000 feet MSL due to conflicts with 
existing traffic: Missed approach procedures climb to 3,000 feet MSL; 
initial departure altitudes from MIA are 5,000 feet MSL; and descending 
arrival traffic on the downwind portion of radar sequencing for the 
approach are typically descending from 8,000 feet MSL. When aircraft 
performance allows, aircraft could be cleared over the top of MIA at or 
above 5,500 feet MSL. The FAA will consider the addition of waypoints 
along VFR Flyways and the development of a VFR transition route.
    One commenter questioned the need for Class B airspace in Area E 
northwest of MIA.
    The FAA is not proposing any significant changes to the existing 
Area E. The area currently extends from 4,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet 
MSL, between the 15 NM radius and the 20 NM radius of MIA, and bounded 
on the south by latitude 25[deg]57'48'' N, and on the northeast by a 
line from latitude 26[deg]05'56'' N, longitude 80[deg]26'23'' W., to 
latitude 26[deg]01'32'' N, longitude 80[deg]23'40''W. The only proposed 
change is minor refinements to the coordinates that form the northeast 
side of Area E. Area E is needed to support operations when MIA is on 
an east operation. During those periods, MIA arrivals typically land on 
Runways 9 and 12, while departures normally use Runways 8L and 8R. 
Historically, wind conditions dictate operating on an east 
configuration approximately 65% of the year.
    One commenter wrote about concerns that the Class B proposal would 
impact sailplane operations. Sailplanes often operate under the 5,000-
foot Class B floor near TMB (i.e., the current Area G). The proposed 
incorporation of the airspace in the current Area G into Area D, with 
its 3,000-foot MSL floor, would affect these operations. The commenter 
asked if lowering the floor north of SW 152nd Street (approximately 
latitude 25[deg]38' N) would be adequate; or if a 4,000-foot MSL floor 
would be acceptable. The commenter also noted that the proposed 
extension of the western boundary of Area D, with its 3,000-foot MSL 
floor, from the current 20 NM radius of MIA, out to the 25 NM radius of 
MIA, would probably preclude cross-country flights by sailplanes from 
Miami Homestead General Aviation Airport (X51). The commenter suggested 
using a 4,000-foot MSL floor from 20 NM to 25 NM in that area.
    After reviewing the proposed Class B configuration, the FAA will 
adopt the commenter's suggestion in proposal. The western limit of Area 
D will remain at the current 20 NM radius of MIA. The FAA proposes to 
establish a new Area J to the west of Area D between the 20 NM and 25 
NM radii of the airport. Area J would extend from 4,000 feet MSL up to 
7,000 feet MSL. This change would provide additional airspace for 
aircraft transiting over the Everglades.
    One commenter contended that the proposed extension of the east and 
west Class B boundaries to 25 NM seems excessive.
    The FAA does not agree. Each Class B airspace area is designed 
based on location-specific operational and safety considerations in 
order to best meet the purposes of reducing the midair collision 
potential, containment of instrument procedures, and enhancing the 
efficient use of airspace. It is not unusual for Class B floors to be 
as low as 3,000 feet MSL between 25 NM and 30 NM from the airport. For 
example, at the Orlando International Airport (MCO) the Class B floor 
is 3,000 feet MSL between the 20 NM and 30 NM arcs south of the 
airport; while at the Memphis International Airport (MEM), the Class B 
floor is 3,000 feet MSL between the 16 NM and 30 NM arcs to the north 
and south of the airport. The proposed altitudes for the MIA Class B 
floors are based on a traffic analysis of aircraft altitudes and 
approach procedures at MIA.
    One commenter wrote that, on the east side of the Class B, VFR 
pilots flying to and from the Bahamas will have to delay their climb, 
or accelerate their descent while flying in areas well beyond power-off 
gliding distance to shore, or divert several miles further south to 
remain clear of the Class B.
    VFR pilots have the option to contact MIA Approach and request 
flight following. If they choose not to receive flight following and 
want to remain clear of the Class B, the proposed airspace modification 
will help ensure they are segregated from traffic operating at MIA.
    One commenter contended that the proposed extension of the western 
Class B boundary to 25 NM (with the floor at 3,000 feet MSL), in the 
southwest portion of the Class B (south of Tamiami Trail) will 
concentrate heavy VFR traffic between 2,000 feet MSL and 3,000 feet MSL 
as pilots attempt to remain 2,000 feet above the Everglades National 
Park Special Conservation/Wildlife Area, but below the 3,000-foot Class 
B floor. Additionally, VFR traffic will also tend to be concentrated 
between the Class E airspace at Dade-Collier Training and Transition 
Airport (TNT) and the new western boundary of the MIA Class B airspace.
    The FAA does not agree. The FAA has established a north-south 
charted VFR flyway below the 3,000-foot Class B floor to the west of 
MIA. The flyway should enable pilots to fly beneath the Class B and 
avoid having to deviate farther out over the Everglades or near TNT.
    One commenter stated that VFR routes through Class B airspace are 
not generally available on Sectional Charts or on most electronic 
charting and navigation applications. The commenter suggested that most 
itinerant pilots will

[[Page 12873]]

be unaware of them as they appear only on the flip side of TAC.
    It is correct that VFR Flyways are depicted on the reverse side of 
TAC. However, regardless of the navigation information sources used, 
part 91 ``General Operating and Flight Rules'' requires that, before 
beginning a flight, pilots shall become familiar with all available 
information concerning that flight. This is particularly important when 
planning a flight through the congested, high traffic volume South 
Florida area. The Miami Sectional Chart contains a note that reads: 
``Pilots are encouraged to use the Miami VFR Terminal Area Chart for 
flights at or below 7,000 feet''.
    One commenter was concerned that the airspace configurations in 
South Florida are already very congested and confusing.
    The FAA agrees that the airspace configurations in South Florida 
are very congested and careful vigilance must be maintained. In 
addition to the air traffic operations at MIA, within the roughly 40 NM 
stretch between HST and FLL, there are six airports with significant 
operations, plus extensive flight training and general aviation 
activity. The design of the MIA Class B is intended to contain large 
turbine-powered aircraft operations at MIA, and segregate those 
operations from non-participating VFR traffic while at the same time 
providing the least restrictive, safe operation in the Miami area.
    Another commenter said multiple airspace designations are confusing 
and need to be corrected or clarified. Specifically, the ceiling of the 
TMB Class D airspace area is 2,500 feet MSL which is higher than the 
2000-foot floor of the MIA Class B airspace (i.e., Area C of the MIA 
Class B airspace area) that overlies a portion of the TMB Class D. The 
commenter suggested that confusion could exist as to which rules apply.
    The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) clarifies this issue 
stating that there is a hierarchy of overlapping airspace designations. 
When overlapping airspace designations apply to the same airspace, the 
operating rules associated with the more restrictive airspace 
designation apply. Therefore, Class B rules apply in the example 
described by the commenter.
    For simplification, a commenter suggested that the ``half-moon 
shaped'' Class B airspace area with the 2,000-foot MSL north of TMB 
(i.e., Area C) be removed and the Class B floor in that area be lowered 
to 1,500 feet MSL.
    The FAA does not agree with this suggestion. The design of each 
Class B airspace is individually tailored, in this case, for MIA 
operations. To lower the Class B floor for simplification as suggested 
is neither warranted nor appropriate. The 2,000-foot MSL floor in Area 
C is for the benefit of traffic at TMB. It allows aircraft remaining 
below 2,000 feet MSL northeast of TMB to remain clear of the MIA Class 
B airspace.
    To simplify the MIA Class B airspace, a commenter proposed that the 
northern portion of Area D (north of latitude 25[deg]57'48'' N) be 
removed from the MIA Class B airspace area and made part of the FLL 
Class C airspace area. This would simplify airspace design and make 
easier transitions inbound and outbound from HWO.
    The FAA is unable to modify Area D as suggested. This airspace must 
remain in the Miami Class B because it was designed to contain aircraft 
once they enter the Class B airspace, such as aircraft arriving Runway 
12 at MIA. Removing that airspace from the Miami Class B is not 
feasible and would be detrimental to safety.
    One commenter stated that the proposed extension of Class B 
airspace and dropping of the base to the East and South would increase 
noise pollution over residential areas.
    The objective of this proposed airspace modification is to provide 
the least restrictive operation while maintaining safety. The southeast 
extension of Class B airspace to 25 NM east based upon traffic analysis 
and is needed to contain aircraft within Class B airspace. The proposed 
modifications to the east of MIA are over the Atlantic Ocean and have 
limited impact to residential areas.

June 2019 Informal Airspace Meeting Comments

    Over 60 people attended the June 2019 Informal Airspace Meeting. 
Ten persons submitted multiple comments to the FAA. A number of 
comments pertained specifically to the proposed FLL Class C airspace 
modification. Those comments will be addressed in a separate NPRM that 
will propose modifications to the FLL Class C airspace area. Comments 
pertaining to the proposed MIA Class B modification are discussed 
below.
    Two commenters expressed concerns that receiving VFR flight 
following in the area can be challenging due to air traffic controller 
workload, and that consideration should be given to adequate staffing 
to provide this additional service routinely.
    The airspace change would affect the Miami Terminal Radar Approach 
Control (TRACON) controller workload with the anticipated increase of 
aircraft requesting flight following. The FAA has already taken action 
to address this concern. The FAA has increased the utilization of its 
additional radar sectors that provide relief for controllers working in 
the OPF/HWO area. These additional sectors split the workload in half 
(east side and west side). The FAA also recommends that pilots consider 
obtaining discrete squawk codes with air traffic control towers prior 
to departure to ensure that flight following in VFR conditions can 
commence shortly after departure.
    Two commenters requested that VFR Corridors be provided through the 
MIA Class B airspace; such as, along the coast, and over the top of 
airports. Flying around the airspace to the west places an aircraft 
over the Everglades and far from alternative landing sites.
    As described above in the ``Clarification of Terms'' section, a VFR 
Corridor is essentially a ``hole'' through the Class B airspace in 
which aircraft can operate without an ATC clearance or communication 
with air traffic control. Such a corridor is not feasible through the 
MIA Class B based on operational constraints, including traffic volume 
and traffic flows and the close proximity of numerous airports in this 
area. Arrival traffic descends from 8,000 feet MSL to 3,000 feet MSL in 
the downwind for MIA. Departures climb to 5,000 feet initially, and 
aircraft executing a go-around climb to either 3,000 feet MSL or 4,000 
feet MSL. For operational and safety reasons, these factors preclude 
the establishment of a VFR corridor. However, the FAA is considering 
the development of a published VFR transition route for use when it is 
feasible for controllers to clear an aircraft into the airspace to 
transition the area. VFR transition routes require an ATC clearance 
prior to entering Class B airspace on the route (see the 
``Clarification of Terms'' section, above). Currently, a VFR Flyway is 
depicted on the VFR Flyway Planning Chart (on the reverse side of the 
Miami TAC Chart). This VFR Flyway is oriented North-South and is 
located under the western side of the MIA Class B airspace area. The 
suggested altitude for the flyway is below 3,000 feet MSL. The VFR 
Flyway offers an alternative to deviating farther west around the Class 
B over the Everglades.
    One commenter asked that the FAA reconsider the proposal to expand 
the surface area (Area B) because many small planes use that space to 
avoid intruding on arriving and departing aircraft in the Class B.
    The FAA is proposing to expand Area B from the current 6 NM radius 
of MIA

[[Page 12874]]

to a 7 NM radius of MIA. The one NM expansion of Area B is necessary to 
ensure containment of arriving aircraft within Class B airspace. 
Currently, arrivals briefly exit, then re-enter Class B airspace on 
final approach. FAA directives require that Class B airspace be 
designed to contain all instrument procedures within Class B airspace, 
and that surface areas must encompass all final approach fixes and 
minimum altitudes at those fixes. Therefore, the proposed 7 NM radius 
is required to comply with the containment criteria.
    One person submitted a comment regarding the Florida Metroplex 
Project. The comment is outside the scope of this MIA Class B 
rulemaking action. This comment was referred to the Florida Metroplex 
Team for review.
    One person commented that the FAA should publish Letters of 
Agreement (LOA) that are developed between ATC facilities and make them 
easy to access.
    As an initial matter, this comment falls outside the scope of this 
rulemaking. Moreover, LOAs between ATC facilities outline procedures 
between facilities to allow for a standard operation, such as 
interfacility coordination, etc. LOAs do not dictate procedures that 
pilots who are not operating under ATC instructions need to follow. 
Because LOAs outline the handling of aircraft and interaction between 
ATC facilities, they are not made readily available to pilots. Whenever 
a pilot is uncertain about an ATC clearance or instruction, that pilot 
must immediately request clarification from ATC.
    Two persons commented on the Class D airspace ceiling at satellite 
airports that underlie a Class B or Class C airspace shelf. In such 
cases, the Class D altitude ceiling might overlap into the overlying 
Class B or Class C airspace. The commenters said that the ceiling of 
the Class D airspace should be consistent with the floor of the 
overlying Class B or Class C airspace. This would assist pilots with 
awareness of the airspace and avoiding airspace violations by mistake.
    As described previously, the Aeronautical Information Manual states 
that, when overlapping airspace designations apply, the operating rules 
associated with the more restrictive airspace designation apply. This 
is applicable in the case of the TMB Class D airspace (with a ceiling 
of 2,500 feet MSL). Area C of the MIA Class B airspace, which has a 
floor of 2,000 feet MSL, overlaps a portion of the TMB Class D 
airspace. Therefore, Class B operating rules apply in that overlapping 
portion. The proposed modifications to the MIA Class B airspace would 
also incorporate the airspace above the remainder of the TMB Class D 
into an expanded MIA Class B Area D with its Class B floor of 3,000 
feet MSL. In this case, Class E airspace would exist in the gap between 
the 2,500 foot ceiling of the Class D airspace, and the overlying 3,000 
foot floor of Class B airspace. These configurations are not unique to 
the MIA Class B airspace and can be found at other Class B locations in 
the United States. It is incumbent upon the pilot to become familiar 
with the airspace configuration when planning a flight.
    Other commenters requested the FAA to incorporate a combination of 
GPS waypoints and recognizable ground features as VFR landmarks (such 
as the Dadeland Shopping Mall) into the airspace design to assist 
pilots in determining the Class B boundaries.
    The FAA agrees with these comments and incorporated several updates 
into the proposal. The following are examples ground references added 
to the proposed Class B description:
    In Area A (surface area), instead of the southern portion of the 
area being defined by the proposed 7 NM radius, the southern boundary 
would be moved northward to lat. 25[deg]42'18'' N, along SW 72nd Street 
in the cities of Sunset and South Miami. This would keep the Dadeland 
Shopping Mall outside the surface area, allowing VFR aircraft to have 
continued use of that established check point for arrivals and 
departures out of the TMB area.
    In Area B, the western boundary would be moved from the current 10 
NM radius of MIA slightly westward to run along Krome Avenue, providing 
pilots with a visual reference for that boundary.
    In the proposed new Area G (that airspace currently designated Area 
H), the northwestern boundary would be aligned with State Road 997/
Krome Avenue. The Eastern boundary would be defined by the Miami Canal 
(paralleling US 27), and the Northern boundary point defined by the 
intersection of the Miami Canal and State Road 997/Krome Ave. The 
eastern boundary of the proposed new Area H would be defined by State 
Road 997/Krome Avenue. Aligning these boundaries with streets and other 
ground references should assist pilots with visual identification of 
the boundaries. The FAA is also considering the addition of waypoints 
to enhance pilot navigation in the MIA/FLL terminal area.
    One commenter was concerned about the impact on sailplane 
operations from Miami Homestead General Aviation Airport (X51). 
Sailplane operations routinely use the airspace overlying TMB up to 
4,000 feet MSL. The proposed lowering of the Class B floor to 3,000 
feet MSL overlying TMB would inhibit operations. The commenter 
suggested a 4,000 foot Class B floor in that area instead.
    Consideration was given to keeping the Class B floor over TMB 
unchanged. However, due to the recurrence of aircraft exiting the 
current MIA Class B either while on the downwind, on departure during a 
west operation, on vectors after a go-around event, or while on an 
instrument approach, the change is necessary to comply with the 
requirement to contain instrument procedures within Class B airspace.
    One commenter requested the FAA to form a new Ad Hoc Committee to 
provide updated recommendations regarding the proposed airspace design.
    The FAA originated the Ad Hoc Committee concept as a means to get 
preliminary user input during the initial design phase of Class B and C 
airspace proposals, prior to the issuance of an NPRM.
    The FAA carefully considered the request to form a second Ad Hoc 
Committee. After full consideration of the Committee's concerns and 
recommendations, including the Committee's stated desire that the FAA 
mitigate the impact to operators outside the Class B, and improve the 
design originally presented to the Committee, the FAA re-evaluated the 
airspace design requirements for the airspace surrounding MIA and FLL. 
Based on that re-evaluation, the FAA will pursue an alternative design. 
Instead of establishing Class B airspace at FLL, the FAA decided to 
retain, but modify the Class C at FLL, as well as modifying the MIA 
Class B. This would result in less impact to the VFR and general 
aviation community.
    Based on the above, the FAA concluded that sufficient feedback was 
received so that FAA could develop and publish the airspace proposal in 
an NPRM. The NPRM's 60-day comment period provides additional 
opportunity for the public to submit their views on the proposed MIA 
Class B airspace modification. Therefore, the FAA has decided against 
reforming an Ad Hoc Committee for this proposal.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to modify the 
Miami International Airport, FL, (MIA) B airspace area. This action 
(depicted on the attached graphic) would modify the lateral and 
vertical limits of Class B airspace to ensure the containment of large 
turbine-powered aircraft at MIA in

[[Page 12875]]

Class B airspace once they enter the airspace, and enhance safety in 
the Miami terminal area.
    The FAA will be issuing a separate NPRM to propose modifications to 
the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) Class C 
airspace area that is located immediately to the north of the MIA Class 
B airspace area.
    The proposed modifications to the MIA Class B airspace area are 
discussed below.
    In the text header of the MIA Class B airspace description, (as 
published in FAA Order 7400.11E), the geographic coordinates for MIA 
would be updated to read ``lat. 25[deg]47'43'' N, long. 080[deg]17'24'' 
W'' The name of the ``Kendall-Tamiami Executive Airport'' would be 
changed to its current name ``Miami Executive Airport,'' and its 
geographic coordinates would be updated to read ``lat. 25[deg]38'51'' 
N, long. 080[deg]25'59'' W'' These changes reflect the current National 
Airspace System Resources database information.
    Area A. Area A would continue to extend upward from the surface to 
7,000 feet MSL. The FAA proposes to modify Area A by expanding the 
current 6 nautical mile (NM) radius to a 7 NM radius of the MIA 
International Airport. This would resolve issues where aircraft exit 
and re-enter Class B airspace on final approach. Area A would also be 
modified by excluding that airspace ``South of lat. 25[deg]42'18'' N 
(SW 72nd Street in the cities of Sunset and South Miami).'' This would 
move the southern boundary of the surface area north of the Dadeland 
Shopping Center keeping it outside the surface area, and allowing VFR 
aircraft to have continued use of that charted VFR checkpoint for 
arrivals and departures out of the TMB area.
    Area B. Area B extends from 1,500 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. The 
FAA proposes to modify Area B by extending the current eastern boundary 
from the 10 NM radius of MIA out to the 13 NM radius of the airport. 
This change would both contain MIA arrivals within Class B airspace, 
and provide protection for VFR aircraft transitioning under the Class B 
airspace. Additionally, the western boundary of Area B would be moved 
from the current 10 NM radius of MIA slightly westward to run along 
Krome Avenue, providing pilots with a visual reference for that 
boundary. To assist with visual identification of the northern boundary 
of Area B (along lat. 25[deg]53'03'' N), the street reference ``NW 
103rd Street/49th Street in the City of Hialeah'' would be added to the 
description.
    Area C. Area C extends from 2,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. The 
only proposed change to this area is to extend the boundary formed by 
the existing 4.3 NM radius of TMB southwestward (counterclockwise) to 
intersect the western boundary of the new Area H (i.e., the 13 NM 
radius of MIA), as described below.
    Area D. Area D extends from 3,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. 
Originally, the FAA proposed to expand Area D's western boundary from 
the current 20 NM radius west of MIA, further westward to the 25 NM 
radius of MIA. Based on comments received, the FAA decided to retain 
the western boundary of Area D at the current 20 NM radius of MIA. The 
FAA proposes to establish Area J (west of Area D, described below) 
between the 20 NM and 25 NM radii of MIA. Area J would extend from 
4,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL, providing additional altitudes for 
transiting aircraft. The FAA further proposes to incorporate that 
airspace above TMB, that is currently designated ``Area G,'' into Area 
D. The existing Area G extends from 5,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. 
Incorporating this airspace into Area D would lower the floor of Class 
B airspace in that area to 3,000 feet MSL. This change would protect 
southbound departures from MIA during a west operation. The ``Area G'' 
designation would be reused elsewhere in the MIA Class B as described 
later.
    Area E. The only proposed change to Area E is minor updates to the 
latitude/longitude coordinates that define the northeast side of the 
area for greater accuracy.
    Area F. Area F extends from above 1,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. 
The eastern boundary of Area F would be extended from the current 6 NM 
radius of MIA out to the 7 NM radius of MIA. The south end of Area F 
would be moved slightly northward to lat. 25[deg]42'18'' N to align 
with the proposed new southern boundary of Area A.
    Area G. A new Area G would be designated in that airspace west of 
OPF that is currently designated Area H (the H designation would be 
reused as described below). The northwestern boundary of the existing 
Area H is the 10 NM radius from MIA. In the proposed new Area G, this 
boundary would be expanded further to the northwest to align with State 
Road 997/Krome Avenue. The new Area G would consist of that airspace 
extending upward from 2,000 feet MSL to and including 7,000 feet MSL, 
bounded on the South by lat. 25[deg]52'03'' N (NW 103rd Street/49th 
Street in the City of Hialeah), on the West and Northwest by State Road 
997/Krome Ave, on the East by the Miami Canal (paralleling US 27), and 
the Northern boundary point defined by the intersection of the Miami 
Canal and State Road 997/Krome Ave. Aligning boundaries with streets 
and other ground references would assist with visual identification of 
the boundaries.
    Area H. Area H is a proposed new area that would extend from 2,000 
feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. It would be located directly west of the 
Area B western boundary. Area H would be bounded on the east by State 
Road 997/Krome Avenue; on the south by the 4.3 NM radius of TMB (the 
northern boundary of Area C); and on the west by the 13 NM radius of 
MIA. Area H would provide containment of MIA arrivals in Class B 
airspace. Its base altitude of 2,000 feet MSL, and the visual reference 
provided by Krome Avenue, would allow VFR aircraft to transition just 
west of Krome Avenue below 2,000 feet MSL without conflicting with MIA 
arrivals.
    Area I. The FAA proposes to establish a new Area I, located east of 
MIA between the 20 NM and 25 NM radii from the airport. Area I would 
extend from 5,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. The area would be bounded 
by that airspace beginning at the intersection of lat. 25[deg]57'48'' N 
and the 20 NM radius of MIA, thence moving East along lat. 
25[deg]57'48'' N to the intersection of a 25 NM radius of MIA, thence 
moving clockwise along the 25 NM radius to the Dolphin VORTAC 
151[deg](T)/155[deg](M) radial, thence Northwest along the Dolphin 
VORTAC 151[deg](T)/155[deg](M) radial to the intersection of a 20 NM 
radius of MIA, thence counter-clockwise along the 20 NM radius to the 
point of beginning. This expansion is needed to contain aircraft on the 
downwind within Class B airspace. The 5,000 foot MSL base altitude of 
Area I gives VFR aircraft transitioning the area over water the ability 
to fly under the Class B airspace.
    Area J. The FAA proposes to establish a new Area J located west of 
MIA between the 25 NM and 20 NM radii from the airport. Area J would 
extend from 4,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. The area would be bounded 
by that airspace beginning northwest of MIA at the intersection of a 25 
NM radius of Miami International Airport and lat. 25[deg]57'48'' N, 
thence east along lat. 25[deg]57'48'' N to the intersection of a 20 NM 
radius of Miami International Airport, thence counter-clockwise along 
the 20 NM radius to lat. 25[deg]40'19'' N, thence west along lat. 
25[deg]40'19'' N to the intersection of a 25 NM radius of Miami 
International Airport, thence clockwise along the 25 NM radius to the 
point of beginning.
    In summary, the existing MIA Class B airspace design does not 
currently

[[Page 12876]]

address the rapidly increasing general aviation and air carrier 
operations in the South Florida terminal area. The proposed Class B 
modification would provide:

--Containment of MIA arrivals and departures in Class B airspace;
--Increased safety by segregation of large turbine-powered aircraft 
from nonparticipating traffic during critical stages of flight;
--Improved utilization of airspace;
--Improved traffic patterns that allow for stabilized approaches;
--Reduced workload for both pilots and controllers; and,
--Enhanced overall efficiency of the movement of air traffic in the 
area.

    Note:  A color graphic of the proposed MIA Class B airspace will 
be sent for posting on the regulations.gov website (https://www.regulations.gov) following the publication of this NPRM in the 
Federal Register. Use the search term FAA-2020-0490.

    Class B airspace areas are published in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order 
7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which 
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class B airspace 
proposed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is 
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined that there 
is no new information collection requirement associated with this 
proposed rule.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 
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 (Pub. 
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of 
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act 
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create 
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In 
developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of 
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with 
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's 
analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this 
proposed rule: (1) Is expected to have a minimal cost impact, (2) is 
not an economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in 
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not significant under 
DOT's administrative procedure rule on rulemaking at 49 CFR 5.13; (4) 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities; (5) not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce 
of the United States; and (6) not impose an unfunded mandate on state, 
local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the 
threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized below.
    As discussed above, the FAA determined that changes put forth in 
this proposed rule would increase airspace safety and efficiency. The 
proposed rule would modify the lateral and vertical limits of Class B 
airspace around Miami International Airport (MIA) impacting commercial 
and general aviation flights transiting the airspace at the time of 
writing. The proposed modification is in response to increased 
commercial and general aviation activity at and near MIA airport at the 
time of writing. Currently, MIA Class B airspace does not fully contain 
aircraft flying instrument procedures at MIA. Aircraft routinely exit 
and re-enter MIA Class B airspace on final approach to MIA leading to 
safety issues with respect to flight separation between participating 
and non-participating aircraft outside of Class B airspace.
    The modifications proposed in this NPRM are intended only to expand 
Class B airspace, where necessary, to contain large, turbine-powered 
aircraft while minimizing the impact on the use of the airspace by 
other aircraft. An analysis of existing MIA traffic flows shows that 
the proposed Class B airspace modifications would better contain IFR 
flights arriving and departing MIA inside Class B airspace, and provide 
better separation between IFR aircraft and VFR aircraft operating in 
the vicinity of the Class B airspace area. Constructing sufficient 
airspace for safe control and separation of IFR flights improves the 
flow of air traffic, and more importantly enhances safety, reducing the 
potential for midair collision in the MIA terminal area.
    The proposed expansion to Class B airspace would affect the VFR and 
general aviation community. VFR operators would need to adjust their 
routes for the modified MIA Class B airspace. However, as mentioned 
above, the FAA initiated outreach between 2010 and 2019 for input and 
recommendations from the effected aviation community on the planned 
modifications to the MIA airspace. The feedback resulted in changes to 
the airspace design with the intent of maintaining safety and 
minimizing the impact to operators using the surrounding airspace. 
Additionally, VFR operators can use the current north-south charted VFR 
Flyway below the 3,000-foot Class B floor to the west of MIA, which 
enables pilots to fly beneath the Class B, or contact MIA Approach to 
request flight following, if desired, to lessen the impact. Therefore, 
the FAA expects the Class B modifications in this proposal would result 
in minimal cost to VFR operators. The FAA requests comments on the 
benefits and costs of this proposal to inform the final rule.
    The discussion presented in this section reflects conditions that 
predate the public health emergency concerning the novel coronavirus 
disease (COVID-19) in 2020. At the time of writing, there is 
uncertainty surrounding the timing of recovery and the long-term 
effects from the public health emergency. To the extent that there are 
lingering or lasting changes to general aviation and air carrier 
operations, the benefits and costs of the MIA Class B airspace 
modification in this proposal may vary relative to the level of future 
operations.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation.'' To achieve this principle, agencies are 
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to 
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals 
are given serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small 
entities, including small businesses, not-for-

[[Page 12877]]

profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. 
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so 
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The 
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for 
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    The proposed rule would modify Class B airspace around MIA. The 
change would affect general aviation operators using the airspace at or 
near MIA. Operators flying VFR would need to adjust their flight paths 
to avoid the modified Class B airspace. However, the modifications to 
Class B airspace are intended to be the least restrictive option while 
maintaining safety. Additionally, VFR operators can also use the 
current north-south charted VFR flyway below the 3,000-foot Class B 
floor to the west of MIA, which enables pilots to fly beneath the Class 
B or VFR pilots have the option to contact Miami Approach and request 
flight following, if desired. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), 
the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking would not result in 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that 
it would improve safety and is consistent with the Trade Agreements 
Act.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, 
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

ICAO Considerations

    As part of this proposal relates to navigable airspace outside the 
United States, this notice is submitted in accordance with the 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) International 
Standards and Recommended Practices.
    The application of International Standards and Recommended 
Practices by the FAA, Office of Policy, Rule and Regulations Group, in 
areas outside the United States domestic airspace, is governed by the 
Convention on International Civil Aviation. Specifically, the FAA is 
governed by Article 12 and Annex 11, which pertain to the establishment 
of necessary air navigational facilities and services to promote the 
safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of civil air traffic. The purpose 
of Article 12 and Annex 11 is to ensure that civil aircraft operations 
on international air routes are performed under uniform conditions.
    The International Standards and Recommended Practices in Annex 11 
apply to airspace under the jurisdiction of a contracting state, 
derived from ICAO. Annex 11 provisions apply when air traffic services 
are provided and a contracting state accepts the responsibility of 
providing air traffic services over high seas or in airspace of 
undetermined sovereignty. A contracting state accepting this 
responsibility may apply the International Standards and Recommended 
Practices that are consistent with standards and practices utilized in 
its domestic jurisdiction.
    In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, state-owned 
aircraft are exempt from the Standards and Recommended Practices of 
Annex 11. The United States is a contracting state to the Convention. 
Article 3(d) of the Convention provides that participating state 
aircraft will be operated in international airspace with due regard for 
the safety of civil aircraft. Since this action involves, in part, the 
designation of navigable airspace outside the United States, the 
Administrator consulted with the Secretary of State and the Secretary 
of Defense in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 10854.
    The Department of State responded with no objection to the proposed 
expansion of the Miami Class B airspace area. The Department of Defense 
Policy Board on Federal Aviation (PBFA) concurred with comment. The 
PBFA noted concerns that extending these areas into international 
airspace places additional restrictions and equipage requirements on 
aircraft transiting therein; and such ATC expansions could set a 
precedent for foreign nations to exert more restrictive control 
measures in other international airspaces without limits to lateral 
confines, in the interest of commerce and safety.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in 
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies 
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs

    This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory 
action because this proposal is not significant under Executive Order 
12866.

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--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.


Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order 
7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 
2020, and

[[Page 12878]]

effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL B Miami, FL

Miami International Airport (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 25[deg]47'43'' N, long. 080[deg]17'24'' W)
Miami Executive Airport (TMB)
    (Lat. 25[deg]38'51'' N, long. 080[deg]25'59'' W)
Dolphin VORTAC (DHP)
    (Lat. 25[deg]48'00'' N, long. 080[deg]20'57'' W)

    Boundaries.
    Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and 
including 7,000 feet MSL within a 7 nautical mile radius of Miami 
International Airport, excluding that airspace North of lat. 
25[deg]52'03'' N (NW 103rd Street/49th Street in the City of 
Hialeah), and the airspace South of lat. 25[deg]42'18'' N (SW 72nd 
Street in the Cities of Sunset and South Miami), and within and 
underlying Area F described hereinafter.
    Area B. That airspace extending upward from 1,500 feet MSL to 
and including 7,000 feet MSL within a 13 nautical mile radius of 
Miami International Airport, excluding that airspace North of lat. 
25[deg]52'03'' N (NW 103rd Street/49th Street in the City of 
Hialeah), and that airspace South of lat. 25[deg]40'19'' N, within 
Area A previously described, and within Areas C, F, and H described 
hereinafter.
    Area C. That airspace extending upward from 2,000 feet MSL to 
and including 7,000 feet MSL within an area bounded on the North and 
Northeast by a 4.3 nautical mile radius of Miami Executive Airport 
(TMB), and on the South by lat. 25[deg]40'19'' N, and on the 
Southwest by a 13 nautical mile radius of Miami International 
Airport.
    Area D. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to 
and including 7,000 feet MSL beginning Northwest of Miami 
International Airport at the intersection of a 20 nautical mile 
radius of Miami International Airport and lat. 25[deg]57'48'' N, 
thence East along lat. 25[deg]57'48'' N to the intersection of a 15 
nautical mile radius of Miami International Airport, thence 
clockwise along the 15 nautical mile radius to lat. 25[deg]57'48'' 
N, thence East along lat. 25[deg]57'48'' N to the intersection of a 
20 nautical mile radius of Miami International Airport, thence 
clockwise along the 20 nautical mile radius to the Dolphin VORTAC 
(DHP) 151[deg] radial, thence Northwest along the Dolphin VORTAC 
(DHP) 151[deg] radial to the intersection of a 15 nautical mile 
radius of Miami International Airport, thence clockwise along the 15 
nautical mile radius of Miami International Airport to lat. 
25[deg]40'19'' N, thence West along lat. 25[deg]40'19'' N to the 
intersection of a 20 nautical mile radius of Miami International 
Airport, thence clockwise along the 20 nautical mile radius to the 
point of beginning, excluding the airspace within Areas A, B, and C, 
previously described and within Areas F, G, and H described 
hereinafter.
    Area E. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to 
and including 7,000 feet MSL bounded on the South by lat. 
25[deg]57'48'' N, on the Northwest by a 20 nautical mile radius of 
Miami International Airport, on the Northeast by a line from lat. 
26[deg]06'02'' N, long. 80[deg]26'27'' W, to lat. 26[deg]01'38'' N, 
long. 80[deg]23'44'' W, and on the Southeast by a 15 nautical mile 
radius of Miami International Airport.
    Area F. That airspace extending upward from but not including 
1,000 feet MSL to and including 7,000 feet MSL bounded on the East 
by a 7 nautical mile radius of Miami International Airport, on the 
West by the West shoreline of Biscayne Bay, and on the South by lat. 
25[deg]42'18'' N (SW 72nd Street in the Cities of Sunset and South 
Miami).
    Area G. That airspace extending upward from 2,000 feet MSL to 
and including 7,000 feet MSL bounded on the South by lat. 
25[deg]52'03'' N (NW 103rd Street/49th Street in the City of 
Hialeah), on the West and Northwest by State Road 997/Krome Ave, on 
the East by the Miami Canal (paralleling US 27), and the Northern 
boundary point defined by the intersection of the Miami Canal and 
State Road 997/Krome Ave.
    Area H. That airspace extending upward from 2,000 feet MSL to 
and including 7,000 feet MSL bounded on the West by a 13 nautical 
mile radius of Miami International Airport, on the South by a 4.3 
nautical mile radius of Miami Executive Airport (TMB), on the East 
by State Road 997/Krome Ave, and on the North by a line along lat. 
25[deg]52'03'' N (NW 103rd Street/49th Street in the City of 
Hialeah).
    Area I. That airspace extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL to 
and including 7,000 feet MSL bounded beginning at the intersection 
of lat. 25[deg]57'48'' N and a 20 nautical mile radius of Miami 
International Airport, thence moving East along lat. 25[deg]57'48'' 
N to the intersection of a 25 nautical mile radius of Miami 
International Airport, thence moving clockwise along the 25 nautical 
mile radius to the Dolphin VORTAC 151[deg] radial, thence Northwest 
along the Dolphin VORTAC 151[deg] radial to the intersection of a 20 
nautical mile radius of Miami International Airport, thence counter-
clockwise along the 20 nautical mile radius to the point of 
beginning.
    Area J. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to 
and including 7,000 feet MSL beginning northwest of Miami 
International Airport at the intersection of a 25 nautical mile 
radius of Miami International Airport and lat. 25[deg]57'48'' N, 
thence east along lat 25[deg]57'48'' N to the intersection of a 20 
nuatical mile radius of Miami International Airport, thence counter-
clockwise along the 20 nautical mile radius to lat 25[deg]40'19'' N, 
thence west along lat. 25[deg]40'19'' N to the intersection of a 25 
nautical mile radius of Miami International Airport, thence 
clockwise along the 25 nautical mile radius to the point of 
beginning.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 22, 2021.
George Gonzalez,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.

[[Page 12879]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MR21.009

[FR Doc. 2021-03968 Filed 3-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>