12868 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 42 / Friday, March 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 22, 

202. 

George Gonzalez, 

Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations 

Group. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03970 Filed 3–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

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: 

fedreg.legal@nara.gov, 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 42 / Friday, March 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 highdensity 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 fuelefficient profile. 

—Industry-wide migration to satellitebased 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 turbinepowered 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 reentering 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 nonparticipating 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12870 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 42 / Friday, March 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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 northsouth 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 goaround 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 goaround 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 LauderdaleHollywood 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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 42 / Friday, March 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 nonparticipating 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12872 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 42 / Friday, March 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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°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 NortheastSouthwest ‘‘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°57′48′′ N, and on the 

northeast by a line from latitude 

26°05′56′′ N, longitude 80°26′23′′ W., to 

latitude 26°01′32′′ N, longitude 

80°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°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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 42 / Friday, March 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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°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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12874 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 42 / Friday, March 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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°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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 42 / Friday, March 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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°47′43′′ N, long. 

080°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°38′51′′ N, long. 

080°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°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°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°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°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°57′48′′ N and the 20 NM radius 

of MIA, thence moving East along lat. 

25°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°(T)/155°(M) 

radial, thence Northwest along the 

Dolphin VORTAC 151°(T)/155°(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°57′48′′ N, thence east along lat. 

25°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°40′19′′ N, 

thence west along lat. 25°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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12876 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 42 / Friday, March 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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-forVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:49 Mar 04, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM 05MRP1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 42 / Friday, March 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 

■ 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. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 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 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12878 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 42 / Friday, March 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

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°47′43′′ N, long. 080°17′24′′ W) 

Miami Executive Airport (TMB) 

(Lat. 25°38′51′′ N, long. 080°25′59′′ W) 

Dolphin VORTAC (DHP) 

(Lat. 25°48′00′′ N, long. 080°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°52′03′′ N (NW 103rd 

Street/49th Street in the City of Hialeah), and 

the airspace South of lat. 25°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°52′03′′ N (NW 103rd 

Street/49th Street in the City of Hialeah), and 

that airspace South of lat. 25°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°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°57′48′′ N, 

thence East along lat. 25°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°57′48′′ N, thence East along lat. 

25°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° radial, thence Northwest along 

the Dolphin VORTAC (DHP) 151° 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°40′19′′ N, thence West along lat. 25°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°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°06′02′′ N, long. 80°26′27′′ W, to lat. 

26°01′38′′ N, long. 80°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°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°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°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°57′48′′ N and a 20 

nautical mile radius of Miami International 

Airport, thence moving East along lat. 

25°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° radial, thence Northwest along 

the Dolphin VORTAC 151° radial to the 

intersection of a 20 nautical mile radius of 

Miami International Airport, thence counterclockwise 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°57′48′′ N, 

thence east along lat 25°57′48′′ N to the 

intersection of a 20 nuatical mile radius of 

Miami International Airport, thence counterclockwise along the 20 nautical mile radius 

to lat 25°40′19′′ N, thence west along lat. 

25°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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 42 / Friday, March 5, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12879 

[FR Doc. 2021–03968 Filed 3–4–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 284 

[Docket No. RM96–1–042] 

Standards for Business Practices of 

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission is proposing to 

amend its regulations to incorporate by 

reference, with certain enumerated 

exceptions, the latest version (Version 

3.2) of business practice standards 

adopted by the Wholesale Gas Quadrant 

of the North American Energy Standards 

Board (NAESB) applicable to natural gas 

pipelines in place of the currently 

incorporated version (Version 3.1) of 

those business practice standards. The 

revisions made by NAESB in this 

version of the standards are designed to 

enhance the natural gas industries’ 

system and software security measures 

and to clarify the processing of certain 

business transactions. 

DATES: Comments are due April 19, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by the 

docket number of this proceeding, may 

be filed electronically at https://

www.ferc.gov/ in acceptable native 

applications and print-to-PDF, but not 

in scanned or picture format. For those 

unable to file electronically, comments 

may be filed by mail or may be hand 

delivered. Mailed comments should be 

addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426. Hand-delivered 

comments should be delivered to: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, 

Maryland 20852. The Comment 

Procedures Section of this document 

contains more detailed filing 

procedures. The Comment Procedures 

Section of this document contains more 

detailed filing procedures. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stanley Wolf (Technical Issues), Office 

of Energy Policy and Information, 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

6841 

Oscar F. Santillana (Technical Issues), 

Office of Energy Market Regulation, 

Federal Energy Regulatory 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP05MR21.009</GPH>