Proposed Amendment of Class C Airspace and Revocation of Class E Airspace Extension; Fort Lauderdale, FL
| Published date | 02 April 2021 |
| Citation | 86 FR 17333 |
| Record Number | 2021-06805 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Federal Aviation Administration |
17333
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 62 / Friday, April 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA–2020–0988; Airspace
Docket No. 18–AWA–3]
Proposed Amendment of Class C
Airspace and Revocation of Class E
Airspace Extension; Fort Lauderdale,
FL
AGENCY
: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION
: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
SUMMARY
: This action proposes to
reconfigure and expand the Fort
Lauderdale-Hollywood International
Airport, FL (FLL), Class C airspace area.
The FAA is proposing this action to
reduce the risk of midair collisions and
enhance the efficient management of air
traffic operations in the FLL terminal
area. Additionally, this action proposes
to revoke the Class E airspace extension
to the FLL Class C airspace surface area.
This proposed action is separate and
distinct from the South Florida
Metroplex Project. No flight path
changes are associated with this
proposal.
DATES
: Comments must be received on
or before June 1, 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; telephone: (800)
647–5527, or (202) 366–9826. You must
identify FAA Docket No. FAA–2020–
0988; Airspace Docket No. 18–AWA–3,
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 airspace structure as
necessary to preserve the safe and
efficient flow of air traffic 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–
2020–0988; Airspace Docket No. 18–
AWA–3) 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–2020–0988; Airspace
Docket No. 18–AWA–3.’’ The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned
to the commenter.
All communications received on or
before the specified comment closing
date 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
comment closing date. A report
summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerned
with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.
Availability of NPRM
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 1986, the FAA issued a final rule
that established the Fort Lauderdale-
Hollywood International Airport, FL,
Airport Radar Service Area (ARSA) (51
FR 4872; February 7, 1986). As a result
of the Airspace Reclassification final
rule (56 FR 65638; December 17, 1991),
which became effective in September
1993, the term ‘‘Airport Radar Service
Area’’ was replaced by ‘‘Class C airspace
area.’’ As with the former ARSA, the
primary purpose of a Class C airspace
area is to reduce the potential for midair
collisions in terminal areas and promote
the efficient management of air traffic in
those areas. Pilots are required to
establish two-way radio
communications with air traffic control
(ATC) before entering Class C airspace,
and they must maintain two-way radio
communications with ATC while
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Apr 01, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
17334
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 62 / Friday, April 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules
operating in Class C airspace. These
requirements are designed to keep ATC
informed of all aircraft operating within
the Class C airspace area.
Developments Since the Origination of
the FLL Class C Airspace Area
Despite significant increases in
aircraft operations and passenger
enplanements at FLL over the years, the
FLL Class C airspace area has not been
modified since its inception in 1986.
In 2014, runway 10R/28L was
extended from 5,276 feet to 8,000 feet in
length. The extension increased airport
capacity by making two runways
available to larger aircraft types instead
of one.
In 2008, FLL hosted 309,624 total
operations, and 11,400,548 passenger
enplanements. By 2019, these numbers
had grown to 331,455 total operations,
and 17,950,989 passenger
enplanements. With these figures, FLL
actually meets the criteria to be a
candidate for the establishment of a
Class B airspace area. In 2009, the FAA
considered converting the FLL Class C
airspace area to Class B airspace.
However, as discussed later in this
NPRM, the FAA decided that the
airspace safety and efficiency goals
could be satisfied by expanding the FLL
Class C airspace area instead.
Impact of FLL Class C Airspace Area
Configuration on Operations
The current FLL Class C airspace area
is not sufficient to accommodate the
volume and diversity of aircraft
operations in the congested South
Florida airspace, nor the traffic patterns
required by the increasing numbers of
turbojet operations at FLL.
The current FLL Class C airspace
configuration has the following impacts
on operations at FLL:
1. Insufficient Class C airspace is
available to provide for the most
efficient arrival and departure
operations at FLL. Significant numbers
of visual flight rules (VFR) aircraft,
which are not in contact with air traffic
control (ATC), routinely operate in the
same airspace outside of the FLL Class
C area that is also used by aircraft
operating to and from FLL. Under the
proposal, these VFR aircraft would be
required to establish contact with ATC
enabling greater efficiency.
2. Controllers must alter the approach
profile of instrument flight rules (IFR)
arrival traffic when unknown VFR
aircraft are transitioning a gap between
the existing Miami (MIA) Class B and
FLL Class C airspace areas. This gap,
which is approximately 4–5 nautical
miles (NM) wide, exists in the airspace
between the current 10 NM radius of the
FLL Class C airspace (to the west of
FLL), and the existing MIA Class B
airspace area to the northwest of MIA
(in the vicinity of U.S. Route 27). VFR
aircraft that are not in communication
with ATC routinely transit this area and,
in doing so, they climb or descend
through the final approach courses and
the downwind legs for FLL arrivals to
runways 10L and 10R requiring
commercial pilots to alter their flight
path or altitude resulting in a disruption
of the orderly flow of arrivals to the
airport. Closing this airspace gap would
enhance safety for FLL traffic.
3. Increases workload for air traffic
controllers due to the need for
additional vectoring of FLL arrivals and
departures to ensure separation from
VFR aircraft not in communication with
ATC.
Benefits of Modifying the FLL Class C
Airspace Area
Modifications of the current FLL Class
C airspace area would enhance safety by
lessening the likelihood of FLL arrivals
and departures encountering unknown
aircraft that are not in contact with ATC.
The unique combination of high
volumes of general aviation and
commercial operations, plus intensive
student pilot training, and transiting
VFR aircraft that take place in the
congested FLL terminal area support a
proposal to expand the FLL Class C
airspace area in the interest of safety
and the efficient use of the airspace.
The FAA believes that users would
benefit from participation in the
proposed expanded availability of Class
C services around FLL which include:
sequencing of all aircraft to the primary
airport (FLL); standard IFR services to
IFR aircraft; separation, traffic
advisories, and safety alerts between IFR
and VFR aircraft; and, mandatory traffic
advisories and safety alerts between
VFR aircraft.
Local Area Airport Identifiers
For reference, the following airport
identifiers are used in this NPRM:
BCT Boca Raton Airport
FLL Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood
International Airport
FXE Fort Lauderdale Executive
Airport
HWO North Perry Airport
MIA Miami International Airport
OPF Opa Locka Executive
PMP Pompano Beach Airpark
TMB Miami Executive Airport
X51 Miami Homestead General
Aviation Airport
Pre-NPRM Public Input
In 2010, the FAA initiated action to
form an Ad Hoc Committee (Committee)
to seek input and recommendations
from representatives of effected aviation
segments for the FAA to consider in
designing proposed modifications to the
Miami International Airport (MIA),
Class B airspace area, and to convert the
FLL Class C airspace area to Class B
airspace. 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
The Ad Hoc Committee submitted
three recommendations for the FAA to
consider in designing proposed
modifications of the MIA Class B
airspace area, and the proposed
conversion of the FLL Class C airspace
area to Class B airspace.
The Committee recommended that the
FAA align the boundaries of the Class
B airspace with prominent geographical
features (visual landmarks) whenever
possible.
The FAA agrees and tries to adopt the
use of geographical features whenever
possible. However, areas that overlie the
Atlantic Ocean and the Florida
Everglades lack prominent landmarks.
Currently, there are approximately 25
VFR checkpoints, four VFR waypoints,
and five 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 recommended that the
FAA establish a VFR Corridor between
3,000 feet and 5,000 feet mean sea level
(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. Very High
Frequency Omnidirectional Range
(VOR) radials should be used to define
the centerline of the Corridor enabling
both VOR and GPS equipped aircraft to
navigate the corridor.
The FAA could not adopt this
recommendation because a VFR
corridor is essentially a ‘‘tunnel’’
through Class B airspace within which
aircraft may operate without an ATC
Clearance or communication with ATC.
For this reason, a VFR Corridor is not
feasible for this area based on
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Apr 01, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
17335
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 62 / Friday, April 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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,
especially during irregular operations,
such as weather impacting the normal
arrival and departure routes.
Alternatively, 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 Terminal Area Charts
(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, due to the close proximity
of FLL to the shoreline, a shoreline
transition is not feasible in that area.
After full consideration of the
Committee’s discussions and
recommendations, the FAA decided to
pursue an alternative airspace design for
FLL. Rather than converting the Class C
airspace area at FLL to Class B airspace,
the FAA proposes to retain, but expand,
the existing FLL Class C airspace area.
This alternative would provide all the
benefits that could be achieved with the
original FLL Class B concept but with
less impact on local VFR and general
aviation operations. This NPRM
proposes modifications to the FLL Class
C airspace area. The proposed
modifications of the MIA Class B
airspace area was addressed in a
separate NPRM. (86 FR 12868, March 5,
2021).
Discussion of Informal Airspace
Meeting Comments
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 FLL Class C airspace area. The FAA
received comments from 32 individuals
in response to the four meetings. The
FAA received a number of comments
from the January 2013 meetings that
pertained specifically to the proposed
modification of the MIA Class B
airspace area. Those comments are
addressed in a separate NPRM that
proposes to modify the MIA Class B
airspace. The NPRM was published in
the Federal Register on March 5, 2021
(86 FR 12868). You may read the MIA
Class B NPRM on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov. Enter the search
term FAA–2020–0490.
January 2013 Informal Airspace Meeting
Comments
Many commenters asked that the FLL
Class C airspace boundaries be based on
visual ground references such as
highways and landmarks to assist VFR
pilots in identifying the lateral
boundaries of the area. One commenter
wrote that the FAA should consider a
physical feature, such as University
Avenue, to define the western side of
the Class C surface area’s 7 NM radius.
The FAA agrees and has incorporated
well-known roads such as U.S. Route
27, I–75, Oakland Park Boulevard, etc.,
into the proposed description of the FLL
Class C airspace area. Regarding a
reference for the surface area, a suitable
pilotage landmark that is already
charted is the Snake Creek Canal that
runs parallel to Flamingo Road in
Broward County. The canal is about 1 to
2 miles outside the western edge of the
surface area. Use of that visual landmark
would ensure that VFR pilots remain
clear of the surface area.
A commenter wrote that, with the
expansion of the Class C airspace area,
it is important that adequate ATC
staffing be provided to handle the
higher number of VFR aircraft
transitioning the area.
The proposed airspace change would
affect the Miami Terminal Radar
Approach Control (TRACON) controller
workload with an anticipated increase
of aircraft requesting flight following
services. Miami TRACON provides IFR
services to traffic operating to and from
FLL. The comment is valid and actions
have been taken to address this concern.
Considering the anticipated greater
workload, the FAA has increased the
utilization of additional radar positions
that provide relief for controllers
working the Opa Locka Executive
Airport (OPF)/North Perry Airport
(HWO) area. These additional positions
split the workload in half (east side and
west side) and provide extra capacity to
handle flight following services. It is
suggested that pilots consider obtaining
a discrete transponder code from air
traffic control before takeoff to ensure
that flight following in VFR conditions
can commence shortly after departure.
One commenter suggested that the
FAA consider a VFR Corridor within the
Class C airspace that takes VFR aircraft
from the coast to overhead FLL at 1,500
feet MSL southbound, and 2,000 feet
MSL northbound, and back out to the
coast.
The procedures for overflights at FLL
are governed by a Letter of Agreement
(LOA) between MIA ATCT and FLL
ATCT. Aircraft operating from the coast
to transition over FLL may currently
contact FLL ATCT to transition at or
below 1,000 feet MSL along the
shoreline. Aircraft transitioning VFR
over FLL, in communication with MIA
TRACON, are provided transition at or
above 2,500 feet MSL. The 2,500-foot
restriction is intended to allow aircraft
on a missed approach climb to 2,000
feet MSL per the LOA. A designated
VFR corridor at 1,500 feet MSL or 2,000
feet MSL is not feasible due to traffic
volume and the provisions of the LOA.
Several commenters were concerned
that the Class C expansion would
encroach upon student pilot training in
the practice areas, such as alert areas A–
291B and A–291C, by reducing the
airspace available for training in this
congested area. Additionally, a
commenter noted that numerous flight
schools operate out of FXE. There is
concern that the proposed northern
boundary of the Class C airspace area
could eliminate an avenue for student
pilots transitioning to and from the
practice areas. The commenter argued
that this might cause flight schools to
cease operations at FXE.
The current floor of Class C airspace
over FXE is at 1,200 feet MSL. The FAA
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Apr 01, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
17336
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 62 / Friday, April 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules
proposes to establish Class C Area F
(described below) over FXE. Area F
would be bounded in the north along
lat. 26°13′53″N (aligned with the eastern
portion of Atlantic Boulevard located in
Pompano Beach), which lies to the
north of FXE. To the south of FXE, the
southern boundary of Area F would be
defined by lat. 26°10′03″N (aligned with
the eastern most portion of Oakland
Park Boulevard located in Lauderdale
Beach). The floor of Class C airspace in
Area F would be 2,500 feet MSL instead
of the current 1,200 feet MSL. The
change would provide more room for
operations to and from FXE without the
need for pilots to enter Class C airspace.
A commenter said that traffic flying to
and from North Perry Airport (HWO)
and Opa Locka Executive Airport (OPF)
will be boxed in by the Class C 1,200-
foot MSL shelf causing them to fly low
when travelling to and from the
northern areas. The commenter also
stated that access to FXE and Pompano
Airpark (PMP) would be greatly
decreased by the requirement to fly
below 1,200 feet MSL.
Aircraft operating to and from HWO
and OPF can still transition below the
MIA Class B airspace area below 3,000
feet MSL to join the charted VFR
Flyways beneath the MIA Class B and
the proposed FLL Class C airspace areas.
The 2,500-foot MSL Class C floor in the
proposed Area F (discussed above)
would enhance access to HWO and
PMP. Note that PMP is outside the
proposed northern boundary of the
Class C airspace area.
Another commenter flying from HWO
said that the western most edge of the
FLL Class C airspace area should run
along U.S. Route 27. According to the
commenter, for students flying out over
the Everglades, U.S. Route 27 is the last
visual reference they could use to tell if
they are clear of the Class C airspace
and it is safe to climb. Without that
reference, according to the commenter,
students would have to fly out much
farther to ensure they are actually clear
of the Class C airspace.
U.S. Route 27 marks the eastern
boundary of proposed FLL Class C Area
C, which would extend westward to the
25 NM radius of FLL. The floor of Area
C would be at 3,000 feet MSL. U.S.
Route 27 could still be used as a visual
reference to indicate the point beyond
which an altitude below 3,000 feet MSL
would be clear of the proposed FLL
Class C airspace area. Additionally, a
canal intersecting a pumping station
along Interstate I–75 can be used as a
visual landmark for the western most
portion of Area C. There is also a major
rest area on the highway at that location.
A commenter highlighted another
concern about the current Class C
configuration involving FXE. The
commenter stated that when FXE ATCT
issues a right downwind departure off
runway 9, the pilot has to rush to get
acknowledged by Miami Approach in
order to not violate the Class C airspace
area. The commenter asked if the north
end of the Class C could be sliced off at
Oakland Park Boulevard; or, if not,
could the floor of the Class C north of
Oakland Park Boulevard be raised to
1,600 feet MSL or more.
The FAA determined that the
northern boundary of the FLL Class C
airspace area could not be set along
Oakland Park Boulevard as suggested.
Oakland Park Boulevard conflicts with
the proposed Class C surface area. The
current Class C extends well above
Oakland Park Boulevard. Setting the
northern boundary of the Class C along
Atlantic Boulevard instead provides
more vectoring room north of FLL. The
proposed Class C modification would
establish Area F, with a floor of 2,500
feet MSL, over FXE. This would provide
more room that is beneath the Class C
airspace to accommodate the downwind
departure.
Two commenters raised the issue that
setting the Class C airspace floor at
1,200-foot MSL, 14 NM from the airport,
as contained in the original proposal,
seems unprecedented. The commenter
suggested some interim altitude, such as
1,600 feet MSL, would give users more
flexibility.
After consideration of the comment,
the FAA is modifying the proposal by
adding a FLL Class C Subarea E
(described below) that would be
bounded on the east by Interstate I–75,
and on the west by U.S. Route 27. The
proposed floor of the Class C airspace in
Area E would be 1,500 feet MSL instead
of the original 1,200 feet MSL. Aircraft
operating at FLL already overfly this
area. The objective of this airspace
proposal is to provide the least
restrictive, yet safe operation in the
terminal area.
One commenter contended that ATC
never clears aircraft through Class C
airspace, except for occasional direct
overflights.
FAA records show that, in the 12
months ending May 31, 2017, FLL
ATCT worked 313,802 operations with
303 IFR overflights and 16,234 VFR
overflights.
A commenter stated that the
substantial extensions of Class C
airspace east and west of FLL would
force pilots to fly deeper into the
everglades or farther out to sea to avoid
the Class C airspace. The commenter
added that, if the changes are
implemented, Flyways should be
created for both VFR and IFR traffic
whose destinations are within the South
Florida area.
The FAA acknowledges these
concerns. However, considering this
extremely busy and congested South
Florida airspace that includes intensive
student flight training, a high volume of
VFR transit operations, as well as large
numbers of commercial operations, the
proposed FLL Class C airspace
modifications are essential to
maintaining safety and reducing the risk
of midair collisions in the terminal area.
A north-south oriented VFR Flyway,
below 3,000 feet MSL, is currently
depicted on the Miami VFR Flyway
Planning Chart (on the reverse side of
the Miami Terminal Area Chart). This
Flyway is located beneath the western
side of the Miami Class B airspace area,
and the proposed FLL Class C airspace
area. The FAA is also considering
additional Flyways though the area.
June 2019 Informal Airspace Meeting
Comments
Over 60 people attended the June
2019 informal airspace meeting.
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. This
comment was also received at the
January 2013 informal airspace
meetings.
The proposed airspace change would
affect the Miami Terminal Radar
Approach Control (TRACON) controller
workload with an anticipated increase
of aircraft requesting flight following
services. Miami TRACON provides IFR
services to traffic operating to and from
FLL. The comment is valid and actions
have been taken to address this concern.
Considering the anticipated greater
workload, the FAA has increased the
utilization of additional radar positions
that provide relief for controllers
working the Opa Locka Executive
Airport (OPF)/North Perry Airport
(HWO) area. These additional positions
split the workload in half (east side and
west side) and provide extra capacity to
handle flight following services. It is
suggested that pilots consider obtaining
a discrete transponder code from air
traffic control before takeoff to ensure
that flight following in VFR conditions
can commence shortly after departure.
One commenter was concerned that
the expansion of the FLL Class C
airspace area would create a precedent
for other locations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Apr 01, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
17337
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 62 / Friday, April 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules
The purpose of Class C airspace is to
reduce the risk of midair collisions in
the terminal area. A number of
considerations are evaluated before
determining whether an airport qualifies
for the establishment or modification of
a Class C airspace area. Proposed Class
C airspace area designs are based on
site-specific factors such as traffic
volume and complexity.
A commenter suggested a north/south
corridor be provided through the FLL
Class C airspace area.
Procedures for overflights at FLL are
governed by a LOA between Miami
Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)
and FLL ATCT. Current procedures
allow aircraft to transition over FLL at
2,500 feet MSL under two-way radio
communication with ATC at Miami
TRACON; or at low level over the
shoreline after establishing two-way
radio communication with FLL ATCT.
Both transitions provide protection from
aircraft departing/arriving at FLL.
Currently, if ATC is unable to approve
a transition request, the charted VFR
Flyways to the west of FLL are available
as an option.
Another commenter said that ATC
LOAs should be published for easy
access by pilots.
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.
A commenter stated that expansion of
the FLL Class C airspace area should
conform to readily recognized
landmarks, such as canals, and streets,
to describe the boundaries.
The FAA agrees and, where feasible,
has amended the proposed FLL Class C
airspace area description to use various
streets, such as U.S. Route 27, Interstate
75, Oakland Park Boulevard, etc., to
define the boundaries.
Four commenters cited concerns that
the originally proposed northern
boundary of the FLL Class C airspace
area, located just south of Pompano
Beach Airpark (PMP), with a floor of
1,200 feet MSL, would interfere with
Class D airspace operations at FXE and
PMP. The commenters requested that
the Class C airspace north of FLL be
modified to provide a cutout with a
higher floor allowing increased
clearance for VFR access to Fort
Lauderdale Executive Airport (FXE).
Based on previous public comments
with the same concern, the FAA raised
the proposed floor of the Class C
airspace shelf over FXE to 2,500 feet
MSL and moved the proposed northern
Class C airspace boundary southward to
align along the eastern portion of
Atlantic Boulevard, located in Pompano
Beach. These changes allow VFR aircraft
to safely maintain separation from FLL
arrival and departure traffic, while
maximizing the amount of operational
airspace available for pilots operating
VFR.
One commenter requested the FAA
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. Although significant time
has elapsed since the Committee
submitted its report, its
recommendations remain valid. 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 airspace
area, 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
the alternative to retain, but modify,
Class C airspace at FLL, as well as
modifying the MIA Class B airspace.
This would result in less impact to the
VFR and general aviation communities.
Further, the public comments received
in response to the informal airspace
meetings held in 2013 and 2019 led to
changes that were incorporated into the
proposed airspace designs.
Based on the above, the FAA
concluded that sufficient initial
feedback was received so that the FAA
could develop and publish the airspace
proposal in an NPRM. The NPRM’s 60-
day comment period provides an
additional opportunity for the public to
submit their views on the proposed FLL
Class C 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 FLL
Class C airspace area by expanding the
lateral dimensions to the east and west
of the airport, and lowering of some
airspace floors to enhance safety in the
Fort Lauderdale terminal area (see the
attached chart).
The current FLL Class C airspace area
consists of two concentric circles
centered on the airport reference point:
(1) That airspace extending upward
from the surface to 4,000 feet MSL
within a 5 NM radius of the airport; and
(2) that airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet MSL to 4,000 feet MSL within
a 10 NM radius of the airport.
(excluding the airspace within the
adjacent Miami Class B airspace area).
This proposal would update the FLL
airport reference point coordinates to
read ‘‘lat. 26°04′18″ N, long. 80°08′59″
W’’ which reflects the latest information
in the Airport Master Records file. In
addition, the proposal would
reconfigure the Class C airspace area
from the two concentric circles design,
to a more rectangular shape consisting
of seven sub-areas identified by the
letters A though G. The foot print of the
area would be expanded to the east and
west, but the current 4,000-foot MSL
ceiling of the Class C airspace area
would be retained. The proposed
modifications are described below. In
developing these modifications, the
FAA has considered the input received
from the Ad Hoc Committee, and the
informal airspace meetings.
Area A. The proposed Area A is a
modification of the current surface area
that extends from ground level upward
to 4,000 feet MSL. Area A would be
expanded from the current 5 NM radius
of FLL, to a 7 NM radius of the airport.
It would be bounded on the north by lat.
26°10′03″N (the eastern most portion of
Oakland Park Boulevard located in
Lauderdale Beach); and bounded on the
south by a 15 NM radius of the Miami
International Airport; and on the
southeast by lat. 26°00′39″N (the eastern
most portion of Hollywood Boulevard
located in Hollywood).
Setting the northern boundary of Area
A along lat. 26°10′03″N would allow
Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport (FXE)
to continue using south downwind
departures from the airport and return
most of the FXE Class D airspace area
altitudes to FXE ATCT for their use. The
proposed southeastern boundary of Area
A would allow aircraft departing North
Perry Airport (HWO) and Opa Locka
Executive Airport (OPF) more room to
transition to the east overwater.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Apr 01, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
17338
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 62 / Friday, April 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Area B. Area B, located west of Area
A, would extend upward from 1,200 feet
MSL to 4,000 feet MSL. It would be
bounded on the north by lat.
26°10′03″N; on the west by State Road
869/Sawgrass Expressway, Interstate
595 and Interstate 75; on the south by
the 15 NM radius of Miami International
Airport; and on the east by the 7 NM
radius of FLL (the western boundary of
Area A). The use of existing major
roadways would give VFR pilots better
awareness of the airspace boundaries.
Area C. Area C would be located at
the western end of the Class C
expansion. It would extend upward
from 3,000 feet MSL to 4,000 feet MSL.
Area C would be bounded on the north
by lat. 26°13′53″N (aligned with the
eastern portion of Atlantic Boulevard
located in Pompano Beach) (which is
also the proposed northern boundary of
FLL Class C airspace area); on the west
by the 25 NM radius of FLL; on the
south by lat. 25°57′48″N; on the
southeast by the 15 NM radius of MIA;
and on the east by U.S. Route 27. Route
27 was selected as the eastern boundary
based on suggestions that visual
references be used to provide better
situational awareness for VFR pilots.
Area D. Area D would be located at
the eastern end of the Class C
expansion. It would extend upward
from 3,000 feet MSL to 4,000 feet MSL.
It would be bounded on the north by lat.
26°13′53″N (aligned with the eastern
portion of Atlantic Boulevard located in
Pompano Beach); on the east by the 25
NM radius of FLL; on the south by lat.
26°00′39″N (the eastern most portion of
Hollywood Boulevard located in
Hollywood); and on the west by the 20
NM radius of FLL. Area D would form
the eastern most section of the proposed
FLL Class C airspace area. In the
original design, the Class C floor in Area
D was proposed to be 2,500 feet MSL.
To accommodate concerns, the
proposed floor is raised to 3,000 feet
MSL to give VFR pilots a little more
room to transition beneath the area.
Area E. Area E would extend upward
from 1,500 feet MSL to 4,000 feet MSL.
It would be bounded on the north by lat.
26°10′03″N (the eastern most portion of
Oakland Park Boulevard located in
Lauderdale Beach); on the east by the
north-south portion of Interstate I–75
and State Road 869/Sawgrass
Expressway; on the south by the 15 NM
radius of MIA; and on the west by U.S.
Route 27. Area E would be located
between Areas B and C.
A goal of the design of Area E is to
resolve an issue caused by the
configurations of the current MIA Class
B airspace and the FLL Class C airspace
areas. A gap, approximately 4–5 NM
wide, exists in the airspace between the
current 10 NM radius of FLL’s Class C
airspace (to the west of the airport), and
the existing MIA Class B airspace area
to the northwest of MIA (in the vicinity
of U.S. Route 27). VFR aircraft that are
not in communication with ATC
frequently transit this gap and are
climbing or descending through the
final approach courses and the
downwind legs for FLL arrivals to
runways 10L/10R. The proposed design
of Area E is intended to close this gap
to enhance safety for both FLL traffic
and the transiting VFR aircraft. The
original proposal set the Class C
airspace floor in this area at 1,200 feet
MSL. Due to concerns about restricting
VFR aircraft transiting the area, the
proposed Area E floor is raised to 1,500
feet MSL to give VFR aircraft more room
to transition north and south. The use
of existing major roadways to mark the
boundaries gives VFR pilots better
situational awareness of the lateral
confines of Area E.
Area F. Area F would extend upward
from 2,500 feet MSL to 4,000 feet MSL.
The area’s boundaries would begin at a
point northwest of FLL where U.S.
Route 27 intersects lat. 26°13′53″N
(aligned with the eastern portion of
Atlantic Boulevard in Pompano Beach);
thence moving east along lat.
26°13′53″N to a point that intersects the
20 NM radius of FLL; thence moving
clockwise along the 20 NM radius of
FLL to a point that intersects lat.
26°00′39″N; (the eastern most portion of
Hollywood Boulevard located in
Hollywood); thence moving west along
lat. 26°00′39″N to a point that intersects
the 15 NM radius of FLL; thence moving
counter-clockwise along the 15 NM
radius of FLL to a point that intersects
lat. 26°10′03″N (the eastern most portion
of Oakland Park Boulevard located in
Lauderdale Beach); thence moving west
along lat. 26°10′03″N to a point that
intersects U.S. route 27; thence moving
north along U.S. Route 27 to the point
of beginning. Area F forms the northern
shelf of the FLL Class C airspace area,
running east and west between areas C
and D, as well as a north/south segment
running between Areas G and D.
With today’s FLL Class C airspace
configuration, the floor of Class C
airspace over FXE is 1,200 feet MSL.
This 1,200-foot floor extends right up to
PMP. Within the proposed Area F, the
Class C airspace floor would be raised
to 2,500 feet MSL over FXE, and the
northern boundary of Class C airspace
would be moved farther to the south of
PMP and aligned with the eastern
portion of Atlantic Boulevard. This
proposed 2,500-foot MSL Class C
airspace shelf over FXE, and southward
relocation of the northern Class C
airspace boundary to be aligned with
Atlantic Boulevard, provides a number
of benefits, including: The use of visual
references for airspace boundaries;
better access for VFR pilots to the FXE
and PMP areas; additional room below
Class C airspace to accommodate
downwind departures from FXE; better
access for the flight schools based at
FXE and PMP to airspace that is
regularly used for flight training; and
providing FXE and PMP ATCTs access
to more altitudes within their Class D
airspace areas.
Area G. Area G would extend upward
from 1,200 feet MSL to 4,000 feet MSL.
The area boundaries would begin at a
point northeast of FLL where the 7 NM
radius of FLL intersects lat. 26°10′03″N
(the eastern most portion of Oakland
Park Boulevard located in Lauderdale
beach); thence moving clockwise along
the 7 NM radius of FLL to a point that
intersects lat. 26°00′39″N (the eastern
most portion of Hollywood Boulevard
located in Hollywood); thence moving
east along lat. 26°00′39″N to a point that
intersects the 15 NM radius of FLL;
thence moving counterclockwise along
the 15 NM radius of FLL to a point that
intersects lat. 26°10′03″N; thence
moving west along lat. 26°10′03″N, to
the point of beginning. Area G would be
located between Areas A and F.
In addition, this action proposes to
remove the Class E airspace extension to
the FLL Class C airspace surface area
(which would become Class C within
Area A). The proposed expansion of
Area A from the current 5 NM radius,
to a 7 NM radius, would overlie the
Class E airspace extension rendering it
unnecessary.
Class C airspace areas are published
in paragraph 4000 of FAA Order
7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020 and
effective September 15, 2002, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
71.1. Class E airspace areas designated
as an extension to a Class C surface area
are published in paragraph 6003 of FAA
Order 7400.11E. The Class C airspace
area and Class E airspace extension
modifications proposed in this
document would be published
subsequently in the Order.
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. The
FAA has determined that there is no
new information collection requirement
associated with this proposed rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Apr 01, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
17339
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 62 / Friday, April 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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)
does not create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United
States; and (6) does 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 reconfigure and
expand the FLL Class C airspace.
Despite significant increases in aircraft
operations and passenger enplanements
over the years, the FLL Class C airspace
has not been modified since its
inception in 1986. The current Class C
airspace area is not sufficient to
accommodate the volume of aircraft
operations in the congested South
Florida airspace, nor the traffic pattern
required by the increasing numbers of
turbojet operations at FLL. The goals of
the proposal are to reduce the risk of
midair collisions and increase efficiency
of air traffic operations in the FLL
terminals.
The proposed expansion to Class C
airspace would affect the VFR and
general aviation community. VFR
operators would only need to make
minor adjustments to accommodate the
expansion. As mentioned above, the
FAA considered recommendations from
an Ad Hoc Committee as well as the
four informal airspace meetings from
the stakeholders on the planned
modifications to the FLL 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 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, and east-west
flyway below 2000 MSL located to the
south of HWO, or to the north of Miami
OPF. 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 FLL Class C 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-
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 C airspace around FLL. The
change would affect general aviation
operators using the airspace at or near
FLL. Operators flying VFR would need
to adjust their flight paths to avoid the
modified Class C airspace. However, the
modifications to Class C airspace are
intended to be the least restrictive
option while enhancing 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, and
east-west flyway below 2000 MSL
located to the south of HWO, or to the
north of Miami OPF. VFR pilots have
the option to contact ATC at Miami
TRACON or FLL ATCT, 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Apr 01, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
17340
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 62 / Friday, April 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules
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 $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 Air Traffic Service, FAA, 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
proposal 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 and Fort
Lauderdale Class C airspace areas. The
Department of Defense Policy Board on
Federal Aviation (PBFA) concurred with
comment on the proposal stating the
following: ‘‘We would like to document
our concerns that extending these areas
into international airspace places
additional restrictions and equipage
requirements on aircraft who normally
transit this airspace. Additionally we
believe such ATC expansions could set
a precedent and encourage/allow
foreign nations to exert more restrictive
control measures in other international
airspaces with no limits to the lateral
confines, all in the name 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.
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 Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is
amended as follows:
Paragraph 4000—Subpart C—Class C
Airspace
* * * * *
ASO FL C Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood
International Airport, FL
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International
Airport, FL
(Lat. 26°04′18″N, long. 80°08′59″W)
Boundaries
Area A. That airspace extending upward
from the surface to and including 4,000 feet
MSL within a 7 nautical mile radius of Fort
Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport,
excluding the airspace North of lat. 26°10′03″
N (the eastern most portion of Oakland Park
Boulevard located in Lauderdale Beach), and
bounded on the south by a 15 nautical mile
radius of Miami International Airport, and on
the southeast by lat. 26°00′39″ N (the eastern
most portion of Hollywood Boulevard
located in Hollywood).
Area B. That airspace extending upward
from 1,200 feet MSL to and including 4,000
feet MSL beginning at a point northwest of
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International
Airport at the intersection of a 7 nautical
mile radius of Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood
International Airport and lat. 26°10′03″ N,
thence moving west along lat. 26°10′03″ N
(the eastern most portion of Oakland Park
Boulevard located in Lauderdale Beach), to a
point that intersects State Road 869/Sawgrass
Expressway, thence moving south along State
Road 869/Sawgrass Expressway, [continuing
south across the intersection of State Road
869/Sawgrass Expressway, Interstate 595,
and Interstate 75], and continuing south
along Interstate 75 to a point that intersects
a 15 nautical mile radius of Miami
International Airport, thence moving
clockwise along the 15 nautical mile radius
to a point that intersects the 7 nautical mile
radius of Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood
International Airport, thence moving
clockwise along the 7 nautical mile radius to
the point of beginning.
Area C. That airspace extending upward
from 3,000 feet MSL to and including 4,000
feet MSL within an area bounded on the
north by lat. 26°13′53″ N (aligned with the
eastern portion of Atlantic Boulevard located
in Pompano Beach), on the west by a 25
nautical mile radius of Fort Lauderdale-
Hollywood International Airport, on the
South by lat. 25°57′48″ N, on the southeast
by a 15 nautical mile radius of Miami
International Airport, and on the east by US
Route 27.
Area D. That airspace extending upward
from 3,000 feet MSL to and including 4,000
feet MSL within an area bounded on the
north by lat. 26°13′53″ N (aligned with the
eastern portion of Atlantic Boulevard located
in Pompano Beach), on the east by a 25
nautical mile radius of Fort Lauderdale-
Hollywood International Airport, on the
south by lat. 26°00′39″ N (the eastern most
portion of Hollywood Boulevard located in
Hollywood), and on the west by a 20 nautical
mile radius of Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood
International Airport.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Apr 01, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
17341
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 62 / Friday, April 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Area E. That airspace extending upward
from 1,500 feet MSL to and including 4,000
feet MSL within an area bounded on the
north by lat. 26°10′03″ N (the eastern most
portion of Oakland Park Boulevard located in
Lauderdale Beach), on the east by the north-
south portion of Interstate 75 and State Road
869/Sawgrass Expressway, on the south by a
15 nautical mile radius of Miami
International Airport, and on the west by US
Route 27.
Area F. That airspace extending upward
from 2,500 feet MSL to and including 4,000
feet MSL beginning northwest of Fort
Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport
at a point that intersects US Route 27 and lat.
26°13′53″ N (aligned with the eastern portion
of Atlantic Boulevard located in Pompano
Beach), thence moving east along lat.
26°13′53″ N to a point that intersects a 20
nautical mile radius of Fort Lauderdale-
Hollywood International Airport, thence
moving clockwise along the 20 nautical mile
radius to a point that intersects lat. 26°00′39″
N (the eastern most portion of Hollywood
Boulevard located in Hollywood), thence
moving west to a point that intersects a 15
nautical mile radius of Fort Lauderdale-
Hollywood International Airport, thence
moving counter-clockwise along the 15
nautical mile radius to a point that intersects
lat. 26°10′03″ N (the eastern most portion of
Oakland Park Boulevard located in
Lauderdale Beach), thence moving west
along lat. 26°10′03″ N to a point that
intersects US Route 27, thence moving north
along US Route 27 to the point of beginning.
Area G. That airspace extending upward
from 1,200 feet MSL to and including 4,000
feet MSL beginning northeast of Fort
Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport
at a point that intersects a 7 nautical mile
radius of Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood
International Airport and lat. 26°10′03″ N
(the eastern most portion of Oakland Park
Boulevard located in Lauderdale Beach),
thence moving clockwise along the 7 nautical
mile radius to a point that intersects lat.
26°00′39″ N (the eastern most portion of
Hollywood Boulevard located in Hollywood),
thence moving east along lat. 26°00′39″ N to
a point that intersects a 15 nautical mile
radius of Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood
International Airport, thence moving
counter-clockwise along the 15 nautical mile
radius to a point that intersects lat. 26°10′03″
N, thence moving west along lat. 26°10′03″ N
to the point of beginning.
Paragraph 6003—Subpart E—Class E
Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension
to a Class C Surface Area.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Apr 01, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
17342
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 62 / Friday, April 2, 2021 / Proposed Rules
ASO FL E3 Fort Lauderdale, FL
[Remove]
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 29,
2021.
George Gonzales,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations
Group.
[FR Doc. 2021–06805 Filed 4–1–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 101
[Docket No. RM21–15–000]
Petition for Rulemaking of Center for
Biological Diversity
AGENCY
: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION
: Petition for rulemaking.
SUMMARY
: Take notice that, on March
17, 2021, Center for Biological Diversity,
pursuant to Rule 207 of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission’s
(Commission) Rules of Practice and
Procedure, and section 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act, filed a
petition requesting that the Commission
amend the Uniform Systems of
Accounts requirements for payments to
industry associations engaged in
lobbying or other influence-related
activities, all as more fully explained in
the petition.
DATES
: Comments due 5 p.m. Eastern
time on April 26, 2021.
ADDRESSES
: The Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing of
comments in lieu of paper using the
eFile link at http://www.ferc.gov. In lieu
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:28 Apr 01, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1
EP02AP21.000</GPH>
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
I
t
2
z
"'
N
PROPOSED MODIFICATION
OF
THE
FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CLASS C AIRSPACE AREA
ARE"-C
030-040
AREAF
025-040
012-040
(Docket
Number
18-A WA-3)
2
z AREA.A
....
FXE
•
FU.
•
SCT
•
2
AREAG
2
z z 2
z
"'
SFC--040
....
012-040
:!?
0J0.Q4Q N
OHP
•
OPF
•
Abbreviations
IMO
•
BCT Boca Raton Airport
FLL
Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport
FXE Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport
HWO
North Perry Airport
MIA
Miami International Airport
OPF
Opa
Locka Executive
PMP Pompano Beach Airpark
DIIP Dolphin VORTAC
NOTTO
SCALE
NOT FOR
NAVIGATION
