[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 62 (Friday, April 2, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17333-17342]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06805]

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

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<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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

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

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

proposes to establish Class C Area F (described below) over FXE. Area F
would be bounded in the north along lat. 26[deg]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[deg]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.

    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[deg]04'18'' N, long. 80[deg]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[deg]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[deg]00'39''N (the eastern most portion of Hollywood Boulevard
located in Hollywood).
    Setting the northern boundary of Area A along lat. 26[deg]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.

    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[deg]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[deg]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[deg]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[deg]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[deg]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[deg]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[deg]13'53''N (aligned with the
eastern portion of Atlantic Boulevard in Pompano Beach); thence moving
east along lat. 26[deg]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[deg]00'39''N; (the eastern most portion
of Hollywood Boulevard located in Hollywood); thence moving west along
lat. 26[deg]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[deg]10'03''N (the eastern most portion of
Oakland Park Boulevard located in Lauderdale Beach); thence moving west
along lat. 26[deg]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[deg]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[deg]00'39''N (the eastern most portion of
Hollywood Boulevard located in Hollywood); thence moving east along
lat. 26[deg]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[deg]10'03''N; thence moving west along
lat. 26[deg]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.

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the 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[deg]04'18''N, long. 80[deg]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[deg]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[deg]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[deg]10'03'' N, thence moving west along lat.
26[deg]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[deg]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[deg]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[deg]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[deg]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.

    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[deg]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[deg]13'53'' N (aligned with the eastern portion of
Atlantic Boulevard located in Pompano Beach), thence moving east
along lat. 26[deg]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[deg]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[deg]10'03'' N (the eastern most portion of Oakland Park Boulevard
located in Lauderdale Beach), thence moving west along lat.
26[deg]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[deg]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[deg]00'39'' N (the eastern most portion of
Hollywood Boulevard located in Hollywood), thence moving east along
lat. 26[deg]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[deg]10'03'' N, thence moving west
along lat. 26[deg]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.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP21.000

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


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61422-61424]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24165]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70548; File No. SR-BATS-2013-052]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify
the Trading Halt Rule of BATS Options

September 27, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on September 20, 2013, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 20.3, entitled
``Trading Halts,'' to authorize the Exchange to nullify a transaction
that occurs after a halt has been issued.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend Rule 20.3, which is
applicable to the Exchange's equity options platform (``BATS
Options''), to authorize the Exchange to nullify transactions that
occur during a trading halt. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
adopt Interpretation and Policy .01, which will state that the Exchange
may nullify any transaction that occurs: (a) During a trading halt in
the affected option on the Exchange; or (b) with respect to equity
options (including options overlying exchange traded funds (``ETFs'')),
during a trading halt on the primary listing market for the underlying
security. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will allow the
Exchange to avoid any unnecessary harm from allowing erroneous trades
to stand if such trades occur after a trading halt has been issued, as
explained below.
    With respect to a trading halt in the affected option on the
Exchange, if any trades occur notwithstanding such halt then the
Exchange believes it appropriate to nullify such transactions. While
the Exchange may halt options trading for various reasons, such a
scenario almost certainly is due to extraordinary circumstances and is
potentially the result of market-wide coordination to halt options
trading or trading generally. Accordingly, the Exchange does not
believe it is appropriate to allow trades to stand if such trades
should not have occurred in the first place. Similarly, the Exchange
believes that trades occurring during a trading halt on the primary
listing market for a security that underlies an equity option should be
nullified. Executions in options overlying a halted security do not
have proper reference prices and could diverge significantly from the
price at which such options will trade when the underlying security is
re-opened. Thus, nullification of such trades will protect investors
from potential harm. Further, the halt in the underlying security is
often issued to prevent harm to investors and the Exchange believes
that this same protection should be afforded to investors in the
overlying option. The Exchange notes that primary listing markets for
equity securities have various authority to halt trading in their
listed securities, including for regulatory reasons or based upon
certain notifications provided by an issuer. The Exchange also notes
that the proposed

rule change will align the Exchange's rules regarding nullification of
trades during a trading halt with the rules of certain other options
exchanges.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See MIAX Rule 521(c)(4); see also NASDAQ OMX PHLX Rule
1092(c)(iv); NYSE Arca Options Rule 6.65, Commentary .04; NYSE MKT
Rule 953NY, Commentary .04.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ In particular, the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ because it
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change fulfills these requirements because it will allow the Exchange
to avoid harm to investors resulting from trades that execute during a
trading halt. Specifically, the proposal will protect market
participants from transactions occurring either during extraordinary
circumstances with respect to options trading or at a time when there
is no adequate source of information regarding the value of the
underlying security. Nullifying transactions as proposed in connection
with the proposed rule will help to protect investors from harm caused
by trading losses during times of uncertainty or during systemic market
events. Furthermore, the proposed change is based on the approved rules
of certain other options exchanges.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(8) of the Act \9\ in that it does not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. As previously noted, the proposed rule change will
align the Exchange's rules regarding the nullification of trades that
occur during a trading halt with the rules of certain other
exchanges.\10\ Therefore, the Exchange does not believe the proposed
change will impose any burden on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \10\ See supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Exchange stated that waiver of this requirement will allow
the Exchange to apply the proposed change to the Exchange's trading
halt rule immediately, which will in turn protect market participants
from transactions occurring either during extraordinary circumstances
with respect to options trading or at a time when there is no adequate
source of information regarding the value of the underlying security.
The Exchange also stated that nullifying transactions as proposed in
connection with the proposed rule will help to protect investors from
harm caused by trading losses during times of uncertainty or during
systemic market events. For these reasons, the Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission designates
the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2013-052 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2013-052. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2013-052 and should be
submitted on or before October 24, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24165 Filed 10-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                EPA Meeting with Flexible Packing Manufacturers
                               February 7, 2012

Attendees:
EPA OUST:  Liz McDermott, Paul Miller

Flexible Packing Manufacturers:
Name, Organization
Dennis Coil, Amcor Flexibles
Nicola Davey, Amcor Flexibles
Howard Hofmeister, Bemis Company, Inc.
Peter Schmitz, Bemis Company, Inc.
John Yeganeh, Bryce Corporation
Cindy Haven, cei (Coating Excellence International)
Stephen Raymond, Constantia Hueck Foils LLC
Ram Singhal, Flexible Packaging Association
Jim Hillstrom, Glenroy, Inc.
Jim Hansen, Multifilm Packaging Corporation
Todd Wiederhold, Printpack Inc.
Leslie Ritts, Ritts Law Group, PLLC
Mark Pederson, Rollprint Packaging Products, Inc.
Dan Williams, Sealed Air Corporation
Aaron New, Siegwerk USA Co.
Marie Martinko, SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association
Glenn Goering, Star Packaging Corporation
Bob Kendrick, Sun Chemical Corporation
Cindy Blomquist, Watson Standard
Jeff Matty, Watson Standard

EPA gave an overview of the proposed changes to the UST regulations and encouraged the flexible packing manufacturers to comment on the proposal.  There was some discussion about what falls into the definition of underground storage tank and what does not.