[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 131 (Monday, July 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40405-40406]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16691]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of a Non-Aeronautical Land-Use Change Effecting the
Quitclaim Deed and Federal Grant Assurance Obligations at Delano
Municipal Airport, Delano, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of a Non-Aeronautical Land-Use Change.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes to rule and
invites public comment on the application for a non-aeronautical land-
use change for approximately 38 acres of airport property at Delano
Municipal Airport, Delano, California, from the aeronautical use
provisions of the Quitclaim Deed and Grant Agreement Assurances since
the land is not needed for aeronautical purposes. The property will be
leased for its fair market value and the rental proceeds deposited in
the airport account for airport use. The reuse of the land for a solar
farm and the non-aeronautical use of an old administrative building
represent compatible land uses that will not interfere with the airport
or its operation, thereby protecting the interests of civil aviation
and contributing to the self-sustainability of the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 8, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Comments on the request may be mailed
or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Tony Garcia, Airports
Compliance Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports
Division, Federal Register Comment, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA
90009-2007. In addition, one copy of the comment submitted to the FAA
must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Roman Dowling, Public Works
Director, City of Delano, 1015 Eleventh Avenue, P.O. Box 3010, Delano,
CA 93216-3010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21),
Public Law 10-181 (Apr. 5, 2000; 114 Stat. 61), this notice must be
published in the Federal Register 30 days before the Secretary may
waive any condition imposed on a federally obligated airport by surplus
property conveyance deeds or grant agreements.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The City of Delano requested a modification of the conditions in
the Quitclaim Deed and Grant Agreement Assurances to permit non-
aeronautical use of approximately 38 acres of land at Delano Municipal
Airport. The subject property is located east of the airfield and a
small building is situated on the western edge of the airport. The land
is presently undeveloped. A large tract of land will be redeveloped for
a solar farm and a small building will be used for a non-aeronautical
business. The City of Delano proposes to lease the property under the
terms of a long-term lease for a solar farm since the land is not
needed for aeronautical purposes. Reuse of the land for a solar farm
will not impede future development of the airport. In addition, the
City of Delano will lease a small vacant office building on the western
edge of the airport in an undeveloped area to be used for a non-
aviation business. The lease rate for both uses will be based on the
appraised market value and the lease proceeds will be deposited in the
airport account and used for airport purposes. The use of the property
for a solar farm and a non-aviation business represents uses that are
not incompatible and will not interfere with airport operations. The
land will become revenue-producing property, which will enhance the
self-

sustainability of the airport and, thereby, serve the interests of
civil aviation.

    Issued in Hawthorne, California, on June 28, 2012.
Brian Armstrong,
Manager, Safety and Standards Branch, Airports Division, Western-
Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2012-16691 Filed 7-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 32956-32960]
[DOCID:fr07jn06-75]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0387; FRL-8067-9]

Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and
Federal Agency Crisis Declarations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of
pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions or denials were
granted during the period January 1 through March 31, 2006 to control
emergency pest outbreaks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: See each emergency exemption or denial
for the name of a contact person. The following information applies to
all contact persons: Team Leader, Emergency Response Team, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has granted or denied emergency
exemptions to the following State and Federal agencies. The emergency
exemptions may take the following form: Crisis, public health,
quarantine, or specific.

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111)
     Animal production (NAICS code 112)
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311)
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532)
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine
whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability provisions discussed above. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket identification number (ID) EPA-HQ-OPP- 2006-0387; (FRL-8067-9).
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket

(7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard
(South Building); 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. This Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Docket Facility
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

II. Background

    Under FIFRA section 18, EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide
when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called
emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are
of four types:
    1. A ``specific exemption'' authorizes use of a pesticide against
specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most
emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.
    2. ``Quarantine'' and ``public health'' exemptions are a particular
form of specific exemption issued for quarantine or public health
purposes. These are rarely requested.
    3. A ``crisis exemption'' is initiated by a State or Federal agency
(and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request
and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.
    EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency
cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses
unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a
conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in ``a
reasonable certainty of no harm'' to human health, including exposure
of residues of the pesticide to infants and children.
    If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity
would

result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-limited
tolerance meeting the ``reasonable certainty of no harm standard'' of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
    In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency
granted the exemption or denial, the type of exemption, the pesticide
authorized and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, number
of acres (if applicable), and the duration of the exemption. EPA also
gives the Federal Register citation for the time-limited tolerance, if
any.

III. Emergency Exemptions and Denials

A. U. S. States and Territories

Alabama

Department of Agriculture and Industries
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa mite and small hive beetle; February 23, 2006 to February 1,
2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

California

Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation
Crisis: On February 27, 2006, for the use of maneb on walnuts to
control bacterial blight. This program is expected to end on June 15,
2006. Contact: (Libby Pemberton)
Specific: EPA authorized the use of maneb on walnuts to control
bacterial blight; March 1, 2006 to June 15, 2006. Contact: (Libby
Pemberton)
EPA authorized the use of imidacloprid on pomegranates to control
silverleaf whiteflies; April 15, 2006 to August 15, 2006. Contact:
(Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of oxytetracycline on apples to control fire
blight; March 21, 2006 to August 1, 2006. Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and small hive beetle; February 8, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thymol in beehives to control varroa mite;
March 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Colorado

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of difenoconazole on sweet corn seed
to suppress post emergence die-back complex and damping off caused by
several pathogens (Penicillium oxalicum, Fusarium oxysporum,
Aspergillis niger) of sweet corn; March 10, 2006 to March 9, 2007.
Contact: (Libby Pemberton)
EPA authorized the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on barley to control
Russian wheat aphids, cereal leaf beetle, and cutworms; April 7, 2006
to July 15, 2006. Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and small hive beetle; February 8, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thymol in beehives to control varroa mite;
March 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Connecticut

Department of Environmental Protection
Specific: EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberries to
control mummy berry disease; March 28, 2006 to June 30, 2006. Contact:
(Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and small hive beetle; April 5, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)

Delaware

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa mite and small hive beetle; April 5, 2006 to February 1, 2007.
Contact: (Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thymol in beehives to control varroa mite;
March 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Florida

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Specific: EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on grapefruit to
control greasy spot; March 1, 2006 to October 1, 2006. Contact: (Andrew
Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of thiophanate-methyl on citrus to control post-
bloom fruit drop and stem end rot; March 13, 2006 to March 1, 2007.
Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and small hive beetle; February 8, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)

Georgia

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa mite and small hive beetle; February 8, 2006 to February 1,
2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of terbacil on watermelon to control
morningglory; March 9, 2006 to August 15, 2006. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Idaho

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of oxytetracycline on apples to
control fire blight; April 1, 2006 to August 1, 2006. Contact: (Andrew
Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on barley to control
Russian wheat aphids, cereal leaf beetle and cutworms; May 1, 2006 to
July 30, 2006. Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and small hive beetle; February 23, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)

Iowa

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa mite and small hive beetle; March 9, 2006 to February 1, 2007.
Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Illinois

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa mite and small hive beetle; February 23, 2006 to February 1,
2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thymol in beehives to control varroa mite;
March 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Indiana

Office of Indiana State Chemist
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa mite and small hive beetle; April 5, 2006 to February 1, 2007.
Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Kentucky

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa mite and small hive beetle; February 23, 2006 to February 1,
2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thymol in beehives to control varroa mite;
March 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Louisiana

Department of Agriculture and Forestry
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa mite and small hive beetle; February 23, 2006 to February 1,
2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Maine

Department of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Resources
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa

mite and small hive beetle; April 5, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on wild blueberries to control
mummy berry disease; March 28, 2006 to June 30, 2006. Contact: (Carmen
Rodia)

Maryland

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa mite and small hive beetle; February 8, 2006 to February 1,
2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thymol in beehives to control varroa mite;
March 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberries to
control mummy berry disease; April 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006. Contact:
(Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and small hive beetle; April 5, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thymol in beehives to control varroa mite;
March 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Michigan

Michigan Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of thiophanate-methyl on blueberries
to control various fungal diseases; April 1, 2006 to September 20,
2006. Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of oxytetracycline on apples to control fire
blight; April 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006. Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberries to control mummy
berry disease; April 1, 2006 to September 1, 2006. Contact: (Andrew
Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and small hive beetle; February 23, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of chlorothalonil on ginseng to control botrytis
and alternaria blight; March 15, 2006 to October 31, 2006. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of zoxamide on ginseng to control phytophthora
blight; March 15, 2006 to October 31, 2006. Contact: (Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of mancozeb on ginseng to control alternaria
stem and leaf blight; March 16, 2006 to October 31, 2006. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)

Minnesota

Department of Agriculture
Quarantine: EPA authorized the use of cyproconazole on soybeans to
control Asian soybean rust; March 30, 2006 to March 30, 2009. Contact:
(Carmen Rodia)
Specific: EPA authorized the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on wild rice to
control riceworms; August 1, 2006 to September 10, 2006. Contact:
(Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and small hive beetle; April 5, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)

Mississippi

Department of Agriculture and Commerce
Specific: EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberries to
control mummy berry disease; March 16, 2006 to August 31, 2006.
Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on sweet potatoes to control
beetle complex; March 27, 2006 to September 30, 2006. Contact: (Libby
Pemberton)
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and small hive beetle; February 23, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thymol in beehives to control varroa mite;
March 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Missouri

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa mite and small hive beetle; February 8, 2006 to February 1,
2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thymol in beehives to control varroa mite;
March 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Montana

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of lambda-cyhalothrin on barley to
control the cereal leaf beetle, Russian wheat aphid, and cutworms;
March 15, 2006 to July 30, 2006. Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of tebuconazole on barley and wheat to control
Fusarium head blight; March 15, 2006 to July 20, 2006. Contact: (Libby
Pemberton)
EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole on lentils to control Ascochyta
blight; February 23, 2006 to June 1, 2006. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Nebraska

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa mite and small hive beetle; February 23, 2006 to February 1,
2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thymol in beehives to control varroa mite;
March 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

New Hampshire

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberries to
control mummy berry disease; March 16, 2006 to August 31, 2006.
Contact: (Andrew Ertman)

New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection
Specific: EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberries to
control mummy berry disease; March 16, 2006 to May 30, 2006. Contact:
(Andrew Ertman)

New York

Department of Environmental Conservation
Crisis: On March 1, 2006, for the use of sodium hypochlorite on hard,
non-porous surfaces to control bacillus anthracis (anthrax spores).
This program ended on March 16, 2006. Contact: (Princess Campbell)
Specific: EPA authorized the use of desmedipham on red (table) beets to
control several important broadleaf weeds, including hairy galinsoga,
common ragweed, redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, velvetleaf,
nightshade spp. and wild mustard; May 15, 2006 to August 15, 2006.
Contact: (Libby Pemberton)
EPA authorized the use of fomesafen on dry and snap beans to control
broadleaf weeds; June 1, 2006 to August 30, 2006. Contact: (Andrew
Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberries to control mummy
berry disease; March 16, 2006 to June 30, 2006. Contact: (Andrew
Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and small hive beetle; March 9, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thymol in beehives to control varroa mite;
March 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

North Carolina

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberries to
control mummy berry disease; March 14, 2006 to August 30, 2006.
Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on sweet potatoes to control
beetle complex; March 27, 2006 to October 31, 2006. Contact: (Libby
Pemberton)
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and small hive beetle; February 23, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thymol in beehives to control varroa mite;
March 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

North Dakota

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on flax to control
kochia; March 31, 2006 to June 30, 2006. Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole on lentils to control Ascochyta
blight; February 23, 2006 to June 1, 2006. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Ohio

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on strawberries to
control common groundsel; June 20, 2006 to December 15, 2006. Contact:
(Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and small hive beetle; February 8, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)

Oklahoma

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa mite and small hive beetle; April 5, 2006 to February 1, 2007.
Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Oregon

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on strawberries to
control broadleaf weeds; March 15, 2006 to February 28, 2007. Contact:
(Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and small hive beetle; February 23, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thymol in beehives to control varroa mite;
March 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole on lentils to control Ascochyta
blight; February 28, 2006 to June 1, 2006. Contact: (Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of ethoprop on baby hops to control garden
symphylans (Scutigerella immaculata); March 15, 2006 to May 31, 2006.
Contact: (Libby Pemberton).
EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberries to control mummy
berry disease; March 16, 2006 to May 31, 2006. Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of oxytetracycline on apples to control fire
blight; April 1, 2006 to August 1, 2006. Contact: (Andrew Ertman)

Pennsylvania

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of fomesafen on snap beans to control
broadleaf weeds; June 1, 2006 to August 30, 2006. Contact: (Andrew
Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberries to control mummy
berry disease; April 1, 2006 to September 1, 2006. Contact: (Andrew
Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and small hive beetle; February 8, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)

Rhode Island

Department of Environmental Management
Specific: EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberries to
control mummy berry disease; April 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006. Contact:
(Andrew Ertman)

South Carolina

Clemson University
Specific: EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberries to
control mummy berry disease; March 28, 2006 to August 31, 2006.
Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and small hive beetle; April 5, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)

South Dakota

Department of Agriculture
Quarantine: EPA authorized the use of cyproconazole on soybeans to
control Asian soybean rust; March 30, 2006 to March 30, 2009. Contact:
(Carmen Rodia)
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa mite and small hive beetle; March 9, 2006 to February 1, 2007.
Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Tennessee

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa mite and small hive beetle; April 5, 2006 to February 1, 2007.
Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Virginia

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa mite and small hive beetle; February 8, 2006 to February 1,
2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thiophanate-methyl on tomato to control
timber rot; March 3, 2006 to September 30, 2006. Contact: (Stacey
Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thymol in beehives to control varroa mite;
March 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Washington

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on filberts to
control Eastern filbert blight (Anisogramma anomala); February 22, 2006
to November 30, 2006. Contact: (Libby Pemberton)
EPA authorized the use of sulfentrazone on strawberries to control
broadleaf weeds; March 15, 2006 to February 28, 2007. Contact: (Andrew
Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of fenbuconazole on blueberries to control mummy
berry disease; March 16, 2006 to June 10, 2006. Contact: (Andrew
Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of oxytetracycline on apples to control fire
blight; April 1, 2006 to August 1, 2006. Contact: (Andrew Ertman)
EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control varroa mite
and small hive beetle; February 23, 2006 to February 1, 2007. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole on lentils to control Ascochyta
blight; March 6, 2006 to June 1, 2006. Contact: (Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of thymol in beehives to control varroa mite;
March 15, 2006 to March 15, 2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

West Virginia

Department of Agriculture
Specific: EPA authorized the use of coumaphos in beehives to control
varroa mite and small hive beetle; February 23, 2006 to February 1,
2007. Contact: (Stacey Groce)

Wisconsin

Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection
Specific: EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on cranberries to
control cottonball disease (Monilinia oxycocci); March 9, 2006 to June
15, 2006. Contact: (Libby Pemberton)
EPA authorized the use of chlorothalonil on ginseng to control botrytis
and alternaria blight; March 15, 2006 to October 31, 2006. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of zoxamide on ginseng to control phytophthora
blight; March 15, 2006 to October 31, 2006. Contact: (Stacey Groce)
EPA authorized the use of mancozeb on ginseng to control alternaria
stem and leaf blight; March 16, 2006 to October 31, 2006. Contact:
(Stacey Groce)

B. Federal Departments and Agencies

Agriculture Department

Animal and Plant Health Inspector Service
Crisis: On March 2, 2006, for the use of methyl bromide on
avocado;bananas; plantains; blackberries; raspberries; edible cucurbit
seeds; cottonseed for use as food or feed; cucurbit vegetables (not
currently labeled); gherkins; ginger tops, fresh; fresh herbs and
spices; kiwi fruit; leafy vegetables (not currently labeled); longan;
lychee fruit; mint, dried; fresh mint; opuntia; rambutan; root and
tuber vegetables (not currently labeled); dasheen (root and tuber); and
snow peas to eradicate any pest new to or not known to be widely
prevalent within the U.S. This program is expected to end on March 3,
2007. Contact: (Libby Pemberton)

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

    Dated: May 22, 2006.
 Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-8723 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: March 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 9467]
[DOCID:fr04mr09-109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Flight Standards District Office at Honolulu, HI (HNL FSDO)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice is hereby given that on or about January 18, 2009, the
Flight Standards District Office at Honolulu, Hawaii will be divided
into two separate FAA offices. Services to operators operating under
Title 14, U.S.C. Part 121 of Hawaii provided by this office will now be
provided services by the Honolulu Certificate Management Office
(HNLCMO) located in Honolulu, Hawaii. This information will be
reflected in the FAA Organizational Statement the next time it is
reissued.

    Issued in Los Angeles, CA, on February 2, 2009.
John M Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. E9-4362 Filed 3-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: March 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 11958-11959]
[DOCID:fr05mr08-107]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 17d-1; SEC File No. 270-505; OMB Control No. 3235-0562.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Section 17(d) (15 U.S.C. 80a-17(d)) of the Investment Company Act
of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a et seq.) (the ``Act'') prohibits first- and
second-tier affiliates of a fund, the fund's principal underwriters,
and affiliated persons of the fund's principal underwriters, acting as
principal, to effect any transaction in which the fund or a company
controlled by the fund is a joint or a joint and several participant in
contravention of the Commission's rules. Rule 17d-1 (17 CFR 270.17d-1)
prohibits an affiliated person of or principal underwriter for any fund
(a ``first-tier affiliate''), or any affiliated person of such person
or underwriter (a ``second-tier affiliate''), acting as principal, from
participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with a
joint enterprise or other joint arrangement in which the fund is a
participant, unless prior to entering into the enterprise or
arrangement ``an application regarding (the transaction) has been filed
with the Commission and has been granted by an order.'' In reviewing
the proposed affiliated transaction, the rule provides that the
Commission will consider whether the proposal is (i) consistent with
the provisions, policies, and purposes of the Act, and (ii) on a basis
different from or less advantageous than that of other participants in
determining whether to grant an exemptive application for a proposed
joint enterprise, joint arrangement, or profit-sharing plan.
    Rule 17d-1 also contains a number of exceptions to the requirement
that a fund must obtain Commission approval prior to entering into
joint transactions or arrangements with affiliates. For example, funds
do not have to obtain Commission approval for certain employee
compensation plans, certain tax-deferred employee benefit plans,
certain transactions involving small business investment companies, the
receipt of securities or cash by certain affiliates pursuant to a plan
of reorganization, and arrangements regarding liability insurance
policies. The Commission amended rule 17d-1 most recently in 2003 to
expand the current exemptions from the Commission approval process to
permit funds to engage in transactions with ``portfolio affiliates''--
companies that are affiliated with the fund solely as a result of the
fund (or an affiliated fund) controlling them or owning more than five
percent of their voting securities. This amendment was designed to
permit funds' transactions with portfolio affiliates without seeking
Commission approval, as long as certain other affiliated persons of the
fund (e.g., the fund's adviser, persons controlling the fund, and
persons under common control with the fund) (``prohibited
participants'') are not parties to the transaction and do not have a
``financial interest'' in a party to the transaction. The rule excludes
from the definition of ``financial interest'' any interest that the
fund's board of directors (including a majority of the directors who
are not interested persons of the fund) finds to be not material, as
long as the board records the basis for its finding in their meeting
minutes.
    Thus, the rule contains two filing and recordkeeping requirements
that constitute collections of information. First, rule 17d-1 requires
funds that wish to engage in a joint transaction or arrangement with
affiliates to meet the procedural requirements for obtaining exemptive
relief from the rule's prohibition on joint transactions or
arrangements involving first- or second-tier affiliates. Second, rule
17d-1 permits a portfolio affiliate to enter into a joint transaction
or arrangement with the fund if a prohibited participant has a
financial interest that the fund's board determines is not material and
records the basis for this finding in their meeting minutes. These
requirements of rule 17d-1 are designed to prevent fund insiders from
managing funds for their own benefit, rather than for the benefit of
the funds' shareholders.
    Based on an analysis of past filings, Commission staff estimates
that 4 funds file applications under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 per
year. Based on a limited survey of persons in the mutual fund industry,
the Commission staff estimates that each applicant will spend an
average of 154 hours to comply with the Commission's applications
process. The Commission staff therefore estimates the annual burden
hours per year for all funds under rule 17d-1's application process to
be 616 hours.
    Based on analysis of past filings, the Commission's staff estimates
that 148 funds are affiliated persons of 668 issuers as a result of the
fund's ownership or control of the issuer's voting securities, and that
there are approximately 1,000 such affiliate relationships. Staff
discussions with mutual fund representatives have suggested that no
funds are currently relying on rule 17d-1 exemptions. We do not know
definitively the reasons for this transactional behavior, but differing
market conditions from year to year may offer some explanation for the
current lack of fund interest in the exemptions under rule 17d-1.
Accordingly, we estimate that annually there will be no joint
transactions under rule 17d-1 that will result in a collection of
information. The Commission, therefore, requests authorization to
maintain an inventory of total burden hours per year for all funds
under rule 17d-1 of 616 hours.
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived
from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the
costs of Commission rules. Complying with these collections of
information requirement is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying
on rule 17d-1. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions
submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Dated: February 27, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-4206 Filed 3-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 225 (Friday, November 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 82350]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25972]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6951-000]

Tallassee Shoals, LLC; Notice of Authorization for Continued
Project Operation

    The license for the Tallassee Shoals Hydroelectric Project No. 6951
was issued for a period ending September 30, 2023.
    Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the
Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-
year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the terms and
conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the
project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other
applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived
the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b)
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth
at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an
application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to
operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the
Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project
has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be
required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations
until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or
otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 6951 is issued to
Tallassee Shoals, LLC for a period effective October 1, 2023, through
September 30, 2024, or until the issuance of a new license for the
project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first. If
issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on
or before September 30, 2024, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to
18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that Tallassee Shoals, LLC is authorized to continue
operation of the Tallassee Shoals Hydroelectric Project under the terms
and conditions of the prior license until the issuance of a subsequent
license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever
comes first.

    Dated: November 17, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25972 Filed 11-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27025-27029]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10811]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0662; Airspace Docket No. 08-AWA-2]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of Class B Airspace; Philadelphia, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies the Philadelphia, PA, Class B airspace
area to ensure the containment of large turbine-powered aircraft within
Class B airspace, reduce controller workload, and reduce the potential
for midair collision in the Philadelphia terminal area.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, July 25, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and ATC
Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to modify the Philadelphia, PA, Class B airspace area
(77 FR 45290, July 31, 2012). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal. Three comments were received in response to the NPRM. The
FAA considered all comments received before making a determination on
this final rule.

Discussion of Comments

    All three commenters expressed concern over the effect of expanding
the PHL Class B to the east and southeast. One commenter was concerned
by the possible effect on a busy VFR flyway, and by the funnel effect
of having only 1000 feet vertically between the modified Class B and
Alert Area A-220. Another commenter was concerned that more complicated
airspace, combined with a bad economy and the high cost of flight
training, would discourage

student pilots from completing their training. The third commenter
suggested that enough lateral space be provided between the edge of
Alert Area A-220 and the PHL Class B boundary to allow the two-way VFR
flyway to continue.
    The FAA agrees that the airspace east of PHL is congested and used
for many varying aviation activities, and it shares the desire to
design the airspace to minimize the possibility of incidents. However,
the suggestion to leave room for a VFR flyway between A-220 and the
Class B would leave the airspace boundary essentially where it is
today. The current corridor is only 4 miles wide. Providing a VFR
flyway as requested would preclude expanding the Class B airspace in an
area needed so that PHL can properly contain arrivals on the downwind
or final approach. Raising the Class B floor to make additional
altitudes available for VFR flight is also not a viable option. PHL
arrivals on the base leg outside 20 NM from the airport will be at, or
descending to, 4,000 feet, making a 4,000 foot Class B airspace floor
necessary in that area to achieve the containment of aircraft.
    Mixing PHL arrivals and VFR aircraft outside the Class B presents a
hazard to safety, which must be addressed. We believe that the Class B
design in this rule provides the minimum airspace required for
containment while leaving as much airspace as possible for VFR flight
outside the Class B.
    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) expressed concern
that the number of cutouts and varying floor heights, combined with a
lack of VFR landmarks, results in a complex design which VFR pilots
will find confusing, and may result in airspace violations, especially
near PNE and ILG.
    The FAA does not agree. The multiple Class B subareas on final
approach to runways 9 and 27 at PHL are designed to afford VFR flights,
electing to fly beneath the Class B, the maximum amount of altitude
while keeping them separated from airspace and altitudes used by IFR
arrivals to PHL. To reduce the number of subareas or varying Class B
floors, it would be necessary to combine subareas and use the lower
floor for the entire subarea. This would cause the designation of more
Class B airspace than is required for containment and further limit
airspace available for VFR use. There are a number of references that
can be used to assist VFR pilot navigation. Seven VOR facilities
basically encircle the PHL Class B airspace area and can be used to
assist in orientation to circumnavigate the area. There are also
various landmarks such as Interstate I-295, I-95/New Jersey Turnpike,
charted airports and charted VFR checkpoints. VFR aircraft can navigate
below, above, around, or request ATC clearance to proceed through, the
Class B airspace area.
    The two new subareas (F and H) to the east and west of PHL evolved
from the elimination of the 24-NM outer ring around the majority of the
Class B airspace area that was being considered by the FAA in the early
stages of the PHL Class B design modification. As discussed in the
NPRM, input from the ad hoc committee and informal airspace meetings
requested that the 24-NM ring be eliminated. The FAA reevaluated the
need for the expansion of the Class B to 24-NM and decided to limit the
expansion to 24-NM only to the east and west of PHL in order to
encompass the extended finals to the primary runways. These extensions
are required to contain the high volume of turbine-powered aircraft
landing at PHL while still allowing adequate room for VFR aircraft to
circumnavigate the PHL Class B airspace.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) part 71 to modify the Philadelphia, PA, Class B airspace area.
This action (depicted on the attached chart) modifies the lateral and
vertical limits (i.e., floors) of the Class B airspace area to ensure
the containment of large turbine-powered aircraft once they enter the
airspace, reduce frequency congestion and controller workload, and
enhance safety in the Philadelphia terminal area. The ceiling of the
Philadelphia Class B airspace area remains at 7,000 feet MSL. Mileages
are in nautical miles and, unless otherwise noted, are based on a
radius from the PHL airport reference point (ARP) (lat. 39[deg]52'20''
N., long. 75[deg]14'27'' W.). The modifications of the Philadelphia
Class B airspace area, by subarea, are outlined below.
    Area A. This area, extending upward from the surface to 7,000 feet
MSL, is expanded from the current 6-mile radius to an 8-mile radius. A
cutout is incorporated in the northeast quadrant of Area A to
accommodate helicopter operations.
    Area B. There are no changes to Area B, which extends from 300 feet
MSL to 7,000 feet MSL.
    Area C. This area, which extends from 600 feet MSL to 7,000 feet
MSL, remains largely unchanged except that its boundaries are extended
outward to meet the new 8-mile radius of Area A.
    Area D. This area extends from 1,500 feet to 7,000 feet between the
8-mile and 11-mile rings around PHL, and includes an extension out to
15 miles to the east of PHL.
    Area E. Area E extends from 2,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL
between the 11-mile and 15-mile rings from PHL with a cutout around
17N. This rule lowers the Class B airspace floor in this area from
3,000 feet MSL to 2,000 feet MSL.
    Area F. Area F consists of two sections between the 15-mile and 20-
mile rings. One section is west of PHL and the other to the east of
PHL. These sections both extend from 3,000 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL.
The Area F section located to the east of PHL is new Class B airspace.
The purpose of Area F is to contain arrivals to the primary runways at
PHL.
    Area G. This area extends from 3,500 feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL. It
generally lies between the 15-mile and 20-mile rings, excluding the
airspace in Areas F and H. The current Class B floor in most of that
area is 4,000 feet MSL. Area G also creates new Class B airspace out to
20 miles to the east and south of PHL with a cutout to accommodate
operations at 17N.
    Area H. This area consists of two sections, extending from 4,000
feet MSL to 7,000 feet MSL, between the 20-mile and 24-mile rings, one
to the east and one to the west of PHL. Area H is new Class B airspace.
Its purpose is to contain arrivals to the primary runways at PHL.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    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, the 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 final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a final rule does not
warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that
effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a full
regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a
determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for this
determination follows:
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
final rule:
    (1) Imposes minimal incremental costs and provides benefits,
    (2) Is not an economically ``significant regulatory action'' as
defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
    (3) Is not significant as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures;
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities;
    (5) Will not have a significant effect on international trade; and
    (6) Will not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal
governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the monetary
threshold identified.
    These analyses are summarized below.
The Proposed Action
    The action proposed in the NPRM, was to modify the Philadelphia,
PA, Class B airspace area to ensure the containment of large turbine-
powered aircraft within Class B airspace, reduce controller workload,
and reduce the potential for midair collision in the Philadelphia
terminal area.
Benefits of the Proposed Action
    As discussed in the NPRM, this action would enhance safety, improve
the flow of air traffic, and reduce the potential for midair collisions
in the PHL terminal area. In addition this action will support the
FAA's national airspace redesign goal of optimizing terminal and
enroute airspace areas to reduce aircraft delays and improve system
capacity.
Costs of the Proposed Action
    As described in the NPRM, the costs included the costs of general
aviation aircraft that might have to fly further if this action were
adopted. However, the FAA believes that any such costs would be minimal
because the FAA designed the air space to minimize the effect on
aviation users who would not fly in the Class B airspace. In addition
the FAA held a series of meetings to solicit comments from people who
thought that they might be affected by the proposal. Wherever possible
the FAA included the comments from these meetings in the proposal.
Expected Outcome of the Proposal
    The FAA received no comments on the FAA's requests for comments on
the minimal cost determination. Therefore, the FAA has determined that
this final rule is not a ``significant regulatory action ``as defined
in Section 3(f) of Executive 12866, and is not ``significant'' as
defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Final 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 objective of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject
to regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies
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.
    In the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis the FAA determined
that the proposed rule would improve safety by redefining Class B
airspace boundaries and was expected to impose only minimal costs on
small entities and asked for comments.
    The FAA received no comments on small entity considerations.
    Therefore, the FAA Administrator certifies that this rule will not
have 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 assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule in the
NPRM and determined that it would have no effect on international
trade. The FAA received no comments on this determination.
    Therefore, the FAA has determined that this final rule will have no
impact on international trade.

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 $143.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--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(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 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B--Class B Airspace.

* * * * *

AEA PA B Philadelphia, PA [Revised]

Philadelphia International Airport, PA (Primary Airport)
    (Lat. 39[deg]52'20'' N., long. 75[deg]14'27'' W.)
Northeast Philadelphia Airport, PA
    (Lat. 40[deg]04'55'' N., long. 75[deg]00'38'' W.)
Cross Keys Airport, NJ
    (Lat. 39[deg]42'20'' N., long. 75[deg]01'59'' W.)

Boundaries

    Area A. That airspace extending upward from the surface to and
including 7,000 feet MSL within an 8-mile radius of the Philadelphia
International Airport (PHL), excluding that airspace bounded by a
line beginning at the intersection of the PHL 8-mile radius and the
002[deg] bearing from PHL, thence direct to lat. 39[deg]56'14'' N.,
long. 75[deg]12'11'' W., thence direct to lat. 39[deg]55'40'' N.,
long. 75[deg]08'31'' W., thence direct to the intersection of the
PHL 8-mile radius and the 061[deg] bearing from PHL, and that
airspace within and underlying Areas B and C hereinafter described.
    Area B. That airspace extending upward from 300 feet MSL to and
including 7,000 feet MSL, beginning at the east tip of Tinicum
Island, thence along the south shore of Tinicum Island to the
westernmost point, thence direct to the outlet of Darby Creek at the
north shore of the Delaware River, thence along the north shore of
the river to Chester Creek, thence direct to Thompson Point, thence
along the south shore of the Delaware River to Bramell Point, thence
direct to the point of beginning.
    Area C. That airspace extending upward from 600 feet MSL to and
including 7,000 feet MSL, beginning at Bramell Point, thence along
the south shore of the Delaware River to Thompson Point, thence
direct to the outlet of Chester Creek at the Delaware River, thence
along the north shore of the Delaware River to the 8-mile radius of
PHL, thence counterclockwise along the 8-mile radius to the 180[deg]
bearing from PHL, thence direct to Bramell Point.
    Area D. That airspace extending upward from 1,500 feet MSL to
and including 7,000 feet MSL within an 11-mile radius of PHL; and
that airspace within 7.5 miles north and south of the Runway 27R
localizer course extending from the 11-mile radius to the 15-mile
radius east of PHL; excluding that airspace within a 5.8-mile radius
of North Philadelphia Airport (PNE), and Areas A, B, and C.
    Area E. That airspace extending upward from 2,000 feet MSL to
and including 7,000 feet MSL within a 15-mile radius of PHL,
excluding that airspace within a 5.8-mile radius of PNE, and that
airspace bounded by a line beginning at the intersection of the PHL
15-mile radius and the 141[deg] bearing from PHL, thence direct to
the intersection of the Cross Keys Airport (17N) 1.5-mile radius and
the 212[deg] bearing from 17N, thence clockwise via the 1.5-mile
radius of 17N to the 257[deg] bearing from 17N, thence direct to the
intersection of the 17N 1.5-mile radius and the 341[deg] bearing
from 17N, thence clockwise via the 1.5-mile radius of 17N to the
011[deg] bearing from 17N, thence direct to the intersection of the
PHL 15-mile radius and the 127[deg] bearing from PHL, and Areas A,
B, C, and D.
    Area F. That airspace extending upward from 3,000 feet MSL to
and including 7,000 feet MSL within 7.5 miles north and south of the
Runway 9R localizer course extending from the 15-mile radius west of
PHL to the 20-mile radius west of PHL; and within 7.5 miles north
and south of the Runway 27R localizer course extending from the 8-
mile radius east of PHL to the 20-mile radius east of PHL, excluding
Area D.
    Area G. That airspace extending upward from 3,500 feet MSL to
and including 7,000 feet MSL within a 20-mile radius of PHL,
excluding that airspace south of a line beginning at the
intersection of the PHL 20-mile radius and the 158[deg] bearing from
PHL, thence direct to the intersection of the PHL 20-mile radius and
the 136[deg] bearing from PHL, and that airspace bounded by a line
beginning at the intersection of the PHL 20-mile radius and the
136[deg] bearing from PHL, thence direct to the intersection of the
PHL 15-mile radius and the 141[deg] bearing from PHL, thence direct
to the intersection of the Cross Keys Airport (17N) 1.5-mile radius
and the 212[deg] bearing from 17N, thence clockwise via the 1.5-mile
radius of 17N to the 257[deg] bearing from 17N, thence direct to the
intersection of the 17N 1.5-mile radius and the 341[deg] bearing
from 17N, thence clockwise via the 1.5-mile radius of 17N to the
011[deg] bearing from 17N, thence direct to the intersection of the
PHL 15-mile radius and the 127[deg] bearing from PHL, thence direct
to the intersection of the PHL 20-mile radius and the 120[deg]
bearing from PHL, and Areas A, B, C, D, E and F.
    Area H. That airspace extending upward from 4,000 feet MSL to
and including 7,000 feet MSL within 7.5 miles north and south of the
Runway 9R localizer course extending from the 20-mile radius west of
PHL to the 24-mile radius west of PHL; and within 7.5 miles north
and south of the Runway 27R localizer course extending from the 20-
mile radius east of PHL to the 24-mile radius east of PHL.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 23, 2013.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and ATC Procedures Group.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09MY13.002

[FR Doc. 2013-10811 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C