[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 11188]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4298]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2004-16951]

Request for Comments of a Reinstatement of a Previously Approved
Information Collection

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following information collection was published on
November 8, 2011 (76 FR 69320). No comments were received.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 26, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauralyn Remo, Air Carrier Fitness
Division (X-56), Office of Aviation Analysis, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Aircraft Accident Liability Insurance, 14 CFR Part 205.
    OMB Control Number: 2106-0030.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement of a Previously Approved Information
Collection.
    Abstract: 14 CFR Part 205 contains the minimum requirements for air
carrier accident liability insurance to protect the public from losses,
and directs that certificates evidencing appropriate coverage must be
filed with the Department.
    Respondents: U.S. and foreign air carriers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,308.
    Annual Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 1,854 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 17, 2012.
Patricia Lawton,
Departmental PRA Clearance Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4298 Filed 2-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70386-70388]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28158]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70898; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-75]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Revising Rule 61(a)(iii) To Harmonize the Existing Rule Text With the
Recent Amendment to the CTA Plan, Which Provides That Odd-Lot
Transactions Are To Be Reported on the Consolidated Tape

November 19, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on November 12, 2013, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''
or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to revise Rule 61(a)(iii) to harmonize the
existing rule text with the recent amendment to the CTA Plan, which
provides that odd-lot transactions are to be reported on the
Consolidated Tape. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed change to Rule 61(a)(iii) is to
harmonize the existing rule text with the recent amendment to the CTA
Plan (described below), which provides that odd-lot transactions are to
be reported on the Consolidated Tape.
    On September 9, 2013, the various exchanges that comprise the
Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA''), including the Exchange, filed
with the Commission a proposal to amend the Second Restatement of the
CTA Plan (``CTA Plan'') to remove odd-lot transactions from the list of
transactions that are not to be reported for inclusion on the
Consolidated Tape (the ``Amendment'').\4\ The rationale for the
Amendment is that odd-lot transactions account for a not insignificant
percentage of trading volume, and that including odd-lot transactions
on the Consolidated Tape would add post-trade transparency to the
marketplace. The Amendment, however, would not include odd-lot
transactions in the calculation of last sale prices, given that many of
these transactions do lack economic significance.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 34-70428 (Sept. 17,
2013), 78 FR 184 (Sept. 28, 2013) (Notice of the Amendment). In
1974, the Commission declared the original CTA Plan effective. See
Securities Exchange Release No. 10787 (May 10, 1974), 39 FR 17799.
The CTA Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate last
sale price information for non-NASDAQ listed securities, is a
``transactional plan'' under Rule 601 of the Securities and Exchange
Act (the ``Act''), 17 CFR 242.601, and a ``national market system
plan'' under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.608.
    \5\ Thus, per the Amendment, odd-lot transactions would not be
included in calculations of high and low prices and would not be
subject to the Regulation NMS Plan to Address Extraordinary Market
Volatility rules, nor would including odd-lot transactions on the
Consolidated Tape trigger any short sale restrictions or trading
halts. Odd-lot transactions, however, would be included in
calculations of daily volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 4, 2013, the CTA announced that, subject to approval by
the Commission, the release date for the proposed Amendment would be
December 9, 2013.\6\ On October 31, 2013, the Commission approved the
Amendment.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See CTA Announcement at https://cta.nyxdata.com/cta/popup/news/2385 (``Pursuant to the latest notice on this subject . . . ,
pending regulatory approval we are postponing the October testing
dates and the implementation which include Odd Lot trade reports to
the Consolidated Tape. The new release dat[e] will be December 9,
2013. . . .'').
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 34-70794 (Oct. 31, 2013)
(``Approval Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange, therefore, proposes to amend Rule 61(a)(iii) to
conform this rule with the Amendment to the CTA Plan. Current Rule
61(a)(iii) states that ``[a] transaction of an amount less than one
round lot shall not be published to the Consolidated Tape and does not
qualify as a last sale.'' To harmonize the rule with the Amendment, the
Exchange proposes to modify paragraph (a)(iii) of the current rule to
provide that odd-lot sized transactions would be published to the
Consolidated Tape, but would still not qualify as last sale
transactions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The proposed revision to paragraph (a)(iii) to Rule 61 would
thus read: ``A transaction of an amount less than one round lot
shall be published to the Consolidated Tape but does not qualify as
a last sale.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed changes to Rule
61(a)(iii) on the same day that the changes to the CTA Plan are
effective, which is currently scheduled for December 9, 2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest and not to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will foster
cooperation and coordination with persons facilitating transactions in
securities because the proposed rule change would harmonize Exchange
rules with the Amendment to the CTA Plan. In addition, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change would remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system by providing consistency and additional transparency into
securities transactions, thus encouraging the proper functioning of the
market. Increased post-trade transparency would, in turn, protect
investors and the public interest. Indeed, the Commission's Approval
Order concluded that ``including odd-lot transactions on the
consolidated tape will enhance post-trade transparency, as well as
price discovery, and consequently would further the goals of the Act.''
\11\ The Approval Order likewise concludes, and the Exchange agrees,
that ``information about odd lot transactions would provide important
information to investors and other market participants and therefore
represents a positive development in the provision of market data.''
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Approval Order at 5.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does
not unfairly discriminate among the Exchange's member organizations
because all members would equally benefit from the additional
transparency provided by the proposed change.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
believes that the proposed change adds to the integrity of trading on
the securities markets by increasing post-trade transparency as well as
price discovery and, if anything, the level of competition could
increase as public confidence in the markets is solidified.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
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 prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after

the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\16\
the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. According to the Exchange, waiving the 30-day operative delay
will enable market participants to benefit from the proposed rule
change on the same day that both plans go into effect. The Exchange
believes it would be appropriate that Exchange rules be in conformance
with the Amendment to the CTA Plan on the date that both changes are to
become effective (i.e., on December 9, 2013).\17\ Based on the
Exchange's statements and the non-controversial nature of the proposed
rule change, the Commission believes that waiving the operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants the Exchange's request and
waives the 30-day operative delay.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ The Exchange stated that in the event that this rule
proposal is operative prior to December 9, 2013, the Exchange would
not implement the proposed rule change until December 9, 2013.
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay, the
Commission has 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 such 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \19\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change 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-NYSE-2013-75 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-NYSE-2013-75. 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 will also 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-NYSE-2013-75 and should be
submitted on or before December 16, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28158 Filed 11-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26985-26987]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09509]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0821; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment, Establishment, and Revocation of Multiple Air Traffic
Service (ATS) Routes in the Vicinity of Borger, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Jet Route J-8 and VHF Omnidirectional Range
(VOR) Federal airway V-272; establishes Area Navigation (RNAV) route T-
420; and removes Jet Route J-142 and VOR Federal airways V-304 and V-
390. The FAA is taking this action due to the planned decommissioning
of the VOR portion of the Borger, TX, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation
(VORTAC) navigational aid (NAVAID). The Borger VOR is being
decommissioned in support of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network
(MON) program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, July 14, 2022. 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 JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Policy Directorate, 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 modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve
the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace
System.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket
No. FAA-2021-0821 in the Federal Register (86 FR 60418; November 2,
2021), amending Jet Route J-8 and VOR Federal airway V-272;
establishing RNAV route T-420; and removing Jet Route J-142 and VOR
Federal airways V-304 and V-390. The proposed amendment actions were
due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Borger,
TX, VORTAC NAVAID. Interested parties were invited to participate in
this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal.
No comments were received.
    Subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No.
FAA-2021-0632 in the Federal Register (87 FR 24860; April 27, 2022),
amending J-8 by removing the airway segment overlying the Kingfisher,
OK, VORTAC between the Borger, TX, VORTAC and the Springfield, MO,
VORTAC. That airway amendment is effective July 14, 2022, also and is
included in this rule.

    Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004, VOR Federal airways are
published in paragraph 6010(a), and United States RNAV T-routes are
published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS routes listed in this document will
be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying Jet Route J-8 and
VOR Federal airway V-272; establishing RNAV route T-420; and removing
Jet Route J-142 and VOR Federal airways V-304 and V-390 due to the
planned decommissioning of the Borger, TX, VOR. The ATS route actions
are described below.
    J-8: J-8 extends between the Needles, CA, VORTAC and the Borger,
TX, VORTAC; and between the Springfield, MO, VORTAC and the Casanova,
VA, VORTAC. The route segment between the Fort Union, NM, VORTAC and
the Borger, TX, VORTAC is removed. The unaffected portions of the
existing airway remain as charted.
    J-142: J-142 extends between the Socorro, NM, VORTAC and the
Borger, TX, VORTAC. The route segment between the Anton Chico, NM,
VORTAC and the Borger VORTAC is removed due to the planned
decommissioning of the Borger VOR. Additionally, the remaining route
segment between the Socorro VORTAC and the Anton Chico VORTAC is also
removed due to the distance between the VORTACs being within NAVAID
service volumes and pilots can file direct. As a result, the route is
removed in its entirety.
    V-272: V-272 extends between the Dalhart, TX, VORTAC and the Will
Rogers, OK, VORTAC. The airway segment overlying the Borger, TX, VORTAC
between the Dalhart VORTAC and the Burns Flat, OK, VORTAC is removed.
The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.
    V-304: V-304 extends between the Panhandle, TX, VORTAC and the
Lamar, CO, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME). The airway
segment between the Panhandle VORTAC and Liberal, KS, VORTAC is removed
due to the planned decommissioning of the Borger VOR. Additionally, the
remaining airway segment between the Liberal VORTAC and the Lamar VOR/
DME is removed due to it overlying V-210 which will remain available
for use by NAS users. As a result, the airway is removed in its
entirety.
    V-390: V-390 extends between the Tucumcari, NM, VORTAC and the
Mitbee, OK, VORTAC. The airway is removed in its entirety.
    T-420: T-420 is a new route that extends between the Dalhart, TX,
VORTAC and the Will Rogers, OK, VORTAC. This T-route mitigates the
removal of the V-272 airway segment between the Dalhart, TX, VORTAC and
the Burns Flat, OK, VORTAC (noted above), as well as provides RNAV
routing capability between the Dalhart, TX, area and the Oklahoma City,
OK, area.
    The NAVAID radials listed in the Jet Route description below are
unchanged and stated in True degrees.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of modifying Jet Route J-8
and VOR Federal airway V-272; establishing RNAV route T-420; and
removing Jet Route J-142 and VOR Federal airways V-304 and V-390, due
to the planned decommissioning of the Borger, TX, VOR NAVAID, qualifies
for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR
part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental
Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically
excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions
that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes,
and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C,
D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting
Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any
potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA
Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the
FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a
normally categorically excluded action may have a significant
environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined
that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of
an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

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 14 CFR 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 FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes.

* * * * *

J-8 [Amended]

    From Needles, CA; Flagstaff, AZ; Gallup, NM; to Fort Union, NM.
From Springfield, MO; St Louis, MO; Louisville, KY;

Charleston, WV; INT Charleston 092[deg] and Casanova, VA, 253[deg]
radials; to Casanova.
* * * * *

J-142 [Removed]

* * * * *

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-272 [Amended]

    From Burns Flat, OK; to Will Rogers, OK.
* * * * *

V-304 [Removed]

* * * * *

V-390 [Removed]

* * * * *

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-420 Dalhart, TX (DHT) to Will Rogers, OK (IRW) [New]

Dalhart, TX (DHT)                               VORTAC                         (Lat. 36[deg]05'29.24'' N, long. 102[deg]32'40.71'' W)
Burns Flat, OK (BFV)                            VORTAC                         (Lat. 35[deg]14'13.00'' N, long. 099[deg]12'22.20'' W)
Will Rogers, OK (IRW)                           VORTAC                         (Lat. 35[deg]21'30.95'' N, long. 097[deg]36'33.22'' W)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 28, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-09509 Filed 5-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52848-52849]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18891]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-2360-000]

Great Western Wind Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Great Western Wind Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket

authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities
and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 23, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 3, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18891 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: May 22, 2006 SUBJECT: Fenhexamid. Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment for Section 3 Tolerance Requests on Cilantro ( Transplant / Greenhouse), Non Bell Pepper ( Transplant) and Pomegranate ( Post Harvest). 1 PC Code 090209. DP Barcodes: D328660 REVIEWER: Wesley C. Carr, Jr., M. S., Associate Toxicologist Medical Toxicology Branch, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Cal/ EPA THROUGH: Joyce Gee, Ph. D., Senior Toxicologist Medical Toxicology Branch California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Cal/ EPA and Gary Patterson, Ph. D., Supervising Toxicologist Medical Toxicology Branch California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Cal/ EPA and Christina Swartz, Branch Chief Registration Action Branch II ( RABII) Health Effects Division ( 7509B)

TO: John C. Redden, ARIA Team Risk Integration Minor Use and Emergency Response Branch ( RIMUERB) Registration Division ( 7505B)

Executive Summary 1 This assessment was developed as part of a cooperative work share program between the California Department of Pesticide Regulation ( CDPR) and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA). The toxicity studies/ endpoints, No Observable Adverse Effects Levels ( NOAELs), exposure assumptions and consumption databases used in this document were selected by the U. S. EPA. A separate DPR assessment for the same pesticide may produce different results. USEPA comments and revisions ( Christina Swartz; Branch Chief; HED; RABII) have been incorporated into this review. A chronic ( U. S. and all population subgroups) dietary ( food+ water) exposure analysis was conducted in order to determine the dietary exposure estimates associated with the proposed new uses of fenhexamid on cilantro ( transplant / greenhouse), non bell pepper ( transplant only) and pomegranate ( post harvest). An unrefined ( Tier 1) chronic ( general U. S. population and associated population subgroups) dietary exposure assessment was performed using tolerance level residues and 100% crop treated ( 100% CT) information for all registered and proposed uses. The results of this fenhexamid assessment demonstrated that the chronic dietary exposure estimate was below the Health Effects Division's ( HED) level of concern [< 100% chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( cPAD)] for all population subgroups. The most highly exposed population subgroups is children 1 2 years of age at 28% of the cPAD. The addition of the proposed tolerance petitions ( non bell pepper, pomegranate and cilantro) to current existing fenhexamid tolerances ( 40 CFR 180.553) is supported and do not result in an unacceptable level of chronic dietary exposure and risk. No acute dietary assessment was conducted.

I. Introduction Dietary risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a given pesticide. Dietary risk expressed as a percentage of the maximum acceptable dose for both acute and chronic assessments is the population adjusted dose ( PAD). The HED has determined that exposure values less than 100% of the PAD will result in no unreasonable adverse health effects. The PAD is the Reference Dose ( RfD) divided by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Safety Factor ( 1 10X). Dietary risk is expressed as a percentage of the PAD ( aPAD or cPAD). HED is generally concerned when estimated dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD. References and additional information which discuss acute and chronic risk assessment processes in more detail are available on the EPA pesticides web site: " Available Information on Assessing Exposure from Pesticides, A User's Guide" ( 6/ 21/ 2000), web link: http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/ EPA PEST/ 2000/ July/ Day 12/ 6061. pdf ; or see SOP 99.6 ( 8/ 20/ 1999).

The current chronic assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software using the Food Commodity Intake Database ( DEEM FCID   ) . The chronic dietary exposure assessment for existing section 3 and 18 tolerances plus the proposed section 3 requests for cilantro ( transplant and greenhouse), pepper, non bell ( transplant only) and pomegranate ( post harvest) used the DEEM FCID   ( Version 7.76) program.

II. Residue Information Registered and Proposed Fenhexamid Tolerances: New section 3 tolerances are proposed for residues of fenhexamid ( 40 CFR 180.553) [ N( 2,3 dichloro 4 hydroxyphenyl) 1 methylcyclohexane carboxamide] in/ on non bell peppers ( post harvest only), pomegranate and cilantro using leafy greens, except spinach, ( subgroup 4A crop group as the surrogate tolerance). Existing permanent fenhexamid commodity tolerances in/ on almond ( 0.02 ppm), bushberry subgroup 13B ( 5.0 ppm), caneberry subgroup 13A ( 20.0 ppm), cucumber ( 2.0 ppm), stonefruit, group 12, except plum, prune, fresh, post harvest ( 10.0 ppm), grape ( 4.0 ppm), grape, raisin ( 6.0 ppm), juneberry ( 5.0 ppm), kiwifruit, post harvest ( 15.0 ppm), leafy greens, subgroups 4A, except spinach ( 30.0), lingonberry ( 5.0 ppm), pistachio ( 0.02 ppm), plum, prune, dried ( 2.5 ppm), plum, prune, fresh ( 1.5 ppm), salal ( 5.0 ppm), strawberry ( 3.0 ppm), vegetable, fruiting, group 8, except non bell pepper ( 2.0 ppm) have been evaluated in prior U. S. EPA and DPR memorandums ( B. Hanson, 11/ 07/ 2005 and 12/ 19/ 2005; W. Carr, 05/ 21/ 2003). The HED recommended and DPR reviewed proposed tolerances are listed in Table 1. The residue chemistry databases are adequate to support the following fenhexamid tolerances for non bell peppers ( post harvest only), pomegranate and cilantro.

Table 1. HED Recommended Fenhexamid Tolerances for Dietary Risk Assessment.

Commodity 1 Recommended Tolerance ( ppm) Processing Factor 2 Pepper, non bell ( Transplant) 0.02 N/ A Pomegranate ( Postharvest 2.0 N/ A Cilantro ( uses Leafy Vegetables, except spinach, 4A crop group tolerance as surrogate) 30.0 N/ A 1 Proposed 40 CFR 180.553 tolerances. Crop group tolerances appear in Italics ( if any). 2 DEEM   default adjustment factor # 1 ( AF1) values are used in the DEEM  FCID   program unless otherwise noted. 3 The proposed tolerance for Pomegranate was 3.0 ppm. The Tolerance Calculator ( see NAFTA Tolerance/ MRL Harmonization Workgroup; May 9, 2005) recommended 2.0 ppm.

Processing Factors: No processing data for the proposed commodity tolerances were required. The DEEM FCID   processing factors used in the dietary exposure analysis originated from the default processing factors found within the DEEM   ver 7.76 program. These default factors were used for all the proposed processed commodities unless stated otherwise ( See Table 1). There is not a food code for cilantro. However, coriander is another common commodity name for cilantro and was used in the DEEM FCID   dietary exposure analysis.

Magnitude of the Residues: Except for cilantro, the pomegranate and non bell pepper proposed tolerances were established based on results from magnitude of the residue ( MOR) field trial studies. The proposed cilantro tolerance uses the Leafy Greens ( except spinach) Crop Subgroup 4A as a surrogate. A summary of the proposed tolerances are listed in Table 1. Commodities with existing section 3 or 18 fenhexamid tolerances are not described herein, but are instead found in the DEEM FCID   chronic dietary residue file attachment. The proposed cilantro, pomegranate and non bell pepper commodity tolerance residue data from IR 4 project were reviewed for U. S. EPA by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation ( DPR memo to U. S. EPA dated 11/ 16/ 2005; C. Peoples and M. Papathakis).

Non bell Pepper ( PP 4E6860): An IR 4 report of non bell pepper ( transplant use) field trial data for fenhexamid from 3 magnitude of the residue ( MOR) trials conducted in Georgia, Florida and Texas during 2000 was submitted for evaluation ( DPR memo dated 11/ 16/ 2005; C. Peoples and M. Papathakis). Fenhexamid ( Elevate 50 WDG ) was applied 4 times to non bell peppers prior to transplanting as a foliar broadcast spray at the rate of approximately 4 lb a. i./ A ( maximum seasonal rate of 16 lb a. i./ A)( Table 2). No adjuvants were used during application. Non bell pepper control samples were fortified with fenhexamid and analyzed concurrently with treated field samples. The method concurrent recoveries ranged from 70 to 100 % with a mean of 85%. A Limit of Quantification ( LOQ) level of 0.021 ppm and a Limit of Detection ( LOD) level of 0.007 ppm were reported. The results from these field trials show that fenhexamid applied to non bell pepper prior to transplant at the exaggerated rates resulted in residues below the LOQ level ( 0.02 ppm). The proposed tolerance value of 0.02 ppm was used in the fenhexamid chronic dietary exposure assessment.

TABLE 2. Residue Data from Non Bell Pepper Crop Field Trials with Fenhexamid.

Trial ID ( City, State/ Year) Region Crop/ Variety Commodity or Matrix Total Rate, ( lb a. i./ A) PHI ( days) Fenhexamid ( ppm) Residues 2 ( ppm) Residues 3 ( ppm)

Tifton, GA ( GA20) 2 Hungarian Hot Wax Non bell pepper 17.53 64 < 0.02 Gainesville, FL ( FL53) 3 Pecos Non bell pepper 18.08 121 < 0.02 Weslaco, TX ( TX43) 6 Sonora Anaheim Non bell pepper 20.94 66 < 0.02 Pomegranate ( PP 4E6857): One magnitude of the residue ( MOR) trial was conducted during 2002. Two separate lots of California grown pomegranates were treated with fenhexamid post harvest ( Elevate 50 WDG)( DPR memo dated 11/ 16/ 2005; C. Peoples and M. Papathakis). The approximate rate of 0.75 lb a. i./ 100 gallon ( proposed maximum label rate) was applied postharvest as a 30 second dip. The maximum detected residue on pomegranates was 1.845 ppm ( Table 3). Storage stability data indicate that the residues were stable under the conditions in which the samples were held between post harvest treatments and analysis. Recoveries for fenhexamid on pomegranate ranged from 64 to 94% and method concurrent recoveries ranged from 87 to 99%. The reported analytical Limit of Quantification ( LOQ) was 0.03 ppm with a method Limit of Detection ( LOD) of 0.01 ppm. The proposed tolerance for Pomegranate was 3.0 ppm. The Tolerance Calculator ( see NAFTA Tolerance/ MRL Harmonization Workgroup; May 9, 2005) recommended 2.0 ppm. The value of 2.0 ppm was used in the dietary exposure assessment to represent pomegranate at tolerance.

TABLE 3. Summary of Residue Data from Crop Field Trials with Fenhexamid.

Commodity Total Applic. Rate, ( lb a. i./ 100 gal) PHI ( days) Residue Levels ( ppm)

n Min. Max. HAFT 1 Median ( STMdR) Mean ( STMR) Std. Dev.

Specify analyte : Fenhexamid Pomegranate 0.751 NA 4 1.585 1.845 1.7875 1.71, 1.73 1.7175 0.1065 1 HAFT = Highest Average Field Trial. Cilantro  Using Leafy Greens ( Except Spinach) Crop Subgroup 4A Surrogate ( PP 4E6857): The cilantro, also known as coriander, petition cites commodity definition and surrogate residue data to establish the proposed tolerance. The IR 4 submission package for pomegranate included the cilantro petition. No specific cilantro MOR data were provided. However, it was stated that cilantro / coriander is described in the definition of parsley and should therefore be included in the Leafy Greens ( Except Spinach) Crop Subgroup 4A tolerance. In a May 21, 2003 memo ( W. Carr to J. Redden), a 30 ppm crop group tolerance for Leafy Greens ( Except Spinach) Crop Subgroup 4A was recommended based on results from European MOR field trials conducted on greenhouse grown lettuce ( MRID# 457956 01 and 458171 01). The 30 ppm crop subgroup 4A tolerance value was used in the current chronic dietary exposure assessment to represent cilantro. III. DEEM FCID   Program and Consumption Information The fenhexamid chronic dietary ( food+ water) exposure assessment was conducted using the DEEM FCID   ( Version 7.76) dietary exposure program. DEEM FCID   incorporates consumption data from the Continuing Surveys of Food Intakes by Individuals ( CSFII) administered by the USDA and collected during 1994 1996 and 1998. The 1994 96, 1998 nationwide survey data are based on reported consumption by more than 20,000 individuals over two non consecutive days.

Drinking water exposure estimates for fenhexamid in surface water and groundwater were calculated using the screening model FIRST ( FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool) and regression model SCI GROW, respectively. Estimated Environmental Concentrations ( EEC's) for fenhexamid in drinking water sources are 29 ppb ( acute) and 1.14 ppb ( chronic) for surface water and 0.0007 ppb for groundwater.

Publicly available recipe translation files developed jointly by EPA and the United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service ( USDA ARS) were used to link foods reported " as consumed" ( e. g., apple pie) with EPA defined food commodities ( e. g. apples, peeled fruit  cooked; fresh or N/ S; baked) contained in the dietary exposure software. Consumption data for chronic exposure are averaged for the entire U. S. population and population subgroups. However, these data are retained as individual consumption events for acute exposure. HED evaluated the 1994 96, 1998 CSFII consumption data, dietary patterns, and survey respondents. Based on the analysis, HED concluded that several population subgroups are the most appropriate to use to report dietary risk. The population subgroups are: the general U. S. population, all infants (< 1 year old), children 1 2, children 3 5, children 6 12, youth 13 19, adults 20 49, females 13 49, and adults 50+ years old.

An estimate of each food or food form ( e. g., orange or orange juice) residue level on the commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily consumption estimate for the chronic dietary exposure assessment. The residue consumption estimate for each food or food form is then summed with the residue consumption estimates for the other foods or food forms on the commodity residue list. The final value represents the total average estimated dietary exposure. Exposure is expressed in mg/ kg body weight/ day and as a percent of the chronic PAD ( cPAD). The total average estimated chronic dietary exposure is calculated for each population subgroup. No acute exposure assessment was conducted because no appropriate acute dietary endpoint was established. IV. Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis Based on the toxicological data evaluated by U. S. EPA, a fenhexamid acute dietary analysis is not required.

V. Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis The DEEM FCID   analysis software estimates the dietary exposure of the U. S. population and 26 population subgroups. The results reported in Table 4 are for the general U. S. Population, all infants (< 1 year old), children 1 2, children 3 5, children 6 12, youths 13 19, females 13 49, adults 20 49 and seniors 50+ years. The results for all the population subgroups are listed in Attachment 2. HED's threshold level of concern is exceeded when dietary exposure is greater than 100% of either the acute or chronic ( aPAD / cPAD).

Based on the chronic dietary endpoint selected for all the population subgroups, an unrefined ( i. e. Tier 1) dietary exposure assessment using tolerance level residues and default 100% CT information ( all current/ proposed tolerances) was conducted. The results for the general U. S. population ( 10% cPAD) and all related population subgroups indicate that the chronic dietary exposure estimates are below the threshold levels of concern for HED (< 100% cPAD). The most highly exposed population subgroups are non nursing infants and children 1 2 years old at approximately 22% of the cPAD ( Table 4).

Table 4. Summary of Tier 1 Estimates of Exposure and Risk from Chronic Dietary Exposure to Fenhexamid.

Chronic 1 Population Subgroup Dietary Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD U. S. Population  48 States  all seasons 0.018220 11 All Infants (< 1 year) 0.0035239 21 Non Nursing Infants (< 1 year old) 0.040755 24 Children ( 1 2 years) 0.048249 28 Children ( 3 5 years) 0.035835 21 Females ( 13 49 years) 0.015590 9 Youths ( 13 19 years) 0.014283 8 Adults ( 20 49 years) 0.015135 9 Adults ( 50+ years) 0.015498 9 1. The chronic dietary cPAD of 0.17 mg/ kg/ day applies to the general U. S. population and all population subgroups.

VI. Toxicological Information A summary of the toxicological doses and selected endpoints used in the fenhexamid risk assessment are presented in Table 5. A detailed description of the selected doses and endpoints are contained in the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee's ( HIARC) re review of the fenhexamid toxicological database dated March 26, 2003. The purpose of the second review was to address infants and children sensitivity requirements under the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) in response to a Natural Resources Defense Council ( NRDC) petition ( Memo, B. Tarplee, TXR NO. 0051704, 26 March 2003, " Fenhexamid  2nd Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee"). The March 26, 2003 document revises the previous March 4, 1999 HIARC report ( HED DOC. NO. 013258). The FQPA review did not make any changes to the toxicology endpoints selected in the earlier HIARC evaluation but did remove the 3x FQPA Safety Factor ( memo, E. Budd, 3/ 4/ 99, Doc. No. 013258). A HIARC determination was made that only a chronic endpoint was necessary for the fenhexamid dietary exposure assessment ( Table 5). The HIARC committee determined that an acute dietary exposure assessment was not necessary. HIARC also classified fenhexamid as a " not likely" human carcinogen. Therefore, a lifetime ( cancer) dietary risk assessment was not required. The Health Effects Division's ( HED) FQPA Safety Factor Committee decided that an FQPA Safety Factor of 1x is sufficient to protect infants and children ( memo, B. Tarplee, 3/ 26/ 03). The FQPA Safety Factor applies to all population subgroups for the chronic dietary risk assessment. The chronic PAD ( cPAD) is 0.17 mg/ kg/ day ( 0.17 mg/ kg/ day chronic RfD ÷ 1x FQPA safety factor). While there is no longer a standing HIARC committee, no new toxicology endpoints data have been presented and reviewed for fenhexamid and the previously selected endpoints and uncertainty factors are considered relevant for the current assessment. The current status of the toxicology was reflected in the most recent fenhexamid pesticide petition action for ginseng dated December 19, 2005 ( Petition 4E6859 memo, B. Hanson).

Table 5 Summary of Toxicology Dose and Endpoints for Fenhexamid 1 Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF FQPA SF* and Endpoint for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Acute Dietary ( general population including infants and children) None UF = NA Acute RfD = None FQPA SF = 1X aPAD = acute RfD FQPA SF = None Not selected. No appropriate toxicological endpoint attributable to a single exposure was identified in the available toxicology studies.

Chronic Dietary ( All populations) NOAEL = 17 mg/ kg/ day UF = 100 Chronic RfD = 0.17 mg/ kg/ day 1X cPAD = chronic RfD FQPA SF = 0.17 mg/ kg/ day 1 Year Feeding Dog. Decreased RBC count, hemoglobin and hematocrit and increased Heinz bodies in males and females; increased adrenal weights and intracytoplasmic vacuoles in adrenal cortex in females. at the LOAEL of 124 mg/ kg/ day. 1. UF = uncertainty factor, FQPA SF = FQPA safety factor, NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level, LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level, PAD = population adjusted dose ( acute / chronic), RfD = reference dose, and NA = Not Applicable.

VII. Discussion of Assumptions The fenhexamid chronic dietary exposure assessment used several default assumptions which are considered health protective. The chronic assessment used tolerance level residue values, default processing adjustment factors and 100% CT assumptions for all of the registered and proposed uses ( Tier 1). The only exceptions were processing adjustment factors for grape juice, grapes destined for wine and sherry production and dried currants. For these commodities, U. S. EPA defined processing adjustment factors were used. Otherwise, DEEM   ( ver. 7.76) default processing factors were used for all of the other processed commodities in the DEEM   ( ver. 2.03) dietary exposure analysis. Additional refinements were not required to support the 3 new tolerance petitions.

VIII. Conclusions Based on the chronic dietary endpoint selected for all the population subgroups, an unrefined ( i. e. Tier 1) chronic dietary ( food+ water) exposure assessment was conducted using tolerance level residues and default 100% CT information ( all current / proposed tolerances). The results for the general U. S. population ( 11% cPAD) and all related population subgroups indicate that the chronic dietary exposure estimates are below the level of concern for HED (< 100% cPAD). The most highly exposed population subgroups are is children 1 2 years of age at 28% of the cPAD. Any refinement of the current Tier 1 chronic dietary exposure assessment using anticipated residues, processing adjustment factors, and % CT data would likely result in measurably lower dietary risk estimates. Therefore, the addition of the 3 proposed petitions ( non bell pepper, pomegranate and cilantro) to existing fenhexamid tolerances ( 40 CFR 180.553) does not result in an unacceptable level of chronic dietary exposure and risk. IX. List of Attachments Attachment 1. Fenhexamid Chronic DEEM FCID   Residue File. Attachment 2. Fenhexamid Chronic DEEM FCID   Analysis.

cc: W. Carr ( DPR), G. Patterson ( DPR), J. Gee ( DPR), D. Supkoff ( DPR), L. Suguiyama ( USEPA) ttachment 1: Fenhexamid Residue File for Chronic DEEM FCID   Analysis.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 2.00 DEEM FCID Chronic analysis for FENHEXAMID 1994 98 data Residue file: C:\ Documents and Settings\ jredden\ My Documents\ ARIA\ Fenhexamid\ Fenhexamid2006\ fenhexamid EPA FY 06 work share Chronic Tier 1 ver. R98 Adjust. # 2 used Analysis Date 05 23 2006 Residue file dated: 05 23 2006/ 13: 03: 38/ 8 Reference dose ( RfD) = 0.17 mg/ kg bw/ day Comment: DPR Dietary for U. S. EPA using EPA Chronic NOAEL / cPAD ( 1x S. F.)  Food Crop Residue Adj. Factors Comment EPA Code Grp Food Name ( ppm) # 1 # 2        14000030 14 Almond 0.020000 1.000 1.000 14000031 14 Almond babyfood 0.020000 1.000 1.000 14000040 14 Almond, oil 0.020000 1.000 1.000 14000041 14 Almond, oil babyfood 0.020000 1.000 1.000 04010050 4A Amaranth, leafy 30.000000 1.000 1.000 12000120 12 Apricot 10.000000 1.000 1.000 12000121 12 Apricot babyfood 10.000000 1.000 1.000 12000130 12 Apricot, dried 10.000000 6.000 1.000 12000140 12 Apricot, juice 10.000000 1.000 1.000 12000141 12 Apricot, juice babyfood 10.000000 1.000 1.000 04010180 4A Arugula 30.000000 1.000 1.000 13010550 13A Blackberry 20.000000 1.000 1.000 13010560 13A Blackberry, juice 20.000000 1.000 1.000 13010561 13A Blackberry, juice babyfood 20.000000 1.000 1.000 13020570 13B Blueberry 5.000000 1.000 1.000 13020571 13B Blueberry babyfood 5.000000 1.000 1.000 13010580 13A Boysenberry 20.000000 1.000 1.000 12000900 12 Cherry 10.000000 1.000 1.000 12000901 12 Cherry babyfood 10.000000 1.000 1.000 12000910 12 Cherry, juice 10.000000 1.500 1.000 12000911 12 Cherry, juice babyfood 10.000000 1.500 1.000 04011040 4A Chrysanthemum, garland 30.000000 1.000 1.000 19011180 19A Coriander, leaves 30.000000 1.000 1.000 Propos Full comment: Proposed Tolerance FY06 (= cilantro) 19011181 19A Coriander, leaves babyfood 30.000000 1.000 1.000 Propos Full comment: Proposed Tolerance FY06 (= cilantro) 19021190 19B Coriander, seed 30.000000 1.000 1.000 Propos Full comment: Proposed Tolerance FY06 (= cilantro) 19021191 19B Coriander, seed babyfood 30.000000 1.000 1.000 Propos Full comment: Proposed Tolerance FY06 (= cilantro) 04011330 4A Cress, garden 30.000000 1.000 1.000 04011340 4A Cress, upland 30.000000 1.000 1.000 09021350 9B Cucumber 2.000000 1.000 1.000 13021360 13B Currant 5.000000 1.000 1.000 13021370 13B Currant, dried 5.000000 4.300 1.000 Raisin Full comment: Raisin AF1 used 04011380 4A Dandelion, leaves 30.000000 1.000 1.000 13011420 13A Dewberry 20.000000 1.000 1.000 08001480 8 Eggplant 2.000000 1.000 1.000 13021490 13B Elderberry 5.000000 1.000 1.000 04011500 4A Endive 30.000000 1.000 1.000 01011680 1AB Ginseng, dried 0.300000 1.000 1.000 Propos Full comment: Proposed Tolerance FY06 13021740 13B Gooseberry 5.000000 1.000 1.000 95001750 O Grape 4.000000 1.000 1.000 95001760 O Grape, juice 4.000000 1.200 1.000 EPA pr Full comment: EPA processing factor 95001761 O Grape, juice babyfood 4.000000 1.200 1.000 EPA pr Full comment: EPA processing factor 95001770 O Grape, leaves 4.000000 1.000 1.000 95001780 O Grape, raisin 6.000000 4.500 1.000 95001790 O Grape, wine and sherry 4.000000 0.500 1.000 EPA pr Full comment: EPA processing factor 13021910 13B Huckleberry 5.000000 1.000 1.000 95001950 O Kiwifruit 15.000000 1.000 1.000 04012040 4A Lettuce, head 30.000000 1.000 1.000 04012050 4A Lettuce, leaf 30.000000 1.000 1.000 13012080 13A Loganberry 20.000000 1.000 1.000 12002300 12 Nectarine 10.000000 1.000 1.000 08002340 8 Okra 2.000000 1.000 1.000 04012480 4A Parsley, leaves 30.000000 1.000 1.000 12002600 12 Peach 10.000000 1.000 1.000 12002601 12 Peach babyfood 10.000000 1.000 1.000 12002610 12 Peach, dried 10.000000 7.000 1.000 12002611 12 Peach, dried babyfood 10.000000 7.000 1.000 12002620 12 Peach, juice 10.000000 1.000 1.000 12002621 12 Peach, juice babyfood 10.000000 1.000 1.000 11002660 11 Pear 15.000000 1.000 1.000 11002661 11 Pear babyfood 15.000000 1.000 1.000 11002670 11 Pear, dried 15.000000 6.250 1.000 11002680 11 Pear, juice 15.000000 1.000 1.000 11002681 11 Pear, juice babyfood 15.000000 1.000 1.000 08002700 8 Pepper, bell 2.000000 1.000 1.000 08002701 8 Pepper, bell babyfood 2.000000 1.000 1.000 08002710 8 Pepper, bell, dried 2.000000 1.000 1.000 08002711 8 Pepper, bell, dried babyfood 2.000000 1.000 1.000 08002720 8 Pepper, nonbell 0.020000 1.000 1.000 Propos Full comment: Proposed Tolerance FY06 08002721 8 Pepper, nonbell babyfood 0.020000 1.000 1.000 Propos Full comment: Proposed Tolerance FY06 08002730 8 Pepper, nonbell, dried 0.020000 1.000 1.000 Propos Full comment: Proposed Tolerance FY06 14002820 14 Pistachio 0.020000 1.000 1.000 12002850 12 Plum 10.000000 1.000 1.000 12002851 12 Plum babyfood 10.000000 1.000 1.000 12002860 12 Plum, prune, fresh 1.500000 1.000 1.000 12002861 12 Plum, prune, fresh babyfood 1.500000 1.000 1.000 12002870 12 Plum, prune, dried 2.500000 5.000 1.000 12002871 12 Plum, prune, dried babyfood 2.500000 5.000 1.000 12002880 12 Plum, prune, juice 10.000000 1.400 1.000 12002881 12 Plum, prune, juice babyfood 10.000000 1.400 1.000 95002890 O Pomegranate 2.000000 1.000 1.000 MRL Re Full comment: MRL Recommends 2 ppm ( not 3 ppm) 04013130 4A Radicchio 30.000000 1.000 1.000 13013200 13A Raspberry 20.000000 1.000 1.000 13013201 13A Raspberry babyfood 20.000000 1.000 1.000 13013210 13A Raspberry, juice 20.000000 1.000 1.000 13013211 13A Raspberry, juice babyfood 20.000000 1.000 1.000 95003590 O Strawberry 3.000000 1.000 1.000 95003591 O Strawberry babyfood 3.000000 1.000 1.000 95003600 O Strawberry, juice 3.000000 1.000 1.000 95003601 O Strawberry, juice babyfood 3.000000 1.000 1.000 08003740 8 Tomatillo 2.000000 1.000 1.000 08003750 8 Tomato 2.000000 1.000 1.000 08003751 8 Tomato babyfood 2.000000 1.000 1.000 08003760 8 Tomato, paste 2.000000 5.400 1.000 08003761 8 Tomato, paste babyfood 2.000000 5.400 1.000 08003770 8 Tomato, puree 2.000000 3.300 1.000 08003771 8 Tomato, puree babyfood 2.000000 3.300 1.000 08003780 8 Tomato, dried 2.000000 14.300 1.000 08003781 8 Tomato, dried babyfood 2.000000 14.300 1.000 08003790 8 Tomato, juice 2.000000 1.500 1.000 86010000 O Water, direct, all sources 0.001140 1.000 1.000 86020000 O Water, indirect, all sources 0.001140 1.000 1.000 Attachment 2: Fenhexamid Chronic DEEM FCID   Analysis.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ver. 2.00 DEEM FCID Chronic analysis for FENHEXAMID ( 1994 98 data) Residue file name: C:\ Documents and Settings\ jredden\ My Documents\ ARIA\ Fenhexamid\ Fenhexamid2006\ fenhexamid EPA FY 06 work share Chronic Tier 1 ver. R98 Adjustment factor # 2 used. Analysis Date 05 23 2006/ 13: 05: 02 Residue file dated: 05 23 2006/ 13: 03: 38/ 8 Reference dose ( RfD, Chronic) = .17 mg/ kg bw/ day COMMENT 1: DPR Dietary for U. S. EPA using EPA Chronic NOAEL / cPAD ( 1x S. F.) =============================================================================== Total exposure by population subgroup

Total Exposure  Population mg/ kg Percent of Subgroup body wt/ day Rfd    U. S. Population ( total) 0.018220 10.7%

U. S. Population ( spring season) 0.018244 10.7% U. S. Population ( summer season) 0.019325 11.4% U. S. Population ( autumn season) 0.017523 10.3% U. S. Population ( winter season) 0.017790 10.5%

Northeast region 0.018931 11.1% Midwest region 0.018870 11.1% Southern region 0.015993 9.4% Western region 0.020421 12.0%

Hispanics 0.018355 10.8% Non hispanic whites 0.018922 11.1% Non hispanic blacks 0.013802 8.1% Non hisp/ non white/ non black 0.018958 11.2%

All infants (< 1 year) 0.035239 20.7% Nursing infants 0.020708 12.2% Non nursing infants 0.040755 24.0% Children 1 6 yrs 0.038636 22.7% Children 7 12 yrs 0.021627 12.7%

Females 13 19 ( not preg or nursing) 0.014725 8.7% Females 20+ ( not preg or nursing) 0.015954 9.4% Females 13 50 yrs 0.016213 9.5% Females 13+ ( preg/ not nursing) 0.016107 9.5% Females 13+ ( nursing) 0.018157 10.7%

Males 13 19 yrs 0.013781 8.1% Males 20+ yrs 0.014495 8.5% Seniors 55+ 0.015503 9.1%

Children 1 2 yrs 0.048249 28.4% Children 3 5 yrs 0.035835 21.1% Children 6 12 yrs 0.022574 13.3% Youth 13 19 yrs 0.014283 8.4% Adults 20 49 yrs 0.015135 8.9% Adults 50+ yrs 0.015498 9.1% Females 13 49 yrs 0.015590 9.2%


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67681-67682]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24442]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-466-000]

WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Availability of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Wahpeton
Expansion Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Wahpeton Expansion Project, proposed by WBI Energy
Transmission, Inc. (WBI Energy) in the above-referenced docket. WBI
Energy requests authorization to construct and operate the Wahpeton
Expansion Project, which would provide an incremental 20,600 equivalent
dekatherms per day of firm natural gas transportation capacity from WBI
Energy's existing Mapleton Compressor Station to the proposed Montana
Dakota Utilities (MDU)-Kindred and MDU-Wahpeton Border Stations to
provide natural gas services to the communities of Kindred and
Wahpeton, North Dakota.
    The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Wahpeton Expansion Project in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). Commission staff concludes that approval of the proposed
project, with the mitigation measures recommended in the EIS, would
result in some adverse environmental impacts. Most of these impacts
would be temporary and occur during construction (e.g., impacts on
wetlands, land use, traffic, and noise). With the exception of climate
change impacts that are not characterized in the EIS as significant or
insignificant, Commission staff conclude that project effects would not
be significant. As part of the analysis, Commission staff developed
specific mitigation measures (included in the draft EIS as
recommendations). Staff recommend that these mitigation measures be
attached as conditions to any authorization issued by the Commission.
    The Wild Rice River Route Alternative--Milepost (MP) 55 would
affect landowners that have not been part of the FERC's environmental
scoping process, as further discussed on page 4. Therefore, by this
letter we are notifying these parties of our evaluation and requesting
comments about this route alternative presented in section 3.3.1 of the
draft EIS.
    The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following project facilities, in Cass
and Richland Counties, North Dakota:
     a new 60.5-mile-long, 12-inch-diameter natural gas
pipeline;
     minor modifications to WBI Energy's existing Mapleton
Compressor Station;
     a new MDU-Wahpeton Border Station;
     a new MDU-Kindred Border Station;
     seven new block valve settings;
     four new pig launcher/receiver settings; and
     ancillary facilities.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability of the
draft EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other
interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the
project area. The draft EIS is only available in electronic format. It
may be viewed and downloaded from FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the
natural gas environmental documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). In
addition, the draft EIS may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on
FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search), select ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP22-466). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The draft EIS is not a decision document. It presents Commission
staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the
Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this
proceeding. Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so.
Your comments should focus on draft EIS's disclosure and discussion of
potential environmental effects, measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impacts, and the completeness of the submitted
alternatives, information and analyses. To ensure consideration of your
comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that the
Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on
December 27, 2022.
    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal
consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form
or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments and has staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]. Please carefully follow these instructions
so that your comments are properly recorded.
    1. You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC

Online. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments
on a project;
    2. You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC Online. With filing, you can provide comments in a variety of
formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' If you
are filing a comment on a particular project, please select ``Comment
on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    3. You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP22-
466-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
    4. In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the
Commission invites you to attend one of the public comment sessions its
staff will conduct in the project area to receive comments on the draft
EIS, scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date and time                           Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, November 29, 2022, 5:00 p.m.-   Wahpeton City Hall, 1900 4th
 7:00 p.m.                                Street N, Wahpeton, ND 58075,
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Wednesday, November 30, 2022, 5:00 p.m.- Kindred High School, 225 Dakota
 7:00 p.m.                                Street, Kindred, ND 58051,
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary goal of these comment sessions is to have you identify
the specific environmental issues and concerns with the draft EIS.
Individual verbal comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a
court reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount
of verbal comments, in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.
    Each comment session is scheduled from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Central Standard Time. You may arrive at any time after 5:00 p.m. There
will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session
opens. Comments will be taken until 7:00 p.m. Please see appendix 1 for
additional information on the session format and conduct.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or call (202) 502-
8371.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Your verbal comments will be recorded by the court reporter (with
FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the public
record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on
FERC's eLibrary system (see page 2 for instructions on using eLibrary).
If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal
comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 5 minutes may be
implemented for each commentor. Although there will not be a formal
presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the comment
session to answer your questions about the environmental review
process.
    It is important to note that the Commission provides equal
consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form
or provided orally at a comment session.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214). Motions to intervene are
more fully described at https://www.ferc.gov/how-intervene. Only
intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the
Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and
others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good
cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this
proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing
environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do
not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

Route Alternative

    As indicated on page 1, some landowners are receiving this draft
EIS because their property has been identified as potentially being
affected by the Wild Rice River Route Alternative--MP 55, which is
recommended by FERC staff to avoid or lessen environmental impacts
along WBI Energy's proposed pipeline route. Section 3.3.1 of the draft
EIS contains our analysis and discussion of this alternative. The
Commission staff wants to ensure that all potentially affected
landowners have the opportunity to participate in the environmental
review process, thus staff is soliciting comments to assist with the
environmental analysis of this route alternative, which will be
presented in the final EIS.

Questions?

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to
register for eSubscription.

    Dated: November 3, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-24442 Filed 11-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36377-36378]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14894]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Approval of Noise Compatibility Program; Martin County Airport/
Witham Field, Stuart, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
findings on the Noise Compatibility Program submitted by Martin County
under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. (the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act, hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'') and 14 CFR Part
150. These findings are made in recognition of the description of
Federal and nonfederal responsibilities in Senate Report No. 96-52
(1980). On December 6, 2011, the FAA determined that the Noise Exposure
Maps (NEM's) submitted by Martin County under Part 150 were in
compliance with applicable requirements. On June 11, 2014, the FAA
approved the Martin County Airport/Witham Field Noise Compatibility
Program (NCP). Most of the recommendations of the program were
approved.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's approval of the
Martin County Airport/Witham Field Noise Compatibility Program is June
11, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allan Nagy, Federal Aviation
Administration, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine
National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822, phone number: (407) 812-
6331. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same
location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA has given
its overall approval to the Noise Compatibility Program for Martin
County Airport/Witham Field, effective June 11, 2014.
    Under Section 47504 of the Act, an airport operator who has
previously submitted a Noise Exposure Map may submit to the FAA a Noise
Compatibility Program which sets forth the measures taken or proposed
by the airport operator for the reduction of existing non-compatible
land uses and prevention of additional non-compatible land uses within
the area covered by the Noise Exposure Maps. The Act requires such
programs to be developed in consultation with interested and affected
parties including local communities, government agencies, airport
users, and FAA personnel.
    Each airport noise compatibility program developed in accordance
with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150 is a local
program, not a Federal Program. The FAA does not substitute its
judgment for that of the airport operator with respect to which measure
should be recommended for action. The FAA's approval or disapproval of
14 CFR Part 150 program recommendations is measured according to the
standards expressed in 14 CFR Part 150 and the Act, and is limited to
the following determinations:
    a. The Noise Compatibility Program was developed in accordance with
the provisions and procedures of 14 CFR Part 150;
    b. Program measures are reasonably consistent with achieving the
goals of reducing existing non-compatible land uses around the airport
and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses;
    c. Program measures would not create an undue burden on interstate
or foreign commerce, unjustly discriminate against types or classes of
aeronautical uses, violate the terms of airport grant agreements, or
intrude into areas preempted by the Federal government; and
    d. Program measures relating to the use of flight procedures can be
implemented within the period covered by the program without derogating
safety, adversely affecting the efficient use and management of the
navigable airspace and air traffic control systems, or adversely
affecting other powers and responsibilities of the Administrator
prescribed by law.
    Specific limitations with respect to FAA's approval of an airport
Noise Compatibility Program are delineated in 14 CFR Part 150, Section
150.5. Approval is not a determination concerning the acceptability of
land uses under Federal, state, or local law. Approval does not by
itself constitute an FAA implementing action. A request for Federal
action or approval to implement specific noise compatibility measures
may be required, and an FAA decision on the request may require an
environmental assessment of the proposed action. Approval does not
constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the
implementation of the program nor a determination that all measures
covered by the program are eligible for grant-in-aid funding from the
FAA. Where Federal funding is sought, requests for project grants must
be submitted to the FAA Airports District Office in Orlando, FL.
    On September 17, 2011, Martin County submitted to the FAA the Noise
Exposure Maps and associated documentation produced during the Noise
Exposure Map planning study conducted from December 2010 through
September 17, 2011. The Martin County Airport/Witham Field Noise
Exposure Maps were determined by FAA to be in compliance with
applicable requirements 14 CFR Part 150 on December 6, 2011. Notice of
this determination was published in the Federal Register on December
16, 2011.
    After the Noise Exposure Maps were accepted by the FAA, the Martin
County Airport/Witham Field prepared a Noise Compatibility Program
study that contains proposed operational and land use actions designed
for phased implementation by airport management and adjacent
jurisdictions. It was requested that FAA evaluate and approve this
material as a Noise Compatibility Program as described in Section 47504
of the Act. The FAA began its formal review of the Program on December
18, 2013, and was required by a provision of the Act to approve or
disapprove the Program within 180-days (other than the use of new or
modified flight procedures for noise control). Failure to approve or
disapprove such Program within the 180-day period shall be deemed to be
an approval of such Program.
    The submitted Program contained twenty-one (21) proposed actions
for noise mitigation on and or off the airport. Of these twenty-one
actions, the airport sponsor recommended seventeen mitigations measures
for FAA review and approval. Four measures were not recommended by the
airport sponsor. The FAA completed its review and

determined that the procedural and substantive requirements of the Act
and 14 CFR Part 150 have been satisfied. The overall program,
therefore, was approved by the FAA effective June 11, 2014.
    Outright FAA approval was granted for four (4) of the measures;
approval on a voluntary basis was granted for six (6) of the measures;
approval-in-part was granted for six (6) of the measures; a decision of
disapproval was made for one (1) measure, and No FAA Action was
required for four (4) of the measures because they were not recommended
by the airport sponsor.
    These determinations are set forth in detail in a Record of
Approval (ROA) signed by the FAA on June 11, 2014. The Record of
Approval, as well as other evaluation materials and the documents
comprising the submittal, are available for review at the FAA office
listed above and at the administrative office of Martin County. The
Record of Approval also will be available on-line at: http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/environmental/airport_noise/part_150/states/.

    Issued in Orlando, FL, on June 16, 2014 by:
Bart Vernace,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-14894 Filed 6-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P