FILE NAME: company. wpt ( 1/ 1/ 2005) ( xml) Template Number P25 Pendimethalin: fruiting vegetables, Pome fruit, juneberry, Stone fruit, pomegranate; May 2006 ATTENTION:

All commodity terms must comply with the Food and Feed Commodity Vocabulary database ( http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ foodfeed/).

All text in blue font ( instructions for preparing the document), should be removed prior to sending the document to the Federal Register Staff. Instructional text and prompts in green font should also be removed.

COMPANY FEDERAL REGISTER DOCUMENT SUBMISSION TEMPLATE ( 1/ 1/ 2005)

EPA Registration Division contact: James A. Tompkins at 703 305 5697 TEMPLATE:

[ BASF Corporation]

[ 0E6175, 2E6450, 2E6464, 2E6449] EPA has received pesticide petitions ([ 0E6175, 2E6450, 2E6464, and 2E6449]) from [ Interregional Research Project Number 4 ( IR 4), 681 U. S. Highway # 1 South, North Brunswick, NJ 08902 3390] proposing, pursuant to section 408( d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a( d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of [ N( 1 ethylpropyl) 3,4 dimethyl 2,6dinitrobenzenamine, ( pendimethalin) and its 3, 5 dinitrobenzyl alcohol metabolite ( CL 202347)] in or on the raw agricultural commodity [ Fruiting Vegetables group 8] at [ 0.1] parts per million ( ppm), [ Pome Fruits group 11] at [ 0.05] parts per million ( ppm), [ apple pomace] at [ 0.20] parts per million ( ppm), [ juneberry] at [ 0.05] parts per million ( ppm), [ Stone Fruit group 12] at [ 0.05] parts per million ( ppm), and [ pomegranate] at [ 0.05] parts per million ( ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408( d)( 2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry 1. Plant metabolism. [ The qualitative nature of the residues of pendimethalin in plants is understood based on adequate studies conducted with 14 C pendimethalin on various crops. Pendimethalin and its 3,5 dinitrobenzyl alcohol metabolite ( CL202347) are the residues of concern.]

2. Analytical method. [ Section 408 ( b)( 3) of the amended FDCA requires EPA to determine that there is a practical method for detecting and measuring levels of the pesticide chemical residue in or on food and that the tolerance be set at a level at or above of the limit of detection of the designated method. In plants the method is aqueous organic solvent extraction, column clean up, and quantitation by GC. The method has a limit of quantitation ( LOQ) of 0.05 ppm for pendimethalin and the alcohol metabolite.]

3. Magnitude of residues. [ Field trials in major growing areas were carried out in order to determine the magnitude of residues in the fruiting vegetables group, the pome fruit group, juneberry, the stone fruit group and pomegranate commodities. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the above aforementioned crops. Field trials were conducted in the required regions. Field trials were carried out using maximum label rate and shortest PHI.]

B. Toxicological Profile 1. Acute toxicity. [ Pendimethalin technical demonstrates low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. The acute toxicity studies place technical pendimethalin in toxicity category III for the acute oral, category IV for acute dermal, and category IV for acute inhalation. Technical pendimethalin is category IV for skin irritation and category III for eye irritation. Pendimethalin did not cause skin sensitization in guinea pigs. Two formulated end use products are registered for use on crops, an Emulsifiable Concentrate ( EC) and an Encapsulated Suspension ( CS). The EC has an acute oral category of III, acute dermal category of III, an acute inhalation category of III, eye and skin irritation of III, and is not a dermal sensitizer. The CS has an acute oral category of IV, an acute dermal category of IV, an acute inhalation category of IV, eye and skin irritation category of IV, and is not a dermal sensitizer.]

2. Genotoxicty. [ Extensive mutagenicity studies conducted to investigate point and gene mutations, DNA damage and chromosomal aberration, both using in vitro and in vivo test systems demonstrate pendimethalin to be non genotoxic.

Pendimethalin has been classified as a Group C " possible human carcinogen," based on a statistically significantly increased incidence of benign follicular cell adenomas of the thyroid gland in male and female rats at 5000 ppm ( 250 mg/ kg b. w./ day) ( highest concentration tested). For risk assessment, OPP recommends using the RfD ( non linear) approach for quantification of human risk. The Agency Committee has determined that the hypothesis, that benign thyroid tumors associated with pendimethalin are due to a thyroid pituitary imbalance, can be supported. Finally, pendimethalin's mechanism of threshold oncogenic activity only occurs at high doses in rats, a mammalian species that is expected to be much more sensitive than humans to the induction of thyroid tumors via conditions which result in hypothyroidism.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [ Pendimethalin ( BAS 455 H) is not a selective developmental toxicant. There is no indication of increased susceptibility following prenatal/ postnatal exposure to pendimethalin.

In a developmental ( teratology) toxicity study in the rat, the results demonstrated that the NOAELs for both maternal toxicity and fetal ( prenatal)/ developmental toxicity were 500 mg/ kg b. w./ day ( highest dose tested) ( HDT). In addition, there were no indications of any teratogenic effects in the rat fetuses at 500 mg/ kg b. w./ day ( HDT). Therefore, pendimethalin is considered to be neither a developmental toxicant nor a teratogenic agent in the rat.

In a developmental ( teratology) toxicity study in the rabbit, the results demonstrated the NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 30 mg/ kg b. w./ day, based on increased clinical signs of toxicity and decreased body weight gain during the treatment period at 60 mg/ kg b. w./ day ( HDT). The NOAEL for fetal ( prenatal)/ developmental toxicity was 60 mg/ kg b. w./ day ( HDT). In addition, there were no indications of any teratogenic effects in the rabbit fetuses at 60 mg/ kg b. w./ day. Therefore, pendimethalin is considered to be neither a developmental toxicant nor a teratogenic agent in the rabbit.

A two generation reproductive toxicity study in the rat demonstrated an absence of increased sensitivity for the developing offspring to pendimethalin. The NOAEL for parental toxicity was 500 ppm ( approximately 38.5 mg/ kg b. w./ day), based on reduced food consumption and decreased body weight/ weight gain at 2500 ppm ( mid dietary concentration). The NOAEL for pup/ offspring toxicity was also 500 ppm, based on decreased pup body weight gain at 2500 ppm. Lastly, the NOAEL for reproductive toxicity was 2500 ppm ( approximately 194 mg/ kg b. w./ day), based on reduced mean live litter size at 5000 ppm ( highest concentration tested) ( HCT). These reductions in mean live litter size and pup body weight gain were only observed at dietary concentrations that were parentally toxic. As such, there is no evidence that prenatal or postnatal exposure to pendimethalin results in an increased sensitivity to developing offspring.]

4. Subchronic toxicity. [ Subchronic ( 90 day) feeding studies were conducted in rats and dogs. For the rat, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 500 ppm ( 41 mg/ kg b. w./ day), based on slightly decreased body weight, increased absolute and relative liver weights, and liver histopathology ( hepatocellular hypertrophy) in males and females at 5000 ppm ( HCT). For the dog, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 2500 ppm ( 62.5 mg/ kg b. w./ day), based on decreased body weight at 10000 ppm ( 250 mg/ kg b. w./ day).]

5. Chronic toxicity. [ The chronic Reference Dose ( RfD) was established based on the results of subchronic special studies demonstrating the thyroid hormone related endpoint in rats. The NOAEL of 10 mg/ kg b. w./ day was established from the collective results of the subchronic oral 92 day thyroid function study, the subchronic oral 56 day thyroid function study, and the 14 day intrathyroidal metabolism study. A LOAEL of 31 mg/ kg b. w./ day was based on hormonal and histopathological changes in the thyroid gland. The chronic RfD was calculated to be 0.03 mg/ kg b. w./ day using an Uncertainty Factor ( UF) of 30X ( 3X for interspecies extrapolation and 10X for intraspecies variability) and a 10X database uncertainty factor ( UFDB) retained pending receipt of a developmental thyroid toxicity study. EPA/ HED currently recommends a FQPA Safety Factor of 1X. Therefore, the chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( PAD) is 0.03 mg/ kg b. w./ day.

Chronic toxicity studies were conducted in rats, mice, and dogs. For the 2 year rat feeding study, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 500 ppm ( 25 mg/ kg b. w./ day), based on decreased body weight gain ( approximately 20 30%), increased clinical signs of toxicity, increased relative liver weights, and slight but statistical increase in the incidence of benign follicular cell adenomas of the thyroid gland in males and females at 5000 ppm ( 250 mg/ kg b. w./ day) ( HCT). For the 18 month mouse feeding study, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 500 ppm ( 75 mg/ kg b. w./ day), based on slightly decreased mean body weights and reduced survival at 5000 ppm ( 750 mg/ kg b. w./ day) ( HCT). There were no oncogenic effects up to 5000 ppm ( 750 mg/ kg b. w./ day) ( HCT). Lastly, for the 1 year oral ( via gelatin capsules) chronic dog study, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 200 mg/ kg b. w./ day, the highest dose tested.]

6. Animal metabolism. [ Although not relevant to this petition, adequate goat and poultry metabolism studies are available for pendimethalin. The Agency has determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite pendimethalin residues of concern in animal commodities as a result of use on multiple crops and no tolerances for pendimethalin residues of concern in livestock commodities are needed.

In the rat, pendimethalin is metabolized mainly through oxidation of the 4 methyl group attached to the benzene ring as well as oxidation of the alkyl side chain of the N substituted dinitroaniline compound. When C14 pendimethalin is administered to rates, about 70% of the radioactivity is excreted in feces and 20% is in the urine within 24 hours. Within 96 hours, the radioactivity found in the tissues was 0.3 ppm or less, except fat which is 0.9 ppm. The major portion of the radioactivity that was excreted in the feces was identified as the parent compound.]

7. Metabolite toxicology. [ The main pendimethalin plant metabolite, CL 202347, has been tested for toxicity. The acute oral toxicity in mice was determined to be 2140 mg/ kg bw. An Ames assay showed the metabolite to be non mutagenic.]

8. Endocrine disruption. [ It is known that pendimethalin affects the hypothalamus pituitary thyroid axis. However, as the chronic RfD ( 0.03 mg/ kg b. w./ day) is based on the thyroid hormone related endpoint in rats, as noted in the subchronic special studies in Section 5 above, which additionally demonstrated reversibility of the thyroid effects in the oral 56 day thyroid function study, these effects are already taken into consideration in the characterization of potential risks to humans.] C. Aggregate Exposure 1. Dietary exposure. [ Pendimethalin is widely used as a pre emergent herbicide to control broadleaf and grass weeds in food and non food crops, as well as nonagricultural use sites including residential lawns. In examining aggregate exposure, FQPA directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food ( dietary) and all other non occupational exposures. The primary non food sources of exposure are through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings ( residential and other indoor uses). The potential for aggregate exposure from all registered and proposed uses is discussed below.]

i. Food. [ An assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential risk due to chronic dietary exposure of the U. S. population to residues of pendimethalin ( BAS 455 H). Tolerance values have previously been established for lima beans, corn, cottonseed, dry bulb onions, succulent peas, peanuts, potatoes, rice, sorghum, soybeans, sugarcane, sunflower seeds, garlic, carrots, mint, citrus fruits crop group, and tree nut crop group and are listed in the U. S. 40 CFR § 180.361.

This analysis included the crops ( listed above) with established tolerance values and proposed crop tolerances for the Fruiting Vegetables ( except cucurbits) crop group 8, the Pome Fruit crop group 11, apple pomace, juneberry, pomegranate, the Stone Fruit crop group 12, and pistachios.

Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment An acute assessment was not needed since the U. S. EPA Toxicological Endpoint Selection ( TES) Committee had previously evaluated the pendimethalin toxicity data and determined there was no relevant toxicological endpoints for acute dietary exposure and that a risk assessment was not required.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment The chronic dietary exposure estimates were based on established and proposed tolerance values, and 100% CT values. A process factor of 1 was used with consumption data from the USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals ( CSFII 1994  1996, 1998). The EPA Food Commodity Ingredient Database ( FCID) was also used in Exponent's Dietary Exposure Evaluation Module ( DEEM FCID) software. Secondary residues were not included for meat, milk, eggs, and poultry since it has been determined that there is no likelihood of residues in these animal commodities and therefore, tolerance have not been required by the EPA.

Dietary exposure estimates were compared against the worst case pendimethalin chronic Population Adjusted Dose ( cPAD) of 0.03 mg/ kg b. w./ day for all populations subgroups. Results of the chronic dietary assessments are listed in the table below. The estimated chronic dietary exposure from crops ( both established and proposed tolerances) was less than 8 % of the cPAD for all subpopulations. Additional refinements such as the use of anticipated residues and percent crop treated values for the proposed new crops would further reduce the estimated chronic dietary exposure. The results in Table 1 below demonstrate there are no safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses, and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.

Table 1. Summary of chronic dietary exposure assessment considering crops with established and proposed tolerances for pendimethalin.

Population Subgroups Exposure Estimate ( mg/ kg b. w./ day) % cPAD U. S. Population 0.000903 2.7 All Infants 0.00168 5.0 1 2 years 0.002387 7.2 3 5 years 0.001993 6.0 6 12 years 0.001283 3.9 13 19 years 0.000865 2.6 Females 13 49 years 0.000727 2.2 Adults 20 49 years 0.000736 2.2 Adults 50+ years 0.000629 1.9 % cPAD = percent of chronic population adjusted dose Exposure estimates based on tolerance values and 100 % CT values ] ii. Drinking water. [ There are no established maximum contaminant levels or health advisory levels for residues of pendimethalin ( BAS 455 H) in drinking water. The drinking water exposure values used in this assessment were obtained from the most recent pendimethalin assessment conducted by EPA published on March 3, 2006. The pendimethalin water values were calculated using PRZM EXAMS and SCI GROW2. The modeled acute and chronic surface water concentrations were 38.8 and 4.8 ug/ L, respectively. The modeled groundwater concentration was 0.024 ug/ L.

Drinking water contributions were assessed based on the a pendimethalin water concentration of 4.8 ug/ L for chronic exposure and water consumption and body weights reported in CSFII, using DEEM FCID software. The chronic estimated water exposure values are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Summary of chronic dietary exposure assessment for drinking water considering direct and indirect sources.

Population Subgroups Exposure Estimate ( mg/ kg b. w./ day) % cPAD U. S. Population 0.000101 0.3 All Infants 0.000332 1.0 1 2 years 0.00015 0.5 3 5 years 0.000141 0.4 6 12 years 0.000097 0.3 13 19 years 0.000073 0.2 Females 13 49 years 0.000094 0.3 Adults 20 49 years 0.000094 0.3 Adults 50+ years 0.000099 0.3 % cPAD = percent of chronic population adjusted dose Exposure based on the maximum estimated water concentration of 4.8 ug/ L Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk ( Food and water) An acute assessment was not needed since the U. S. EPA Toxicological Endpoint Selection ( TES) Committee had previously evaluated the pendimethalin toxicity data and determined there was no relevant toxicological endpoints for acute dietary exposure and that a risk assessment was not required.

Short and Intermediate Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk ( food, water, and residential) Short term aggregate risk from pendimethalin takes into account exposures from dietary consumption ( food and water) and residential exposure from turf use. Post application exposure from the turf use is considered short term. The aggregate MOE from food, water, and residential exposure are 2096 ( children 1 2 years) and 6265 ( US population) for the EC formulation and 936 ( children 1 2 years) and 3287 ( US population) for the CS formulation, respectively. These MOEs are greater than the target MOE of 300, which indicates there is no safety concern. The results of the analysis are shown in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. Estimated short/ intermediate term aggregate exposure and risk of pendimethalin for the EC formulation.

Population NOAEL ( mg/ kg/ day) Target MOE1 Food Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) Water Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) Residential Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) Total Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) MOE2 US 10 300 0.000903 0.000101 0.000592 0.001596 6265 Child 1 2 yr old 10 300 0.002387 0.00015 0.002235 0.004772 2096 1 Target MOE is 300. 2 Aggregate MOE = ( NOAEL / ( Food + Water + Residential Exposure) Table 4. Estimated short/ intermediate term aggregate exposure and risk of pendimethalin for the CS formulation.

Population NOAEL ( mg/ kg/ day) Target MOE1 Food Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) Water Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) Residential Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) Total Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) MOE2 US 10 300 0.000903 0.000101 0.002038 0.003042 3287 Child 1 2 yr old 10 300 0.002387 0.00015 0.008148 0.010685 936 1 Target MOE is 300. 2 Aggregate MOE = ( NOAEL / ( Food + Water + Residential Exposure)

Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk ( food and water) The aggregate chronic risk includes residues of pendimethalin from food and water ( Table 5). Exposures from residential uses are not included in the chronic aggregate assessment. The results demonstrate there are no safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses, and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.

Table 5. Estimated chronic aggregate exposure and risk of pendimethalin Population Subgroup cPAD ( mg/ kg/ day) Food Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) Water Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) Total Exposure ( mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD U. S. Population 0.03 0.000903 0.000101 0.001004 3.0 All Infants (< 1 yr old) 0.03 0.00168 0.000332 0.002012 6.0 Children 1 2 years 0.03 0.002387 0.00015 0.002537 7.6 Children 3 5 years 0.03 0.001993 0.000141 0.002134 6.4 Children 6   12 years 0.03 0.001283 0.000097 0.00138 4.1 Youth 13 19 years 0.03 0.000865 0.000073 0.000938 2.8 Females 13 49 years 0.03 0.000727 0.000094 0.000821 2.5 Adults 20 49 years 0.03 0.000736 0.000094 0.00083 2.5 Adults + 50 0.03 0.000629 0.000099 0.000728 2.2 ] 2. Non dietary exposure. [ The systemic exposure from the use of pendimethalin on residential turf was calculated following the current EPA Standard Operating Procedures ( SOPs) for residential exposure assessment ( EPA 1997b; EPA 1999a), as revised by EPA Policy 12 ( EPA, 2001), and using the Residential Exposure Assessment Spreadsheet Tool ( REx), Version 4.0G. Exposure values were derived from the use of a product specific hand press study to estimate hand to mouth transfer in children and a formulation specific turf transferable residue study to determine dermal exposure to adults and children. Residential exposure to both the Pendulum ® 3.3 EC herbicide and Pendulum ® AquaCap   herbicide are presented below. The following table provides the route specific and aggregate exposure assessment results for each population subgroup, along with the percentage of the cPAD ( 0.03 mg kg BW/ day) utilized, and MOE ( NOAEL/ Aggregate systemic Exposure).

Table 6. Summary of residential exposure to pendimethalin following the use of the Pendulum ® 3.3 EC herbicide formulation including the route specific and aggregate exposure assessment results for the population subgroups.

Table 7. Summary of residential exposure to pendimethalin following the use of the Pendulum ®

AquaCap   herbicide formulation including the route specific and aggregate exposure assessment results for the population subgroups.

]

D. Cumulative Effects [ Exposure to Substances with Common Mechanism of Toxicity. The Agency has not yet published guidelines to determine whether pendimethalin has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, pendimethalin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, it is assumed Population subgroup Route of Exposure Route Specific Systemic Exposure ( mg/ kg BW/ day) 1 Aggregate Systemic Exposure ( mg/ kg BW/ day) % cPAD MOE Adult ( 20 49) Post application dermal 0.000592 0.000592 1.8 16892 Post application dermal 0.000990 Child ( 1 6) Post application ( Hand to Mouth ingestion) 0.001245 0.002235 6.7 4474 1 Based 3% dermal absorption Population subgroup Route of Exposure Route Specific Systemic Exposure ( mg/ kg BW/ day) 1 Aggregate Systemic Exposure ( mg/ kg BW/ day) % cPAD MOE Adult ( 20 49) Post application dermal 0.002038 0.002038 6.1 4907 Post application dermal 0.003411 Child ( 1 6) Post application ( Hand to Mouth ingestion) 0.004737 0.008148 24.4 1227 1 Based 3% dermal absorption that pendimethalin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. ]

E. Safety Determination 1. U. S. population. [ Based on these risk assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or any subpopulation from aggregate exposure to pendimethalin residues.] 2. Infants and children. [ Based on these risk assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants or children, or any subpopulation from aggregate exposure to pendimethalin residues.]

F. International Tolerances [ There are no CODEX, Canadian or Mexican International Maximum Residue Levels ( MRL's) established for residues of pendimethalin in these crops at this time.]


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13299-13301]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04424]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0532; Special Conditions No. 25-835-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus SAS A320-200 Series Model A320-251N, -
252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -273N Airplanes and A321-200 Series Model
A321-251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, -272NX Airplanes; Flight Attendant
Seat Mounted on Movable Interior Structure

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Airbus SAS
(Airbus) A320-200 Series Model -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -273N
(known as A320neo) airplanes and A321-200 Series Model -251NX, -252NX,
-253NX, -271NX, -272NX (known as A321neo) airplanes. The airplanes have
a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of
technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport
category airplanes. This design feature is flight attendant seats
mounted on movable lavatory doors. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Airbus on April 3, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Lennon, Human Machine
Interface, AIR-626, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 27, 2020, Airbus SAS applied for a change to Type
Certificate No. A28NM for flight attendant seats mounted on movable
lavatory doors in A320-200 Series Model A320-251N, -252N, -253N, -271N,
-272N, and -273N (known as A320neo) airplanes and A321-200 Series Model
A321-251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, and -272NX (known as A321neo)
airplanes. These airplanes are twin-engine, transport category
airplanes. The A320neo has a maximum passenger seating capacity of 179
and the A321neo has a maximum passenger seating capacity of 244.
    The applicable airworthiness requirements do not contain adequate
or appropriate safety standards for this new lavatory door-mounted
flight attendant seat. Section 25.785 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) specifies certain requirements for flight
attendant seats but did not consider flight attendant seats mounted on
movable structure such as lavatory doors and, therefore, does not
specifically address additional concerns associated with ensuring the
flight attendant seats are safe to occupy when necessary. Therefore,
special conditions are necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Airbus must show that the A320neo and A321neo airplanes,
as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the
regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A28NM or the applicable
regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except
for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Airbus A320neo and A321neo
airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special
conditions are prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Airbus A320neo and A321neo airplanes must comply with
the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and
the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Airbus A320neo and A321neo airplanes will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design features:
    Flight attendant seats mounted on movable lavatory doors.

Discussion

    Airbus will install, in A320neo and A321neo airplanes, flight
attendant seats on lavatory doors. The lavatory door-mounted flight
attendant seat is intended to be occupied during all phases of flight,
including takeoff and landing.
    Flight attendant seats are typically floor-mounted or wall-mounted
on a non-movable structure (e.g., mounted on monument walls) which is
attached to the airplane structure. The installation of a flight
attendant seat on movable structure, such as a lavatory door,
introduces certain issues that must be addressed to ensure safety of
the attendant seat occupant. Such considerations include ensuring that
the lavatory door is closed (fixed) when the flight attendant seat is
to be occupied and ensuring that the lavatory door lock mechanism is
reliable after frequent use of the lavatory door. Additionally, the
lavatory door, door locking mechanism, and door housing will need to
withstand certain loading conditions as that structure is part of the
load path

between seat structure and airplane structure.
    Other issues include ensuring that the flight attendant seat is
available to use when necessary, which requires a way to ensure the
lavatory is not occupied when the flight attendant seat must be
occupied. Also, additional maintenance requirements will need to be
considered to establish the reliability of the lavatory door locking
mechanism, as it is a feature that will be frequently used.
    The special conditions contain the additional safety standards that
the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA issued Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-22-03-
SC for the Airbus A320-200 Series Model A320-251N, -252N, -253N, -271N,
-272N, and -273N, and A321-200 Series Model A321-251NX, -252NX, -253NX,
-271NX, and -272NX airplanes, which was published in the Federal
Register on October 17, 2022 (87 FR 62739). The FAA received responses
from two commenters--Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA);
and The Boeing Company (Boeing). ALPA provided a general comment that
they support the special conditions. Boeing provided four comments
summarized as follows:
    Comment Summary 1: Boeing suggested a revision of the text of
proposed special condition (a) for purposes of identifying additional
components of the flight attendant seat-system primary load path that
must be shown to withstand the emergency landing dynamic loads
including the lavatory door hinge and lavatory door-interfacing wall
panels. Boeing states that the proposed special condition does not
address the structural interface area surrounding the lavatory door
attachment to the lavatory housing and that its suggested revision is
consistent with guidance provided in section 9.c.(3)(b) of Advisory
Circular 25.562-1B, ``Dynamic Evaluation of Seat Restraint Systems and
Occupant Protection on Transport Airplanes,'' for similar
installations. Boeing also suggested a revision of the text of proposed
special condition (a) for purposes of clarifying that both the flight
attendant seat installation and lavatory attachment to the airplanes'
structure must meet the requirements of 14 CFR 25.561.
    FAA Response: No change to this special condition is necessary. The
proposed special condition (a) was intended to describe the lavatory
structure that must withstand the emergency landing dynamic loads
prescribed in Sec.  25.562 vs. the lavatory structure that must meet
the requirements of Sec.  25.561. It is not necessary for these special
conditions to identify that the seat installation meet the requirements
of Sec.  25.561 because that requirement already exists via Sec.
25.785(b) and is therefore, outside the scope of these special
conditions. It is also sufficient to identify that the lavatory door-
mounted flight attendant seat-system primary load path must meet the
emergency landing dynamic loads without identifying all components of
that load path because structural components such as the lavatory door,
door hinge, and interfacing lavatory panels are readily recognized as
part of the load path. The exception is the lavatory door locking
mechanism. This is specifically emphasized in this special condition as
it is a movable assembly that is expected to be frequently manipulated
by the airplane occupants and, as such, a novel feature in the flight
attendant seat load path.
    Comment Summary 2 and 3: Boeing recommended a revision to special
condition (b)(1) that would require a design feature that clearly
indicates positive engagement of all latches or mechanisms required to
secure the lavatory door, including a placard describing the required
steps to secure and verify engagement of the door. Boeing also
recommends a revision to special condition (c) that would require a
placard near the flight attendant seat that instructs the flight
attendant to perform a visual inspection of the lavatory interior to
ensure the lavatory is not occupied before engaging the door and
occupying the attendant seat. Boeing states that a placard should be
included to ensure that the lavatory is not occupied when use of the
flight attendant seat is necessary.
    FAA Response: No changes to special conditions (b) or (c) are
necessary. While the recommended design features may constitute an
acceptable means of compliance, other means may be utilized that could
also be acceptable. Therefore, it is not necessary or appropriate to
require specific design features for these special conditions.
    Comment Summary 4: Boeing recommended a revision to special
condition (e) to require that the lavatory door hinge mechanism, along
with the locking mechanism, must meet the requirements of Sec.  25.561
and other foreseeable operating conditions in order to show that these
mechanisms are reliable within their expected life cycle. This
recommendation includes requiring static testing beyond the life-cycle
testing of the locking and hinge mechanisms to ensure adequate
structural capability over the expected lifetime of the installation.
    FAA Response: Special condition (e) is intended to ensure that the
movable parts of the lavatory door assembly remain reliable within the
expected life cycle of the installation. The lavatory door locking
mechanism is specifically identified as it will be routinely
manipulated by aircraft occupants as they utilize the lavatory.
However, the door hinge is also a movable part that is applicable to
this special condition even though it does not get repositioned in
service like the lavatory door lock. For this reason the FAA agrees
with the recommendation to include the lavatory door hinge within the
text of special condition (e). While the FAA agrees that the approach
of conducting static testing of the lavatory door hinge and locking
mechanisms beyond the life-cycle testing constitutes an acceptable
means of compliance, other means may be utilized that could also be
acceptable. Therefore, it is not necessary to require this specific
compliance approach in the special condition. Proposed special
condition (e) is revised as follows:
    The lavatory door locking and hinge mechanisms must be shown to
withstand frequent use. Potential deterioration of moving parts must be
addressed to show that the locking and hinge mechanisms are reliable
within the established life cycle. Accordingly, instructions for
continued airworthiness must also be defined for the locking and hinge
mechanisms.
    All other special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Airbus A320 Series Model -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -273N
(known as A320neo) and A321 Series Model -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -
271NX, -272NX (known as A321neo) airplanes. Should Airbus apply at a
later date for a change to the type certificate to include another
model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these
special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on A320 Series Model -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -273N (known as
A320neo) and A321 Series Model -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, -272NX
(known as A321neo) airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702,
44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for the Airbus A320 Series Model -251N, -
252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -273N (known as A320neo) and A321 Series
Model -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, -272NX (known as A321neo).
    (a) The lavatory door-mounted flight attendant seat-system primary
load path, including the flight attendant seat, seat attachment means,
the lavatory door, and lavatory door attachment to the lavatory
housing--including the locking mechanism--must be shown to be capable
of withstanding the emergency landing dynamic loads in accordance with
Sec.  25.562. The lavatory housing and the lavatory attachment to the
airplane structure must comply with the requirements of Sec.  25.561.
    (b) Means must be provided to ensure that the flight attendant seat
can only be used if the lavatory door is securely locked in the closed
position.
    (1) The procedures for establishing that the lavatory door is
closed and locked prior to use of the flight attendant seat must become
part of the cabin crew training.
    (2) The effects of structural deformation of the lavatory door and
lavatory door housing must be addressed to prevent unlocking or failure
of the locking mechanism.
    (c) Means must be provided to ensure that the lavatory is not
occupied so that the flight attendant seat is available when necessary.
    (d) Means must be provided to ensure that no one is inadvertently
trapped inside the lavatory when the lavatory door is locked to
facilitate use of the flight attendant seat.
    (e) The lavatory door locking and hinge mechanisms must be shown to
withstand frequent use. Potential deterioration of moving parts must be
addressed to show that the locking and hinge mechanisms are reliable
within their established life cycles. Accordingly, instructions for
continued airworthiness must also be defined for the locking and hinge
mechanisms.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 28, 2023.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-04424 Filed 3-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17525-17526]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06882]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: CP14-106-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Joint application to abandon rate schedules X-32 of
Dominion Transmission, Inc. and X-38 of National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 3/13/14.
    Accession Number: 20140313-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-665-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per: TRA Report on LAUF.
    Filed Date: 7/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130726-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/24/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-626-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 03/18/14 Negotiated Rates--JP Morgan Ventures Energy
Corp (HUB) 6025-89 to be effective 3/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140318-5126.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-628-000.
    Applicants: Chandeleur Pipe Line, LLC.
    Description: Chandeleur Section 8.8.4 Imbalances to be effective 4/
19/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140319-5126.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-629-000.
    Applicants: Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Negotiated Rate PAL Agreement--Exelon Generation
Company to be effective 3/20/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140319-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-630-000.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, L.
    Description: Electric Power Costs, Fuel Gas and L&U, and Index
Price Development Update to be effective 4/21/2014.
    Filed Date: 3/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140319-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/31/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 20, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06882 Filed 3-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69977-69980]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27804]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Approvals and
Disapprovals.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In July 2014,
there were seven applications approved. Additionally, 12 approved
amendments to previously approved applications are listed.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC
approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158). This notice is
published pursuant to paragraph d of Sec.  158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

    PUBLIC AGENCY: Greater Orlando Aviation Authority, Orlando,
Florida.
    APPLICATION NUMBER: 14-17-C-00-MCO.
    APPLICATION TYPE: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC LEVEL: $3.00.
    TOTAL PFC REVENUE APPROVED IN THIS DECISION: $396,491,622.
    EARLIEST CHARGE EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2034.
    ESTIMATED CHARGE EXPIRATION DATE: August 1, 2038.
    CLASS OF AIR CARRIERS NOT REQUIRED TO COLLECT PFC'S: None.
    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS PARTIALLY APPROVED FOR COLLECTION AND
USE: South airport automated people mover system, stations, and
associated facilities--design and construction.
    Determination: Partially approved. The south airport station is
planned to be a multi-modal facility however PFC eligibility is limited
to that work that is exclusively for airport use. The approved amount
was decreased from that requested due to portions of the project not
being for exclusive airport use. In addition, other components of the
project, including but not limited to roadway lighting and concession
space, were determined to be ineligible for PFC funding.
    South airport automated people mover systems--roadways, curbs, and
infrastructure--design and construction.
    Determination: Partially approved. The FAA determined that three of
the four roadway segments requested in the project were ineligible for
PFC funding.
    South airport automated people mover ticketing baggage check-in
facility--design and construction.
    Determination: Partially approved. The FAA determined that certain
elements, including but not limited to concession space and
nonaeronautical areas, were not PFC eligible.
    DECISION DATE: July 11, 2014.
    For Further Information Contact: Marisol Elliott, Orlando Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    PUBLIC AGENCY: New Hanover County Airport Authority, Wilmington,
North Carolina.
    APPLICATION NUMBER: 14-06-C-00-ILM.
    APPLICATION TYPE: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC LEVEL: $4.50.
    TOTAL PFC REVENUE APPROVED IN THIS DECISION: $7,947,596.
    EARLIEST CHARGE EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2019.
    ESTIMATED CHARGE EXPIRATION DATE: August 1, 2024.
    CLASS OF AIR CARRIERS NOT REQUIRED TO COLLECT PFC'S: Air taxi/
commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31 and operating at
Wilmington International Airport (ILM).
    DETERMINATION: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at ILM.
    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS APPROVED FOR COLLECTION AND USE:
    Passenger loading bridge acquisition Gate 5.
    Rehabilitate air carrier apron.
    Terminal heating, ventilation, and air conditioning upgrade.
    Storm water phase II.
    International customs ramp rehabilitation.
    Drainage pipe rehabilitation.
    Aircraft rescue and firefighting truck--1,500 gallon.
    Light emitting diode signs.
    Runway 24 pipe ditches--design and permitting.
    Taxiways A, D, H and F rehabilitation.
    Taxiways B, C, and J shoulders and tapers rehabilitation.

    Passenger loading bridge acquisition--Gate 7.
    Passenger loading bridge retrofit--Gate 8.
    Security checkpoint rehabilitation.
    Light emitting diode taxiway lighting.
    Runway 17 extension.
    Kerr Avenue security fencing.
    Runway 17/35 rehabilitation.
    Land acquisition--runway 17 approach.
    Master plan update.
    Airfield lighting vault upgrade.
    Security vehicle.
    Digital safety sign.
    Passenger loading bridge safety upgrades.
    PFC application development.
    PFC program administration.
    Passenger loading bridge Gate 1.
    Access control and closed circuit television replacement and
enhancements.
    Terminal complex rehabilitation.
    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS APPROVED FOR COLLECTION:
    Runway 24 pipe ditches--construction.
    Security fence replacement.
    Safety boat ramp.
    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WITHDRAWN PROJECTS:
    Air stair truck.
    Triturator.
    Date of withdrawal: July 9, 2014.
    DECISION DATE: July 11, 2014.
    For Further Information Contact: Tommy DuPree, Memphis Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    PUBLIC AGENCY: Aerostar Airport Holdings LLC, San Juan, Puerto
Rico.
    APPLICATION NUMBER: 14-07-C-00-SJU.
    APPLICATION TYPE: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC LEVEL: $4.50.
    TOTAL PFC REVENUE APPROVED IN THIS DECISION: $156,436,007.
    EARLIEST CHARGE EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 2020.
    ESTIMATED CHARGE EXPIRATION DATE: September 1, 2027.
    CLASSES OF AIR CARRIERS NOT REQUIRED TO COLLECT PFC'S:
    (1) Air taxi/commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31 and
operating at Luis Munoz Marin International Airport (SJU); and
    (2) certificated route air carriers filing DOT Form T-100 that
operate on a non-scheduled basis at SJU and enplane less than 750
annual passengers.
    DETERMINATION: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that each of the
proposed classes accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual
enplanements at SJU.
    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS APPROVED FOR COLLECTION AND USE AT A
$4.50 PFC LEVEL:
    Airport perimeter security system.
    Airfield signage improvements.
    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS APPROVED FOR COLLECTION AND USE AT A
$3.00 PFC LEVEL:
    Environmental assessment for runway 8/26 runway object free area
and drainage system rehabilitation.
    PFC application development.
    Airport master plan update.
    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS PARTIALLY APPROVED FOR COLLECTION AND
USE AT A $4.50 PFC LEVEL:
    Terminal capacity enhancement program.
    DETERMINATION: Partially approved. The FAA determined that several
proposed components were not eligible for PFC funding, including:
Design and construction contingencies; Transportation Security
Administration break room and office space; explosive detection system
machines; concessions and airline ticket office relocations; tenant
build-out and finishes; and a pro-rated amount of the building
mechanical systems.
    Replacement aircraft rescue and firefighting trucks and equipment.
    DETERMINATION: Partially approved. The public agency requested
replacement of two 1,500-gallon vehicles with two 3,000-gallon vehicles
however the FAA determined that the airport only qualified for
replacement of a single 1,500-gallon vehicle.
    Runway 8/26 overlay.
    DETERMINATION: The FAA determined that the contingency and
escalation costs included in the project cost estimate were not PFC
eligible.
    Taxiway N reconstruction.
    DETERMINATION: The FAA determined that the contingency and
escalation costs included in the project cost estimate were not PFC
eligible.
    Taxiway S reconstruction.
    DETERMINATION: The FAA determined that a portion of the project was
completed before control of the airport was transferred to Aerostar
Airport Holdings LLC and, therefore, Aerostar is not entitled to
reimbursement for costs incurred prior to the transfer.
    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PARTIALLY APPROVED FOR COLLECTION AND
USE AT A $3.00 PFC LEVEL:
    Wildlife management equipment.
    DETERMINATION: Partially approved. The FAA determined that the two
operations vehicles were not eligible for PFC funding.
    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WITHDRAWN PROJECTS:
    Aircraft rescue and firefighting access road and demolition of
building No. 29.
    Taxiway M widening and vehicle service road--phase I design.
    DATE OF WITHDRAWAL: March 28, 2014.
    DECISION DATE: July 11, 2014.
    For Further Information Contact: Parks Preston, Atlanta Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    PUBLIC AGENCY: Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority,
Washington, District of Columbia.
    APPLICATION NUMBER: 14-09-C-00-DCA.
    APPLICATION TYPE: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC LEVEL: $4.50.
    TOTAL PFC REVENUE APPROVED IN THIS DECISION: $425,514,274.
    EARLIEST CHARGE EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 2015.
    ESTIMATED CHARGE EXPIRATION DATE: February 1, 2023.
    CLASS OF AIR CARRIERS NOT REQUIRED TO COLLECT PFC'S: Air taxi/
commercial operators filing FAA Form 1800-31.
    DETERMINATION: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA).
    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS APPROVED FOR COLLECTION AT DCA AND
USE AT DCA AT A $4.50 PFC LEVEL:
    Runway 1/19 runway safety area improvements.
    Runway 1/19 overlay.
    Runway 15/33 overlay.
    Runway 4/22 overlay.
    Runway 15/33 runway safety area improvements.
    Runway 4/22 runway safety area improvements.
    Taxiways B, K and P resurfacing.
    River rescue north boat house.
    Aircraft rescue and firefighting building.
    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT APPROVED FOR COLLECTION AT DCA AND USE
AT DCA AT A $3.00 PFC LEVEL: New apron at demolished aircraft rescue
and firefighting site.
    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT APPROVED FOR COLLECTION AT DCA AND USE
AT WAHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (IAD) AT A $3.00 PFC LEVEL:
IAD metrorail station.
    DECISION DATE: July 11, 2014.
    For Further Information Contact: Jeffrey Breeden, Washington
Airports District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    PUBLIC AGENCY: Cheyenne Airport Board, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
    APPLICATION NUMBER: 14-03-C-00-CYS.
    APPLICATION TYPE: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC LEVEL: $4.50.
    TOTAL PFC REVENUE APPROVED IN THIS DECISION: $439,896.
    EARLIEST CHARGE EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 2014.
    ESTIMATED CHARGE EXPIRATION DATE: September 1, 2024.
    CLASS OF AIR CARRIERS NOT REQUIRED TO COLLECT PFC'S: None.
    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS APPROVED FOR COLLECTION AND USE:
    Rehabilitate taxiway A1.
    Rehabilitate apron.
    Construct apron.
    Conduct wildlife hazard management study.
    Rehabilitate runway 13/31.
    Safety management system program.
    Update airport master plan study.
    Conduct environmental assessment for new terminal building.
    Rehabilitate taxiways B, B2, A3, and A.
    Rehabilitate airfield pavement markings.
    New lighting control system.
    Airport sustainability plan.
    Acquire snow removal equipment--snow plow and broom head.
    Acquire snow removal equipment--plow truck and broom.
    PFC administration.
    DECISION DATE: July 18, 2014.
    For Further Information Contact: Jesse Lyman, Denver Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    PUBLIC AGENCY: South Jersey Transportation Authority, Egg Harbor
Township, New Jersey.
    APPLICATION NUMBER: 14-08-C-00-ACY.
    APPLICATION TYPE: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC LEVEL: $4.50.
    TOTAL PFC REVENUE APPROVED IN THIS DECISION: $27,459,848.
    EARLIEST CHARGE EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 2014.
    ESTIMATED CHARGE EXPIRATION DATE: March 1, 2025.
    CLASS OF AIR CARRIERS NOT REQUIRED TO COLLECT PFC'S: Air taxi/
commercial operators--non-scheduled/on-demand air carriers filing FAA
Form 1800-31.
    DETERMINATION: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Atlantic City International Airport.
    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT APPROVED FOR COLLECTION AND USE:
    Terminal expansion and Federal Inspection Services.
    Environmental mitigation--phase VII.
    Construct aircraft rescue and firefighting building.
    Acquire aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicles.
    Rehabilitate terminal apron--phase II.
    Environmental and design for perimeter fence.
    Rehabilitate taxiway D.
    Construct deicing containment facility--design.
    DECISION DATE: July 23, 2014.
    For Further Information Contact: Lori Ledebohm, Harrisburg Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Public Agency: Board of Trustees--University of Illinois, Savoy,
Illinois.
    APPLICATION NUMBER: 14-05-C-00-CMI.
    APPLICATION TYPE: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC LEVEL: $4.50.
    TOTAL PFC REVENUE APPROVED IN THIS DECISION: $1,662,600.
    EARLIEST CHARGE EFFECTIVE DATE: September 1, 2014.
    ESTIMATED CHARGE EXPIRATION DATE: June 1, 2019.
    CLASS OF AIR CARRIERS NOT REQUIRED TO COLLECT PFC'S: Non-scheduled/
on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1800-31 and operating at
University of Illinois--Willard Airport (CMI).
    DETERMINATION: Approved. Based on information contained in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at CMI.
    BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS APPROVED FOR COLLECTION AND USE:
    Re-alignment of taxiway C.
    Improve taxiway A/B geometry and widen taxiway A (reimbursement).
    Snow removal equipment--salt spreader.
    Snow removal equipment--small snow broom.
    Rehabilitate general aviation apron.
    Rehabilitate general aviation taxiways.
    Snow removal equipment--18-foot snow broom.
    Snow removal equipment--snow blower.
    Prepare PFC application.
    DECISION DATE: July 24, 2014.
    For Further Information Contact: Michael Brown, Chicago Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                           Amendments to PFC Approvals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original         Amended
                                     Amendment       Original         Amended        estimated       estimated
   Amendments No. city, state      approved date   approved net    approved net     charge exp.     charge exp.
                                                    PFC revenue     PFC revenue        date            date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95-02-C-05-BUF Buffalo, NY......        07/10/14      $2,528,721      $2,626,057        06/01/05        06/01/05
07-06-C-03-BUF Buffalo, NY......        07/10/14      77,745,807      78,223,520        11/01/12        11/01/12
09-07-C-02-BUF Buffalo, NY......        07/10/14      14,262,010      14,263,552        03/01/14        03/01/14
10-08-C-01-BUF Buffalo, NY......        07/10/14       1,844,274       1,849,371        06/01/14        06/01/14
11-09-C-01-BUF Buffalo, NY......        07/10/14       1,702,533       1,983,013        08/01/14        09/01/14
04-06-C-01-ATL Atlanta, GA......        07/11/14      18,462,000      22,550,861        09/01/18        09/01/18
06-08-C-03-ATL Atlanta, GA......        07/11/14     227,606,163     168,388,941        01/01/20        10/01/19
10-08-C-01-ATL Atlanta, GA......        07/11/14      25,166,712      30,758,063        06/01/20        02/01/20
11-04-C-01-RDD Redding, CA......        07/18/14         553,103         664,592        09/01/14        02/01/18
08-04-C-01-ELP El Paso, TX......        07/22/14      10,098,221       8,622,031        06/01/09        06/01/09
03-02-C-04-LGB Long Beach, CA...        07/25/14      62,344,903      62,344,903        10/01/14        02/01/15
10-05-C-01-LGB Long Beach, CA...        07/25/14      10,845,000      11,695,000        07/01/30        06/01/32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 17, 2014.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. 2014-27804 Filed 11-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 121 (Thursday, June 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36871-36873]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15702]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0110; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASW-8]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of Restricted Areas R-4401A, R-4401B, and R-4401C;
Camp Shelby, MS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies restricted areas R-4401A, R-4401B, and R-
4401C, at Camp Shelby, MS, to ensure that aircraft remain within the
confines of restricted airspace during high altitude munitions delivery
and to enhance the efficient use of airspace in the vicinity of Camp
Shelby, MS.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, August 25, 2011.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Special Use Airspace (SUA) at Camp Shelby, MS, currently consists
of three restricted areas that are layered from the surface up to
29,000 feet MSL. Restricted area R-4401A extends from the surface up to
4,000 feet MSL; R-4401B overlies R-4401A and extends from 4,000 feet
MSL up to 18,000 feet MSL; R-4401C overlies A and B and extends from
18,000 feet MSL up to 29,000 feet MSL. Adjacent to the restricted areas
are two military operations areas (MOA). The De Soto 1 MOA abuts the
north, east and south sides of the restricted areas and extends from
500 feet AGL up to 10,000 feet MSL. The De Soto 2 MOA lies adjacent to
the east and south sides of De Soto 1 MOA and extends from 100 feet AGL
up to 5,000 feet MSL.

Military Operations Areas (MOA)

    MOAs are nonregulatory airspace areas that are established
administratively and published in the National Flight Data Digest
(NFDD) rather than through rulemaking procedures. MOAs are established
to separate or segregate non-hazardous military flight activities from
aircraft operating in accordance with instrument flight rules (IFR),
and to advise pilots flying under visual flight rules (VFR) where these
activities are conducted. IFR aircraft may be routed through an active
MOA only by agreement with the using agency and only when air traffic
control can provide approved separation from the MOA activity. VFR
pilots are not restricted from flying in an active MOA, but they are
advised to exercise caution while doing so. Although MOAs are not
regulatory airspace actions, the De Soto MOAs are described in this
rule because they form an integral part of the Camp Shelby Range
airspace area. The MOA changes will be published separately in the
NFDD.

History

    On Wednesday, February 20, 2008, the FAA published in the Federal
Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Restricted
Areas R-4401A, R-4401B and R-4401C at Camp Shelby, MS, by moving the
southeastern corner of the restricted areas approximately 2 nautical
miles (NM) to the east of the present alignment (73 FR 9241). The FAA
proposed this change to ``square off'' the corner to ensure that
aircraft conducting high altitude munitions delivery training remain
within the confines of restricted airspace. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking proceeding by submitting
written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
    In a separate action, on February 11, 2008, the FAA distributed a
nonrulemaking circular soliciting public comment on a proposal to
modify the De Soto 1 and De Soto 2 MOAs and to establish two new MOAs
in order to raise the upper altitude limit of the MOA airspace at the
Camp Shelby Range up to but not including FL 180 (Airspace Study No.
08-ASW-09NR). In the circular, the FAA proposed to modify the De Soto 1
MOA boundary to match the amended R-4401A/R-4401B boundary and to
change the De Soto 1 MOA ceiling to read ``to but not including 10,000
feet MSL.'' The De Soto 2 MOA altitude ceiling would be changed to read
``to but not including 5,000 feet MSL,'' but the De Soto 2 boundary
would not be changed.
    In addition, two new MOAs were proposed. The De Soto 3 MOA would
overlie De Soto 1 and would extend from 10,000 feet MSL to but not
including FL 180; and the De Soto 4 would overlie De Soto 2 with
altitudes extending from 5,000 feet MSL to but not including FL 180.
The Air National Guard (ANG) requested this change because the current
MOAs do not provide sufficient altitudes to accommodate aircrew
training in long-range set-up and stand-off tactics.
    Seven comments were received in response to the NPRM and the
circular.

Discussion of Comments

    All of the commenters opposed the proposed rulemaking. Most
commenters argued that the proposed airspace expansions would adversely
impact civil aircraft operations in the area; and, in particular, those
aircraft transiting the area via VOR Federal airways V-11 and V-70.
Since this is a small boundary adjustment, with the expansion extending
into existing MOA airspace, the FAA concluded the restricted area
boundary change is not expected to impact air traffic in the area.
Airways V-11 and V-70 do extend through the proposed expanded MOA
airspace.
    However, in response to the comments, the configuration and
altitude structure of the MOAs have been revised. Instead of one large
MOA (De Soto 4) overlying the entire Desoto 2 MOA, the proposed De Soto
4 MOA airspace is split into two separate MOAs (i.e., De Soto 4 and De
Soto 5). The Desoto 4 MOA will extend from 5,000 feet MSL to but not
including FL 180

and will overlie only the northern portion of De Soto 2 (i.e., north of
airway V-70). The De Soto 5 MOA will overlie the remaining part of De
Soto 2 (which is traversed by V-70). Also, the floor of the new De Soto
5 MOA is set at 11,000 feet MSL instead of 5,000 feet MSL. This creates
a gap in MOA airspace between 5,000 feet MSL and 11,000 feet MSL along
V-70 allowing uninhibited access to five IFR altitudes along the
airway. Additional steps to further minimize potential impacts include:
Imposing time restrictions on use of the De Soto 4 and De Soto 5 MOAs;
the airspace will be subject to recall for weather or civil air
traffic; and communications lines between Range Control and the FAA
controlling agency (Houston ARTCC) are being added to expedite
coordination. These measures are designed to facilitate real time use
of the airspace as well as improve civil aviation access to the
airspace when not required for military training.
    Several commenters suggested that the range airspace be moved to
another location in the United States where there is less air traffic.
One commenter added that the training could be conducted over water in
the existing warning areas that are located less than 50 miles from the
De Soto MOA complex. Prior to submitting its airspace proposal, the
proponent did consider alternative locations. However, alternative
sites were either already saturated with test, evaluation, and training
activities and/or did not have an associated air-to-ground bombing
range. A bombing range, containing an array of target complexes, is
required for conducting realistic maneuvering for actual and simulated
ordnance delivery training. Use of the off-shore warning areas was
judged to be unsuitable, in part, due to the lack of the required
bombing range and the absence of usable ground references over water.
Another option explored was to limit the proposed MOA expansion to just
the De Soto 3 only. While this option would allow some training
activities to be completed, it would not provide enough airspace to
contain training in tactics requiring standoff distances that extend
beyond the current De Soto 1 MOA boundary.

Differences From NPRM

    The NPRM proposed a minor expansion of the boundaries of restricted
areas R-4401A, R-4401B, and R-4401C to move the southeastern corner of
the areas approximately 2 NM to the east. However, in response to
public comments, and to provide for better real time use of the
airspace, the FAA and the proponent decided to further stratify the
restricted areas into five sections instead of the original three,
while maintaining the current restricted area altitude structure that
extends from the surface up to Flight Level (FL) 290. In addition, the
name of the restricted area using agency is updated to reflect the
current organization; and, the time of designation for R-4401A, B and C
is simplified as described in ``The Rule'' section, below.
    The NPRM did not include a discussion of the De Soto MOA changes,
which are processed under nonrulemaking procedures. However, because
the MOAs are an integral part of the Camp Shelby Range airspace, the
FAA has included a discussion of these changes in this rule.

Summary of De Soto MOA Changes

    The existing De Soto 1 MOA is being amended to adjust the
boundaries to match the revised southeast corner of restricted areas R-
4401A and R-4401B. In addition, the altitude of the De Soto 1 MOA will
be amended to read ``500 feet AGL to but not including 10,000 feet
MSL,'' and the name of the using agency is updated to reflect the
current organization title. The altitude of the De Soto 2 MOA will be
amended to read ``100 feet AGL to but not including 5,000 feet MSL,''
and the name of the using agency is also updated. The boundaries of the
De Soto 2 MOA are not being changed. Instead of establishing two new
MOAs as originally proposed (i.e., De Soto 3 and De Soto 4), three new
MOAs will be established (De Soto 3, 4 and 5). This allows greater
flexibility to facilitate real time use of the airspace as well as
improve civil access to the airspace when not required by the military.
As originally proposed, the De Soto 3 overlies the De Soto 1 MOA and
extends from 10,000 feet MSL to but not including FL 180. However, the
proposed De Soto 4 MOA airspace is revised so that, instead of
overlying the entire De Soto 2 MOA, it overlies only the northern
portion of De Soto 2 and extends from 5,000 feet MSL up to but not
including FL 180. The new De Soto 5 MOA overlies the southern portion
of De Soto 2. In addition, the De Soto 5 MOA has a floor of 11,000 feet
MSL and extends up to but not including FL 180. This creates a gap in
MOA airspace between the 5,000 foot MSL ceiling of the De Soto 2 MOA
and the 11,000 foot MSL floor of the De Soto 5 MOA, bracketing a
portion of airway V-70. This gap between De Soto 2 and De Soto 5
provides five IFR altitudes (i.e., from 6,000 feet MSL to 10,000 feet
MSL inclusive) along V-70 that are always clear of MOA airspace.
    The new MOA configuration allows better real time use of the
airspace so that parts of the MOAs that are not needed for the military
mission can be released for access by other users. These measures
lessen the potential impact on other airspace users, and facilitate
better access to airways V-11 and V-70, which pass through, or in the
vicinity of, the De Soto 2, 4 and 5 MOAs.
    The above MOA changes will be published in the NFDD.

The Rule

    This rule amends 14 CFR part 73 by modifying restricted areas R-
4401A, R-4401B, and R-4401C to ``square off'' the southeast boundary of
the areas, realign the altitude structure of the restricted airspace,
update the using agency name, and simplify the time of designation
statement. In addition, two new restricted areas are designated: R-
4401D and R-4401E. These changes do not alter the overall altitude
limits of the Camp Shelby restricted areas, which remain as currently
designated (i.e., from the surface to but not including 29,000 feet
MSL). However, to accommodate more flexible use of the airspace and to
lessen the potential impact on other airspace users by enabling parts
of the area to be released when not needed for the military mission,
the existing altitude structure is divided into five subareas instead
of three. With these changes, the restricted airspace at Camp Shelby,
MS, consists of: R-4401A, extending from the surface to but not
including 4,000 feet MSL; R-4401B, extending from 4,000 feet MSL to but
not including 10,000 feet MSL; R-4401C, extending from 10,000 feet MSL
to but not including FL 180; R-4401D, extending from FL 180 to but not
including FL 230; and R-4401E, extending from FL 230 to FL 290. All
five subareas share the same boundary alignment. The time of
designation for R-4401A, B and C remains by NOTAM at least 24 hours in
advance, except that the words ``NOTAMS to contain information
concerning deactivation of the area'' are deleted from the description.
This statement is not required because SUA NOTAMs normally include the
times when the airspace is in effect.
    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.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (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.
    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 restricted airspace in the vicinity of Camp Shelby, MS,
to enhance the safe and the efficient use of the National Airspace
System.

Environmental Review

    In July 2008, the Air National Guard (ANG) published a Final
Environmental Assessment (FEA) ``Modification of CRTC-Used Airspace:
Combat Readiness Training Center'' and associated Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) dated July 1, 2008. The ANG prepared the FEA
and associated FONSI in compliance with their obligations under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and as specified in ANG
environmental regulations. The FAA was a cooperating agency in the NEPA
process and provided input during the ANG environmental process.
Additionally, in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental
Impacts: Policies and Procedures,'' paragraph 404d, the FAA has
independently evaluated the information contained in the FEA and is
adopting the content that addresses FAA actions pursuant to 40 CFR
1506.3(a) and (c) and has issued a FONSI/Record of Decision (ROD) dated
May 2011. This final rule, which modifies the Camp Shelby. MS,
restricted areas, will not result in significant environmental impacts.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 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.  73.44  [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.44 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

1. R-4401A Camp Shelby, MS [Amended]

    By removing the current boundaries, altitudes, time of
designation and using agency and substituting the following:
    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 31[deg]12'55'' N., long.
89[deg]11'03'' W.; to lat. 31[deg]11'49'' N., long. 89[deg]00'00''
W.; to lat. 31[deg]10'16'' N., long. 88[deg]56'34'' W.; to lat.
31[deg]04'37'' N., long. 88[deg]56'34'' W.; to lat. 31[deg]04'37''
N., long. 89[deg]11'00'' W.; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to but not including 4,000 feet
MSL.
    Time of designation. By NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance.
    Using agency. Commanding Officer, Camp Shelby, MS.

2. R-4401B Camp Shelby, MS [Amended]

    By removing the current boundaries, designated altitudes, time
of designation and using agency and substituting the following:
    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 31[deg]12'55'' N., long.
89[deg]11'03'' W.; to lat. 31[deg]11'49'' N., long. 89[deg]00'00''
W.; to lat. 31[deg]10'16'' N., long. 88[deg]56'34'' W.; to lat.
31[deg]04'37'' N., long. 88[deg]56'34'' W.; to lat. 31[deg]04'37''
N., long. 89[deg]11'00'' W.; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 4,000 feet MSL to but not including 10,000
feet MSL.
    Time of designation. By NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance.
    Using agency. Commanding Officer, Camp Shelby, MS.

3. R-4401C Camp Shelby, MS [Amended]

    By removing the current boundaries, designated altitudes, time
of designation and using agency and substituting the following:
    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 31[deg]12'55'' N., long.
89[deg]11'03'' W.; to lat. 31[deg]11'49'' N., long. 89[deg]00'00''
W.; to lat. 31[deg]10'16'' N., long. 88[deg]56'34'' W.; to lat.
31[deg]04'37'' N., long. 88[deg]56'34'' W.; to lat. 31[deg]04'37''
N., long. 89[deg]11'00'' W.; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. 10,000 feet MSL to but not including FL
180.
    Time of designation. By NOTAM at least 24 hours in advance.
    Using agency. Commanding Officer, Camp Shelby, MS.

4. R-4401D Camp Shelby, MS [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 31[deg]12'55'' N., long.
89[deg]11'03'' W.; to lat. 31[deg]11'49'' N., long. 89[deg]00'00''
W.; to lat. 31[deg]10'16'' N., long. 88[deg]56'34'' W.; to lat.
31[deg]04'37'' N., long. 88[deg]56'34'' W.; to lat. 31[deg]04'37''
N., long. 89[deg]11'00'' W.; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. FL 180 to but not including FL 230.
    Time of designation. By NOTAM 4 hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Houston ARTCC.
    Using agency. Commanding Officer, Camp Shelby, MS.

5. R-4401E Camp Shelby, MS [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 31[deg]12'55'' N., long.
89[deg]11'03'' W.; to lat. 31[deg]11'49'' N., long. 89[deg]00'00''
W.; to lat. 31[deg]10'16'' N., long. 88[deg]56'34'' W.; to lat.
31[deg]04'37'' N., long. 88[deg]56'34'' W.; to lat. 31[deg]04'37''
N., long. 89[deg]11'00'' W.; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. FL 230 to FL 290.
    Time of designation. By NOTAM four hours in advance.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Houston ARTCC.
    Using agency. Commanding Officer, Camp Shelby, MS.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 15, 2011.
Gary A. Norek,
Acting Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2011-15702 Filed 6-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24186-24187]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08274]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG23-120-000.
    Applicants: Apex Solar LLC.
    Description: Apex Solar LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of
Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 4/12/23.
    Accession Number: 20230412-5199.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints
and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:

    Docket Numbers: EL23-60-000.
    Applicants: Parkway Generation Keys Energy Center LLC v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Complaint of Parkway Generation Keys Energy Center LLC
v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 4/6/23.
    Accession Number: 20230406-5234.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1790-022; ER21-1716-004; ER14-2672-023; ER12-
1825-036; ER22-2519-001; ER13-33-007; ER15-2483-003; ER10-2468-004;
ER11-1853-001; ER10-2597-006; ER10-2481-006; ER11-2041-017; ER12-2200-
008; ER10-3196-004; ER10-2273-004; ER11-2042-017; ER14-1317-011.
    Applicants: Sunshine Gas Producers, LLC, Seneca Energy, II LLC, PEI
Power II, LLC, PEI Power Corporation, Mehoopany Wind Energy LLC,
Innovative Energy Systems, LLC, Ingenco Wholesale Power, L.L.C., Fowler
Ridge III Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC, Fowler Ridge
Wind Farm LLC, LRI Renewable Energy LLC, Collegiate Clean Energy, LLC,
Bellflower Solar 1, LLC, EDF Industrial Power Services (CA), LLC, EDF
Energy Services, LLC, BP Energy Retail LLC, BP Energy Company.
    Description: Second Supplement to January 31, 2023, Notice of
Change in Status of BP Energy Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/11/23.
    Accession Number: 20230411-5198.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2281-002.
    Applicants: Homer City Generation, L.P.
    Description: Compliance filing: Information Filing in Docket ER14-
2281 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/12/23.
    Accession Number: 20230412-5188.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1241-001.
    Applicants: IP Oberon, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to Applications for
Market-Based Rate Authority to be effective 5/3/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230413-5132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1517-001.
    Applicants: IP Oberon II, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to Applications for
Market-Based Rate Authority to be effective 5/30/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230413-5135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1621-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Rate Schedule
FERC No. 20 to be effective 6/12/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/12/23.
    Accession Number: 20230412-5174.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1622-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of Rate
Schedule FERC No. 312 to be effective 6/12/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/12/23.
    Accession Number: 20230412-5179.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1623-000.
    Applicants: Mesquite Solar 4, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Certificate of Concurrence
to Assignment, Co-Tenancy and SFA to be effective 4/13/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/12/23.
    Accession Number: 20230412-5182.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1624-000.
    Applicants: Mesquite Solar 5, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Certificate of Concurrence
to Amended and Restated Co-Tenancy and SFA to be effective 4/13/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/12/23.
    Accession Number: 20230412-5185.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1625-000.
    Applicants: Apex Solar LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based
Rate Authority to be effective 4/13/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/12/23.
    Accession Number: 20230412-5190.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/3/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1626-000.
    Applicants: Mesquite Solar 5, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Certificate of Concurrence
to Amended and Restated Co-Tenancy and SFA to be effective 4/13/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230413-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1627-000.
    Applicants: Mesquite Solar 4, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Certificate of Concurrence
to Amended

and Restated Co-Tenancy and SFA to be effective 4/13/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230413-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1628-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ISA, Service
Agreement No. 4668; Queue No. AE1-038 to be effective 6/12/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230413-5002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1629-000.
    Applicants: PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PPL Electric Utilities
Corporation submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: PPL submits
revisions to OATT Att. H-8G Depreciation Rates to be effective 6/12/
2023.
    Filed Date: 4/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230413-5048.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1630-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: LGIA for Arco Wind No. 580
Between Idaho Power Company and Arco Wind, LLC to be effective 4/13/
2023.
    Filed Date: 4/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230413-5088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1631-000.
    Applicants: Cavalier Solar A, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Cavalier Solar A, LLC Shared
Facilities Agreement to be effective 4/14/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230413-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1632-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 4063 OPPD Interim GIA to be
effective 4/12/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230413-5141.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1633-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 4064 OPPD Interim GIA to be
effective 4/12/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230413-5142.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1634-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 4065 OPPD Interim GIA to be
effective 4/12/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230413-5143.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1635-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 4066 OPPD Interim GIA to be
effective 4/12/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230413-5145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1636-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 4067 OPPD Interim GIA to be
effective 4/12/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230413-5147.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1637-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: RS 171--IPC/BPA--Purchase,
Sale and Security Agreement to be effective 3/24/2023.
    Filed Date: 4/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20230413-5162.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/4/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 13, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-08274 Filed 4-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 106 (Monday, June 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 33134]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Wednesday, June 5,
2013 at 10:00 a.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002.
    The subject matter of the Open Meeting will be:
     The Commission will consider a recommendation to propose
amendments to certain rules under the Investment Company Act that
govern the operation of money market funds and related amendments to
Form PF under the Investment Advisers Act.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 29, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-13111 Filed 5-30-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 8 (Monday, January 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1858-1863]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00283]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2020-0003]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments;
Renewal of a Previously Approved Information Collection: U.S.
Department of Transportation, Individual Complaint of Employment
Discrimination Form

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) will
forward the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal of a previously
approved collection. The ICR describes the nature of the information
collection and its expected cost and burden hours. The OMB approved the
form in 2017 with its renewal required by January 31, 2020. The Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the
form renewal was published on November 1, 2019 [FR Vol. 84, No. 212,
page 58830]. No comments were received.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by February 12, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Onwubere, Associate Director,
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Complaints and Investigations
Division (S-34), U.S. Department of Transportation, Departmental Office
of Civil Rights, W78-316, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> (office<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Individual Compliant of Employment Discrimination Form.
    Form Number: DOT-F 1050-8.
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0556.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a previously approved collection.
    Abstract: The DOT will utilize the form to collect information
necessary to process EEO discrimination complaints filed by individuals
who are Federal employees, former employees or applicants for
employment with the Department. These complaints are processed in
accordance with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's
regulations, Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1614, as
amended. The DOT will use the form to: (a) Request requisite
information from the applicant for processing his/her EEO
discrimination complaint; and (b) obtain information to identify an
individual or his or her attorney or other representative, if
appropriate. An applicant's filing of an EEO discrimination complaint
is solely voluntary. The DOT estimates that it takes an applicant
approximately one hour to complete the form.
    Affected Public: Federal employees, former employees, or applicants
for employment with the Department.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 100 per year.
    Estimated Total Annual Estimated Burden: 100 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: An individual's filing of an EEO complaint
is solely voluntary.

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. All responses to this notice will be summarized and
included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval.
All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    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 January 7, 2020.
Charles E. James, Sr.,
Director, Departmental Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of
Transportation.
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JA20.000

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JA20.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JA20.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JA20.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JA20.004

[FR Doc. 2020-00283 Filed 1-10-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-C


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 20488]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08074]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP21-722-000]

Hartree Partners, LP v. Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of
Complaint

    Take notice that on April 7, 2021, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.206 (2020), Hartree Partners, LP (Complainant) filed a
formal complaint against Northern Natural Gas Company (Respondent),
alleging that the Respondent unlawfully seeks to recover an amount
totaling $7,401,806.38 from the complainant for quantities that
Northern allocated or curtailed during the extreme winter weather event
in Texas and other parts of the south central United States in February
2021, all as more fully explained in its complaint.
    The Complainant certify that copies of the complaint were served on
the contacts listed for Respondent in the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 27, 2021.

    Dated: April 14, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-08074 Filed 4-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Proposed Rule:  Final Confidentiality Determinations for Nine Subparts and Amendments to Subpart A and I under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule Meeting Documentation:  Phone communication with American Petroleum Institute, April 26, 2012

Date EPA Staff Contact Information (Name, email, phone #) Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible)  Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.) Written Comments Provided? Did they also submit to Docket? Date sent to EPA-CCD 4/26/12

Lisa Hanle   Lisa Bacanskas<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-343-9758

API:

Karin Ritter, <EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow up call on API's comment that some data elements, if made publicly available, would reveal information concerning exploratory wells. Comments previously provided and submitted to Docket 4/6/12