[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 235 (Friday, December 10, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70426-70427]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26821]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 80 and 1090

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0324; FRL-9083-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV11

Public Hearing for RFS Annual Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a
virtual public hearing to be held on January 4, 2022, on its proposal
for the ``Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program: RFS Annual Rules,''
which was signed on December 7, 2021. An additional session will be
held on January 5, 2022, if necessary, to accommodate the number of
testifiers that sign-up to testify. EPA is proposing the 2020, 2021,
and 2022 renewable fuel standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based
diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. EPA is also
proposing to address the remand of the 2016 standard-setting
rulemaking, extend certain RFS compliance and attest engagement
reporting deadlines for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 compliance years, and
several regulatory changes to the RFS program.

DATES: EPA will hold a virtual public hearing on January 4, 2022. An
additional session will be held on January 5, 2022, if necessary, to
accommodate the number of testifiers that sign-up to testify. Please
refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for additional
information on the public hearing.

ADDRESSES: The virtual public hearing will be held on January 4, 2022.
An additional session will be held on January 5, 2022, if necessary, to
accommodate the number of testifiers that sign-up to testify. The
hearing will begin at 9 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) and end when all parties
who wish to speak have had an opportunity to do so, but no later than 5
p.m. ET. All hearing attendees (including even those who do not intend
to provide testimony) should register for the public hearing by
December 20, 2021. Information on how

to register can be found at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/public-hearing-information-proposed-renewable-fuel-standards-2020. Additional information regarding the hearing appears
below under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nick Parsons, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental
Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is proposing to modify the 2021 and 2022
statutory volume targets for cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and
total renewable fuel, and to establish the 2022 volume target for
biomass-based diesel, as well as to modify the previously established
cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel volume
requirements for 2020. In addition, EPA is proposing the 2020, 2021,
and 2022 renewable fuel standards for all four of the above biofuel
categories. EPA is also proposing to address the remand of the 2016
standard-setting rulemaking, as well as several regulatory changes to
the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program including regulations for the
use of biointermediates to produce qualifying renewable fuel,
flexibilities for regulated parties, clarifications of existing
regulations, and an extension of certain RFS compliance and attest
engagement reporting deadlines. The RFS Annual Rules proposal was
signed on December 7, 2021, and will be published separately in the
Federal Register on a later date. The pre-publication version is
available at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/proposed-volume-standards-2020-2021-and-2022.
    Participation in virtual public hearing. Please note that EPA is
deviating from its typical approach because the President has declared
a national emergency. Because of current Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) recommendations, as well as state and local orders
for social distancing to limit the spread of COVID-19, EPA cannot hold
in-person public meetings at this time.
    Information on how to register for the hearing can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/public-hearing-information-proposed-renewable-fuel-standards-2020. The last day to
pre-register to speak at the hearing will be December 20, 2021.
    Each commenter will have 3 minutes to provide oral testimony. EPA
may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will
not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and
supporting information submitted during the comment period will be
considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting
information presented at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/public-hearing-information-proposed-renewable-fuel-standards-2020. While EPA expects the hearing to go forward as set forth above,
please monitor the website or contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to determine if there are any
updates. EPA does not intend to publish a document in the Federal
Register announcing updates.
    If you require the services of a translator or special
accommodations such as audio description, please pre-register for the
hearing and describe your needs by December 20, 2021. EPA may not be
able to arrange accommodations without advance notice.
    How can I get copies of the proposed action and other related
information? EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0324. EPA has also developed a website for the
RFS program, including the proposal, which is available at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program. Please refer to the notice
of proposed rulemaking for detailed information on accessing
information related to the proposal.

William Charmley,
Director, Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2021-26821 Filed 12-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 1 Propargite 12/ 06/ 05 Response to Public Comments on the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Comments regarding requests for exemptions from the proposed restricted entry intervals ( REIs)

Comment # 1: The registrant requested a 1 day REI exemption for handweeding of almonds.

Response: No crop specific documentation was submitted in support of this request. According to the Agency's research, weed control in almond orchards is accomplished entirely through preand post emergence herbicide applications and mechanical mowing. There is no mention of handweeding in any of the sources consulted. However, in the unlikely event that handweeding is planned for a small orchard, the Agency believes that this activity could be readily planned around a scheduled propargite application. Therefore, the Agency is not approving the requested REI exemption for handweeding of almonds.

Comment # 2: The registrant requested a 1 day REI exemption for handweeding and thinning of dry beans.

Response: No crop specific documentation was submitted in support of this request. In general, weed control in beans begins with a pre plant tillage operation, followed by a pre plant incorporated or preemergence herbicide application. The herbicides provide 4 to 6 weeks of residual activity. Weeds emerging after that time are controlled by cultivation and/ or herbicide applications between rows. According to the Agency's research, handweeding does not appear to be a common practice in commercial bean production. However, to the extent that hand weeding may be required in isolated instances, the Agency does not believe that a 9 day REI ( a 2 day increase over the current REI) will be a significant impediment to bean production.

Beans are generally precision seeded with specialized planters to obtain the desired uniform plant spacing and prevent the need for subsequent thinning. As for hand weeding, hand thinning does not appear to be a common practice in commercial bean production either. It is unlikely that a two day increase in the current propargite REI would affect the timing of any existing hand thinning operation to the extent that bean production is affected. Therefore, the Agency is not approving these requested REI exemptions.

Comment # 3: The registrant requested 1 day REI exemptions for handweeding and thinning of carrots grown for seed.  2 Response: No crop specific documentation was submitted in support of this request. Unlike carrots grown for the fresh market, which fully rely on herbicides for weed control and may often depend on precision seeding to reduce the need for labor intensive thinning, carrots grown for seed often require hand weeding and hand thinning. However, it is highly unlikely that the 2 day REI proposed in the RED would interfere with any required hand weeding or hand thinning practice in carrots grown for seed, especially since this represents a reduction from the current 7 day REI. Therefore, the Agency is not approving these requested REI exemptions.

Comment # 4: The California Grape and Tree Fruit League requested 1 day REI exemptions for irrigation, scouting, and handweeding of cherries ( foliar application after harvest).

Response: Requirements regarding early entry for conducting irrigation activities are addressed in the Worker Protection Standard ( WPS), and scouting activities conducted by certified crop advisors or persons under their direct supervision are exempted from the WPS altogether; therefore, the Agency is not issuing separate REI exemptions for those activities.

According to the Agency's research, post harvest cultural activities for cherries, other than scouting and irrigation, include: mowing/ disking, pruning/ topping, pesticide applications, fertilizing, vertebrate control, and tree removal. Hand weeding is not listed as a post harvest activity in any of the sources found by the Agency. To the extent that handweeding may in fact be necessary in isolated instances, the Agency believes that the 2 day REI proposed in the RED will not be a significant impediment to cherry production. Therefore, the Agency is not approving these requested REI exemptions.

Comment # 5: The registrant requested 1 day REI exemptions for handweeding and thinning of clover grown for seed.

Response: No crop specific documentation was submitted in support of this request. Thinning is not mentioned as a practice in the literature EPA has been able to locate on this crop. Weeds are a potentially devastating type of pest, since even low levels of seed contamination can render the harvest unmarketable. However, as with the other crops, weed control appears to be typically done with herbicides, of which a variety are registered. While handweeding is listed as an option for weed control in some production guides, it is presented as one of several " mechanical cultivation" strategies. At least one such guide states that weeds can be managed with mechanical cultivation performed every 10 to 14 days. This suggests that virtually all growers can continue to use handweeding in those ( probably rare) instances where they prefer it over the less labor intensive practices of mechanical disking or herbicide application  even after propargite application. Furthermore, growers have the option of using bifenthrin or hexythiazox instead of propargite if they know they need to have a short REI to control weeds concomitantly. In light of these management options, the Agency believes that while hand weeding does occur ( to an unknown extent) in clover seed production, an exception to the proposed 9 day REI for this  3 activity is not necessary.

Comment # 6: The registrant requested a 1 day REI exemption for scouting, handweeding, thinning, and irrigation of corn ( field, pop, and sweet).

Response: As stated above, requirements regarding early entry for conducting irrigation activities are addressed in the WPS, and scouting activities conducted by certified crop advisors or persons under their direct supervision are exempted from the WPS altogether; therefore, the Agency is not issuing separate REI exemptions for those activities.

No crop specific documentation was submitted in support of this request. According to the Agency's research, handweeding and thinning are impractical in the large commercial fields that produce most of the corn in the USA, and thus virtually never occurs. Weeds are managed with herbicides, of which a variety are registered for use in all corn types, or disking and mowing at appropriate times in the year. Therefore, the Agency is not approving these requested REI exemptions.

Comment # 7: The registrant requested 1 day REI exemptions for scouting, handweeding, thinning, and irrigation of cotton.

Response: As stated above, requirements regarding early entry for conducting irrigation activities are addressed in the WPS, and scouting activities conducted by certified crop advisors or persons under their direct supervision are exempted from the WPS altogether; therefore, the Agency is not issuing separate REI exemptions for those activities.

No crop specific documentation was submitted in support of this request. Given that the Agency has proposed to lower the current 7 day REI for cotton to 6 days in the RED, the need for a 1 day exemption for handweeding and thinning has not been established. Therefore, the Agency is not approving these requested REI exemptions.

Comment # 8: The registrant requested a 1 day REI exemption for handweeding and irrigation of citrus crops. Florida Citrus Mutual requested 2 day citrus REI exemptions for scouting and activities carried out with tractor drawn equipment.

Response: As stated above, requirements regarding early entry for conducting irrigation activities are addressed in the WPS, and scouting activities conducted by certified crop advisors or persons under their direct supervision are exempted from the WPS altogether ; therefore, the Agency is not issuing separate REI exemptions relating to those activities. Similarly, the Agency believes  4 that under many circumstances the WPS " no contact" exemption will apply to tractor drawn agricultural activities. No crop specific documentation was submitted in support of the request for an REI exemption for handweeding. Agency research indicated that handweeding appears to be virtually nonexistent in conventional commercial U. S. citrus production systems. Weeding is typically carried out using pre emergent herbicides, disking, and mowing row middles, and growing leguminous cover crops, depending largely on the growing region. The Agency, therefore, does not believe an exemption for hand weeding is necessary.

Since completion of the RED, new worker exposure data for citrus has become available. This data has been reviewed and accepted by the Agency. As a result, estimated worker risks are significantly lower, and the Agency is able to reduce the REIs for all citrus activities from the proposed 36 days to 20 days. Given that this is an 8 day reduction from the present 28 day citrus REI, the Agency believes that this new REI will provide growers with sufficient flexibility to conduct critical field activities for citrus.

Comment # 9: The California Grape and Tree Fruit League and the registrant requested a 1 day REI exemption for handweeding, pruning, scouting, and irrigation of grapes.

Response: As stated above, requirements regarding early entry for conducting irrigation activities are addressed in the WPS, and scouting activities conducted by certified crop advisors or persons under their direct supervision are exempted from the WPS altogether; therefore, the Agency is not issuing separate REI exemptions relating to those activities.

No crop specific documentation was submitted in support of the requested exemptions for handweeding and pruning. Agency research does not indicate a critical need for these activities given that the REIs proposed in the RED are already 12 days shorter than the current REI for table grapes and 5 days shorter than the current REI for all other grapes. Moreover, with a 1 day REI exemption, the Agency would have concerns for worker risks for these high contact activities. Therefore, the Agency is not approving these requested REI exemptions.

Comment # 10: The registrant requested a 1 day REI for scouting, irrigation, and handweeding of hops.

Response: As stated above, requirements regarding early entry for conducting irrigation activities are addressed in the WPS, and scouting activities conducted by certified crop advisors or persons under their direct supervision are exempted from the WPS altogether; therefore, the Agency is not issuing separate REI exemptions relating to those activities.

No crop specific documentation was submitted in support of the REI exemption request for  5 handweeding. Agency research indicates that handweeding is rarely, if ever, practiced in commercial hops production. While weeds can be a significant pest problem, mechanical cultivation of row middles is the typical control strategy. Mulch is also applied to suppress weed germination. Various herbicides are also available for efficacious chemical control of weeds. Therefore, EPA believes that an exemption for hand weeding is unnecessary for this crop.

Comment # 11: The mint growers association requested a 7 day REI for irrigation.

Response: Based on a reduction in maximum labeled application rate offered by the registrant, the estimated worker risk estimates for all mint activities have been reduced. As a result, the Agency is reducing the mint REI applicable to all activities from the proposed 9 days to 7 days.

Comment # 12: The registrant requested a 1 day REI for shaking, irrigation, and handweeding of walnuts.

Response: As described above, provisions of the WPS address the needs for early entry for irrigation activities, therefore a separate REI exemption for this activity is not being approved. No crop specific documentation was submitted in support of the request for an REI exemption for handweeding. The Agency's own research on this indicates that weeding is typically handled with herbicides, therefore there does not appear to be a critical need for a handweeding exemption. Agency research did indicate, however, that the proposed 30 day REI could significantly interfere with walnut harvesting. Since tree shaking is a relatively low contact activity, worker risks would all remain withing acceptable levels with an REI of 21 days to match the current pre harvest interval. Therefore, the Agency is granting a 21 day REI exemption for tree shaking.

Comments on Other Issues in the Proposed Propargite RED Comment # 13: The National Potato Council requested a reinstatement of the 14 day preharvest interval.

Response: The proposed reregistration eligibility document did not change the existing preharvest interval; it will remain at 14 days .

Comment # 14: The National Potato Council, citing concerns of pacific northwest growers, requested removal of language requiring a water body spray buffer zone or, if a spray buffer is to be required, that irrigation canals, ditches, and furrows be excluded from such requirement.

Response: The spray buffer label language is as follows:  6 " Do not apply by ground within 50 ft. or by air within 75 ft. of lakes, reservoirs, rivers, permanent streams, marshes, or natural ponds; estuaries and commercial fish farm ponds."

The Agency believes that a blanket exclusion from the spray buffer requirement for potato fields is not warranted; however, EPA does not believe that spray buffers around irrigation systems are necessary to prevent significant exposures to aquatic life in waters adjacent to those fields because, due to the high cost of supplying irrigation water in areas where propargite is used, growers generally employ extensive methods to prevent irrigation water from leaving their fields. Therefore, the Agency is not requiring spray buffers around irrigation canals, irrigation ditches, or irrigation furrows.

Comment # 15: The National Potato Council requested clarification of the label language regarding where measurements of wind speed needed to be made prior to aerial applications, and regarding the prohibition of pesticide applications when heavy or sustained rainfall is forecasted.

Response: The Agency has amended the label language to state that measurements may be made adjacent to the spray area. Regarding the application restriction when rainfall is forecasted, the National Potato Council was concerned about potential liability to growers resulting from unanticipated rainfalls. The Agency believes that the existing wording clearly establishes that the prohibition is tied to the rain forecast rather than the rain itself; thus, no liability would accrue from an intense or sustained rainfall that was not forecast.

Comment # 16: The National Potato Council requested that the proposed seasonal limit of 3.7 lbs. of active ingredient per acre (" ai/ A") be restored to 4.1 lbs ai/ A ( 2 applications of 2.05 lbs ai/ A).

Response: Agency data from over a 10 year period indicate that the average usage for propargite on potatoes is 1.5 lbs ai/ A applied once per season. The Agency has reviewed this request to restore the application rate to 2 applications of 2.05 lbs ai/ A and agrees that, although rarely needed, a second application at maximum labeled rate is required on occasion to control major mite infestations. Based on the exposure modeling described in the environmental risk assessment, the Agency believes that an occasional application of an additional .4 lbs ai/ acre on an annual basis is unlikely to appreciably increase environmental risk. Moreover, given that propargite exhibits low toxicity to predator mites and other beneficial insects, the Agency believes that providing growers with the ability to apply it a second time at maximum rate is an important component of an integrated pest management program. Therefore, the Agency is granting this request to permit 2 applications to potatoes at a rate of 2.05 lbs ai/ A.

Comment # 17: The Washington State Potato Commission and the Mint Industry Research Council requested that the proposed 21 day spray intervals be reduced to 14 days.  7 Response: During development of the RED, the registrant agreed to institute spray intervals of 21 days for several crops to help reduce the environmental loading of propargite. Potatoes and mint were among the crops slated for a 21 day spray interval under the proposed RED. Recent reports from potato growers in Washington State, however, have indicated that although 1 application of propargite is typically sufficient to control spider mites, some infestations during the hot and dry summer months have required a second application, and that waiting 21 days between applications has resulted in significant crop losses. Mint growers in the Pacific Northwest have reported similar experiences with spider mites. These mites produce especially high numbers of female offspring during hot and dry periods, resulting in very rapid replenishment of mite populations. Mites also frequently migrate to mint fields from adjacent potato and corn fields during dry summers. These factors, combined with mint's greater susceptibility to mite damage during drought conditions, underscore the importance of providing growers with maximum flexibility in treating severe mite infestations during summer months. Although the Agency's screening level risk model indicates a reproductive concern for some bird species on occasions when multiple propargite applications are needed, instituting a 14 day spray interval will decrease the overall risk because currently no spray intervals are listed on propargite labels. Moreover, the coordinator of the Washington State IPM program confirmed the importance of propargite in general as a critical IPM tool due to its low toxicity to predatory mites and other beneficial arthropods. For these reasons, the Agency approves the requests to reduce the proposed spray intervals for potatoes in Washington state and mint from 21 days to 14 days.


Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Concepts and Recommendations for Using the " Natural Conditions" Provisions of the Idaho Water Quality Standards Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Concepts and Recommendations for Using the " Natural Conditions" Provisions of the Idaho Water Quality Standards Christopher Mebane Don Essig Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Boise, Idaho April 2003 Contents Introduction..................................................................................................................... 2 Concepts to consider when evaluating whether natural background conditions exceed numeric criteria ............................................................................................................... 4 Natural Variability .......................................................................................................... 8 Measurable Changes ..................................................................................................... 14 Detection Limits.................................................................................................... 14 Statistical Considerations...................................................................................... 17 Practical Approaches to Estimating Natural Conditions .............................................. 19 Natural Watersheds................................................................................................... 19 Forest watersheds.................................................................................................. 20 Rangeland Watersheds.......................................................................................... 22 Comparison to Reference Streams............................................................................ 26 Stream Temperature Models..................................................................................... 26 Large River Basins.................................................................................................... 28 Biological Assessment .............................................................................................. 29 Balanced Indigenous Populations in Large Rivers ............................................... 29 " Healthy" streams and rivers ................................................................................ 29 Lakes......................................................................................................................... 30 Metals........................................................................................................................ 31 Acknowledgements....................................................................................................... 32 References..................................................................................................................... 33 Appendix   Excerpts from Idaho Water Quality Standards relevant to Natural Background Conditions ................................................................................................ 39 ( Blue text indicates hyperlinks to regulatory definitions or other internal links) 14 Measurable Changes Factors affecting whether a change is measurable in a water's characteristic such as temperature or a concentration include the detection limits and statistical considerations.

Detection Limits Any measuring method has some inherent limit of detection that is based on the instrument and the parameter of interest. A limit of detection is the lowest amount of a substance or other parameter that can be reliably detected, based on the variability of either the blank response or that of a low level standard. A related term is the quantitation limit, which is the lowest level at which a substance may be accurately measured and reported without qualification as an estimated value. In chemical analyses, this is often estimated to be 5 times the detection limit ( EPA 1991).

Field measurements of water temperature are routinely made by deploying data logging thermistors. Typically these devices display and record values without rounding or truncating to 1/ 100th of a degree ( 0.01 º C). However, this display of apparent precision can be misleading. These devices are manufactured to be accurate to ± 0.2 ° C, based on comparisons to NIST standards ( e. g. Onset Computer Corporation www. onsetcomp. com). Temperatures recorded by data loggers are also digitized in discrete steps, the size of the step is determined by the amount of memory allocated to each measurement. For example, data loggers commonly use 8 bits to record a single temperature. Over a devices' range of   4 to + 38 ° C, there are 28 or 256 steps, which works out to average quantization errors of 0.16 ° C.

The repeatability of temperature measurements was further evaluated through a calibration test of the variability of the responses of several data loggers tested together in a bucket at constant temperatures. In this test, 18 units were set in a bucket at room temperature, allowed to equilibrate, and then the temperature measurements by each unit were recorded at 1 minute intervals for 10 minutes. Then the units were moved to an ice bath, allowed to equilibrate, and then the temperatures were recorded. Results were consistent, whether calculated as the ranges of average temperatures, differences of maximum temperatures, or the average of the range of differences recorded for each unit. At room temperature, the units were accurate to ± 0.3 ° C and at freezing ( ice bath), accurate to ± 0.2 ° C ( Table 1). Since temperature criteria and concerns are usually focused at higher temperatures, not freezing, the room temperature test is the more relevant for estimating the limits of repeatable temperature measurements.

Table 1. Bench tests of temperature measurement error at constant temperatures ( º C)

Condition Grand average Temperature ( ± SD) Range of average temperatures Differences in maximum temperatures recorded Average range of temperature differences Number of sensors Measurement interval Room temperature 21.64 ( 0.08) 0.28 0.32 0.32 18 1/ minute Ice Bath  0.01 ( 0.05) 0.15 0.17 0.18 18 1/ minute 15 The bench test of accuracy of temperature measurements in a static vessel at constant temperatures represents an environment of minimum variability. In practice, temperature comparisons are made in natural streams at fluctuating temperatures. These field conditions introduce additional variability into temperature measurements and comparisons. Temperature loggers are often placed to evaluate nonpoint or point source temperature effects ( Zaroban 2000). For example, to assess temperatures relating to nonpoint source watershed disturbances, loggers should be placed at the downstream end of a reach with relatively uniform morphology, land use, and cover. Once in the channel, the logger should be placed in a shaded spot where the water is well mixed and not influenced by warm or cool water sources such as ground water, tributary confluences, or direct sunlight. In flowing waters, well mixed waters normally occur in the center of the thalweg. To show that the water at the site is well mixed and representative of reach conditions, horizontal and vertical mixing is verified with handheld temperature measurements ( Zaroban 2000). These protocols for site selection and placement of temperature data loggers in streams minimize confounding field measurement error and improve the comparability of data between places and times. However some added field variability is unavoidable.

Table 2 presents selected results of differences between temperature measurements from two reference sites with six replicate sensors, and 28 sites with duplicate sensors deployed for the same 62 day periods. Each sensor was mounted in a flow through shading canister and were placed in a well mixed portions of the streams following Zaroban ( 2000). Sensors were placed at the top and bottom of habitat and biological sampling reaches, about 40 stream channel widths apart, which worked out to 100 200 meters apart. Two sites were replicated to compare variability of physical and biological measurements within what appeared to be representative reaches. Each temperature sensor was considered to be representative of the reach, so differences among these individually representative sensors can be considered to be measurement error. When reduced to conventional regulatory temperature metrics, the maximum daily average temperatures ( MDATs) from these site replicates never varied more than to ± 0.34 ° C. The maximum daily temperature ( MDMT) differences were never greater than ± 0.65 ° C ( Table 2). 16 Table 2. Differences in commonly used temperature metrics among sites with duplicate or multiple sensors. Each replicate reach ( RR) had duplicate sensors, A upstream end of reach, B downstream ( Source   Ott and Maret 2002)

( a) Replicated sites ( 3 replicates with 2 sensors each MDMT ( ° C) MWMT ( ° C) MDAT ( ° C) MWAT ( ° C)

Stream A B A B A B A B Big Creek, RR 1 19.54 19.54 18.44 18.40 13.79 13.79 12.95 12.94 Big Creek, RR 2 19.51 19.64 18.45 18.51 13.87 13.84 13.04 13.00 Big Creek, RR 3 18.99 19.05 17.96 18.08 13.53 13.66 12.70 12.85 Range 0.65 0.55 0.34 0.25 Valley Creek, RR 1 21.99 20.61 16.03 15.18 Valley Creek, RR 2 22.18 22.06 20.72 20.67 16.05 16.14 15.21 15.29 Valley Creek, RR 3 22.53 22.19 21.04 20.75 16.29 16.18 15.43 15.33 Range 0.54 0.43 0.26 0.25 ( b) Non replicated sites ( 28 sites with 2 sensors each)

MDMT ( ° C) MWMT ( ° C) MDAT ( ° C) MWAT ( ° C)

Average difference 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.07 Maximum difference 0.34 0.29 0.23 0.22 Sites with multiple sensors tended to record slightly higher variability than the sites with just two sensors. Also, averaging reduces variability, with the metric with no averaging being the most variable ( MDMT) and the metric with the most averaging ( MWAT) having the least variability ( differences between MDAT and MWAT were nearly identical).

While some measurements of temperature metrics at field replicate sites varied up to 0.6 ° C, most differences were 0.3 ° C or less. From this we conclude that when appropriately deployed ( e. g. following Zaroban 2000 or similar protocols), temperature data loggers are nearly as precise for long deployments in fluctuating environments as in bench tests. From these analyses, we conclude that potentially measurable changes in temperature are differences greater than 0.3 ° C. Both the bench tests and the field tests show the remarkable stability and repeatability of properly deployed modern temperature data loggers.

For chemical analyses, at concentration above the quantitation limit quality control guidelines for laboratory duplicate analyses are customarily set at relative percent difference ( RPD) of ± 20% ( EPA 1991, Beltman et al. 1993). However, as concentrations approach the limits of the instrument's capability to " see" the analytes, differences increase. Beltman et al ( 1993) reported RPD's in field replicates of up to ± 50% for dissolved copper at concentrations < 10X the detection limits, but at higher concentrations RPDs were usually less than ± 10%. Since the issue of a measurable change is in the context of the requirement not to measurably exceed background 17 conditions when background exceed numeric standards, ambient concentrations will likely be sufficiently high that differences of > 10% are at least potentially detectable in laboratory analyses. In contrast, in the case of analyses of waters with concentrations approaching detection limits ( and well below numeric standards), variability may be much higher. These types of low level analyses may be needed for evaluations of special resource waters or nondegradation of high quality waters. Mebane ( 2000) concluded that in the upper Salmon River, where ambient concentrations were very low, minimum detectable differences for copper and zinc were 2 µ g/ L and 13 µ g/ L respectively. In cases like these with low concentrations, a large amount of the data may be below the detection limit which requires special consideration in statistical analyses ( Helsel 1990).

Statistical Considerations Statistics are an inherent part of evaluating changes from background conditions, as well as nearly all water quality monitoring programs. A common question of monitoring programs is whether a particular management action is having an adverse change in water quality. To quantitatively answer this question, it is necessary to acquire data and make statistical comparisons to other site( s), or to data from the site before and after the activity ( MacDonald et al. 1991). In the present case of using natural background conditions to manage water quality where " pollutant levels shall not exceed the natural background conditions," it is necessary to both determine natural conditions and whether they are exceeded. Desirably, once natural conditions are determined, monitoring and assessment to determine whether conditions are exceeded due to an action should likely to detect differences in ambient water quality if in fact they exist ( referred to as having a low Type II error in statistical jargon). Further, the assessment should be unlikely to falsely indicate there is a difference when in fact there is none; that is, observed differences are just due to chance ( low Type I error). The detection limit becomes an intrinsic part of statistical comparisons, which require selection of a minimum detectable effect.

Statistics are not a " black box" calculations, nor should they be rote. Before statistically examining existing data for changes from background conditions or designing a monitoring program, the investigator must answer certain questions:

Which is the greater concern   falsely concluding that an effect has happened, which could cause unnecessary expense or restrictions to dischargers, land managers, etc. ( Type I error), or to fail to detect actual effects which could allow environmental degradation ( Type II error)?

How much increase in the parameter being evaluated ( e. g. temperature, metals concentration, % fine sediments) is acceptable before concluding that values exceed natural conditions? Although the regulatory answer may be " no increase is acceptable," this is not a statistically acceptable answer because no monitoring program or statistical test can detect an infinitesimal increase. A minimum detectable effect must be selected ( MacDonald et al. 1991).

When working with the requirement for activities to not to exceed background conditions when background exceed numeric standards, a fundamental question when evaluating monitoring data is whether a significant change has occurred. The ability to statistically analyze this depends upon compromises between five interacting factors: sample size, 18 variability, level of significance, power, minimum detectable effect ( MacDonald et al. 1991).

1. Sample size: Larger sample size increases the ability to detect a difference between two groups of samples.

2. Variability: The more variable a measure, the less the ability to detect significant change.

3. Level of significance: This refers to the probability that an apparently significant difference is not real but simply due to chance. This is referred to as   or a Type I error. The   value is often arbitrarily set at 0.05 for confirmatory statistical tests and 0.10 in exploratory tests. An   of 0.10 means there is a 1 in 10 chance that an observed difference is due to chance, or a test is 90% " confident." The lower the significance level is set at, the more likely the difference is real. However, lower significance levels also mean that a test has reduced power to detect real differences if they exist.

Significance testing requires choosing between a " one tailed" or " two tailed" test. The one tailed probability is exactly half the value of the two tailed probability, so for a given test a one tailed test is more likely to be significant. A two tailed test is appropriate when the investigator cannot predict the direction of response based on theory, a one tailed test is appropriate when the investigator can predict the direction of potential response, if any. For example, removal of riparian vegetation would be predicted to result in an increase in summer time stream temperatures, so a one tailed test would be appropriate; however removal of riparian shade could result in either an increase or decrease in trout populations due to increases in primary productivity and temperature, so a two tailed test would be appropriate.

4. Power: The probability of detecting a difference when in fact one exists; designated ( 1  ).   or a " Type II" error, is the probability of incorrectly concluding that two groups of samples are the same when in fact they are different. In environmental sampling   is commonly set at 0.25 to 0.1; that is a test has a 75% to 90% probability of detecting a change if there is one. While higher probabilities would be desirable, because power function curves are logarithmic, as sample sizes increase, further increases in sample size make little improvement in a test's power. Tests with 90 to 95% statistical power and   of 0.05 or less would require huge sample sizes. Increasing the statistical power of a sampling plan reduces the likelihood of making a Type II error ( failing to detect an actual difference), but at the same time increases the likelihood of making a Type I ( concluding there is a difference when none exists). As a starting point for evaluating if activities result in an exceedence of natural background conditions, we suggest power and significance values of   < 0.1 and   < 0.2.

5. Minimum detectable difference ( MDD): Determining how much change is acceptable and thus needs to be detected in the ambient concentrations is a key factor in


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16351-16352]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07780]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2837-033]

Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.; Notice of Application Tendered
for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests
and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for
Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2837-033.
    c. Date Filed: March 29, 2018.
    d. Applicant: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. (Erie).
    e. Name of Project: Granby Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Oswego River in the town of Fulton in Oswego
County, New York. The project does not affect federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Steven P. Murphy, Director, U.S. Licensing,
Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., 33 West 1st Street South, Fulton, NY
13069;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Allyson Conner,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: May 29, 2018.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy
to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2837-033.
    m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The existing Granby Hydroelectric Project (Granby Project)
consists of: (1) An 88-foot-wide reinforced concrete intake structure
that includes four 15.5-foot-wide by 20-foot-high bays each containing
trashracks and fixed-roller vertical-lift type gates; (2) a 17-foot-
wide sluice opening adjacent to the intake

structure; (3) a 112-foot-long, 88-foot-wide, 46-foot-high powerhouse
containing two 5.04-megawatt (MW) turbine-generator units, with a total
capacity of 10.08 MW; (4) a 3,000-foot-long, 100-foot-wide tailrace;
(5) two 4.16-kilovolt, 120-foot-long underground generator leads; (6) a
60-foot-long by 48-foot-wide electrical switchyard; and (7) appurtenant
facilities.
    The Granby Project is operated in a modified run-of-river mode. The
Granby Project and the Fulton Development at Erie's Oswego River
Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2474) are located at opposite
ends of the same dam and share a single bypassed reach and reservoir.
The flow and impoundment elevation requirements in the Oswego Project
license,\1\ which were based on a 2004 Offer of Settlement, affect the
Granby Project. The average annual generation at the Granby Project is
estimated to be 44,181 megawatt-hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 109 FERC ] 62, 141 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will
be processed according to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions
to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary)--June 2018
Request Additional Information--June 2018
Issue Acceptance Letter--September 2018
Issue Scoping Document 1--September 2018
Comments on Scoping Document 1 due--October 2018
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary)--December 2018
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis--January 2019
Commission issues EA--June 2019
Comments on EA--July 2019

    q. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: April 9, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07780 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 16, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36355-36359]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12856]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0525; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-7]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment and Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV)
Routes; South-Central Florida Metroplex Project

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend two existing low altitude RNAV
routes (T-routes), and establish nine new T-routes in support of the
South-Central Florida Metroplex Project. The proposed changes would
reduce the dependency of the National Airspace System (NAS) on ground-
based navigational systems, and assist with the transition to a more
efficient Performance Based Navigation (PBN) route structure.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1
(800) 647-5527 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-
2020-0525; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-7 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and

subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would expand the availability of RNAV in Florida to
improve the efficiency of the NAS by lessening the dependency on
ground-based navigation aids.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0525; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-7 and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0525; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-7.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM's

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal
Aviation Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Ave., College Park, GA
30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this proposed rule. FAA Order 7400.11D
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend two existing low altitude RNAV
routes (T-routes), and establish nine new T-routes in support of the
South-Central Florida Metroplex Project. The purpose of the routes is
to expand the availability of RNAV and improve the efficiency of the
NAS by reducing the dependency on ground-based navigation systems. The
following is a general description of the proposed amended and new
routes.
    T-208: T-208 is an existing route that currently extends from the
Gators, FL (GNV), VORTAC eastward to the CARRA, FL, fix, then to the
Ormond Beach (OMN) VORTAC. This action proposes to remove the Gators
VORTAC, the CARRA fix, and the Ormond Beach VORTAC from the route. T-
208 would be realigned to start at the WALEE, FL, waypoint (WP)
(located to the east of the current Gators VORTAC). The route would
then proceed eastward to the MMKAY, FL and the FOXAM, FL, WPs, (near
the Florida east coast), then it would turn southward through the
SUUGR, FL, WP, the SMYRA, FL, OAKIE, FL, MALET, FL, TICCO, FL, and
INDIA, FL, fixes, then continue southward through the DIMBY, FL, WP,
the VALKA, FL, fix, the SULTY, FL, WIXED, FL, CLEFF, FL, DURRY, FL, and
BOBOE, FL, WPs, and terminating at the SHANC, FL, fix (located about 17
nautical miles (NM) northwest of the Fort Lauderdale, FL, VOR/DME). The
amended route would extend between the WALEE, FL, WP, and the SHANC,
FL, fix.
    T-210: T-210 is an existing route that currently extends from the
Taylor, FL (TAY), VORTAC, to the OHLEE, FL, WP, to the BRADO, FL, fix.
The FAA proposes to remove the Taylor VORTAC from the route and add the
MARQO, FL, WP (in the vicinity of the Taylor VORTAC) as the new start
point. From the MARQO WP, the route would proceed southeastward through
the OHLEE, FL, WP, and BRADO, FL, fix (as currently charted). After the
BRADO fix, the route would turn southward through the MMKAY, FL, WP,
the MRUTT, FL, WP, the GUANO, FL, fix, and the KIZER, FL, fix (located
about 23 NM north of the Orlando, FL (ORL), VORTAC). After KIZER, the
route would turn southwestward through the EMSEE, FL, DAIYL, FL, AKOJO,
FL, and PUNQU, FL, WPs, and terminating at the VARZE, FL, WP.
    T-336: T-336 is a proposed new route that would extend between the
TROYR, FL, WP, and the WIXED, FL, WP.
    T-337: T-337 is a proposed new route that would extend between the
SWENY, FL, WP, and the WEZER, FL, WP.
    T-339: T-339 is a proposed new route that would extend between the
KARTR, FL, WP, and the ODDEL, FL, WP.
    T-341: T-341 is a proposed new route that would extend between the
MEAGN, FL, WP, and the MARQO, FL, WP.

    T-343: T-343 is a proposed new route that would extend between the
WORPP, FL, WP, and the INDIA, FL, WP.
    T-345: T-345 is a proposed new route that would extend between the
MARKT, FL, WP, and the DEARY, FL, WP.
    T-347: T-347 is a proposed new route that would extend between the
CLEFF, FL, WP, and the SEBAG, FL, WP.
    T-349: T-349 is a proposed new route that would extend between the
VARZE, FL, WP, and the TROYR, FL, WP.
    T-353: T-353 is a proposed new route that would extend between the
FEBRO, FL, WP, and the ASTOR, FL, WP.
    United States Area Navigation routes are published in paragraph
6011 of FAA Order 7400.2D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The RNAV routes listed in this document would be subsequently published
in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-208 WALEE, FL to SHANC, FL [Amended]

WALEE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]41'36.05'' N, long. 082[deg]14'07.07'' W)
MMKAY, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]41'55.42'' N, long. 081[deg]26'49.15'' W)
FOXAM, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]33'37.73'' N, long. 081[deg]09'37.84'' W)
SUUGR, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]19'40.38'' N, long. 081[deg]07'20.79'' W)
SMYRA, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 29[deg]00'19.48'' N, long. 080[deg]59'34.51'' W)
OAKIE, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]51'04.26'' N, long. 080[deg]55'52.35'' W)
MALET, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]41'29.90'' N, long. 080[deg]52'04.30'' W)
TICCO, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]31'00.50'' N, long. 080[deg]47'52.80'' W)
INDIA, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]26'04.19'' N, long. 080[deg]45'55.25'' W)
DIMBY, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]04'52.54'' N, long. 080[deg]37'37.61'' W)
VALKA, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 27[deg]55'06.06'' N, long. 080[deg]34'17.17'' W)
SULTY, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]48'12.41'' N, long. 080[deg]32'59.17'' W)
WIXED, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]41'24.86'' N, long. 080[deg]29'56.56'' W)
CLEFF, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]00'03.31'' N, long. 080[deg]32'38.27'' W)
DURRY, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]43'46.96'' N, long. 080[deg]24'09.25'' W)
BOBOE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]28'48.72'' N, long. 080[deg]23'05.23'' W)
SHANC, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 26[deg]18'51.14'' N, long. 080[deg]20'00.16'' W)

                                                   * * * * * *
T-210 MARQO, FL to VARZE, FL [Amended]

MARQO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 30[deg]30'53.57'' N, long. 082[deg]32'45.62'' W)
OHLEE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 30[deg]16'06.04'' N, long. 082[deg]06'32.53'' W)
BRADO, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 29[deg]55'21.88'' N, long. 081[deg]28'07.89'' W)
MMKAY, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]41'55.42'' N, long. 081[deg]26'49.15'' W)
MRUTT, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]12'12.40'' N, long. 081[deg]23'55.50'' W)
GUANO, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 29[deg]05'58.73'' N, long. 081[deg]23'18.93'' W)
KIZER, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]55'26.00'' N, long. 081[deg]22'17.83'' W)
EMSEE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]50'43.72'' N, long. 081[deg]32'47.03'' W)
DAIYL, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]49'10.74'' N, long. 081[deg]41'29.68'' W)
AKOJO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]45'44.01'' N, long. 081[deg]43'31.54'' W)
PUNQU, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]34'33.65'' N, long. 081[deg]49'22.43'' W)
VARZE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]16'25.85'' N, long. 082[deg]01'44.51'' W)

                                                   * * * * * *
T-336 TROYR, FL to WIXED, FL [New]

TROYR, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]34'20.92'' N, long. 083[deg]01'52.68'' W)
OMMNI, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]51'29.29'' N, long. 082[deg]09'41.75'' W)
PUNQU, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]34'33.65'' N, long. 081[deg]49'22.43'' W)
YOJIX, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]02'44.04'' N, long. 081[deg]33'45.34'' W)
YONMA, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]03'55.68'' N, long. 081[deg]24'31.18'' W)
ODDEL, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]05'45.51'' N, long. 081[deg]10'10.24'' W)
DEARY, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]06'02.53'' N, long. 080[deg]54'51.40'' W)
WIXED, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]41'24.86'' N, long. 080[deg]29'56.56'' W)

                                                   * * * * * *
T-337 SWENY, FL to WEZER, FL [New]

SWENY, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]33'58.08'' N, long. 082[deg]12'21.08'' W)
RISKS, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]01'51.89'' N, long. 081[deg]56'40.30'' W)
WEZER, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]02'26.59'' N, long. 082[deg]02'39.60'' W)

                                                   * * * * * *
T-339 KARTR, FL to ODDEL, FL [New]

KARTR, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 25[deg]29'45.76'' N, long. 081[deg]30'46.24'' W)
DEEDS, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 25[deg]58'40.31'' N, long. 081[deg]13'59.60'' W)
SWAGS, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 26[deg]10'37.07'' N, long. 081[deg]05'59.93'' W)
ZAGPO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]23'47.41'' N, long. 080[deg]57'25.83'' W)
DIDDY, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 27[deg]18'38.15'' N, long. 080[deg]52'55.92'' W)
ODDEL, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]05'45.51'' N, long. 081[deg]10'10.24'' W)

                                                   * * * * * *
T-341 MEAGN, FL to MARQO, FL [New]

MEAGN, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]14'17.20'' N, long. 080[deg]47'23.64'' W)
ZAGPO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]23'47.41'' N, long. 080[deg]57'25.83'' W)
CUSEK, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]51'38.79'' N, long. 081[deg]23'17.37'' W)
WEZER, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]02'26.59'' N, long. 082[deg]02'39.60'' W)
VARZE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]16'25.85'' N, long. 082[deg]01'44.51'' W)
MARQO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 30[deg]30'53.57'' N, long. 082[deg]32'45.62'' W)

                                                   * * * * * *
T-343 WORPP, FL to INDIA, FL [New]

WORPP, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 25[deg]53'36.69'' N, long. 080[deg]58'26.87'' W)
CUSEK, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]51'38.79'' N, long. 081[deg]23'17.37'' W)
FEBRO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]37'02.08'' N, long. 081[deg]47'07.68'' W)
TAHRS, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]52'12.96'' N, long. 081[deg]33'55.12'' W)
YOJIX, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]02'44.04'' N, long. 081[deg]33'45.34'' W)
YONMA, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]03'55.68'' N, long. 081[deg]24'31.18'' W)
ODDEL, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]05'45.51'' N, long. 081[deg]10'10.24'' W)
DEARY, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]06'02.53'' N, long. 080[deg]54'51.40'' W)
INDIA, FL                     FIX                 (Lat. 28[deg]26'04.19'' N, long. 080[deg]45'55.25'' W)

                                                   * * * * * *
T-345 MARKT, FL to DEARY, FL [New]

MARKT, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]22'53.63'' N, long. 080[deg]34'41.82'' W)
AIRBT, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 26[deg]46'51.62'' N, long. 080[deg]42'21.85'' W)
DOWDI, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]07'16.35'' N, long. 080[deg]42'02.47'' W)
LLNCH, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]26'07.67'' N, long. 080[deg]41'44.46'' W)
DEARY, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]06'02.53'' N, long. 080[deg]54'51.40'' W)

T-347 CLEFF, FL to SEBAG, FL [New]

CLEFF, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]00'03.31'' N, long. 080[deg]32'38.27'' W)
BAIRN, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]56'52.37'' N, long. 081[deg]06'54.35'' W)
SABOT, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]15'05.10'' N, long. 081[deg]13'37.16'' W)
CROPY, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]47'32.71'' N, long. 081[deg]21'35.38'' W)
KIZER, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]55'26.00'' N, long. 081[deg]22'17.83'' W)
GUANO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]05'58.73'' N, long. 081[deg]23'18.93'' W)
MRUTT, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]12'12.40'' N, long. 081[deg]23'55.50'' W)
FOXAM, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]33'37.73'' N, long. 081[deg]09'37.84'' W)
SEBAG, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]49'04.24'' N, long. 081[deg]12'34.72'' W)

                                                   * * * * * *
T-349 VARZE, FL to TROYR, FL [New]

VARZE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]16'25.85'' N, long. 082[deg]01'44.51'' W)
TROYR, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]34'20.92'' N, long. 083[deg]01'52.68'' W)

                                                   * * * * * *
T-353 FEBRO, FL to ASTOR, FL [New]

FEBRO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]37'02.08'' N, long. 081[deg]47'07.68'' W)
MOANS, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 27[deg]54'49.97'' N, long. 081[deg]44'54.89'' W)
PUNQU, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]34'33.65'' N, long. 081[deg]49'22.43'' W)
AKOJO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]45'44.01'' N, long. 081[deg]43'31.54'' W)
DAIYL, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]49'10.74'' N, long. 081[deg]41'29.68'' W)
EMSEE, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]50'43.72'' N, long. 081[deg]32'47.03'' W)
KIZER, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 28[deg]55'26.00'' N, long. 081[deg]22'17.83'' W)
GUANO, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]05'58.73'' N, long. 081[deg]23'18.93'' W)
MRUTT, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]12'12.40'' N, long. 081[deg]23'55.50'' W)
FOXAM, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]33'37.73'' N, long. 081[deg]09'37.84'' W)
ASTOR, FL                     WP                  (Lat. 29[deg]47'55.30'' N, long. 081[deg]18'06.11'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 10, 2020.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-12856 Filed 6-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P