16784 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959– 

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 9, 2011, effective 

September 15, 2011, is amended as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas 

extending upward from 700 feet or more 

above the surface of the earth. 

* * * * * 

ASO FL E5 Orlando, FL [Amend] 

Orlando Executive Airport, FL 

(Lat.28 °32′44′′ N., long. 81°19′58′′ W.) 

Orlando VORTAC 

(Lat. 28°32′34′′ N., long. 81°20′06′′ W.) 

Orlando International Airport 

(Lat. 28°25′44′′ N., long. 81°18′57′′ W.) 

Kissimmee Municipal Airport 

(Lat. 28°17′24′′ N., long. 81°26′14′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius 

of Orlando Executive Airport and within 3.1- 

miles each side of Orlando VORTAC 067° 

radial, extending from the 7-mile radius to 

9.5-miles northeast of the VORTAC and 

within a 7-mile radius of Orlando 

International Airport and within 3 miles each 

side of Orlando VORTAC 176° radial 

extending from the 7-mile radius to 19 miles 

south of the VORTAC, and within a 7-mile 

radius of Kissimmee Municipal Airport. 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 

14, 2012. 

Barry A. Knight, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern 

Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6846 Filed 3–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

21 CFR Part 73 

[Docket No. FDA–2012–C–0224] 

E. & J. Gallo Winery; Filing of Color 

Additive Petition 

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, 

HHS. 

ACTION: Notice of petition. 

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA) is announcing 

that E. & J. Gallo Winery has filed a 

petition proposing that the color 

additive regulations be amended to 

provide for the expanded safe use of 

mica-based pearlescent pigments as 

color additives in certain distilled 

spirits. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Raphael A. Davy, Center for Food Safety 

and Applied Nutrition (HFS–265), Food 

and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint 

Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740– 

3835, 240–402–1272. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(section 721(d)(1) (21 U.S.C. 

379e(d)(1))), notice is given that a color 

additive petition (CAP 2C0294) has been 

filed by E. & J. Gallo Winery, c/o Keller 

and Heckman LLP, One Embarcadero 

Center, Suite 2110, San Francisco, CA 

94111. The petition proposes to amend 

the color additive regulations in 21 CFR 

73.350 to provide for the safe use of 

mica-based pearlescent pigments 

prepared from titanium dioxide and 

mica as color additives in distilled 

spirits containing not less than 18% and 

not more than 23% alcohol by volume 

but not including distilled spirits 

mixtures containing more that 5% wine 

on a proof gallon basis. 

The Agency has determined under 21 

CFR 25.32(k) that this action is of a type 

that does not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. Therefore, 

neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement 

is required. 

Dated: March 13, 2012. 

Francis Lin, 

Acting Director, Office of Food Additive 

Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied 

Nutrition. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6854 Filed 3–21–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 114, 116, 118 

[Docket No. USCG–2008–1188] 

RIN 1625–AB36 

General Bridge Regulation; 

Amendment 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

withdrawing its rulemaking concerning 

amendments to the general bridge 

regulations. The rulemaking was 

initiated to clarify the statutory 

responsibilities of bridge owners to 

remove their bridges from navigable 

waterways when they are no longer 

being used for land transportation 

functions. The Coast Guard will initiate 

a new rulemaking on this matter when 

an appropriate methodology, which 

might include an investigation and 

meetings, to be used in determining 

whether an unused bridge is an 

unreasonable obstruction to navigation 

is developed. 

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn 

on March 22, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

withdrawn rulemaking is available for 

inspection or copying at the Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2008–1188 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this notice, 

call or email Mr. Chris Jaufmann, Bridge 

Program, U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 

202–372–1511, email 

Josef.C.Jaufmann@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing material in the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

There were no documents published 

in the Federal Register for this 

rulemaking, but this rulemaking was 

announced in the Unified Agenda of 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

beginning in fall agenda 2009. The Coast 

Guard does not currently have 

regulations describing the processes of 

requiring alteration or removal of 

unused bridges. This rulemaking would 

have proposed making amendments to 

the general bridge regulations to 

articulate the responsibility of the 

bridge owner to alter or remove unused 

bridges, and to describe the Coast Guard 

processes to require alteration or 

removal of those bridges. 

Withdrawal 

The Coast Guard is withdrawing this 

rulemaking in order to ascertain the 

appropriate due process, which might 

include an investigation and meetings, 

to be used in determining whether an 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS