Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Notices 72147 

7The FAA is also reviewing its Policy and 

Guidance Letter 78 (dated June 21, 2004), which 

addresses Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish 

& Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). The FAA will either update, 

revise or rescind that policy as appropriate after 

coordination with the USFWS. 

8The FAA previously issued a Federal Register 

notice for public comment on December 10, 2012 

(77 FR 73511). The FRN presented a clarification of 

Grant Assurance #19 (Operation and Maintenance), 

which would have clarified the expectation for all 

federally-obligated airports to conduct Wildlife 

Hazard Site Visits (WHSVs) or Wildlife Hazard 

Assessments (WHAs). Based in part on comments 

received in response to that Federal Register notice, 

the FAA has decided not to proceed with this 

clarification at this time. 

required mitigation measures and 

associated regulatory/permit 

requirements. 

The ACSI will coordinate with the 

FAA’s EPS to determine whether any 

measures of the WHMP may require 

NEPA review beyond a categorical 

exclusion, and to ensure compliance 

with any other applicable 

environmental law. Approval letters 

will indicate which measures are not yet 

approved for implementation due to a 

need for additional FAA NEPA or 

special purpose law compliance, which 

measures are approved with conditions 

that the Certificate Holder must satisfy 

prior to implementation of the measure, 

and which measures are approved 

outright and ready for implementation. 

• Environmental Protection 

Specialists (EPS’s). The EPS will 

coordinate with the ACSI to review all 

available information to determine 

whether FAA may categorically exclude 

the approval of any or all of the WHMP 

measures comprising the WHMP in 

accordance with paragraph 5–6.2(e) of 

FAA Order 1050.1F, or whether any 

may require preparation of an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) or 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

To avoid segmentation, the FAA’s EPS 

will, as part of the review of 

extraordinary circumstances, consider 

whether any measures considered for 

approval under a categorical exclusion 

are connected to other measures that 

may require further environmental 

review or interagency coordination. The 

EPS will provide the ACSI with 

language (for inclusion in the letter to 

the Certificate Holder) explaining which 

measures and aspects of the Plan are 

approved, approved with conditions 

(like obtaining a 404 permit) but 

without requiring further FAA action, or 

disapproved or requiring further 

environmental analysis or consultation 

by FAA. The EPS will also advise the 

Certificate Holder regarding which 

agency is responsible for coordination 

with the applicable resource agencies.7

If there are additional environmental 

reviews needed before the Certificate 

Holder can implement a specific action, 

the EPS will help draft conditions 

requiring such coordination and 

completion of the environmental review 

before implementation of the action is 

undertaken by the Certificate Holder. 

Certification Status: Certificate 

Holders should note that, pursuant to 

Section 139.337(e), FAA’s approval of a 

WHMP satisfies their requirements as 

long as the Certificate Holder 

implements the approved provisions 

and works to obtain approval of the 

remaining measures. To the extent there 

are measures that require additional 

NEPA review and/or other interagency 

coordination, the Certificate Holder may 

not implement those measures unless 

and until the FAA and/or the 

appropriate resource agency have 

reached a favorable environmental 

determination. The Certificate Holder 

must then carry out the approved 

measures to remain in compliance with 

Part 139 certification requirements. This 

does not relieve the Certificate Holder of 

their responsibility to continue to 

monitor wildlife hazards and take 

relevant and appropriate measures to 

minimize the risks, to the extent 

permissible under the WHMP and all 

applicable environmental laws and 

regulations. 

If the WHMP has no measures that 

can be implemented immediately, the 

Certificate Holder must consider and 

document interim mitigation measures, 

in consultation with the FAA’s ACSI 

and EPS. For example, if the WHMP 

calls for certain depredation measures 

which require approval by the U.S. Fish 

& Wildlife Service, then the Certificate 

Holder may commit to monitoring 

wildlife numbers and activities, and 

seek under any available emergency 

provisions to conduct the least invasive 

measure in the interim. In 

extraordinarily rare circumstances, it 

may be possible for a Certificate Holder 

to demonstrate that wildlife hazards 

represent such an immediate threat to 

the safety of the traveling public that the 

emergency provisions of NEPA and the 

Endangered Species Act offer some 

latitude for interim action. This would 

be rare, however, because the FAA 

expects Certificate Holders to monitor 

wildlife hazards and initiate required 

coordination early enough to mitigate 

risks while complying with all 

applicable environmental laws and 

regulations. 

Applicability to non-139 airports: The 

FAA encourages all airport operators to 

actively monitor and manage wildlife 

hazards on and near the airport 

environs. Other airports (such as those 

that are certificated under 14 CFR part 

139 but that have not had a triggering 

event that would mandate a WHMP, or 

for airports not certificated under Part 

139) are still encouraged to undertake 

Wildlife Hazard Assessments or 

Wildlife Hazard Site Visits, and to 

establish and implement WHMPs when 

justified.8 However, the FAA would not 

approve such plans, so unless 

implementation of the WHMP required 

a change to the ALP, or involved federal 

funding, there would most likely be no 

Federal action from the FAA’s 

perspective. Airport owners and 

operators would have to comply with all 

applicable Federal environmental laws 

and regulations related to any measures 

contained within such WHMPs if they 

have the potential to impact threatened 

and endangered species, wetlands, 

archeological sites or other protected 

environmental resources. The FAA 

would make its expert wildlife and 

environmental resources available to the 

airport in such circumstances, and may 

support interagency coordination if 

necessary depending upon the proposed 

measures. 

Effective date: Once the FAA has 

received and reviewed any comments 

submitted in response to this Federal 

Register notice, the FAA will publish a 

final revision of Policy 92, which will 

be effective as of the date of its 

publication for any new or updated 

WHMP that has not yet been submitted 

to the FAA for review and approval as 

of that date. However, this does not 

relieve airport Certificate Holders of 

their responsibilities for additional 

permitting and interagency coordination 

that may already be required under 

applicable federal environmental laws 

for implementation of certain measures, 

even if those measures were submitted 

as part of a WHMP that was previously 

approved by the FAA but not yet 

implemented. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 14, 

2016. 

Elliott Black, 

Director, Office of Airport Planning and 

Programming. 

[FR Doc. 2016–25285 Filed 10–18–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Notice of Request To Release Airport 

Property 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
72148 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 202 / Wednesday, October 19, 2016 / Notices 

ACTION: Notice of Intent To Rule on 

Request To Release Airport Property at 

Waterloo Regional Airport, Waterloo, 

Iowa. (ALO) 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and 

invites public comment on the release of 

land at Waterloo Regional Airport, 

Waterloo, Iowa, under the provisions of 

49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 18, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this 

application may be mailed or delivered 

to the FAA at the following address: 

Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance 

Specialist, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Airports Division, 

ACE–610C, 901 Locust Room 364, 

Kansas City, MO 64106. 

In addition, one copy of any 

comments submitted to the FAA must 

be mailed or delivered to: Keith Kaspari, 

Director of Aviation, 2790 Livingston 

Ln., Waterloo, IA 50703, (319) 291–4483 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance 

Specialist, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Airports Division, 

ACE–610C, 901 Locust Room 364, 

Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) 329–2644, 

lynn.martin@faa.gov. The request to 

release property may be reviewed, by 

appointment, in person at this same 

location. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

invites public comment on the request 

to release approximately 12.33+ acres of 

airport property at Waterloo Regional 

Airport (ALO) under the provisions of 

49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). On March 29, 

2016, the Director of Aviation at 

Waterloo Regional Airport requested 

from the FAA that approximately 

12.33+ acres of property be released for 

sale to Dahlstrom Development for 

industrial/business development 

consistent with the zoning ordinances of 

the City. On October 6, 2016, the FAA 

determined that the request to release 

property at Waterloo Regional Airport 

(ALO) submitted by the Sponsor meets 

the procedural requirements of the 

Federal Aviation Administration and 

the release of the property does not and 

will not impact future aviation needs at 

the airport. The FAA may approve the 

request, in whole or in part, no sooner 

than thirty days after the publication of 

this notice. 

The following is a brief overview of 

the request: 

The Waterloo Regional Airport (ALO) 

is proposing the release of airport 

property totaling 12.33 acres, more or 

less. This land is to be used for 

industrial/business development to 

Dahlstrom Development. The release of 

land is necessary to comply with 

Federal Aviation Administration Grant 

Assurances that do not allow federally 

acquired airport property to be used for 

non-aviation purposes. The sale of the 

subject property will result in the land 

at Waterloo Regional Airport (ALO) 

being changed from aeronautical to nonaeronautical use and release the lands 

from the conditions of the Airport 

Improvement Program Grant Agreement 

Grant Assurances. In accordance with 

49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the 

airport will receive fair market value for 

the property, which will be 

subsequently reinvested in another 

eligible airport improvement project for 

general aviation facilities at Waterloo 

Regional Airport. 

Any person may inspect, by 

appointment, the request in person at 

the FAA office listed above under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In 

addition, any person may, upon 

appointment and request, inspect the 

application, notice and other documents 

determined by the FAA to be related to 

the application in person at Waterloo 

Regional Airport. 

Issued in Kansas City, MO on October 13, 

2016. 

Jim A. Johnson, 

Manager, Airports Division. 

[FR Doc. 2016–25286 Filed 10–18–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Environmental Impact Statement: Los 

Angeles County, California 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Amended notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The FHWA, on behalf of the 

California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), is issuing this amended 

notice to advise the public that a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

will be prepared for proposed highway 

improvements on Interstate 605 (I–605). 

The I–605 Corridor Improvement Project 

(Project) will consist of improvements 

on the I–605 corridor from the Interstate 

10 (I–10) Interchange to the Interstate 

105 (I–105) Interchange. The proposed 

Project also includes improvements 

along State Route 60 (SR–60) from Santa 

Anita Avenue to east of Turnbull 

Canyon Road, and on Interstate 5 (I–5) 

from Florence Avenue to Paramount 

Boulevard in the cities of Baldwin Park, 

El Monte, City of Industry, Pico Rivera, 

South El Monte, Whittier, Downey, 

Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs, and 

unincorporated Los Angeles County. 

The Project limits include the I–605/I– 

5 and I–605/SR–60 corridors. These 

corridors were previously analyzed as 

separate projects; however, the Project 

limits along these corridors are being 

combined to connect logical termini. A 

Project Study Report-Project 

Development Support Study (PSR–PDS) 

for the I–605/I–5 corridor was approved 

in July 2014, and a PSR–PDS for the I– 

605/SR–60 corridor was approved in 

December 2015 (not attached). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ronald Kosinski, Deputy District 

Director, Division of Environmental 

Planning, District 7, 100 South Main 

Street, Suite 100, Los Angeles, CA 

90012, (213) 897–0703. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective 

July 1, 2007, the FHWA assigned, and 

Caltrans assumed, environmental 

responsibilities for this Project pursuant 

to 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) 327. 

Caltrans will prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed 

Project. The purpose of the Project is to 

reduce congestion, improve freeway 

operations, improve and enhance safety, 

and improve local and system 

interchange operations. 

Project Description 

The Project proposes widening along 

the southbound and northbound I–605 

corridor from the I–10 Interchange to 

the I–105 Interchange. The proposed 

Project includes improvements along 

SR–60 from Santa Anita Avenue to east 

of Turnbull Canyon Road, and on I–5 

from Florence Avenue to Paramount 

Boulevard. The study area includes the 

cities of Baldwin Park, El Monte, City of 

Industry, Pico Rivera, South El Monte, 

Whittier, Downey, Norwalk, Santa Fe 

Springs, and unincorporated Los 

Angeles County. Improvements to local 

streets and interchanges may be 

required as part of the Project including 

the following interchanges that would 

be affected: I–605/Imperial Highway, I– 

605/Firestone Boulevard, I–605/ 

Telegraph Road, I–605/Slauson Avenue, 

I–605/Florence Ave., I–605/Washington 

Boulevard, I–605/Whittier Boulevard, I– 

605/Beverly Boulevard, I–605/Rose 

Hills Road, I–605/Peck Road, I–605/SR– 

60, I–605/Valley Boulevard, SR–60/Peck 

Road, SR–60/7th Ave., I–5/Florence 

Ave., I–5/Lakewood Boulevard, I–5/ 

Paramount Blvd., and I–605/I–5 

Interchanges. 

The following Project alternatives are 

under consideration. 

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative 

In this alternative, there would be no 

reconstruction or improvements to the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES