  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D. C.  20460

	OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

October 23, 2006

									PC Code: 	098301

									DP Barcode:	333309

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: 	Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Total Aldicarb Residues
(Parent, Aldicarb Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb Sulfone) Based on the N-Methyl
Carbamate Cumulative Risk Assessment

FROM: 	Nelson Thurman, Senior Environmental Scientist

		Jonathan Angier, Ph.D.

Environmental Risk Branch 2

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

TO:		Sherrie Kinard, PM

Robert McNally, Branch Chief

		Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P)

		Felicia Fort

		Michael Metzger, Branch Chief

		Health Effects Division

THROUGH:	Tom A. Bailey, Ph.D.

		Chief, Environmental Risk Branch 2

		Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

This updated assessment, based on the work for the NMC cumulative
assessment, was requested by SRRD and HED. It reflects drinking water
exposure estimates used for the N-Methyl Carbamate (NMC) cumulative risk
assessment (CRA) and is based on typical application rates. The attached
document provided estimated exposures for both ground- and surface-water
sources of drinking water, characterizes the variability in the exposure
estimates, compares estimated concentrations to available monitoring
data, and describes the potential extent of high aldicarb exposure
areas.

Private well monitoring data submitted by Bayer CropScience have not yet
been fully analyzed. Such information will help in the characterization
of the potential extent of aldicarb exposure in private wells.

Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Total Aldicarb Residues (Parent,
Aldicarb Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb Sulfone) Based on the N-Methyl
Carbamate Cumulative Risk Assessment

  TOC \o "2-3" \h \z \t "Heading 1,1"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464273"
Summary	  PAGEREF _Toc149464273 \h  3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464274"  Groundwater	  PAGEREF _Toc149464274 \h
3

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464275"  Surface Water	  PAGEREF _Toc149464275 \h
 5

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464276"  Ground Water Exposure Assessment
PAGEREF _Toc149464276 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464277"  Ground water modeling approach	  PAGEREF
_Toc149464277 \h  6

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464278"  Estimated total aldicarb residues in
ground water	  PAGEREF _Toc149464278 \h  9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464279"  Variability due to well setback
distances	  PAGEREF _Toc149464279 \h  9

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464280"  Variability due to well depth	  PAGEREF
_Toc149464280 \h  10

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464281"  Variability due to application rates
PAGEREF _Toc149464281 \h  12

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464282"  Comparisons with monitoring	  PAGEREF
_Toc149464282 \h  12

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464283"  Lake Wales Ridge, FL, ambient
groundwater monitoring	  PAGEREF _Toc149464283 \h  13

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464284"  Private drinking water well monitoring
in FL	  PAGEREF _Toc149464284 \h  15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464285"  Private drinking water well monitoring
by Bayer CropScience	  PAGEREF _Toc149464285 \h  15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464286"  Characterization of the spatial extent
of high potential exposure	  PAGEREF _Toc149464286 \h  15

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464287"  Comparison of high leaching potential
areas with current aldicarb label setbacks	  PAGEREF _Toc149464287 \h
18

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464288"  Surface Water Exposure Assessment
PAGEREF _Toc149464288 \h  19

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464289"  Surface water modeling approach
PAGEREF _Toc149464289 \h  19

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464290"  Estimated total aldicarb residues in
surface water	  PAGEREF _Toc149464290 \h  21

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464291"  Uncertainty due to application method
PAGEREF _Toc149464291 \h  21

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464292"  Uncertainty due to application rate
PAGEREF _Toc149464292 \h  22

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc149464293"  Comparisons with monitoring	  PAGEREF
_Toc149464293 \h  23

Summary

This updated drinking water assessment for aldicarb and its major
degradates (aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone) reflects total
aldicarb residue exposures used in the N-methyl carbamate (NMC)
cumulative exposure assessment. While that assessment includes multiple
NMC pesticides, the ground water exposure assessment focused on high
aldicarb use areas and reflects the high potential exposure areas for
aldicarb based on current use. The surface water assessment represents
areas of highest combined NMC use and may not reflect the highest
potential exposure sites for aldicarb alone. Both of the assessments
represent exposures based on typical application rates and do not
reflect potential exposures that can occur when aldicarb is used at
maximum allowable label rates to address pest pressures. The
characterization section addresses variability in exposure estimates
resulting from differing application rates, depths to ground water, and
setback distances between the well and the application area.

At this level of refinement, EFED focused on those areas that have the
greatest potential for exposure to aldicarb. As noted in the preliminary
NMC cumulative risk assessment, total aldicarb residues are not expected
to occur at levels that will contribute to dietary exposures for most of
the country (available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2005/august/preliminarynmc.pdf"
 http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2005/august/preliminarynmc.pdf
). However, total aldicarb residues estimated for vulnerable private
wells in some areas of Florida (primarily along the central ridge) and
high leaching potential areas in the southeastern coastal plain approach
levels that may be a concern for total dietary exposures. These areas
represent a relatively small area of the country where the estimated
ground water residues are reasonable estimates of drinking water
exposure for residents who get their drinking water from shallow private
wells.

Groundwater

The estimated distributions of total aldicarb residues (parent plus the
sulfoxide and sulfone transformation products) in ground water reflect:

Shallow (30-ft) private wells. Concentrations will vary with varying
depths to ground water and well depths. Higher concentrations would be
expected in more shallow wells while lower concentrations would be
likely in deeper wells.

High leaching potential soils (as classified by the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service), with similarly permeable conditions
extending through the vadose zone to ground water. Soil and vadose zone
permeability will vary across the landscape and with depth. Where the
vadose zone includes low-permeability layers, concentrations will be
lower.

Aldicarb applications to fields at label setback distances between the
field of application and the well, as specified on the current aldicarb
label. Since travel time varies with well depth, a longer setback
distance would be needed for shallower wells while a shorter setback
distance might be sufficient for deeper wells.

A high-end typical lateral flow velocity to estimate the travel time
from the field of application to the well based on well setback
distance. This assumes that the ground water is flowing from the field
of application toward the well.

Typical application rates for aldicarb, provided by the Biological and
Economic Analysis Division (BEAD). Concentrations would be greater if
maximum label rates are used.

Acidic soil and ground water, which favor the persistence of the
sulfoxide and sulfone transformation products (both degrade rapidly
under alkaline conditions; the parent aldicarb is less susceptible to
alkaline hydrolysis).

Table 1 summarizes the estimated distributions of total aldicarb
residues for various crop/site scenarios and label-specified well
setback distances based on typical application rates. While the soils
along the central ridge of Florida are typically more vulnerable to
leaching in comparison to other regions, estimated total aldicarb
residues used for dietary exposures are less than for the Georgia
coastal plain scenario because of a greater setback distance (1000 ft
for citrus in FL compared to 300 ft in GA).

Table 1: Estimated concentrations of total aldicarb residues in private,
shallow (30-ft) wells in high leaching potential soils in FL and the
southeastern Coastal Plain based on typical rates.

Scenario	Well setback distance	Concentrations, ug/l

Max-imum	99th %ile	95th %ile	90th %ile	80th %ile	75th %ile	50th %ile

FL central ridge citrus	1000 ft	3.0	2.8	2.6	2.4	2.1	2.0	1.7

GA Coastal Plain Peanuts/ cotton	300 ft	6.5	6.0	5.1	4.8	4.3	4.1	3.1

NC Coastal Plain Peanuts/ cotton	300 ft	1.3	1.2	1.1	1.0	0.9	0.8	0.6

The estimated ground water concentrations are not national numbers but
are reasonable for people living in those vulnerable areas who get their
drinking water from shallow private wells. The exposure estimates
represented by these scenarios are limited to these crops and
conditions:

The Florida central ridge citrus scenario represents those high leaching
potential soils that occur along the central ridge of Florida and are in
citrus production. Outside of the central ridge, the soils are typically
less permeable and/or the ground water is alkaline (pH>7) and aldicarb
residues are not expected to persist.

The Georgia coastal plain peanuts/cotton scenario represents high
leaching potential soils in the southern coastal plain (GA, AL, SC)
underlying cotton and peanuts. Although aldicarb use on pecans was not
included in this assessment, it is likely that, under the same high
leaching potential soils, total aldicarb residues in private wells from
pecan use would be greater than estimated for peanuts because of a
higher typical application rate (3.22 kg/ha for pecans compared to 1.10
kg/ha for peanuts). Pecans were not modeled because, according to BEAD
estimates, only a small portion of pecan acres (1%) are treated with
aldicarb.

The North Carolina coastal plain peanuts/cotton represents high leaching
potential soils in the northern coastal plain (NC, VA, Delmarva
pensinsula) underlying peanuts or cotton.

The ground water exposure represents private drinking water wells. The
Agency assumed in this assessment that, in general, public water
supplies supplied by ground water will typically draw from deeper
aquifers and/or aquifers that have a relatively impermeable layer
between the surface and the water supply. Such supplies are expected to
be much less vulnerable to pesticide contamination. Public water
supplies have a higher probability of being treated, although
conventional treatments processes are likely to result in little or no
reduction of aldicarb residues in water. However, where lime softening,
which will accelerate pH-dependent hydrolysis for aldicarb sulfoxide and
sulfone, or activated carbon filtration is used, some reduction in
aldicarb residues between untreated and treated water may occur.

Surface Water

The estimated surface water exposures reflect areas of high combined NMC
use, but not necessarily the highest aldicarb use areas. An evaluation
of the scenarios used for the NMC CRA assessment indicate that three
scenarios – FL central ridge (citrus), NC coastal plain (peanuts,
cotton), and LA/MS Mid-south (cotton) – coincide with high aldicarb
use areas where drinking water intakes are likely to occur.

For the NMC CRA, OPP used typical application rates and acres treated
because of a low likelihood that all of the NMC pesticides will be used
at maximum rates on all of the crop acreage in a watershed at the same
time. This assumption does not hold up for the individual pesticides
because high exposures are likely where the pesticide is applied in
response to pest pressures, often treating the entire crop on a local
area. The typical application rates and percent acres treated are
derived from state-level survey data and assume uniform use practices
across the state. Indeed, an uneven distribution of application rates
and percent acres treated is expected in response to differing pest
pressures. This assumption will underestimate areas where pest pressures
may dictate a higher percentage of acres treated in a given year. Thus,
for this aldicarb assessment, OPP assumed that all of the crop acres in
the watershed were treated. While reported acres treated ranged from 14%
for citrus in FL to 63% for peanuts in NC, the use data do not allow for
a reasonable upper bound estimate on percent treated in localized areas
across the state.

The estimated surface water concentrations (Table 2) represent total
aldicarb residues reservoirs located in high use areas which coincide
with relatively high runoff conditions. They reflect typical application
rates, but assume that the entire crop in the watershed is treated.

Table 2: Estimated concentrations of total aldicarb residues in surface
water sources of drinking water in high runoff potential areas based on
typical rates.

Scenario Location	Crops	Concentrations, ug/l

Max-imum	99th %ile	95th %ile	90th %ile	80th %ile	75th %ile

FL central ridge citrus	Orange, grapefruit	10.2	1.6	0.3	0.1	0.02	0.01

NC Coastal Plain 	Peanuts, cotton	4.6	1.0	0.2	0.1	0.01	0.005

LA/MS Mid-south	Cotton	0.8	0.2	0.02	0.004	<0.001	<0.001

The variability in concentrations from year to year in the surface water
distributions reflect the variability due to varying weather patterns
over 30 years of actual weather data. Because these scenarios target
high aldicarb use areas associated with drinking water intakes in high
runoff areas, they represent high end exposure sites. Total aldicarb
residues in surface water sources in the rest of the country are
expected to be lower.

The sections that follow include a brief write-up of the ground water
modeling approach used to estimate total aldicarb residues in ground
water, a summary of the results and a comparison against recent
monitoring, and a characterization of the spatial extent of the
potential high exposure areas. More detail on the ground water
conceptual model and the model approach can be found in the NMC
cumulative risk assessment (FIFRA SAP, 2005). The surface water modeling
approach is also described.

Ground Water Exposure Assessment

Ground water modeling approach

Although previous drinking water exposure assessments for aldicarb
relied on a summary of available monitoring data, the vast majority of
the monitoring represents unknown conditions (in particular, no
information on aldicarb rates, distances between fields and wells,
ground water depth, type of well, soil or hydrogeologic conditions, or
ground water pH) and represented monitoring prior to label changes.
Bayer CropScience has recently submitted a compilation of recent
monitoring of private wells in selected areas of the US. Although EPA
has not yet had time to fully evaluate the monitoring (in particular,
the correlation of aldicarb detects with high leaching potential soils,
distance between field and well, depth to ground water, and nature of
well), a brief review of study results indicates that the estimated
exposures reported below are on the same order as reported detections.

EPA used the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM) to simulate transport
processes through high leaching potential soils to a shallow unconfined
aquifer with a water table at 30 feet (approximately 9 m) below the
surface. The well screen extended an additional 1 m below the water
table. While information on typical depths of private wells is not
readily available, USGS NAWQA and ground water atlases suggest that 30
feet is a reasonable depth for shallow ground water supplying private
wells in the southeastern coastal plain and Florida.

The well concentration is the average pore water concentration across
the length of the screen. PRZM was set up to deliver the average pore
water concentration in the ‘saturated’ soil profile in the upper
meter of the ground water zone.

The modes and rates of degradation for aldicarb residues changed through
the soil profile. EPA used the pesticide aerobic soil metabolism rate
for the top 25 cm, linearly decreasing the rate with depth to 1 m. Below
that, EPA used hydrolysis. Table 3 summarizes the pertinent aldicarb
properties used for this assessment. These properties came from an
evaluation of registrant-submitted studies. Other chemical properties
are required as inputs, but have negligible effect on model output;
these properties can be found in the model input files as well as in the
RED. Properties for aldicarb represent total residue (parent aldicarb,
plus the degradates aldicarb sulfoxide and aldicarb sulfone) properties.

Table 3: Summary of aldicarb fate and transport properties for leaching.

Input Parameter	Value	Reference/Comment

Kd	Kd = 0.12 mL/g

(Koc = 10 mL/g)	Value for aldicarb sulfone (MRID 43560302)

Hydrolysis	Parent degrades slowly at pH9

Sulfoxide 2-3 days @ pH9

Suflone 60-63 days @ pH7, 6 days @pH8, 1 day @ pH9	Parent hydrolyzed
only at pH 9 (MRID 00102065) – degradates hydrolyze more rapidly at
neutral-to-high pH

Soil Half-life	55 days for total aldicarb residues for the top 25 cm;
decreased linearly from 25 to 100 cm	Revised from 2001 Aldicarb RED;
Upper 90th pct bound on mean for combined parent+sulfoxide+sulfone
half-life from 19 soils

Additional Notes	Modeled total aldicarb residues	Half-life values used
in inputs based on combined aldicarb + sulfone + sulfoxide residues;
lowest Kd of the 3 chemicals used for mobility. Assumes equal toxicity
of parent, degradates

Aldicarb was modeled using a unit rate of 1 kg ai/ha for each scenario.
Because the exposure concentrations are linearly related to the
application rate, the resulting rates were multiplied by the typical
application rates (Table 4). The maximum label application rates are
also provided in contrast. If these rates are used, the concentrations
would increase proportionally.

Table 4: Summary of aldicarb seasonal application rates used for ground
water exposure modeling.

Location	Crop	PRZM scenario	App. Rate (kg/ha)1	Max. Label Rate (kg/ha)1
App. Date	Well setback (ft)

Southeast coastal plain/ NC	Peanut, Cotton	NC Cotton	1.10 (peanut)	5.55
(cotton); 3.66 (peanut)	10-Apr	300

Southeast coastal plain/ GA	Peanut, Cotton	GA Peanut	1.00 (peanut)	5.55
(cotton); 3.67 (peanut)	10-Apr	300

FL Central Ridge	Oranges / grapefruit	FL Citrus	4.27	5.49	1-Apr	1000

Northeast FL	Potato	FL potato	0.80	3.66 	20-Jun	300

Central WA      	Potato	WA potato	3.21 	3.66	15-May	300

1 Application rates, typically reported in pounds per acre (lb/A), has
been converted to kg/ha for modeling purposes.

Because aldicarb labels specify well setback distances (varying with
soil type and among states), EPA used a plug flow model to simulate the
additional travel time for a pesticide to reach a drinking water well
from point of application. This is explained in detail in the
preliminary NMC cumulative assessment (USEPA/FIFRA SAP, 2005).

Well setback distances result in additional travel time for the chemical
to move laterally to the well. This results in additional degradation.
Reductions in concentration are calculated in these assessments by a
plug flow approximation:

where 	C = concentration at well [mass/volume]

		C0= concentration at point of application [mass/vol]

		L = well setback distance [length]

		v = lateral groundwater velocity [length/time]

		k = degradation rate in aquifer [time-1]

Table 5 provides estimated travel times and concentration reduction
factors for varying well setback distances. For the ground water
exposure assessment, EPA used the reduction factor associated with the
corresponding well-setback distance on the aldicarb label (1000 ft for
citrus in FL; 300 ft for other crops in FL and in the southeastern
coastal plain). The reduction factor is based on a typical high-end
lateral groundwater velocity of 0.15 m/da (0.49 ft/da) for the FL
central ridge as reported by Russell et al, 1987.  Other studies
reported velocities ranging from 0.09 to 0.27 m/da (Paramasivam et al,
1999). Based on that range in groundwater velocities, resulting
concentration reduction factors for a 300-foot setback distance ranged
from 43% lower (0.244) to 46% higher (0.625) than what was calculated
with the 0.15 m/da velocity.

Table 5. Travel time and concentration reduction factors for varying
well setback distances for aldicarb (based on 500-day half-life for
hydrolysis @ pH5).

Setback distance (ft)	Travel time (da)	Reduction factor

100	203	0.754

300	610	0.429

500	1016	0.244

1000	2033	0.060

Estimated total aldicarb residues in ground water

Table 6 summarizes the distributions of total aldicarb residues for
various scenarios and varying well setback distances. The distributions
represent 25 years of simulations. The distributions highlighted in bold
in the table represent estimated residues for the labeled setback
distance between the treated field and the well. The 0-foot
“setback” estimates in-field concentrations which were used to
compare model estimates with in-field ground water monitoring data.

Table 6: Estimated concentrations of total aldicarb residues in private,
shallow (30-ft) wells. Concentrations represent typical application
rates in high leaching potential soils.

Scenario	Well setback	Concentrations, ug/l

Max-imum	99th %ile	95th %ile	90th %ile	80th %ile	75th %ile	50th %ile

FL Central Ridge/ Citrus	0 ft	58.5	55.5	50.9	48.5	41.8	40.3	33.8

	300 ft	24.9	23.6	21.6	20.6	17.8	17.2	14.4

	1000 ft	3.0	2.8	2.6	2.4	2.1	2.0	1.7

FL Potatoes (alkaline GW)	0 ft	3.9e-05	3.0e-05	1.9e-05	1.3e-05	8.1e-06
6.2e-06	2.3e-06

	300 ft	1.7e-05	1.3e-05	8.0e-06	5.7e-06	3.5e-06	27.e-06	9.9e-07

GA Coastal Plain Peanuts/ cotton	0 ft	15.2	14.1	12.0	11.2	10.1	 9.6	 7.2

	300 ft	 6.5	 6.0	 5.1	 4.8	 4.3	 4.1	 3.1

	500 ft	3.7	3.4	2.9	2.7	2.5	2.4	1.8

	1000 ft	0.9	0.8	0.7	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.4

NC Coastal Plain Peanuts/ cotton	0 ft	 3.1	 2.9	 2.5	 2.3	 2.0	 2.0	 1.5

	300 ft	 1.3	 1.2	 1.1	 1.0	 0.9	 0.8	 0.6

	500 ft	0.8	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.5	0.5	0.4

	1000 ft	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1

WA Potato (alkaline soil, GW)	300 ft, 15-ft depth	0.001	0.001	<0.001
<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

Variability due to well setback distances

The exposure estimates for total aldicarb residues assume that aldicarb
is applied at the appropriate setback distances specified on the label
– 300 feet between the field of application and the well for most
crops; 1000 feet for citrus in Florida. Figure 1 illustrates the
estimated effect of varying well setback distances on total aldicarb
residues in the southern coastal plain of Georgia. Similar responses can
be seen in the other regional scenarios (Table 6). The graph plots
estimated concentrations of total aldicarb residues in a 30-foot well
located near treated peanut fields in high leaching potential soils in
the coastal plain.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  1 : Estimated concentrations of total
aldicarb residues in groundwater at 30 feet under peanuts in the Georgia
Coastal Plain with varying setback distances.

The Agency is not aware of studies that would quantify the effect of
varying setback distances on concentrations of total aldicarb residues
in ground water. Thus the relative differences in concentration
magnitudes based on varying setback distances shown in the figure are
more illustrative than quantitative. The net effect of the setback
distances will vary depending on predominant direction and velocity of
ground water flow. Other factors, such as the influence of irrigation
wells on shallow ground water flow, are not easily quantifiable and are
not accounted for in this assessment.

Variability due to well depth

The estimated drinking water exposures for shallow private wells are
based on a ground water depth of 30 feet. For comparisons, OPP used PRZM
to estimate concentrations from wells drawing from 15, 30, and 50 feet
(Table 7). The 30-50 foot depths are more representative of shallow
private wells, while the 15-foot depth may represent shallow dug wells.
With the increased travel time allowing for more degradation, estimated
aldicarb residues decreased by nearly an order of magnitude between 15
and 30 feet (Table 7). Estimated concentrations at 50 feet were
approximately 3 times lower than those at 30 feet.

Table 7: Estimated concentrations of total aldicarb residues in private,
shallow wells of varying depths. Concentrations represent typical
application rates in high leaching potential soils.

Scenario	Well Depth, ft	Concentrations, ug/l

Max-imum	99th %ile	95th %ile	90th %ile	80th %ile	75th %ile	50th %ile

FL Central Ridge/ Citrus (1000’ setback)	15	32.6	30.3	26.2	23.7	21.7
20.7	16.6

	30	3.0	2.8	2.6	2.4	2.1	2.0	1.7

	50	0.9	0.9	0.8	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.5

GA Coastal Plain Peanuts/ cotton (300’ setback)	15	36.8	32.7	28.6	25.9
23.1	21.6	14.0

	30	 6.5	 6.0	 5.1	 4.8	 4.3	 4.1	 3.1

	50	2.0	1.9	1.8	1.7	1.5	1.4	1.1

NC Coastal Plain Peanuts/ cotton (300’ setback)	15	17.2	16.5	14.0	12.5
9.5	8.7	7.4

	30	 1.3	 1.2	 1.1	 1.0	 0.9	 0.8	 0.6

	50	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.1

Estimated concentrations at the 15-foot depth showed more variation in
concentrations over time (Figure 2), reflecting the shorter time frame
for movement. Seasonal and yearly variations due to weather are less
pronounced with depth. This is consistent with monitoring data which
show that mobile chemicals applied to the surface of highly permeable
soils can reach shallow groundwater in the same season or year.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  2 . Estimated concentrations of total
aldicarb residues at different depths in groundwater near citrus in the
Central Ridge of Florida (1000 foot setback from well).

Variability due to application rates

For the estimated concentrations for total aldicarb residues in private
wells, based on the NMC CRA, typical application rates specific to the
regional scenarios (reported at the state level) were used. These
typical distributions have been provided for the aldicarb aggregate
exposure assessment. For ground water 30 to 50 feet or more below the
surface, typical transport time for aldicarb residues is likely to span
multiple seasons. While the typical rates used in the exposure
assessment may reflect the integrated application of aldicarb over
multiple seasons, it will underestimate the amount of aldicarb residue
available for transport in high application seasons.

Table 8 contrasts estimated concentrations of total aldicarb residues
for the three high exposure scenarios based on both typical and maximum
label application rates. The range in concentrations between typical and
maximum application rates reflects the potential variability in high-end
exposures based on application. Obviously, the total aldicarb load
available for transport to ground water would be lower in those years
when little or no aldicarb is applied.

Table 8: Estimated concentrations of total aldicarb residues in private,
shallow wells (30 ft) in high leaching potential soils contrasting
typical and maximum application rates.

Scenario	App. Rate, kg/ha	Concentrations, ug/l

Max-imum	99th %ile	95th %ile	90th %ile	80th %ile	75th %ile	50th %ile

FL Central Ridge/ Citrus (30’ depth; 1000’ setback)	5.5 (max)	4.5
4.3	3.9	3.7	3.4	3.1	2.6

	4.3 (typ)	3.0	2.8	2.6	2.4	2.1	2.0	1.7

GA Coastal Plain Peanuts/ cotton (30’ depth; 300’ setback)	3.3 (max)
19.8	18.4	15.7	14.5	13.2	12.5	9.4

	1.0 (typ)	 6.5	 6.0	 5.1	 4.8	 4.3	 4.1	 3.1

NC Coastal Plain Peanuts/ cotton (30’ depth; 300’ setback)	3.3 (max
– peanut)	4.2	3.9	3.4	3.0	2.8	2.6	2.0

	1.1   (typ - peanut)	 1.3	 1.2	 1.1	 1.0	 0.9	 0.8	 0.6

	5.5 (max – cotton)	6.9	6.4	5.6	5.0	4.7	4.3	3.3

	0.7   (typ – cotton)	0.9	0.8	0.7	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.4

Comparisons with monitoring

OPP compared estimated aldicarb concentrations from PRZM modeling to two
recent groundwater monitoring datasets from Florida. The first study,
conducted by the USGS and the Florida Department of Agriculture,
measured aldicarb concentrations in monitoring wells located in citrus
groves along the Central Ridge of Florida (Lake Wales Ridge). These
monitoring wells are not drinking water wells, but reflect ambient
pesticide concentrations in ground water beneath the citrus groves.
Since these wells are located within the treated fields, OPP used PRZM
concentrations with no well setback adjustments (0-ft well setback) for
comparisons to the monitoring data.

The second monitoring dataset consists of private well monitoring data
collected by the FL Department of Environmental Protection across the
state of Florida. While the data represent potable drinking water wells,
no information is available on well depth, aldicarb use in the vicinity,
or distance between the well and the treated field. A third monitoring
set recently submitted by Bayer CropScience provides recent (2005)
monitoring of aldicarb residues in private drinking wells in other parts
of the US. These data are currently being analyzed.

Lake Wales Ridge, FL, ambient groundwater monitoring

In-field concentrations (0-ft well setback) of estimated total aldicarb
residues from the FL Central Ridge Citrus scenario were compared to an
on-going groundwater monitoring study on the Florida Central Ridge (
HYPERLINK "http://fisc.er.usgs.gov/Lake_Wales_Ridge/"
http://fisc.er.usgs.gov/Lake_Wales_Ridge/  ). The USGS and the Florida
Department of Agriculture is monitoring 31 wells within and around
citrus groves on the Ridge (the area of the OPP scenario). Well depths
range from 4 feet to 110 feet deep (two thirds in the 20 to 60 foot
range), and pH ranged from 3.9 to 6.9 (median about 5). Concentrations
as high as 23 ppb have been recorded in one 26-ft well, while a 4-ft
well had reported concentrations as high as 21 ppb. This study is not
targeted for any specific pesticide, but rather is designed as a survey
mechanism—that is, it is not known how much aldicarb was used nor is
it known how far aldicarb was used from the wells.

Figure 3 compares the monitoring results from the Lake Wales Ridge study
with PRZM-modeled estimated aldicarb residues at a 50-foot well depth.
The PRZM estimates are shown in pale yellow and represent roughly 25
years of simulations. When compared to wells of similar depth (TURKEY,
ARBUCKL, MTNLKN, NLKPATK), the estimated exposures are in the same
concentration range. While the median estimated concentrations for total
aldicarb residues at a 30-foot well depth were typically greater than
those found in the wells at similar depths (GLENNST, JACKS2), the
measured detections were still within the range of estimated
concentrations.

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  3 : Comparison of estimated
concentrations of total aldicarb residues in groundwater at 50 feet
(top, yellow) and 30 feet (bottom, blue) with in-field monitoring from
the USGS/FL Dept. of Ag. Lake Wales Ridge monitoring study.

Private drinking water well monitoring in FL

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) monitors
private drinking water wells in rural areas. The monitoring is not
comprehensive, but instead is instituted when there has been an
indication of a problem (personal communication, FDEP). Total aldicarb
residues (parent, sulfoxide and sulfone degradates) as high as 47 ppb
were reported in private drinking water wells in the early 1990s in the
FDEP study. The concentrations dropped off in subsequent years. The
reduction in concentrations of aldicarb may have resulted from label
changes which reduced application rates and applied well setback
requirements. Specific reductions at home sites also were also likely
the result of a Florida State program to install carbon filters or to
pipe water in from treatment facilities when contamination was found.
Other reasons for the decline include the possibility of discontinued
use in the vicinity of the contaminated areas (personal communication
FDEP) or increased method detection limit.

Method detection limits (MDL) for aldicarb residues vary over time in
this monitoring study. In 1999 and earlier, the MDL for aldicarb sulfone
and aldicarb sulfoxide ranged from 0.077 to 0.73 ug/L. Between 2000 and
2004, the MDL ranged from 2.1 to 3.3 ug/L for aldicarb sulfone and from
2.4 to 4.0 ug/L for aldicarb sulfoxide. Estimated concentrations for
total aldicarb residues are below the high MDL for the individual
degradates. This further complicates interpretations regarding the
effectiveness of label changes in reducing aldicarb residues in private
wells.

Private drinking water well monitoring by Bayer CropScience

Bayer CropScience recently submitted retrospective groundwater
monitoring studies for aldicarb and its metabolites for the southeastern
US, Mississippi Delta, Pacific Northwest, California, and Texas. The
studies included 1,673 drinking water wells and collected information on
groundwater depth, well depth, casing depth, well type and age, soil
types, recent aldicarb use history, crops, and distance of the well from
the treated field. The Agency has not completed its review of these
studies. However, a preliminary evaluation of the results of the
monitoring for the southeastern US indicates that roughly 16% of sampled
wells had aldicarb residues above the method detection limit, with a
maximum reported concentration of 2.9 ug/L. The precursory review
suggests that the estimated aldicarb exposures from the PRZM simulations
are in line with the reported monitoring results.

Characterization of the spatial extent of high potential exposure

Three of the scenarios – FL citrus on the Central Ridge, NC
peanuts/cotton/tobacco on the coastal plain, and GA peanuts/cotton on
the coastal plain – represents areas with the potential for high total
aldicarb residue concentrations as a result of use, high leaching
potential, and acidic groundwater. Aldicarb residues are not expected to
persist in sites represented by WA potatoes and FL potatoes because
alkaline soil and/or aquifer conditions favor more rapid hydrolysis of
the aldicarb residues.

In other regions of the country, anticipated exposure to aldicarb
residues in groundwater is expected to be lower than estimated in these
scenarios or in surface water scenarios representing those regions. In
the north and north-central, groundwater exposures are expected to be
lower because of low use or because aldicarb is no longer labeled for
use, particularly in northeastern states where acidic conditions and
high leaching potential conditions exist. In the mid-south, drinking
water is drawn predominantly from public ground water supply from deep,
protected aquifers and aldicarb contamination not expected. In the Great
Plains and lower Midwest, anticipated exposure is expected to be lower
because of low rainfall and deeper aquifers than in the southeast and
Florida. In many parts of the west, alkaline soils and/or ground water
will also facilitate the rapid breakdown of aldicarb residues into
non-toxic degradation products.

Figure 3 illustrates the spatial extent of high leaching potential soils
(shown in red) in the aldicarb use areas (shown in green) in the
southeastern US. Although county-level soil information is not available
for the entire region, such soils can be identified and included on the
aldicarb label. While the map includes acidic, high leaching potential
soils, it does not reflect depth or pH of the ground water, or the
relative permeability of the underlying vadose zone and aquifer. Neither
is information on the location or depth of private drinking water wells
available.

The scenarios represent potential high exposure areas for private wells:

High leaching potential soils (as classified by the USDA NRCS)

Shallow depth to ground water (roughly 30 feet, though the depth may
vary, depending on the permeability of the overlying soil and vadose
zone)

Acidic soils and ground water

Figure   SEQ Figure \* ARABIC  4 : Areas of high leaching potential
(red) soils in aldicarb use areas (green) in the southeast US.

Comparison of high leaching potential areas with current aldicarb label
setbacks

The current label for aldicarb specifies setback distances between the
field of application and drinking water wells based on soil properties,
water table depth, and well condition. Depending on the state, soils for
which restrictions apply are identified as having either

Loamy sand or sand surface soils and subsoils with an average organic
matter in the upper 12 inches of less than 2% by weight (primarily in
the south and southeast), or

Sandy loam, loamy sand, or sand surface soils, and loamy sand or sand
subsoils, with an average organic matter in the upper 12 inches of less
than 2% by weight (primarily in the Midwest).

Soil texture and organic matter content act as surrogates for
identifying those soils that have a high potential for leaching and a
low capacity for retaining the pesticide. While these properties are
relatively simple to describe and can be identified with a knowledge of
the soil series mapped for the treated fields, they do not fully
integrate those soil properties that affect leaching potential and are
imperfect indicators of the potential for aldicarb residues to move to
groundwater.

For this assessment, OPP used the USDA NRCS classification for soil
leaching potential for pesticides (NRCS. 2003. Florida NRCS Field Office
Technical Guide. Section II. Water Quantity and Quality. Available from
the electronic FOTG site at   HYPERLINK
"http://efotg.nrcs.usda.gov/treemenuFS.aspx"
http://efotg.nrcs.usda.gov/treemenuFS.aspx  ).  Rating criteria are
provided in Table 7. The predicted exposure estimates for total aldicarb
residues represent properties of soils identified as having a high soil
leaching potential for pesticides. The soil leaching potential rating
has been derived for all soils in the SSURGO county surveys for Florida
(available for download from the USDA NRCS Soil Data Mart at   HYPERLINK
"http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/"  http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/
). OPP used the criteria in Table 9 to estimate the leaching potential
for soils in counties in other states (for the NMC cumulative, OPP
focused on coastal plain soils in VA, NC, SC, GA, and AL). The criteria
could be used to identify soils that are vulnerable to pesticide
leaching throughout the country. This list of soils should provide a
more definitive list of vulnerable soils than the current list of soils
based solely on soil texture and organic matter content.

Table 9: USDA NRCS Criteria Used for Soil Leaching Potential for
Pesticides (NRCS, 2003).

Rating	Criteria

High	Hydrologic Group = A and % Surface Horizon Organic Matter Content X
Depth of the First Soil Horizon <= 30 or

Hydrologic Group = B and % Surface Horizon Organic Matter Content X
Depth of the First Soil Horizon <= 9 and the K Factor is <= 0.48 or

Hydrologic Group = B and % Surface Horizon Organic Matter Content X
Depth of the First Soil Horizon <= 15 and the K Factor is <= 0.26

Low	Hydrologic Group = B and % Surface Horizon Organic Matter Content X
Depth of the First Soil Horizon >= 35 and the K Factor is >= 0.40 or

Hydrologic Group = B and % Surface Horizon Organic Matter Content X
Depth of the First Soil Horizon >= 45 and the K Factor is >= 0.20 or

Hydrologic Group = C and % Surface Horizon Organic Matter Content X
Depth of the First Soil Horizon <= 10 and the K Factor is >= 0.28 or

Hydrologic Group = C and % Surface Horizon Organic Matter Content X
Depth of the First Soil Horizon >= 10

Very Low	Hydrologic Group = D

Intermediate	All other conditions

The exposure estimates for total aldicarb residues in private wells were
modeled at a 30-foot depth. Current label restrictions for aldicarb
apply if vulnerable soils are present and the water table is less than
25 feet below the ground surface. Exposure in private wells is a
function of depth to ground water/ well screen, permeability of the
overlying soil and vadose zone, the amount of precipitation in excess of
evapotranspiration (to leach the chemical through the soil and vadose
zone) distance between the field of application and the well, and the
direction and velocity of lateral ground water flow. No single ground
water depth provides a bright line between vulnerable and not
vulnerable. The current label restrictions do not reflect the true range
in vulnerability with depth.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Surface Water Exposure Assessment

The revised surface water exposure assessment focused on three high
aldicarb use/ exposure scenarios: Florida citrus (central FL),
Mississippi cotton, and North Carolina peanuts/cotton.  While these
scenarios were selected based on combined NMC uses in the vicinity of
drinking water intakes in relatively high runoff potential areas, they
represent areas of relatively high aldicarb use. Thus, the scenarios
represent drinking water intakes with relatively high potential for
aldicarb exposure.

The conceptual model for surface water exposure, scenario selection, and
modeling approach is well-documented in the preliminary NMC Cumulative
Risk Assessment (available at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2005/august/preliminarynmc.pdf"
 http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2005/august/preliminarynmc.pdf
) and will not be duplicated here. Only those aspects of the aldicarb
aggregate exposure assessment that differ from the NMC CRA are
documented.

Surface water modeling approach

This revised surface water exposure assessment used the same chemical
input parameters that have been previously documented in the revised RED
for aldicarb and in previous drinking water exposure assessments. These
values, which represent the combined residues of parent aldicarb and
sulfoxide and sulfone degradates, are documented in Table 10.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 10: Aldicarb-specific PRZM-EXAMS Input
Parameters. Input Parameter	Value	Reference/Comment

Molecular Weight 	190.2 g/mol	MRID 00152095

Henry’s Law Constant	1.7 E-10 atm-m^3/mol	Acc 255979

Vapor Pressure	1 E-6 @ 25°C	MRID 00152095

Solubility	6,000 mg/L	Acc 255979

Kd	0.12	Minimum non-sand value for aldicarb sulfone (MRID 43560302)

Hydrolysis	pH 5, stable (0)

pH 7, stable (0)

pH 9, >30 days	Parent hydrolyzed only at pH 9 (MRID 00102065) –
degradates may hydrolyze more rapidly at neutral-to-high pH

Aqueous Photolysis Half-life	4 days	MRID 42498201

Water Half-life	12 days 	MRID 44592107. Single acceptable guideline
study for parent / sulfoxide / sulfone (4days) x 3; corresponds w/ DT90

Benthic Half-life	24 days	No data; use 2X aerobic aquatic half-life

Soil Half-life	55 days	Revised from 2001 Aldicarb RED; Upper 90th pct
bound on mean for combined parent+sulfoxide+sulfone half-life from 19
soils

FILTRA, UPTKF, PLVKRT, PLDKRT	0	Default values

FEXTRC	0.5	Default value

Additional Notes	Modeled total aldicarb residues	Half-life values used
in inputs based on combined aldicarb + sulfone + sulfoxide residues;
lowest Kd of the 3 chemicals used for mobility. Assumes equal toxicity
of parent, degradates

The NMC CRA used region-specific typical application rates (see 2005 NMC
CRA for documentation of the use information). These rates, along with
the number of applications are less than the maximum label rates. While
typical rates, representing an “average” of high and low pest
pressures over time, might be reflective of ground water exposures, in
which the length of time for transport from the surface to groundwater
tends to lessen the variability in concentrations over time, they are
more likely to underestimate surface water concentrations in the case of
maximum use in response to high pest pressures. Likewise, they will
likely overestimate surface water concentrations in the case of low pest
pressures.  Table 11 documents the application-related parameters used
as inputs for PRZM-EXAMS in this revised surface water assessment.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 11: Application-specific PRZM-EXAMS Input
Parameters.

Scenario Location	NC Coastal Plain	Central Florida	MS/LA

Crop/Use	Cotton	Peanut	Oranges	Grapefruit	Cotton

Counties in watershed area (used to collect use, crop data)	Edgecombe,
Halifax, Northhampton, NC	Polk, Hillsborough, Manatee, FL	Franklin,
Madison, Tensas, LA

Typical App. Rate, lb ai/A	0.73	1.08	3.85	3.89	0.53

Typical App. Rate, kg/ha 1	0.81 (0.12)	1.20 (0.18)	4.27 (0.64)	4.32
(0.65)	0.59 (0.09)

Max. App. Rate, kg/ha	4.5 (0.82)	3.7 (0.5)

	Most Active Range	May 1-15	Apr10-20	Apr-Nov	Apr-Nov	May1-15

App. Date	1-May	10-Apr	1-Apr	1-Apr	1-May

No. Apps.	1.0	1.0	1.5	1.5	1.0

Interval between apps. (da)	na	na	121	121	na

PCA for Region	0.61	0.61	0.19	0.19	0.20

Crop ratio 2	0.82	0.18	0.94	0.06	1.00

1 – Application rate was multiplied by 0.15 (shown in parentheses) to
reflect 15% of granules on the surface for CAM 1 application.

2 – Crop ratio is based on the relative ratio of crops in the scenario
watershed, based on USDA 2002 AgCensus data for the counties in the
scenario area. Each crop-use is run with PRZM/EXAMS. The resulting
concentration distribution is multiplied by the crop ratio before
summing the daily distributions to represent total aldicarb residues
from all contributing uses in the watershed.

Estimated total aldicarb residues in surface water

Table 12 summarizes the distributions of total aldicarb residues for
various scenarios, reflecting the relative contributions of aldicarb
from multiple crop uses in the watershed.

Table 12: Estimated concentrations of total aldicarb residues in surface
water sources of drinking water in high runoff potential areas based on
typical rates.

Scenario Location	Crops	Concentrations, ug/l

Max-imum	99th %ile	95th %ile	90th %ile	80th %ile	75th %ile

FL central ridge citrus	Oranges	9.6	1.5	0.24	0.08	0.014	0.007

	Grapefruit	0.6	0.1	0.02	0.005	0.001	0.0005

	Aggregate	10.2	1.6	0.26	0.85	0.015	0.007

NC Coastal Plain 	Cotton	4.5	1.0	0.14	0.04	0.004	0.001

	Peanuts	0.8	0.1	0.03	0.01	0.001	<0.001

	Aggregate	4.6	1.0	0.19	0.08	0.01	0.005

LA/MS Mid-south	Cotton	0.8	0.2	0.02	0.004	<0.001	<0.001

These estimates are based on the reported typical application rates for
aldicarb, with an assumption that approximately 15% of the applied
pesticide is available at or near the surface for runoff. The
uncertainties in these assumptions are addressed in the sections that
follow.

Uncertainty due to application method

For these scenarios, OPP modeled CAM 1 in PRZM (broadcast application on
the surface), using 15% of the application rate to reflect the
assumption that 15% of the granules remain on the surface after
application. This assumes that none of the remaining application is
available for runoff. To characterize uncertainties related to the type
of application method used, OPP also modeled CAM 7 in PRZM, equivalent
to a T-band application, assuming that 15% of the application was
incorporated in the top 2 cm while the remaining 85% was incorporated in
the lower 10 cm. Peak estimates were greater with the CAM 7 simulation,
which more closely reflects banded applications (Table 13). However, the
peaks were generally less than 20% greater than that estimated with CAM
1, which more closely reflects broadcast applications.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 13: Comparison of estimated total aldicarb
residues using different application methods and assumptions on the
fraction of applied aldicarb available for runoff.

Region	 App Method / Rate	15% at surface	1% at surface

Max	99th	95th	90th	Max	99th	95th	90th

NC/ Coastal	CAM 1 / typical rate	4.6	1.0	0.19	0.08	0.30	0.07	0.01	0.005

	Cam 7 / typical rate	5.3	1.1	0.21	0.08	0.35	0.08	0.01	0.005

Central FL Citrus	CAM 1 / typical rate	10.2	1.6	0.26	0.08	0.68	0.12	0.02
0.007

	Cam 7 / typical rate	11.8	1.8	0.30	0.09	0.79	0.14	0.02	0.008

LA/ Midsouth	CAM 1 / typical rate	0.84	0.17	0.02	0.004	0.06	0.01	0.001
<0.001

	Cam 7 / typical rate	0.99	0.25	0.03	0.007	0.07	0.02	0.002	<0.001

The registrant contends that only 1% of the granules remain
unincorporated. Such an assumption would result in estimated exposures
that are no more than 1/15th of the estimated concentrations reported in
Table 2 (Table 13).

Uncertainty due to application rate

The estimates used in the NMC cumulative drinking water exposure
assessment and provided to HED for surface water exposure are based on
typical application rates. While “typical” application rates may be
reflective of average conditions over an extended period of time, they
fail to capture the variability in application rates that may occur from
one year to the next as a result of varying pest pressures. Such
variations are more likely to be reflected in surface water exposures,
which are subject to short-term variations in factors such as
application rates, acres treated, and the timing and intensity of
rainfall after application. Table 14 summarizes the estimated
distributions of total aldicarb residues based on both maximum and
typical application rates. It also characterizes the variability in
estimated concentrations depending on the amount of applied pesticide
remaining at or near the surface (and, thus, vulnerable to runoff).
While the assumption of 15% granules left on the surface after
incorporation may be a high-end estimate, the assumption of only 1% of
the granules left on the surface is a “best case” condition. The
actual amount left on the surface is likely somewhere in between.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Table 14: Comparison of estimated total aldicarb
residues using different application rates and assumptions on the
fraction of applied aldicarb available for runoff.

Region	App Rate	15% at surface	1% at surface

Max	99th	95th	90th	Max	99th	95th	90th

NC/ Coastal	Typical 	4.6	1.0	0.19	0.08	0.30	0.07	0.01	0.005

	Maximum	30.7	6.6	1.1	0.39	2.0	0.44	0.07	0.03

Central FL Citrus	Typical 	10.2	1.6	0.26	0.08	0.68	0.12	0.02	0.007

	Maximum	13.2	2.3	0.39	0.13	0.88	0.15	0.03	0.009

LA/ Midsouth	Typical	0.84	0.17	0.02	0.004	0.06	0.01	0.001	<0.001

	Maximum	6.4	1.3	0.14	0.03	0.43	0.08	0.01	0.002

Comparisons with monitoring

Aldicarb residues have not been detected frequently or in high amounts
in surface water in the USGS NAWQA monitoring studies – 0.2%
detections with a maximum concentration of 0.5 ug/L based on the 2001
national summary by Martin et al (2003; see   HYPERLINK
"http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/pestsw/Pest-SW_2001_Text.html"
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/pestsw/Pest-SW_2001_Text.html  ). While
the NAWQA monitoring sites are not targeted to aldicarb use areas and
the frequency of sampling is not designed to capture peak concentrations
in surface water, the results suggest that actual concentrations of
aldicarb residues in surface water are likely to be closer to the single
or sub-parts per billion range than to 10-30 ppb.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register: April 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 16852-16853]
[DOCID:fr13ap09-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

April 2, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP96-359-040.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,
    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits
two executed amendments to service agreements containing negotiated
rates, all of which pertain to Rate Schedule FT transportation service
under Transco's Momentum Expansion Project.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090401-0086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP03-36-043.
    Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners.
    Description: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners submits Forty Fourth
Revised Sheet 9 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1
to be effective 4/1/09.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090401-0087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-486-000.
    Applicants: Northern Border Pipeline Company.
    Description: Northern Border Pipeline Company submits Thirteenth
Revised Sheet 99 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1
to be effective 5/1/09.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090401-0085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-487-000.
    Applicants: High Island Offshore System, LLC.
    Description: High Island Offshore System, LLC submits Third Revised
Sheet 9 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff to become effective 5/1/09.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090401-0030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-488-000.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Co submits Sixteenth Revised Sheet No.
17A et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090401-0084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-489-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Gas Transmission, LLC submits First Revised Sheet No.
360 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090401-0083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-490-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits non- conforming
service agreements with Washington Gas Light Company executed as part
of Columbia's Ohio Storage Project.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090401-0088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-491-000.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC submits the 2007-2008
Cashout Report.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090401-0082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-492-000.
    Applicants: High Island Offshore System, LLC.
    Description: High Island Offshore System, LLC submits Second
Revised Sheet No. 1 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090401-0081
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-493-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corp submits 126th Revised
Sheet No.9 to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090401-0080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-494-000.
    Applicants: Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC.
    Description: Pine Needle LNG Co, LLC submits Seventeenth Revised
Sheet No. 4 to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 03/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090401-0079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 13, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the

eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-8259 Filed 4-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 45 (Thursday, March 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13197-13199]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04662]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0214; FMCSA-2014-0215]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions of seven
individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers have ``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions
enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and

are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before April 10,
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0214; FMCSA-2014-0215
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) for this notice. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for two years if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to
renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person:

    Has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of
epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.

    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
    The seven individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal
of their exemptions from the Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders prohibition
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on
their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-
year period.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of
the seven applicants has satisfied the conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the Epilepsy and Seizure Disorder requirements and were
published in the Federal Register (80 FR 16507; 80 FR 16497). In
addition, for Commercial Driver's License (CDL) holders, the Commercial
Driver's License information System (CDLIS) and the Motor Carrier
Management Information System (MCMIS) are searched for crash and
violation data. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviews the driving
records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). These factors
provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to
continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce.
    The seven drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the
Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited
any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely
operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption period. FMCSA has
concluded that renewing the exemptions for each of these applicants is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to renew each exemption for a
two-year period. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each
driver has received a renewed exemption.
    As of October 15, 2016, the following 5 individuals have satisfied
the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), from driving CMVs
in interstate commerce (80 FR 16497): Thomas Avery (NY); Danny Crafton
(ID); Philip Stewart (CA); Keith White (PA); and Alan VonLintel (KS).
These drivers were included in FMCSA-2014-0215. The exemptions were
effective on October 15, 2016, and will expire on October 15, 2018.
    As of October 24, 2016, the following 2 individuals have satisfied
the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), from driving CMVs
in interstate commerce (80 FR 16507): Michael Alimecco (PA); and
Jeffrey Phillips (SC). These drivers were included in FMCSA-2014-0214.
The exemptions were effective on

October 24, 2016, and will expire on October 24, 2018.

IV. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable
treatment during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must
submit annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the
stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free;
(3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a
certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each
driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the
employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a
copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed.
The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to
comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315.

V. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the seven exemption applications,
FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the
Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders requirement in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(8). In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: February 28, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-04662 Filed 3-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 243 (Thursday, December 17, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81792-81795]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1108; Project Identifier AD-2020-01397-T;
Amendment 39-21360; AD 2020-26-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Textron Aviation Inc. (type certificate previously held by
Cessna Aircraft Company) Model 560XL airplanes. This AD was prompted by
an incident where a Model 560XL airplane experienced an uncommanded
engine acceleration with the left engine throttle unresponsive to power
commands, including engine shut-off. This AD requires an inspection of
the rivet of the left and right throttle quadrant assembly (TQA) sensor
link and sensor drive arm pivot for correct installation and corrective
actions if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 17, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 17,
2020.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by February 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Textron Aviation Inc., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS 67277; phone: (316)
517-5800; website: https://txtav.com. You may review this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
It is also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1108.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1108; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Englert, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight
D. Eisenhower National Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: (316) 946-
4167; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA has received a report of an incident where a Model 560XL
airplane experienced an uncommanded engine acceleration on the ground
following successful engine starts. The left engine throttle was
unresponsive to power commands, including engine shut-off. An
inspection identified that the left engine's sensor link and sensor
drive arm (in the TQA) had separated. A sub-supplier of the TQA
components failed to properly squeeze the rivet in a throttle quadrant
link assembly. The rivet serves as the pivot between the TQA sensor
link and sensor drive arm. The FAA determined that the failure of the
TQA caused an asymmetrical uncommanded high-thrust that cannot be
corrected by the flight crew in certain phases of flight.
    This condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of thrust
control, which could cause loss of control of the airplane. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency has determined the
unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in
other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Textron Aviation Inc. Mandatory Service Letter
SL560XL-76-04, Revision 1, dated November 24, 2020. This service
information specifies procedures for inspecting the rivet of the left
and right TQA sensor link and sensor drive arm pivot for correct
installation and, if necessary, replacing the rivet, reworking the
diameter of the rivet, and inspecting the rivet butt for cracking. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously, except as discussed under
``Differences Between this AD and the Service Information.''

Differences Between This AD and the Service Information

    The service information specifies compliance at the next ``time
limited dispatch check,'' not to exceed 170 airplane hours or 6 months,
whichever occurs first. However, this AD specifies a compliance time of
50 hours time-in-service.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD interim action. If final action is later
identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies foregoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because the potential for additional events to occur, based on average
operational time, is an unacceptable risk. As a result, the required
corrective actions must be accomplished within 50 hours time-in-
service, a shorter time than necessary for the public to comment and
for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity
for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public
interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days,
for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forego notice and
comment.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include the docket number FAA-2020-1108 and Project
Identifier AD-2020-01397-T at the beginning of your comments. The most
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Jeffrey
Englert, Aviation Safety Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, 1801
Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport, Wichita,
KS 67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and
comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 176 airplanes of U.S.
registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of the rivet...............  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85         $14,960
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
inspection, correction, or replacement that would be required based on
the results of the inspection. The FAA has no way of determining the
number of aircraft that might need these actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Actions                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of the rivet butt, modification,     Up to 3.5 work-hour x $85 per                N/A  Up to $297.50.
 and replacement.                                hour = $297.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may
be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866, and
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2020-26-05 Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held
by Cessna Aircraft Company) Airplanes: Amendment 39-21360; Docket
No. FAA-2020-1108; Project Identifier AD-2020-01397-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective December 17,
2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Textron Aviation Inc. (Type Certificate
previously held by Cessna Aircraft Company) Model 560XL airplanes,
certificated in any category, serial numbers 560-6001 through 560-
6290 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7603, POWER LEVER.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that a Model 560XL airplane
experienced an uncommanded engine acceleration with the left engine
throttle unresponsive to power commands, including engine shut-off.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address loss of thrust control. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of control
of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspections, Correction, and Replacement

    Within 50 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this
AD, inspect the rivet in the left and right throttle quadrant
assembly sensor link and sensor drive arm pivot for correct
installation, and do all applicable corrective actions before
further flight, in accordance with steps 2 through 5 of the
Accomplishment Instructions in Textron Aviation Mandatory Service
Letter SL560XL-76-04, Revision 1, dated November 24, 2020.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Textron Aviation Mandatory Service
Letter SL560XL-76-04, dated November 12, 2020.

 (i) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199 to operate the airplane to a location where the
airplane can be modified, provided there are no passengers onboard
the airplane.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs

for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in Related Information.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Jeffrey Englert,
Aviation Safety Engineer, Wichita ACO Branch, FAA, 1801 Airport
Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport, Wichita, KS
67209; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Textron Aviation Inc. Mandatory Service Letter SL560XL-76-
04, Revision 1, dated November 24, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Textron Aviation Inc. service information identified in
this AD, contact Textron Aviation Inc., P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, KS
67277; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; website: https://txtav.com.
    (4) You may review this referenced service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on December 8, 2020.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-27741 Filed 12-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22711-22712]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09983]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32635; File No. 812-14698]

RiverNorth DoubleLine Strategic Opportunity Fund, Inc. and
RiverNorth Capital Management LLC

May 12, 2017.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 19(b) of
the Act and rule 19b-1 under the Act to permit a registered closed-end
investment company to make periodic distributions of long-term capital
gains more frequently than

permitted by section 19(b) or rule 19b-1.
    Applicants: The RiverNorth DoubleLine Strategic Opportunity Fund,
Inc. (the ``Fund''), a newly-organized, diversified closed-end
investment company registered under the Act and organized as a
corporation under the laws of Maryland, and RiverNorth Capital
Management LLC (the ``Adviser'') (together with the Fund, the
``Applicants''), registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,
organized as a limited liability company under the laws of Delaware,
and serving as investment adviser to the Fund.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that the order also apply to each other
registered closed-end investment company advised or to be advised in
the future by the Adviser or by an entity controlling, controlled
by, or under common control (within the meaning of section 2(a)(9)
of the Act) with the Adviser (including any successor in interest)
(each such entity, including the Adviser, also the ``Adviser'') that
in the future seeks to rely on the order (such investment companies,
together with the Fund, are collectively the ``Funds'' and,
individually, a ``Fund''). A successor in interest is limited to
entities that result from a reorganization into another jurisdiction
or a change in the type of business organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Filing Dates: The application was filed on September 1, 2016, and
amended on April 12, 2017.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on June 6, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants:
Morrison C. Warren, Esq., RiverNorth DoubleLine Strategic Opportunity
Fund, Inc., Chapman and Cutler LLP, 111 West Monroe Street, Chicago,
Illinois 60603, and Marc Collins, Esq., RiverNorth Capital Management
LLC, 325 North LaSalle Street, Suite 645, Chicago, Illinois 60654.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephan N. Packs, Senior Counsel at
(202) 551-6853, or David J. Marcinkus, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application

    1. Section 19(b) of the Act generally makes it unlawful for any
registered investment company (``fund'') to make long-term capital
gains distributions more than once every twelve months. Rule 19b-1
under the Act limits to one the number of capital gain dividends, as
defined in section 852(b)(3)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(``Code,'' and such dividends, ``distributions''), that a fund may make
with respect to any one taxable year, plus a supplemental distribution
made pursuant to section 855 of the Code not exceeding 10% of the total
amount distributed for the year, plus one additional capital gain
dividend made in whole or in part to avoid the excise tax under section
4982 of the Code.
    2. Applicants believe that investors in certain closed-end funds
may prefer an investment vehicle that provides regular current income
through a fixed distribution policy (``Distribution Policy'').
Applicants propose that the Fund be permitted to adopt a Distribution
Policy, pursuant to which the Fund would distribute periodically to its
stockholders a fixed monthly percentage of the market price of the
Fund's common stock at a particular point in time or a fixed monthly
percentage of net asset value (``NAV'') at a particular time or a fixed
monthly amount per share of common stock, any of which may be adjusted
from time to time.
    3. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act
granting an exemption from section 19(b) of the Act and rule 19b-1 to
permit a Fund to distribute periodic capital gain dividends (as defined
in section 852(b)(3)(C) of the Code) as frequently as twelve times in
any one taxable year in respect of its common stock and as often as
specified by, or determined in accordance with the terms of, any
preferred stock issued by the Fund. Section 6(c) of the Act provides,
in relevant part, that the Commission may exempt any person or
transaction from any provision of the Act to the extent that such
exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and
consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly
intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
    4. Applicants state that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application,
which generally are designed to address the concerns underlying section
19(b) and rule 19b-1, including concerns about proper disclosures and
shareholders' understanding of the source(s) of a Fund's distributions
and concerns about improper sales practices. Among other things, such
terms and conditions require that (1) the board of directors or
trustees of the Fund (the ``Board'') review such information as is
reasonably necessary to make an informed determination of whether to
adopt the proposed Distribution Policy and that the Board periodically
review the amount of the distributions in light of the investment
experience of the Fund, and (2) that the Fund's shareholders receive
appropriate disclosures concerning the distributions.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09983 Filed 5-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P