[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 47 (Monday, March 11, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8611-8617]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04251]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0465; FRL-9983-79]

S-Metolachlor; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of S-
metolachlor in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. Interregional Research Project Number
4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective March 11, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 10, 2019, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0465, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather

provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0465 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
May 10, 2019. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0465, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of January 26, 2018 (83 FR 3658) (FRL-9971-
46), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
7E8587) by IR-4, IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State
University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ
08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide S-metolachlor
including its metabolites and degradates in or on the raw agricultural
commodities stevia, dried leaves at 15.0 parts per million (ppm);
vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2, except sugar beet at 2.0
ppm; Swiss chard at 0.10 ppm; vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group
5-16 at 0.60 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B, except
Chinese broccoli at 1.8 ppm; stalk and stem vegetable subgroup 22A,
except celtuce, Florence fennel, and kohlrabi at 0.10 ppm; leaf petiole
vegetable subgroup 22B at 0.10 ppm; cottonseed subgroup 20C at 0.10
ppm; celtuce at 0.10 ppm; Florence fennel at 0.10 ppm; kohlrabi at 0.60
ppm, and Chinese broccoli at 0.60 ppm. In addition, the petition
requested to amend 40 CFR 180.368 by removing the tolerances for S-
metolachlor in or on asparagus at 0.10 ppm; beet, garden, leaves at 1.8
ppm; turnip, greens at 1.8 ppm; Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A at
0.60 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 1.8 ppm; cotton,
undelinted seed at 0.10 ppm; and leaf petioles, subgroup 4B at 0.10
ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
Syngenta Crop Protection, the registrant, which is available in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the
notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit
IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the levels at which tolerances are being established as well
as some of the commodity definitions. The reason for these changes are
explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . .
. .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for S-metolachlor including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with S-metolachlor
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Since the last time S-metolachlor was reviewed, the toxicology
database was re-evaluated to incorporate new toxicity data and to
update endpoints selected for points of departure to be consistent with
current Agency policies and practices. An inhalation toxicity study for
metolachlor was received and incorporated into the risk assessment and
consequently, the 10x database uncertainty factor from previous
assessments was removed for the inhalation scenarios since this is no
longer a data gap. Also, new endpoints were selected and updated
dietary and occupational/residential exposure

assessments were completed based on the updated toxicological endpoints
and reflect recent updates to EPA's standard operating procedures
(SOPs) and policies.
    The existing toxicological database is primarily comprised of
studies conducted with metolachlor. The toxicology database for S-
metolachlor consists of bridging data. Bridging studies indicate that
the metolachlor toxicology database can be used to assess toxicity for
S-metolachlor, and vice versa. In subchronic (metolachlor and S-
metolachlor) and chronic (metolachlor) toxicity studies in dogs and
rats decreased body weight was the most commonly observed effects.
Chronic exposure to metolachlor in rats also resulted in increased
liver weight and microscopic liver lesions (foci of cellular
alteration) in both sexes. No systemic toxicity was observed in rabbits
when metolachlor was administered dermally. There was no evidence of
systemic toxicity at the limit dose in a 28-day inhalation study in
rats with metolachlor, although portal of entry effects occurred in the
nasal cavity at lower doses. These effects included hyperplasia of the
squamous epithelium and subacute inflammation and mucous cell
hyperplasia. There is no evidence of immunotoxicity in the submitted
mouse immunotoxicity study.
    Prenatal developmental studies in the rat and rabbit with both
metolachlor and S-metolachlor revealed no evidence of a qualitative or
quantitative susceptibility in fetal animals. A 2-generation
reproduction study with metolachlor in rats showed evidence of
quantitative susceptibility. Decreased pup body weight in the F1 and F2
litters was seen in the absence of maternal toxicity. There are no
acute or subchronic neurotoxicity studies available for S-metolachlor
or metolachlor. In the developmental rat study, clinical signs of
neurotoxicity were observed in pregnant dams but only at the limit dose
of 1,000 mg/kg/day. There was no other evidence of clinical signs of
neurotoxicity in adult animals in the database. There are no residual
uncertainties with regard to pre- and/or postnatal toxicity.
    Metolachlor has been evaluated for carcinogenic effects in the
mouse and the rat. Although treatment with metolachlor did not result
in an increase in treatment-related tumors in male rats or in male or
female mice, metolachlor caused an increase in liver tumors in female
rats. There was no evidence of mutagenic or cytogenetic effects in vivo
or in vitro. Based on the information available in 1994, metolachlor
was classified as a Group C possible human carcinogen, in accordance
with the 1986 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. Based on that
classification and consistent with the data available at that time, EPA
determined that a non-linear approach (i.e., reference dose (RfD))
would be protective for all chronic toxicity, including
carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to metolachlor.
    In 2017, EPA re-assessed the cancer classification for metolachlor
in order to take into account additional mechanistic studies on S-
metolachlor that were submitted to assess a human relevance framework
analysis for a mitogenic mode of action (MOA) for liver tumors in
female rats. Based on comparable effects of S-metolachlor and
metolachlor shown in several associative events supporting the mode of
action hypothesis, the Agency concluded that the in vitro and in vivo
data reasonably explains the tumorigenic effects of metolachlor and
adequately demonstrates dose and temporal concordance to support key
events for the MOA leading to liver tumors in female rats.
Specifically, the Agency found that the development of liver tumors in
rats orally administered metolachlor is initiated by activation of
constitutive androstane receptor (CAR) in liver hepatocytes followed by
altered gene expression, transient increased cell proliferation,
increased hepatocellular foci, and hepatocyte toxicity (increased liver
weight and liver hypertrophy). Consequently, in accordance with the
EPA's Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (March 2005), EPA
has reclassified metolachlor/S-metolachlor as ``Not Likely to be
Carcinogenic to Humans'' at doses that do not induce cellular
proliferation in the liver. This classification was based on convincing
evidence of a CAR-mediated mitogenic MOA for liver tumors in female
rats. Because the current chronic RfD is protective for any
proliferative responses in the liver and the other key events in the
MOA for the formation of liver tumors, a non-linear approach (i.e.,
RfD) adequately accounts for all the chronic toxicity, including
carcinogenicity, that could result from exposure to metolachlor/S-
metolachlor.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by S-metolachlor as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``S-metolachlor: Human
Health Risk Assessment for (1) Establishment of Tolerances for New Uses
on Chicory, Stevia and Swiss Chard; (2) Tolerance Translations from
Table Beet Tops, Turnip Greens, and Radish Tops to Crop Group 2 (Leaves
of Root and Tuber Vegetables), except Sugar Beets; (3) Tolerance
Conversions (i) from Crop Subgroup 4B to Crop Subgroup 22B (Leaf
Petiole Vegetable), (ii) from Crop Subgroup 5A to Crop Group 5-16
(Brassica, Head and Stem Vegetable) and (iii) from Crop Subgroup 5B to
Crop Subgroup 4-16B (Brassica Leafy Greens); and (4) Tolerance
Expansions of Representative Commodities to (i) Cottonseed Subgroup
20C, and (ii) Stalk and Stem Vegetable Subgroup 22A, except Kohlrabi''
on pages 54-64 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0465.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for S-metolachlor used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

 Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for S-Metolachlor for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and  uncertainty/    RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk  assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations)..  An acute dietary assessment for all populations is not required. The adverse
                                    effects resulting from a single dose in the developmental rat study with
                                    metolachlor occurred at the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day, which is a dose
                                    that is not relevant for risk assessment. In addition, an endpoint was not
                                    selected for Females 13-49 years old since no developmental effects
                                    attributable to a single exposure were identified in the metolachlor/S-
                                    metolachlor database.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL = 26 mg/kg/day  Chronic RfD = 0.26   2-generation reproduction study in
                                   UFA = 10x...........   mg/kg/day            rats (Metolachlor).
                                   UFH = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.26 mg/kg/   LOAEL = 86 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                 decreased pup body weight in F1
                                                                               and F2 litters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidental oral short-term (1 to   NOAEL = 26 mg/kg/day  LOC for MOE = 100..  2-generation reproduction study in
 30 days).                         UFA = 10x...........                        rats (Metolachlor).
                                   UFH = 10x...........                       LOAEL = 86 mg/kg/day based on
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        decreased pup body weight in F1
                                                                               and F2 litters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal short- and intermediate-    NOAEL = 26 mg/kg/day  LOC for MOE = 100..  2-generation reproduction study in
 term (1-6 months) (Children       Dermal absorption                           rats (Metolachlor).
 only).                             factor (DAF) = 58%.                       LOAEL = 86 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        decreased pup body weight in F1
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        and F2 litters.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)  Classification: Metolachlor/S-metolachlor has been classified as ``Not Likely
                                    to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' at doses that do not induce cellular
                                    proliferation in the liver, with risk quantitated using a non-linear (RfD)
                                    approach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other
  data deficiency. UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population
  (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to S-metolachlor, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing S-metolachlor
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.368. EPA assessed dietary exposures from S-
metolachlor in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for S-
metolachlor; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption data from the United
States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey/What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues and 100
percent crop treated (PCT).
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing
cancer risk to S-metolachlor. Therefore, a separate quantitative cancer
exposure assessment is unnecessary since the chronic dietary risk
estimate will be protective of potential cancer risk.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for S-
metolachlor. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all
food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for S-metolachlor in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of S-metolachlor. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    The Agency assessed parent metolachlor, and the metabolites CGA-
51202 (metolachlor-OA), CGA-40172, and CGA-50720 together in the
drinking water assessment using a total toxic residues (TTR) approach
where half-lives were recalculated to collectively account for the
parent and the combined residues of concern.
    Based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC), the
Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), and the Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW), the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of S-metolachlor and its metabolites for chronic
exposures are estimated to be 43.70 ppb for surface water and 978 ppb
in ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered

into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 978 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    S-metolachlor is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: On commercial (sod farm) and
residential warm-season turf grasses and other non-crop land including
golf courses, sports fields, and ornamental gardens. EPA assessed
residential exposure using the following assumptions: For residential
handlers, in previous human health risk assessments for S-metolachlor,
inhalation exposure and risk to residential handlers was assessed and
resulted in no risks of concern. Based on current Agency policy, the
Agency no longer considers these products to be intended for homeowner
use due to label requirements for specific clothing and personal
protective equipment; therefore, a quantitative residential handler
assessment was not conducted.
    There is the potential for post-application exposure for
individuals exposed as a result of being in an environment that has
been previously treated with S-metolachlor. The population groups at
risk are youth 11 to <16 years old, children 6 to <11 years old, and
children 1 to <2 years old. The worst-case scenarios used in the
aggregate risk assessment are as follows:
     For youth 11 to <16 years old, the scenario used is dermal
exposures from post-application exposure to treated turf during golfing
activities.
     For children 6 to <11 years old, the scenario used is
dermal exposures from post-application contact with treated gardens.
     For children 1 to <2 years old, the scenario used is hand-
to-mouth exposures from post-application exposure to treated turf.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found S-metolachlor to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and S-metolachlor does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that S-
metolachlor does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. Acceptable developmental
toxicity studies in the rat and rabbit with both metolachlor and S-
metolachlor and an acceptable reproduction study in the rat with
metolachlor are available with clearly defined LOAELs and NOAELs. No
developmental toxicity was seen in rats or rabbits with either
compound. In the metolachlor and S-metolachlor rat prenatal
developmental toxicity studies there were no developmental effects seen
up to the limit dose. In the rat developmental toxicity study with
metolachlor, death and clinical signs (clonic and/or tonic convulsions,
excessive salivation, urine-stained abdominal fur) were observed at the
limit dose in maternal animals in the absence of developmental
toxicity. In the S-metolachlor rabbit developmental toxicity study,
clinical signs of toxicity (little/none/soft stool) were observed in
maternal animals in the absence of developmental effects. In the two-
generation reproduction study in rats conducted with metolachlor, there
was quantitative evidence of susceptibility. Decreased pup body weight
in F1 and F2 litters was seen in the absence of maternal toxicity. The
2-generation reproduction study was used for endpoint selection,
therefore, the PODs selected are protective of the effects seen at this
dose.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for S-metolachlor is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that S-metolachlor is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that S-metolachlor results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats
conducted with metolachlor, there was quantitative evidence of
susceptibility, however, the 2-generation reproduction study was used
for endpoint selection, therefore, the PODs selected are protective of
the effects seen at this dose.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to S-metolachlor in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure
of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by S-
metolachlor.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute

exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water.
No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified
and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, S-metolachlor is
not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure analysis, EPA has concluded that the risk
estimates for chronic exposure to S-metolachlor from food and water are
not of concern (<100% of cPAD) with a risk estimate at 22% of the cPAD
for all infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving
the greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3.,
regarding residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to
residues of S-metolachlor is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    S-metolachlor is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to S-metolachlor.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 1,246 for youths
11 to less than 16 years old, 106 for children 6 to less than 11 years
old, and 207 for children 1 to less than 2 years old, the population
groups of concern. Because EPA's level of concern for S-metolachlor is
a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, S-
metolachlor is not registered for any use patterns that would result in
intermediate-term residential exposure.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit
III.A, the chronic dietary risk assessment is protective of any
potential cancer effects. Based on the results of that assessment, EPA
concludes that S-metolachlor is not expected to pose a cancer risk to
humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to S-metolachlor residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate methodology is available for enforcing the established and
recommended tolerances. PAM Vol. II, Pesticide Regulation Section
180.368, lists a gas chromatography with nitrogen-phosphorus detector
(GC/NPD) method (Method I) for determining residues in/on plant
commodities and a gas chromatography with mass selective detector (GC/
MSD) method (Method II) for determining residues in livestock
commodities. These methods determine residues of metolachlor and its
metabolites as either CGA-37913 or CGA-49751 following acid hydrolysis
(LOQs of 0.03 ppm and 0.05 ppm, respectively).

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established any MRLs for either S-metolachlor or
metolachlor.

C. Response to Comments

    Four comments were submitted to the docket for this action. One
dealt with ``logging workers in the National Forest'', the second with
critical habitat restrictions, the third with wind powered facilities
threatening populations of bats, and the fourth with adverse economic
impacts of regulations. All submitted comments are unrelated to S-
metolachlor in particular, or pesticides in general, and are not
relevant to this action.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The submitted Swiss chard field trial data support a tolerance of
0.15 ppm instead of the proposed tolerance of 0.10 ppm. The reason for
the difference is that EPA used the combined level of quantitation
(LOQ) of CGA-37913 and CGA-49751 expressed in parent equivalents, 0.131
ppm, which becomes 0.15 ppm in Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) rounding class representing the tolerance value
for Swiss chard. The petitioner, instead, used the combined LOQ of 0.10
ppm for the input dataset of the OECD tolerance calculation procedure.
    Chinese broccoli was a member of subgroup 5A with a tolerance of
0.60 ppm, which falls within the established tolerance for subgroup 4-
16B at 1.8 ppm. An individual tolerance for Chinese broccoli is not
needed.
    Celtuce and Florence fennel, originally in crop subgroup 4B, have
the same tolerance as subgroup 22A, 0.10 ppm. Following crop group
conversion/revision the tolerances for celtuce and Florence fennel are
now covered by the subgroup 22A.
    EPA also modified several commodity definitions to be consistent
with Agency nomenclature.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of S-metolachlor
in or on Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B at 1.8 ppm; Cottonseed
subgroup 20C at 0.10 ppm; Kohlrabi at 0.60; Leaf petiole vegetable
subgroup 22B at 0.10 ppm; Stalk and stem vegetable subgroup 22A, except
kohlrabi at 0.10 ppm; Stevia, dried leaves at 15 ppm; Swiss chard at
0.15 ppm; Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16 at 0.60 ppm;
and Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2, except sugar beet at
2.0 ppm.
    Additionally, due to the establishment of the aforementioned
commodities, the following tolerances are removed as unnecessary:
Asparagus; Beet, garden, leaves; Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A;
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B; Cotton, undelinted seed; Leaf
petioles, subgroup 4B; and Turnip greens.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory

Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this
action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this
action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order
13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it
considered a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled
``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339,
February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 26, 2019.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.368(a)(2):
0
a. Remove the entries for ``Asparagus''; ``Beet, garden, leaves'';
``Brassica, head and stem, subgroup 5A''; and ``Brassica, leafy greens,
subgroup 5B'' from the table.
0
b. Add alphabetically the entry for ``Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup
4-16B'' to the table.
0
c. Remove the entry for ``Cotton, undelinted seed'' from the table.
0
d. Add alphabetically the entries for ``Cottonseed subgroup 20C'' and
``Kohlrabi'' to the table.
0
e. Remove the entry for ``Leaf petioles, subgroup 4B'' from the table.
0
f. Add alphabetically the entries for ``Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup
22B''; ``Stalk and stem vegetable subgroup 22A, except kohlrabi'';
``Stevia, dried leaves''; and ``Swiss chard'' to the table.
0
g. Remove the entry for ``Turnip greens'' from the table.
0
h. Add alphabetically the entries for ``Vegetable, Brassica, head and
stem, group 5-16'' and ``Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2,
except sugar beet'' to the table.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.368  Metolachlor; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B..................             1.8

                                * * * * *
Cottonseed subgroup 20C.................................            0.10

                                * * * * *
Kohlrabi................................................            0.60
Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B.....................            0.10

                                * * * * *
Stalk and stem vegetable subgroup 22A, except kohlrabi..            0.10
Stevia, dried leaves....................................              15

                                * * * * *
Swiss chard.............................................            0.15

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16..........            0.60

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2, except                 2.0
 sugar beet.............................................

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2019-04251 Filed 3-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                            Site Description Report

      Cooper Nuclear Station
	1200 Prospect Road
	Brownville, NE 68321
      March 2, 2009

1.0 Background and Objectives

      The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of developing 316(b) cooling water intake structure requirements that reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact for all existing power plants and manufacturing facilities.  As part of this process, EPA staff is visiting electric generators and manufacturers to better understand the cooling water intake structure (CWIS) technologies in use at typical facilities, including the site-specific characteristics of each facility and how these affect the selection and performance of CWIS technologies.  EPA is also visiting facilities to better understand cooling water use and specific issues or technologies that can affect 316(b) compliance.  As part of its site visit to the Nebraska City Station, EPA also collected information on Nebraska Public Power District's (NPPD) Cooper Nuclear Station (Cooper).

2.0 Facility Description

      Cooper is located about 3 miles south of the town of Brownville in eastern Nebraska on a 1300 acre site.  The facility operates under NPDES permit NE0001244; the permit expired June 30, 2006.

3.0 Electricity Generation and Transmission

      Cooper is a nuclear generating station with one reactor capable of generating 800 MW.

4.0 Cooling Water System and Intake Structure

      Cooper withdraws once-through cooling water from a CWIS on the shoreline of the Missouri River.  The facility's design intake flow (DIF) is 964 million gallons per day (mgd) and the average actual intake flow (AIF) is 747 mgd.

      Water passes through a trash rack and then into 9 intake bays; each intake bay has a dual flow coarse mesh (3/8") traveling screen and each pair of bays feeds a circulating water pump with a capacity of 229 mgd (or 159,000 gallons per minute [gpm] each).  One bay feeds the service water pumps, which have a total capacity of 43.2 mgd (or 30,000 gpm).  The design through-screen velocity ranges from 1.7 to 2 feet per second (fps).

      To better handle debris and sediment loading, the facility has taken several steps in the past.  See Section 7.0 for more information.

5.0 Impingement and Entrainment Information

      Facility representatives noted that impingement counts at Cooper are very low and that many of the collected organisms were shad.  They also stated that many of the pre-approved impingement approaches in the 2004 Phase II rule were unappealing.  For example, the 0.5 fps threshold is likely infeasible on large rivers and barrier nets would likely be destroyed by debris.  Entrainment has not been studied in any detail.

6.0 Cooling Tower Feasibility

      Facility representatives noted that they have explored converting to close-cycle cooling; the cost was estimated to be $400 million, largely due to nuclear safety procedures.  They did not identify any insurmountable technical hurdles.  Water consumption was also raised as a potential problem.

7.0 Debris Handling

      Cooper installed a sloping weir wall in the early 1970s to better control sediment loading at its CWIS.  The design was based on river flows typical of time and was reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Iowa Institute of Hydraulics.  The wall begins on the upstream side of the screenhouse and extends slightly above the water's surface.  The wall gradually becomes shorter as it extends downstream; this design was expected to shield the CWIS from excessive sedimentation by channeling suspended sediment beyond the CWIS.  In the past, sedimentation caused pump shutdowns from clogging and requires mechanical excavation every 6 months (usually by divers).  Sediment has also significantly increased the maintenance required for the traveling screens, increased the frequency of backwash cycles, and has restricted intake flow piping.  Facility representatives noted that Fort Calhoun is considering installing a similar wall.

      The facility also added turning vanes along the river bottom to steer flow (and sediment) away from the CWIS.  Sonar sensors were also added in the screenwells to measure the amount of sedimentation.

      Cooper also has problems with debris loading.  Debris carryover from the traveling screens clogs the condenser tubes, requiring frequent cleaning.  Facility representatives noted that the condenser must be backwashed on approximately a weekly basis, requiring a temporary shutdown.  Some debris remains and must be manually cleaned out during the next regularly scheduled outage.

      In the past 2 years, Cooper has replaced its single-entry traveling screens with dual-flow screens to reduce the debris carryover.  This conversion cost approximately $6 million.  By the time the installation was completed, maintenance was required on the first set of screens that were installed.

      Despite the changes, condenser backwash and sediment removal remain as operational challenges, although problems are now less frequent.

      Ice has been a historic problem at Cooper as well.  Ice floes in the river often break into smaller parts that can clog the open area of the screens, leading to as much as a 5 foot differential across the screens.  Cooper installed an ice deflector in the river to divert surface level ice away from the CWIS.

8.0 Repowering/Future Uses

      EPA did not collect any information about repowering at this site.

9.0 Cooling Ponds

      There are no cooling ponds onsite.

10.0 Ownership

      NPPD is a public utility that is owned by the state of Nebraska.  The entire state is supplied by public power.

11.0 316(a)

      EPA did not collect any information about thermal discharges at this site.

12.0 Ash Handling

      Cooper does not use coal as a fuel and therefore has no ash ponds.

13.0 Air Emissions Controls

      EPA did not collect any information about air controls at this site.

14.0 Additional Information

      Cooper had intended to comply with the 2004 rule by installing modified Ristroph screens with a low pressure spray and separate fish return.

      Facility representatives noted that they had considered a sedimentation pond at the CWIS, but were concerned about the ability to maintain a consistent flow, the need for constant dredging, and the ability of such a system to adapt to the large changes in river level.

      Facility representatives stated that, at another facility (Gerald Gentleman, located on an inland lake) the state fish and game agency has expressed an interest in maintaining once-through cooling, as there are too many shad in the waterbody and the cooling water withdrawals are helpful in culling the population of less desirable fish.  Additionally, the canals feeding the lake are completely drained every 5 years per Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requirements, killing any remaining fish or invertebrates.

Attachments

Attachment A	PowerPoint Presentation (March 2, 2009)

Attachment A -- PowerPoint Presentation (March 2, 2009)

Please see DCN 10-6522A accompanying this document.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 173 (Friday, September 4, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55171-55174]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19533]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0784; Product Identifier 2016-SW-087-AD; Amendment
39-21240; AD 2020-18-19]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-12-07
for Agusta S.p.A (Agusta) Model AB412 and AB412EP helicopters. AD 2014-
12-07 requires inspecting the rotor brake pinion (pinion) for a crack
and replacing it if there is a crack. This AD retains the requirements
of AD 2014-12-07 and also requires removing

certain serial-numbered pinions from service. This AD was prompted by a
report of an additional cracked pinion. The actions of this AD are
intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 21, 2020.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by October 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0784; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (now European
Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed
above.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness,
Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone
+39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home. You may view the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, AD Program Manager,
Continued Operational Safety Branch, Airworthiness Products Section,
General Aviation and Rotorcraft Unit, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth,
TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and the FAA did not provide you with notice and an opportunity
to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, the
FAA invites you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended
change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not
contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of
written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters
should submit them only one time. 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 file in the
docket all comments received, as well as a report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this
rulemaking during the comment period. The FAA will consider all the
comments received and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those
comments.

Confidential Business Information

    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 final rule 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 final rule, 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 final rule. Submissions
containing CBI should be sent to Matt Fuller, AD Program Manager,
Continued Operational Safety Branch, Airworthiness Products Section,
General Aviation and Rotorcraft Unit, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth,
TX 76177; telephone<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.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2014-12-07 (79 FR 35035, June 19, 2014) (``2014-
12-07''), for Agusta Model AB412 and AB412EP helicopters with a pinion
part number (P/N) 412-040-301-101 installed. AD 2014-12-07 requires
within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS), magnetic particle inspecting
each pinion for a crack and replacing the pinion if there is a crack.
AD 2014-12-07 was prompted by EASA AD No. 2013-0187, dated August 16,
2013 (EASA AD 2013-0187), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European Union. EASA advised of a report
of a cracked pinion installed in the rotor brake quill that was
discovered during a magnetic particle inspection (MPI). EASA further
stated the crack was caused by residual stress generated during the
manufacturing process. According to EASA, if not corrected, this
condition could result in failure of the pinion with detachment of
parts inside the transmission that could cause its malfunction or
jamming, ultimately resulting in loss of control of the helicopter. To
correct this unsafe condition, EASA AD 2013-0187 required an MPI of the
pinion, and if there is a crack, replacing the pinion.

Actions Since AD 2014-12-07 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2014-12-07, EASA issued AD No. 2016-0244,
dated December 14, 2016 (EASA AD 2016-0244), which supersedes EASA AD
2013-0187. EASA advises of another cracked pinion due to a defect
generated during the manufacturing process. Accordingly, EASA AD 2016-
0244 retains the MPI requirements of EASA AD 2013-0187 and requires
inspecting the helicopter within three months to determine if certain
serial-numbered pinions from the defective manufacturing batch are
installed and removing any affected pinions before further flight.
    Also, since the FAA issued AD 2014-12-07, Agusta changed its name
to Leonardo S.p.a. This AD reflects that change and updates the contact
information to obtain service documentation.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after
evaluating all known

relevant information and determining that an unsafe condition is likely
to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No.
412-147, dated September 12, 2016, which specifies identifying the
serial numbers of the pinion, P/N 412-040-301-101, and removing certain
pinions from service.
    The FAA also reviewed AgustaWestland BT No. 412-135, Revision A,
dated July 29, 2013, which describes procedures for a one-time MPI of
pinion P/N 412-040-301-101.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, within 75 hours TIS, removing from service pinion
P/N 412-040-301-101 having serial number (S/N) C17987, C17990, or
C17991. This AD also requires, within 100 hours TIS, performing an MPI
for a crack on each pinion P/N 412-040-301-101 if the rotor brake quill
has never been overhauled. If there is a crack, this AD requires,
before further flight, removing the pinion from service. Finally, this
AD prohibits installing pinion P/N 412-040-301-101 having S/N C17987,
C17990, or C17991 on any helicopter.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires removing from service certain pinions within 3
months; this AD requires removing these pinions within 75 hours TIS.
The EASA AD also requires the MPI to be performed within 100 flight
hours or 5 months, whichever occurs first; this AD requires compliance
within 100 hours TIS. The EASA AD only prohibits installing pinion P/N
412-040-301-101 having serial number S/N C17987 or C17991, whereas this
AD prohibits installing pinion P/N 412-040-301-101 having S/N C17987,
C17990, or C17991.

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 the FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment,
RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    There are no costs of compliance with this AD because there are no
helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S. Registry.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.)
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 seeking comment prior to the rulemaking.
    There are no helicopters with this type certificate on the U.S.
Registry. Therefore, the FAA finds good cause that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). In addition, for the reasons stated above, 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.

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.

Adoption of 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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-12-07, Amendment 39-17868
(79 FR 35035, June 19, 2014); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2020-18-19 Leonardo S.p.a.: Amendment 39-21240; Docket No. FAA-2020-
0784; Product Identifier 2016-SW-087-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model AB412 and AB412EP
helicopters, certificated in any category, with a rotor brake pinion
(pinion) part number (P/N) 412-040-301-101 installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a pinion.
This condition could result in failure of a pinion, detachment of
parts inside the transmission causing a malfunction or jamming, and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2014-12-07, Amendment 39-17868 (79 FR
35035, June 19, 2014).

(d) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective September 21, 2020.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    (1) Within 75 hours time-in-service (TIS), remove from service:
    (i) Pinion P/N 412-040-301-101 with serial number C17987;
    (ii) Pinion P/N 412-040-301-101 with serial number C17990; and
    (iii) Pinion P/N 412-040-301-101 with serial number C17991.
    (2) Within 100 hours TIS, if the rotor brake quill has never
been overhauled, perform a magnetic particle inspection on each
pinion for a crack. If there is a crack, before further flight,
remove the pinion from service.
    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install pinion
P/N 412-040-301-101

with serial number C17987, C17990, or C17991 on any helicopter.

(g) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, AD Program
Manager, Continued Operational Safety Branch, Airworthiness Products
Section, General Aviation and Rotorcraft Unit, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(i) Additional Information

    (1) Leonardo Helicopters Bollettino Tecnico (BT) No. 412-147,
dated September 12, 2016, and AgustaWestland BT No. 412-135,
Revision A, dated July 29, 2013, which are not incorporated by
reference, contain additional information about the subject of this
AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo
S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, Viale
G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-
0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home. You may review a copy of the
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) No.
AD 2016-0244, dated December 14, 2016. You may view the EASA AD on
the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating it in Docket No. FAA-2020-0784.

(j) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6321, Main Rotor
Brake.

    Issued on August 31, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-19533 Filed 9-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 1313]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00184]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on a Land Release Request at Malden
Regional Airport & Industrial Park (MAW), Malden, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release of airport land.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
request to release and sell a 1.11 acre parcel of federally obligated
airport property at the Malden Regional Airport & Industrial Park
(MAW), Malden, Missouri.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 8, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Amy J. Walter, Airports Land
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
620G, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to: David Blalock, Airport Manager, City of Malden
Regional Airport & Industrial Park, 3077 Mitchell Drive, PO Box 411,
Malden, MO 63863-0411,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy J. Walter, Airports Land
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
620G, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. The request to release property may be reviewed, by
appointment, in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release a 1.11 acre parcel of airport property at the Malden
Regional Airport & Industrial Park (MAW) under the provisions of 49
U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). This is a Surplus Property Airport. The City of
Malden requested a release from the FAA to sell a 1.11 acre parcel to
Chris Hrabik for commercial development. The FAA determined this
request to release and sell property at the Malden Regional Airport &
Industrial Park (MAW) submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural
requirements of the FAA and the release and sale of the property does
not and will not impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA
may approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty
days after the publication of this notice.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Malden Regional Airport & Industrial Park (MAW) is proposing
the release from obligations and sale of a 1.11 acre parcel of airport
property. The release of land is necessary to comply with Federal
Aviation Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow federally
acquired airport property to be used for non-aviation purposes. The
sale of the subject property will result in the land at the Malden
Regional Airport & Industrial Park (MAW) being changed from
aeronautical to non-aeronautical use and release the lands from the
conditions of the Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement Grant
Assurances in order to sell the land. In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport will receive fair market value
for the property, which will be subsequently reinvested in another
eligible airport improvement project for general aviation use.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, any person may request an appointment to inspect the
application, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be
related to the application in person at the Malden City Hall.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO on January 4, 2023.
James A. Johnson,
Director, FAA Central Region, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-00184 Filed 1-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


AGGREGATE ANNUAL AGENCY BURDEN AND COST

                                Program element
                             Total burden (hours)
                                Total costs[a]
Allowance transfers.
                                       8
                                     $679
Permits.

Permitting Authority.
                                     2,004
                                   $106,092
EPA.
                                      681
                                   $57,762
Emissions reporting.
                                    13,874
                                  $2,249,537
Auctions.
                                      66
                                    $5,598
Opt-in.
                                       0
                                    $0.00
NOX permitting.
                                      85
                                    $7,210
O&M of data systems.[b]
                                      N/A
                                  $2,500,000
Totals
                                    16,718
                                  $4,926,878

                [a]  2020 dollars.
                [b]  Average annual operation and maintenance costs associated with running electronic data
                systems are assumed to be incurred by an EPA contractor. Therefore, EPA will not incur any
                 labor burden for these activities.

    6.8  Reasons for Change in Burden

 	This ICR renewal reflects a minor differences from the previous ICR. This section discusses the changes in burden since the last clearance.

 	Overall, the estimated annual burden in 2018 from the last clearance was 1,873,880 hours. This ICR estimates the annual burden in 2022 will be 1,826,133 hours, which is a decrease in burden of 47,747 hours, or about two percent. The change in burden for this collection is principally due to the following adjustments (listed in order of impact):

●	Reductions in the number of ARP-affected units and ARP NOX-affected units (due to retirements) and shift toward a less costly mix of monitoring methodologies.

●	Reduction in the number of allowance transfer and deduction submissions.

   ●	Reduction in the number of expected opt-in units.

   ●	Reduction in the number of allowance auction bids.

    6.9  Burden Statement

 	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 1,826,133 hours per year for all respondents, or approximately 72 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

 	To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0022, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in-person viewing at the Air and Radiation docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention:  Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0022 and OMB Control Number 2060-0258 in any correspondence.

                                   Appendix A

                    Acid Rain Program Forms and Instructions

 	The Acid Rain Program forms and instructions shown below can be downloaded from the Clean Air Markets website, https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/business-center-forms.

Allowance Transfer

General Account Form
Allowance Transfer Form
Allowance Deduction Form

Permits (including NOX Permitting)

Certificate of Representation Form (Certificate of Representation data can also be submitted online using the CAMD Business System)
Acid Rain Permit Application
Acid Rain NOX Compliance Plan
Acid Rain NOX Averaging Plan
Acid Rain New Unit Exemption
Acid Rain Retired Unit Exemption

Emissions Monitoring

Monitoring, QA, and Emissions Data Reporting Instructions (Data Elements)

Auctions

2021 How to Bid Factsheet
For more information, see the Acid Rain Program SO2 Allowance Auction

 Opt-in

 For information and forms for opting into the Acid Rain Program, contact the Clean Air Markets Division.


[Federal Register: March 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 59)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15361-15362]
[DOCID:fr29mr10-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0248; Airspace Docket No. 10-ANE-10]

Removal of Class E Airspace, Brunswick, ME; and Establishment of
Class E Airspace, Wiscasset, ME

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to remove Class E airspace at Brunswick,
ME, as the airport has closed and the associated Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) removed, and to establish Class E airspace
at Wiscasset, ME, to accommodate the SIAPs developed for the airport.
This action enhances the safety and airspace management of Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) operations at Wiscasset Airport, Wiscasset, ME.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number
FAA-2010-0248; Airspace Docket No. 10-ANE-10, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2010-0248; Airspace Docket No. 10-ANE-10) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2010-0248; Airspace

Docket No. 10-ANE-10.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and
returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/
publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to remove Class E airspace at Brunswick,
ME to eliminate controlled airspace not required as the airport has
closed, and to establish Class E airspace at Wiscasset, ME, to provide
controlled airspace required to support the SIAPs for Wiscasset
Airport. The Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface would be established for the safety and management of IFR
operations.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA order 7400.9T, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in subtitle VII, part, A, subpart I, section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would remove Class E airspace at Brunswick NAS
Airport, Brunswick, ME, and establish Class E airspace at Wiscasset
Airport, Wiscasset, ME.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, effective September 15, 2009,
is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet
or More Above the Surface of the Earth.
* * * * *

ANE ME E5 Brunswick, ME [REMOVED]

* * * * *

ANE ME E5 Wiscasset, ME [NEW]

Wiscasset Airport, ME
    (Lat. 43[deg]57'40'' N., long. 69[deg]42'45'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of the Wiscasset Airport and within 2 miles
each side of the 232[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from
the 6.3-mile radius to 10.2 miles southwest of the airport and
within 2 miles each side of the 052[deg] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 9.8 miles to the northeast of
the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 16, 2010.
Michael Vermuth,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-6810 Filed 3-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P