[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6347-6351]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2399]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0733; FRL-8860-6]

(S,S)-Ethylenediamine Disuccinic Acid Trisodium Salt; Exemption
From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of (S,S)-ethylenediamine disuccinic acid
trisodium salt (CAS Reg. No. 178949-82-1) when used as an inert
ingredient (sequestrant or chelating agent) in pesticide formulations
applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after
harvest under EPA regulations. Innospec Limited submitted a petition to
EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting
establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of (S,S)-ethylenediamine disuccinic acid trisodium salt.

DATES: This regulation is effective February 4, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 5, 2011, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0733. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alganesh Debesai, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail 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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

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-2010-0733 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
April 5, 2011. 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 that does not contain any 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 a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0733, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of September 23, 2010 (75 FR 57942) (FRL-
8845-4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 0E7753)
by Innospec Limited, c/o Walter G. Talarek, PC, 1008 Riva Ridge Drive,
Great Falls, VA 22066-1620. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910
be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of (S,S)-ethylenediamine disuccinic acid
trisodium salt (CAS Reg. No. 178949-82-1) when used as an inert
ingredient as sequestrant or chelating agent in pesticide formulations
applied to growing crops or to raw agricultural commodities after
harvest. That notice referenced a summary of the petition

prepared by Innospec Limited, the petitioner, which is available in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing. For ease of reading in this document,
(S,S)-ethylenediamine disuccinic acid trisodium salt is referred to as
(S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply no
toxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for 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. * * *''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food and drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with section 408(c)(2)(A) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), 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,S)-EDDS trisodium salt
including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this
action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with (S,S)-
EDDS trisodium salt follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
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.
    The Agency completed a risk assessment on October 28, 2008 for the
approval of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under 40
CFR 180.920 for pre-harvest use for a substantially similar chemical,
i.e., (S,S)-ethylenediamine disuccinic acid, (CAS Reg. No. 20846-91-7)
which is referred to as (S,S)-EDDS. This risk assessment as well as
data on another similar compound, ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid
(EDTA), was used to evaluate the current request for (S,S)-EDDS
trisodium salt (CAS Reg. No. 178949-82-1) because it is likely that
(S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt, EDTA, and (S,S)-EDDS readily disassociates
in the body to their respective salts or acids and the active moiety
ethylenediamine. Therefore, these toxicological data can be bridged.
    Briefly, studies show that (S,S)-EDDS has low acute and subchronic
toxicity, is a mild eye irritant, and is not a dermal irritant or skin
sensitizer. Based on the results of submitted mutagenicity studies,
(S,S)-EDDS is not likely to be mutagenic. No carcinogenicity studies
are available on (S,S)-EDDS, however, NTP tested trisodium EDTA in mice
and rats and it showed no carcinogenic potential. Based on its
similarity with EDTA and lack of mutagenicity, (S,S)-EDDS is not likely
to be carcinogenic to humans at low doses. In addition, metabolism
studies show that (S,S)-EDDS is poorly absorbed but rapidly excreted
within 72 hours.
    The (S,S)-EDDS studies indicate developmental toxicity only at high
dosage levels that resulted in maternal toxicity (limit dose levels).
In a developmental toxicity study in rats, the maternal toxicity low
observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) is 944.1 milligrams/kilograms/
body weight/day (mg/kg bw/day) (16,000 parts per million (ppm)) (limit
dose) based on reductions in body weight, body weight gain, feed
consumption, and blood levels of zinc, iron, and copper, and the no
observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) is 551.1 mg/kg bw/day (8,000
ppm). The developmental toxicity LOAEL of 944.1 was based on an
increase in fetal death, reduced fetal growth, and multiple
developmental malformations and variations affecting almost all major
organ systems and skeletal structures, and the NOAEL is 551.1 mg/kg bw/
day (8,000 ppm). Therefore, the maternal and developmental NOAEL are
both 551.1 mg/kg bw/day (8,000 ppm). The results of this dietary study
indicate qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility; however, the
concern for this increased susceptibility is low for the reasons
discussed in Unit IV.D.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by (S,S)-EDDS as well as the NOAEL and the LOAEL
from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
the document for Petition 4E6818 (S,S)-
ethylenediaminedisuccinic acid (CAS Reg. No. 20846-91-7) for tolerance
exemption under 40 CFR 180.920 under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-
0250.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Due to the low potential hazard of this chemical, quantitative
dietary or occupational and residential exposure assessment is not
necessary. However, EPA conducted quantitative chronic dietary
assessment using the NOAEL of 551.0 mg/kg/day based on reductions in
body weight, body weight gain, feed consumption seen at the LOAEL of
944

mg/kg/day observed in a developmental toxicity study in rats with
uncertainty factor of 100 (10x for intraspecies variability and 10x for
interspecies extrapolation). The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
safety factor (SF) was reduced to 1X.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses and drinking water.
Since toxicity effects were seen only at the limit dose for (S,S)-EDDS,
a quantitative exposure assessment for (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt is not
needed. Any possible dietary exposure to (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt from
its use as an inert ingredient in pesticide products would be through
consumption of food to which pesticide products containing it have been
applied, although the rapid biodegradation properties will reduce the
amount of (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt that is available for uptake by
plants. Run-off into surface water is not anticipated due to rapid
biodegradation, and therefore, contributions of concern to drinking
water are not expected.
    To further support this conclusion, the Agency performed a dietary
(food and drinking water) exposure assessment for (S,S)-EDDS trisodium
salt using worst case assumptions as detailed below. This exposure
assessment assumed that:
    i. (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt would be used as an inert ingredient
in all food use pesticide formulations applied to all crops.
    ii. One hundred percent of all food crops would be treated with
pesticides containing (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt.
    iii. (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt residues would be present in all
crops at levels equal to or exceeding the highest established tolerance
levels for any pesticide active ingredient for the use, and
    iv. A conservative default value of 100 parts per billion (ppb) for
the concentration of an inert ingredient in all sources of drinking
water was used.

This approach is highly conservative as it is extremely unlikely that
(S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt would have such use as pesticide product
inert ingredients and be present in food commodities and drinking water
at such high levels.
    EPA also considered whether it should quantitatively aggregate
exposure to (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt and EDTA (ethylenediamine
tetraacetic acid) and its salts and S,S-ethylenedamine disuccinic acid
(S,S-EDDS) in assessing risk. However, because these chemicals are
chelating agents, it is not expected that more than one of these
chemicals would be present in the same pesticide formulation. Further,
in quantitatively assessing risk, EPA has assumed that (S,S)-EDDS
trisodium salt would be present in all foods and at extremely high
values. Thus, EPA believes that its approach to aggregate exposure is
conservative and health protective.
    2. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
    (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt may be used as an inert ingredient in
pesticide products that are registered for specific uses that may
result in both outdoor and indoor residential exposures. In addition,
(S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt may be used in and around the home. Although
dermal and inhalation exposures are possible from residential use of
pesticide products containing this inert ingredient, negligible
inhalation and dermal absorption is expected based on its low toxicity,
poor absorption, and rapid biodegradation properties of the chemical
and therefore, an aggregate risk assessment was not performed.
    3. 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.''
    As explained above, EPA has based its assessment of the toxicity of
(S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt on data on the toxicity of EDTA
(ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid) and its salts and S,S-ethylenedamine
disuccinic acid (S,S-EDDS). For the same reason, EPA believes that
aggregate exposure to these compounds would have cumulative toxic
effects. EPA's approach to aggregating exposures to these compounds is
discussed in Unit IV.C.1.
    EPA has not found (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt to share a common
mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and (S,S)-EDDS
trisodium salt does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced
by any other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action,
therefore, EPA has assumed that (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt does not have
a common mechanism of toxicity with any 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 Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.
    However, these chemicals are chelating agents, therefore, it is not
expected that all of these chemicals would be present in the same
pesticide formulation. A quantitative aggregate exposure assessment was
not performed for this class of chemicals since highly conservative
dietary exposure assessments (food and water) for U.S. general
population was less than 5% of the cPAD.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    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.
    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:
    1. EPA has sufficient data to assess the toxicity of (S,S)-EDDS
trisodium salt. Although the toxicological database on (S,S)-EDDS
trisodium salt is limited, adequate long term studies are available on
structurally related compounds such as (S,S)-EDDS calcium disodium
EDTA, and trisodium EDTA. Based on the structural similarities in these
compounds, EPA concluded the database for (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt is
adequate.
    2. EPA has low concern regarding the potential developmental
effects of (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt. The (S,S)-EDDS studies indicate
developmental toxicity only at high dosage levels that resulted in
maternal toxicity (limit dose levels). In evidence of increased
susceptibility; however, the concern for this increased susceptibility
is low because:
    i. Effects were seen only at the limit dose and in the presence of
maternal toxicity.
    ii. There is a well characterized NOAEL (551.1 mg/kg/day)
protecting from these effects.

    iii. The presence of zinc, iron and copper may have contributed to
the observed developmental toxicity, since other chelating agents (such
as EDTA) have been shown to impact zinc, iron, and copper levels and
some of the developmental toxicity.
    iv. The results were not reproduced in a concurrently conducted
gavage study in rats at doses up to 1,000 mg/kg/day.
    3. Neurotoxicity studies are not available in the database;
however, there is no evidence of clinical signs of neurotoxicity in the
available studies. Therefore, developmental neurotoxicity study is not
required.
    4. Immunotoxicity study is not available; however, there is no
evidence of immune system involvement in the available studies.
    5. In the absence of actual exposure data on (S,S)-EDDS trisodium
salt, a highly conservative exposure estimate was utilized thereby
reducing uncertainty associated with exposures by infants and children
to (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Considering the low toxicity, poor absorption, and rapid
biodegradation properties of (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt, residues of
concern are not anticipated from dietary exposures (food and drinking
water) or from residential exposures (inhalation and dermal). Utilizing
a highly conservative aggregate exposure assessment, EPA has concluded
that aggregate exposures to (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt are more than
three orders of magnitude less than the dose at which no adverse
effects were seen in the most sensitive animal study and are therefore
below the level of concern. In addition, this highly conservative
exposure assessment is protective of any possible non-occupational
exposures to (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt as it results in exposure
estimates orders of magnitude greater than the high-end exposure
estimates for residential uses of pesticides routinely used by the
Office of Pesticide Programs. The Agency has not identified any concern
for carcinogenicity related to (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt.
    Taking into consideration all available information on (S,S)-EDDS
trisodium salt, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm to any population subgroup, including infants and
children, will result from aggregate exposure to (S,S)-EDDS trisodium
salt under reasonable foreseeable circumstances. Therefore, the
establishment of an exemption from tolerance under 40 CFR 180.910 for
residues of (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt when used as an inert ingredient
in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw
agricultural commodities after harvest is safe under FFDCA section 408.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not needed for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is not establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Residue Limits

    The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for
(S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels
been established for any food crops at this time.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.910 for (S,S)-EDDS trisodium salt (CAS
Reg. No. 178949-82-1) when used as an inert ingredient (sequestrant or
chelating agent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or
to raw agricultural commodities after harvest.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under section 408(d) of FFDCA 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 final rule has been exempted from review under
Executive Order 12866, this final rule 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). This final rule 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 section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the exemption 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 final rule 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 section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. 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 final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    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 of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule 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: January 24, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
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.  180.910, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following inert ingredient:

Sec.  180.910  Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions
from the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Inert ingredients             Limits             Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
(S,S)-Ethylenediamine disuccinic     .........  Sequestrant or chelating
 acid trisodium salt (CAS Reg. No.               agent.
 178949-82-1).

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

[FR Doc. 2011-2399 Filed 2-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 236 (Thursday, December 10, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65492-65493]
[FR Doc No: E9-29431]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 236 / Thursday, December 10, 2009 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1090; Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-31-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Model AS355E, AS355F,
AS355F1, AS355F2, and AS355N Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2,
and AS355N helicopters. This proposed AD results from a mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) AD issued by the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the
Member States of the European Community. The MCAI AD states that a
metallurgical non-conformity was discovered on a flange of the forward
shaft section of the tail rotor drive shaft (drive shaft). The MCAI AD
also states that stress analysis has shown that this non-conformity can
significantly reduce the strength of the drive shaft and thereby its
service life. The proposed actions are intended to remove non-
conforming drive shafts from service and prevent failure of the drive
shaft and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 11,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this proposed AD
from American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 Forum Drive, Grand Prairie,
TX 75053-4005, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
http://www.eurocopter.com.
    Examining the Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov 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 proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
stated in the ADDRESSES section of this proposal. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Uday Garadi, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Guidance Group, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(817) 222-5961.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this proposal. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-1090;
Directorate Identifier 2009-SW-31-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    EASA has issued AD 2006-0100, dated April 24, 2006, to correct an
unsafe condition for Eurocopter Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2,
and AS355N helicopters with a drive shaft forward shaft section, part
number 355A 34-1090-00, and a serial number from M858 (inclusive) up to
M873 (inclusive). EASA advises of the discovery of a non-conformity in
the metal of a flange of the drive shaft of an AS355 helicopter. EASA
also advises that stress analysis has shown that this non-conformity
may significantly reduce the strength and the service life of this
component. The proposed AD is intended to remove non-conforming drive
shafts from service and prevent failure of the drive shaft and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI AD and any related service
information in the AD docket.

Related Service Information

    Eurocopter has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. 01.00.51, Revision
1, dated February 9, 2006. The actions described in the MCAI AD are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the service
information.

FAA's Evaluation and Unsafe Condition Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of France
and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with France, EASA, their technical agent, has
notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI AD. We are
proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA
and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same type design. This proposed AD
would require removing any non-conforming drive shaft and replacing it
with an airworthy drive shaft that is not included in the applicability
of the AD.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI AD

    This AD would differ from the MCAI AD as follows:

     We refer to the compliance time as ``hours time-in-
service'' rather than ``flying hours'' and
     We do not require returning spares to the manufacturer.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 96 helicopters
of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-
hours per helicopter to do the proposed actions. The average labor rate
is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $8,335 per
helicopter. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the
proposed AD on U.S. operators would be $815,520, or $8,495 per
helicopter, assuming that the drive shaft is replaced on each
helicopter.

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.
    We are 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 product(s) identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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.
    Therefore, I certify this proposed AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Eurocopter France: Docket No. FAA-2009-1090; Directorate Identifier
2009-SW-31-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive your comments by January 11, 2010.

Other Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2,
and AS355N helicopters with tail rotor drive shaft forward shaft
section, part number 355A 34-1090-00, serial number 858 through 873
(inclusive) with a prefix ``M,'' certificated in any category. This
AD does not apply to helicopters manufactured after January 1, 2005.

Reason

    (d) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) AD
states that a metallurgical non-conformity was discovered on a
flange of the forward shaft section of the tail rotor drive shaft
(drive shaft). The MCAI AD also states that stress analysis has
shown that this non-conformity can significantly reduce the strength
of the drive shaft and thereby its service life. This AD is intended
to remove non-conforming drive shafts from service and prevent
failure of the drive shaft and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already accomplished, do the following:
    (1) For any drive shaft that has less than 2,400 hours time-in-
service (TIS), on or before reaching 2,500 hours TIS, remove the
drive shaft and replace it with an airworthy drive shaft that is not
included in the applicability of this AD.
    (2) For any drive shaft with 2,400 or more hours TIS, within the
next 100 hours TIS, remove the drive shaft and replace it with an
airworthy drive shaft that is not included in the applicability of
this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI AD

    (f) This AD differs from the MCAI AD as follows:
    (1) We refer to the compliance time as ``hours time-in-service''
rather than ``flying hours'' and
    (2) We do not require returning spares to the manufacturer.

Other Information

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Safety Management Group, FAA, ATTN: Uday Garadi, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Guidance Group, FAA, Rotorcraft
Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone
(817) 222-5123, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19.

Related Information

    (h) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2006-0100,
dated April 24, 2006, and Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No.
01.00.51, Revision 1, dated February 9, 2006, contain related
information.

Joint Aircraft System/Component (JASC) Code

    (i) JASC Code 6510: Tail rotor drive shaft.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on November 23, 2009.
Mark R. Schilling,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-29431 Filed 12-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 33656]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11871]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14634-002]

New England Hydro Power Company, LLC; Notice of Conference Call

    a. Date and Time of Meeting: June 3, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern
Standard Time
    b. FERC Contact: John Baummer at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or (202)
502-6837
    c. Purpose of Meeting: On May 14, 2020, New England Hydropower
Company, LLC (NEHC) filed a letter requesting a meeting with Commission
staff to discuss amendments to its pending license application for the
Ashton Dam Hydroelectric Project (P-14634-002). The project would be
located on the Blackstone River, near the Towns of Cumberland and
Lincoln, Providence County, Rhode Island. NEHC states that it is now
proposing to install submersible Kaplan turbine-generator units instead
of the Archimedes Screw turbine-generator units proposed in the license
application. NEHC also states that it is proposing to convert its
pending license application to an application for a small hydroelectric
(10 megawatt or less) exemption from licensing. NEHC is requesting a
conference call with Commission staff to ``lay out a process and
schedule'' for these changes.
    d. Proposed Agenda: (1) Introduction of participants; (2) NEHC
presentation on purpose of meeting; (3) Discussion on NEHC's proposed
changes and schedule; and (4) Meeting conclusion.
    e. A summary of the meeting will be prepared and filed in the
Commission's public file for the project.
    f. All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other
interested parties are invited to participate by phone. If interested,
please contact John Baummer at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>,
by June 01, 2020, to receive the conference call number and access
code.

    Dated: May 27, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-11871 Filed 6-1-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 2247]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00514]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-002, OMB Control No. 3235-0071]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Regulation S-K.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.101--et seq.) specifies the non-
financial disclosure requirements applicable to registration statements
under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.); and
registration statements, periodic reports, going-private transaction
and tender offer statements, proxy and information statements, and any
other documents required to be filed under Sections 12, 13, 14, and 15
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l, 78m, 78n,
78o(d)). Regulation S-K is assigned one burden hour for administrative
convenience.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    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 control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to: [email protected].

    Dated: January 9, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00514 Filed 1-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56654-56655]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19979]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2446-052]

STS Hydropower, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing
With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and
Establishing Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for
Submission of Final Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 2446-052.
    c. Date filed: August 30, 2022.
    d. Applicant: STS Hydropower, LLC (STS Hydropower).
    e. Name of Project: Dixon Hydroelectric Project (Dixon Project).
    f. Location: The project is located on the Rock River in the towns
of Dixon and Grand Tour and the city of Dixon in Lee and Ogle Counties,
Illinois. The project does not include any federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. David Fox, Senior Director of Regulatory
Affairs, Eagle Creek RE Management, LLC, 7315 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite
1100W, Bethesda, Maryland 20814,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Laura Washington<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: October 29, 2022.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper
copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed
to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent
via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2446-052.

    m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The Dixon Project consists of the following existing facilities:
(1) a 305.92-acre reservoir; (2) a 610-foot-long the concrete overflow
dam; (3) a forebay; (4) transmission equipment is composed of
generators connected to a 2.3-kilovolt bus; (5) a tailrace; and (6) a
powerhouse containing five generating units with a total installed
capacity of 3 megawatts.
    The Dixon Project is currently operated in a run-of-river mode and
generates an annual average of approximately 14,995 megawatt hours. STS
Hydropower proposes to continue operating the project as a run-of-river
facility and does not propose any new construction to the project.
    o. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. At this time, the Commission has
suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) issued on March 13, 2020. For
assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will
be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary)..  December 2022.
Request Additional Information..........  December 2022.
Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments...  June 2023.
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary).  October 2023.
Issue Notice of Ready for Environmental   October 2023.
 Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: September 9, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19979 Filed 9-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52662-52663]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20458]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2302-099]

Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use
of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 2302-099.
    c. Date Filed: August 4, 2021.
    d. Submitted by: Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Lewiston Falls Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Androscoggin River, in Androscoggin County,
Maine. No federal lands are occupied by the project works or located
within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Luke T. Anderson, Manager,
Relicensing Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC, 150 Main Street Lewiston,
ME 04240;<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Ryan Hansen at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC filed its request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process on August 4, 2021. Brookfield White Pine
Hydro, LLC provided public notice of its request on July 29, 2021. In a
letter dated September 15, 2021, the Director of the Division of
Hydropower Licensing approved Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC's
request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section 7
of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; and NOAA Fisheries

under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are
also initiating consultation with the Maine State Historic Preservation
Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation
Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Brookfield White Pine
Hydro, LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying
out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC filed a Pre-Application
Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the
Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed and/or printed on the
Commission's website (http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project No. 2302. Pursuant to 18 CFR
16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by August 31,
2024.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: September 15, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-20458 Filed 9-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50742-50743]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20569]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67666; File No. SR-NYSE-2012-18]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change Amending the New York Stock Exchange
Price List To Provide for Additional Co-location Services and Establish
Related Fees

August 15, 2012.

I. Introduction

    On June 13, 2012, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the NYSE Price List to provide for
additional co-location services and establish related fees. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on July 2, 2012.\3\ The Commission received no comments on the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67262 (June 26,
2012), 77 FR 39292 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange provides co-location services to Users from a data
center in Mahwah, New Jersey.\4\ The Exchange's co-location services
allow Users to rent space in the data center so that they may locate
their electronic servers in close physical proximity to the Exchange's
trading and execution system.\5\ The Exchange proposes to make multiple
changes to provide for additional co-location services and establish
related fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62960 (September 21,
2010), 75 FR 59310 (September 27, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-56).
    \5\ For purposes of its co-location services, the term ``User''
currently includes (i) member organizations, as that term is defined
in NYSE Rule 2(b), (ii) Sponsored Participants, as that term is
defined in NYSE Rule 123B.30(a)(ii)(B), and (iii) non-member
organization broker-dealers and vendors that request to receive co-
location services directly from the Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 65973 (December 15, 2011), 76 FR 79232
(December 21, 2011) (SR-NYSE-2011-53).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cabinet Cross Connects

    Currently the Exchange allows Users with more than one cabinet
within the data center to purchase one or more fiber cross connects
between its cabinets. The Exchange proposes that each User be permitted
to purchase cross connects between its own cabinets, as is currently
permitted, as well as between its cabinet(s) and the cabinets of
separate Users within the data center.\6\ A cross connect between Users
could be requested in order to receive technical support, order routing
and/or market data delivery services from another User. In addition,
the Exchange proposes to bundle cross connects such that a single
sheath can hold either one cross connect or several cross connects in
multiples of six (e.g., six, twelve, eighteen or twenty-four cross
connects). The Exchange proposes to charge a $500 initial fee for
either single or bundled cross connects and a monthly charge contingent
upon the number of cross connects established.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that only the User requesting the cross
connect would be charged the related initial and monthly fees; the
counterparty User would simply be required to give permission for
the cross connection.
    \7\ The Exchange proposes to charge $500 monthly to furnish and
install one cross connect between cabinets. For a bundle of six
cross connects, the monthly charge would be $1,500; 12 cross
connects would be $2,500 per month; 18 cross connects would be
$3,200 per month; and 24 cross connects would be $3,900 per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 Gb LCN Connections

    Users are currently able to purchase access to the Exchange's
Liquidity Center Network (``LCN''), a local area network available in
the data center, in either one or ten gigabit (``Gb'') capacities, for
which Users incur an initial and monthly fee per connection. The
Exchange proposes that a User that purchases five 10 Gb LCN connections
would only be charged the initial fee for a sixth 10 Gb LCN connection
and would not be charged the monthly fee that would otherwise be
applicable.

LCN CSP Connections

    A User may act as a content service provider (a ``CSP User'') and
deliver services to another User in the data center (a ``Subscribing
User''), such as order routing or market data delivery services. The
services can be provided either via direct cross connect between the
CSP User and Subscribing Users; or in addition, CSP Users can send data
to, and communicate with, all their properly authorized Subscribing
Users at once, via a dedicated LCN Connection (an ``LCN CSP''
connection). The Exchange proposes an initial connection fee for CSP
Users establishing a LCN CSP connection as well as a monthly charge
depending on whether the connection is a 1 or 10 Gb circuit. The
Subscribing User receives the services via its standard LCN connection
and is charged an initial and monthly fee that

reflects the benefit of receiving services in this manner.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For a CSP User, a 1Gb Circuit for a LCN CSP connection has a
$6,000 connection charge plus a $500 monthly fee. A 10Gb Circuit for
a LCN CSP connection has a $10,000 initial connection charge plus a
$5,000 monthly fee. A CSP Subscriber has an initial charge of $950
plus a $300 monthly fee per LCN CSP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cages

    A User may purchase a cage to house its cabinets within the data
center. The Exchange charges fees for cages based on the size of the
cage, which corresponds to the number of cabinets housed therein. The
Exchange is proposing the following fees for cages:
     For 1-14 cabinets, a $5,000 initial charge plus $2,700
monthly charge;
     For 15-28 cabinets, a $10,000 initial charge plus $4,100
month charge; and
     For 29 cabinets or more, a $15,000 initial charge plus
$5,500 monthly charge.

Change Fee

    A User may arrange for the Exchange to reconfigure, modify, or
otherwise change a co-location service that the Exchange has already
established for the User. The Exchange proposes to charge a User a fee
of $950 per order if the User requests a change to one or more existing
co-location services.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ If a User orders two or more services at one time, the User
would be charged a one-time Change Fee of $950, which would cover
the multiple services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expedite Fee

    A User may request that the Exchange expedite the completion of co-
location services purchased or ordered by the User. The Exchange
proposes to charge Users $4,000 for expedited completion of co-location
services.

Power Not Utilized Cabinet

    A User may obtain unused cabinet space that the User intends to
employ in the future in proximity to the User's existing cabinet space.
The Exchange proposes to charge a fee for this cabinet space, in which
the power is not utilized, of $360 per month.

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\10\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ which
requires that the rules of a national securities exchange provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities,
and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest, and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In offering co-location services, the Exchange incurs certain
costs, including costs related to the data center facility, hardware
and equipment costs, and costs related to personnel required for
installation and ongoing support. The Exchange has represented that the
fees charged are designed to defray expenses incurred or resources
expended by the Exchange.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Notice supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, the Exchange proposes to charge the same $500
connection fee for installing either a single cross connect or a
bundled cross connect because the cost to the Exchange is generally
equivalent. With regard to the cages offered by the Exchange, the
initial and monthly cost increases in correlation to the size of the
cage and how many cabinets it needs to contain because its size
represents the opportunity cost of not using that space to sell
additional cabinets, or for other Exchange purposes. In a similar vein,
the expedite fee proposed corresponds to the additional Exchange
resources needed to expedite customer requests, including the potential
need for overtime compensation for data center staff. Respecting LCN
CSP connections, the Exchange charges the same initial fee as for a
standard LCN connection since the connection is physically the same,
but the monthly fee is lower because LCN CSP connections are
functionally limited in comparison to the standard LCN connection.\14\
Additionally, the Exchange represents that there is no differentiation
among Users regarding the fees charged for a particular product,
service or piece of equipment. In light of the Exchange's
representations, the Commission believes that the co-location fees
proposed are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the
Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A LCN CSP connection may only be used for providing
services to Subscribing Users and may not be used for other
purposes, such as accessing the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is offering additional co-location services as a
convenience to Users. For instance, the cross connects and LCN CSP
connections provide Users within the data center with another
alternative to transmit data or provide services, such as order routing
or market data delivery services. The cages offered to Users can help
prevent the discovery of the hardware employed by Users for co-
location. As noted by the Exchange, these additional co-location
services are available to all Users on an equal basis. The Commission
believes that these additional services are also consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, as they are designed to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2012-18) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-20569 Filed 8-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 211 (Thursday, November 2, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75241-75242]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23730]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 211 / Thursday, November 2, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-2039; Airspace Docket No. 23-ANM-14]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Flying Joseph Ranch Airport,
May, ID

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Flying Joseph Ranch Airport,
May, ID, in support of the airport's transition from visual flight
rules (VFR) to instrument flight rules (IFR) operations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 18, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-2039 and
Airspace Docket No. 23-ANM-14 using any of the following methods:
    * Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.
    * Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    * Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    * Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Drasin, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). Subtitle I,
Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle
VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the
agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the
use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would establish Class E airspace to support IFR
operations at Flying Joseph Ranch Airport, May, ID.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most
helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain
the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or
commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments
are filed in writing.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this
proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light
of the comments it receives.
    Privacy: 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 www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Operations office (see ADDRESSES section for address, phone number, and
hours of operations). An informal docket may also be examined during
normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the
Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western
Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des
Moines, WA 98198.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This
document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order
JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023.
These

updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.
That order is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would
establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Flying Joseph Ranch Airport, May, ID, in support of the
airport's forthcoming transition from VFR to IFR operations.
    The proposed Class E airspace would extend 11.3 miles northwest and
4.5 miles southeast of the airport reference point (ARP) and is
designed to contain the following procedures: departing and missed
approach IFR operations until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface on
the Runway (RWY) 11 YOYYU ONE (OBSTACLE) Area Navigation (RNAV)
DEPARTURE, the RWY 29 ZAROD ONE RNAV DEPARTURE, the RNAV Global
Positioning System (GPS) M RWY 11 missed approach, and arriving IFR
operations below 1,500 feet above the surface on the RNAV GPS M RWY 11
approach. This action would support the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order (E.O.) 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, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11,
2023, and effective September 15, 2023, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ANM ID E5 May, ID [New]

Flying Joseph Ranch Airport, ID
    (Lat. 44[deg]26'38'' N, long. 113[deg]46'30'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4-mile radius of the airport, and within 2.6 miles
southwest and 2.2 miles northeast of the 311[deg] bearing extending
from the 4-mile arc to 11.3 miles northwest, and within 1.9 miles
either side of the 129[deg] bearing extending from the 4-mile arc to
4.5 miles southeast.
* * * * *

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on October 18, 2023.
B.G. Chew,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-23730 Filed 11-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46283-46284]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18911]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1110; Airspace Docket No. 11-AGL-21]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Battle Creek, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Battle Creek, MI.
Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area
Navigation (RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at W.K.
Kellogg Airport. The airport's geographic coordinates also are
adjusted. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, November 15, 2012. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On May 21, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E airspace for the Battle
Creek, MI, area, creating additional controlled airspace at W.K.
Kellogg Airport (77 FR 29918) Docket No. FAA-2011-1110. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received. Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September
15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to accommodate new standard instrument approach
procedures at W.K. Kellogg Airport, Battle Creek, MI. This action is
necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport. Geographic coordinates are updated to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (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 rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at W.K. Kellogg Airport, Battle Creek,
MI.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air)

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 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]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

AGL MI E5 Battle Creek, MI [Amended]

Battle Creek, W.K. Kellogg Airport, MI
    (Lat. 42[deg]18'23'' N., long. 85[deg]15'00'' W.)
BATOL LOM/NDB
    (Lat. 42[deg]21'43'' N., long. 85[deg]11'04'' W.)
Battle Creek ILS Localizer

    (Lat. 42[deg]17'37'' N., long. 85[deg]16'07'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of W.K. Kellogg Airport, and within 4 miles
each side of the 222[deg] bearing from the airport extending from
the 7-mile radius to 11.7 miles southwest of the airport, and within
4 miles each side of the 049[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 7-mile radius to 10.9 miles northeast of the airport, and
within 2 miles each side of the 126[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 7-mile radius to 11.1 miles southeast of the
airport, and within 7 miles northwest and 4.4 miles southeast of the
Battle Creek ILS localizer northeast course extending from the 7-
mile radius to 10.4 miles northeast of the BATOL LOM/NDB.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 25, 2012.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-18911 Filed 8-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P