[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43595-43597]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19803]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81594; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-57]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 11.13, Order Execution and Routing, To Account for IEX as a
Primary Listing Market and To Amend Certain Rules To Reflect the Name
Change of NYSE MKT to NYSE American

September 13, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 6, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend paragraphs (b)(3)(M) and (N)
of Rule 11.13, Order Execution and Routing, to expand the ability of
Users \5\ to designate their orders for participation in the opening,
re-opening (following a halt, suspension, or pause), or closing process
of a primary listing market other than the Exchange (NYSE, Nasdaq, NYSE
MKT, or NYSE Arca) to include the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX''). The
Exchange also proposes to amend paragraphs (b)(3)(M) and (N) of Rule
11.13 as well as Rules 11.24(c)(1) and 11.26(a) to reflect the name
change of NYSE MKT to NYSE American.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``User'' is defined as ``any Member or Sponsored
Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the System
pursuant to Rule 11.3.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(cc).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.bats.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Exchange Rule 11.13(b)(3)(N) describes the ROOC routing option,
under which Users may designate their orders for participation in the
opening or closing process, in addition to the re-opening (following a
halt, suspension, or pause), of a primary listing market other than the
Exchange, if received before the opening/re-opening/closing time of
such market.\6\ Under Exchange Rule 11.13(b)(3)(M), Users may also
elect that their orders be routed to participate in the primary
market's re-opening process, and not its opening or closing processes.
Any remaining shares

are either posted to the BZX Book,\7\ executed, or routed to
destinations on the System routing table.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Exchange Rule 11.13(b)(3)(N).
    \7\ The term ``BZX Book'' is defined as ``the System's
electronic file of orders.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(e).
    \8\ The term ``System routing table'' refers to the proprietary
process for determining the specific options exchanges to which the
System routes orders and the order in which it routes them. See
Exchange Rule 11.13(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX announced that it intends to become a primary listing exchange
and support IEX-listed companies beginning in October 2017.\9\ At that
time, the Exchange will enable Users to elect that their orders in IEX-
listed securities be routed to IEX to participate in IEX's opening, re-
opening (following a halt, suspension, or pause), or closing process.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraphs (b)(3)(M) and (N)
of Rule 11.13 to include IEX as a primary listing market to which Users
may designate their orders be routed.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See IEX Trading Alert #2017-05, Listing Specifications,
Testing Opportunities, and Timelines, available at https://iextrading.com/trading/alerts/2017/015/. See also Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 81316 (August 4, 2017), 82 FR 37474 (August
10, 2017) (SR-IEX-2017-10) (Order approving proposed rule change
related in auctions in IEX-listed securities, dissemination of
auction-related data, and provisions governing trading halts and
pauses).
    \10\ The Exchange also proposes to amend paragraph (b)(3)(M) of
Rule 11.13 to replace the term ``Bats'' with ``BZX'' to reflect the
correct defined term of ``BZX Book''. See Exchange Rule 1.5(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the Exchange also proposes non-substantive amendments to
paragraphs (b)(3)(M) and (N) of Rule 11.13 as well as Rules 11.24(c)(1)
and 11.26(a) to reflect the name change of NYSE MKT to NYSE
American.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 80283 (March 21, 2017), 82 FR 15244 (March 27, 2017)
(SR-NYSEMKT-2017-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, 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. As discussed above, IEX
announced that it intends to become a primary listing exchange and
support IEX-listed companies beginning in October 2017.\14\ Certain
Users whose orders in IEX-listed securities are resting on the BZX Book
may wish that their order only be routed to participate in IEX's
opening, closing, or re-opening process. The proposed rule change
promotes just and equitable principles of trade because it would
provide such Users with additional flexibility with regard to their
orders in IEX-listed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, the non-substantive amendments to paragraphs (b)(3)(M) and
(N) of Rule 11.13 as well as Rules 11.24(c)(1) and 11.26(a) to reflect
the name change of NYSE MKT to NYSE American also removes impediments
to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system because it updates the rules to reflect the name change
and does not alter the way in which orders in NYSE American listed
securities are handled and routed.
(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that its proposal would
increase competition because it offers Users an alternative means to
route orders to participate in IEX's opening, closing, and re-opening
following a halt, suspension, or pause as if they entered orders on
that market directly.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by
its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and
paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\16\ the Exchange has
designated this rule filing as non-controversial. The Exchange has
given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BatsBZX-2017-57 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsBZX-2017-57. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the

filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-BatsBZX-2017-57 and should be submitted on or before
October 10, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19803 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8420-8421]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02764]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #3

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1910-027; ER10-1911-027.
    Applicants: Duquesne Power, LLC, Duquesne Light Company.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Northeast Region
of Duquesne Light Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 2/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230203-5148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 4/4/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-607-000.
    Applicants: K2SO, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to December 12, 2022 K2SO, LLC baseline
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 2/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230203-5105.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1047-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.

    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEF-FPL SA No. 393
Concurrence to FCA for Affected System to be effective 1/18/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230203-5129.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1048-000.
    Applicants: Lockhart ESS, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-Based Rate Application
to be effective 4/5/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230203-5138.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1049-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Oklahoma.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Rate Schedule 305 to be effective 5/
22/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230203-5176.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1050-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2023-02-03_SA 3989 METC-New
Covert GIA to be effective 6/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 2/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230203-5183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH23-3-000.
    Applicants: LS Power Development, LLC.
    Description: LS Power Development, LLC submits FERC 65-B Notice of
Change in Fact to Waiver Notification.
    Filed Date: 2/3/23.
    Accession Number: 20230203-5137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 3, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-02764 Filed 2-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8461-8468]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02035]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0297; FRL-10004-03]

Flutriafol; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
flutriafol in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. Cheminova A/S on behalf of FMC
Corporation requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 14, 2020. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 14, 2020, 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-2018-0297, 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
Publishing 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-2018-0297 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 14, 2020. 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-2018-0297, 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 July 24, 2018 (83 FR 34968) (FRL-9980-
31), 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
8F8661) by Cheminova A/S, on behalf of FMC Corporation, 2929 Walnut
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.629 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
fungicide flutriafol, (()-[alpha]-(2-fluorophenyl-[alpha]-
(4-fluorophenyl)-1H-1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol), in or on alfalfa, forage
at 15.0 parts per million (ppm); alfalfa, hay at 50 ppm; barley, grain
at 1.5 ppm; barley, hay at 7.0 ppm; barley, straw at 8.0 ppm; corn,
sweet, forage at 9.0 ppm; corn, sweet kernels plus cobs with husks
removed at 0.03 ppm; corn, sweet, stover at 8 ppm; rice, bran at 0.4
ppm; rice, grain at 0.5 ppm; rice, hulls at 1.5 ppm; rice, straw at 0.9
ppm. Although the Agency's document did not expressly include the
following, the petition also requested the removal of the following
tolerances upon establishment of the petitioned-for tolerances:
Existing tolerances for inadvertent or indirect residues of flutriafol
in corn, sweet, forage at 0.09 ppm; corn, sweet, kernels plus cobs with
husks removed at 0.01 ppm; and corn, sweet, stover at 0.07 ppm. That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Cheminova A/S
on behalf of FMC Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is
issuing some tolerances that vary from what the petitioner requested.
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 flutriafol including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with flutriafol 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.
    Consistent with the mammalian toxicity profiles of the other
triazole fungicides, the prevalent adverse effects following oral
exposure to flutriafol were in the liver. Effects consisted of
increases in liver enzyme release (alkaline phosphatase), liver
weights, and histopathology findings (hepatocyte vacuolization to
centrilobular hypertrophy and slight increases in hemosiderin-laden
Kupffer cells, minimal to severe fatty changes, and bile duct
proliferation/cholangiolar fibrosis). Progression of toxicity occurred
with time as some effects were only observed at chronic durations.
    Slight indications of effects in the hematopoietic system were
sporadically seen in all species consisting of slight anemia, increased
platelets, white blood cells, neutrophils, and lymphocytes. The effects
in the neurotoxicity screening batteries were observed only at higher
doses and were considered secondary effects (decreased motor activity
and hindlimb grip strength, ptosis, lost righting reflex, hunched
posture, and ataxia). Flutriafol showed no evidence of dermal toxicity,
or immunotoxicity. Flutriafol showed no evidence of carcinogenicity in
rodents or in vitro.
    There is evidence of increased quantitative and qualitative
prenatal and postnatal susceptibility for flutriafol in rats and
rabbits. In the first of two rat developmental toxicity studies,
developmental effects (delayed ossification or non-ossification of the
skeleton in the fetuses) were observed at a lower dose than that where
maternal effects were observed. In the second rat developmental study,
developmental effects (external, visceral, and skeletal malformations;
embryo lethality; skeletal variations; a generalized delay in fetal
development; and fewer live fetuses) were more severe than the
decreased food consumption and body-weight gains observed in the dams
at the same dose. For rabbits, intrauterine deaths occurred at a dose
level that also caused adverse effects in maternal animals. In the 2-
generation reproduction studies, effects in the offspring [decreased
litter size and percentage of live births (increased pup mortality) and
liver toxicity] can be attributed to the systemic toxicity of the
parental animals (decreased body weight and food consumption and liver
toxicity) observed at the same dose.
    Flutriafol is categorized as having high oral acute toxicity in the
mouse. It is categorized as having low acute toxicity via the oral,
dermal and inhalation routes in rats. Flutriafol is minimally
irritating to the eyes and is not a dermal irritant. Flutriafol was not
shown to be a skin sensitizer when tested in guinea pigs.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse

effects caused by flutriafol 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
document ``Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of a Section 3
Registration for Application to Alfalfa, Barley, Sweet Corn, Rice (as a
Rotated Crop), Turf, and Ornamentals at 18'' in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2018-0297.

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 flutriafol used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

  Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Flutriafol 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 (Females 13 to 49    NOAEL = 7.5 mg/kg/    Acute RfD = 0.075    Developmental study--rabbit.
 years of age).                     day                   mg/kg/day           LOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFA = 10X...........  aPAD = 0.075 mg/kg/   decreased number of live fetuses,
                                   UFH = 10X...........   day.                 complete litter resorptions and
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........                        increased post-implantation loss.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population  NOAEL = 250 mg/kg/    Acute RfD = 2,5 mg/  Neurotoxicity screening battery--
 including infants and children).   day                   kg/day               rat.
                                   UFA = 10X...........  aPAD = 2.5 mg/kg/    LOAEL = 750 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10X...........   day.                 decreased body weight, body-
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........                        weight gain, absolute and
                                                                               relative food consumption, and
                                                                               clinical signs of toxicity in
                                                                               both sexes: Dehydration, urine-
                                                                               stained abdominal fur, ungroomed
                                                                               coat, ptosis, decreased motor
                                                                               activity, prostration, limp
                                                                               muscle tone, muscle flaccidity,
                                                                               hypothermia, hunched posture,
                                                                               impaired or lost righting reflex,
                                                                               scant feces; in males: Red or tan
                                                                               perioral substance,
                                                                               chromodacryorrhea,
                                                                               chromorhinorrhea and labored
                                                                               breathing, and in females:
                                                                               Piloerection and bradypnea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day   Chronic RfD = 0.05   Chronic toxicity--dog.
                                   UFA = 10X...........   mg/kg/day           LOAEL = 20 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10X...........  cPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/    adverse liver findings (increased
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........   day.                 liver weights, increased
                                                                               centrilobular hepatocyte lipid in
                                                                               the liver, and increases in
                                                                               alkaline phosphatase, albumin,
                                                                               and triglycerides), increased
                                                                               adrenal cortical vacuolation of
                                                                               the zona fasciculata, and marked
                                                                               hemosiderin pigmentation in the
                                                                               liver and spleen in both sexes;
                                                                               mild anemia (characterized by
                                                                               decreased hemoglobin, hematocrit,
                                                                               and red blood cell count) in the
                                                                               males; and initial body weight
                                                                               losses, decreased cumulative body-
                                                                               weight gains, and increased
                                                                               adrenal weights in the females.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days).  Dermal (or oral)      LOC for MOE = <100   Developmental toxicity--rabbit.
                                    study NOAEL = 7.5                         LOAEL = 15 mg/kg/day based on
                                    mg/kg/day (dermal                          decreased number of live fetuses,
                                    absorption factor =                        complete litter resorptions and
                                    15%                                        increased post-implantation loss.
                                   UFA = 10X...........
                                   UFH = 10X...........
                                   FQPA SF = 1X........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhala-               Classification: ``Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans''
 tion).                                        based on the carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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). 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 flutriafol, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing flutriafol tolerances in 40 CFR
180.629. EPA assessed dietary exposures from flutriafol 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.
    Such effects were identified for flutriafol. In estimating acute
dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA) conducted
from 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA made the following
assumptions for the acute exposure assessment: Tolerance-level residues
or tolerance-level residues adjusted to account for the residues of
concern (ROC) for risk assessment, and 100 percent crop treated (PCT).
Since adequate processing studies have been submitted that indicate
that residues do not concentrate as a result of processing at levels
which would require a tolerance in or on apple juice (translated to
pear juice), grape juice, dried prunes, and tomato puree, the Agency's
2018 default processing factors for these commodities were reduced to
1. In addition, the Agency used a processing factor of 1 for raisin and
tomato paste since those existing tolerances already account for the
concentration of residues during the processing of the RACs, i.e.,
grape and tomato, into those processed commodities. The default
processing factors were retained for the remaining relevant
commodities.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/
WWEIA conducted from 2003-2008. As to residue levels in food, for the
chronic analysis EPA assumed the same residue estimates as that used in
the acute assessment excluding wheat, apple, and grape, where average
field-trial residues were assumed and apple and grape where screening-
level usage analysis (SLUA) percent crop treated estimates were assumed
(100 PCT assumed for the remaining crops). The chronic analysis also
incorporated refinements to the livestock residue estimates through
incorporation of median residues for selected commodities in
calculation of the dietary burden estimates (100 PCT assumed) and
through the incorporation of average residues from the feeding study.
The Agency used the same processing factors for the chronic dietary
assessment as it used for the acute assessment.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that flutriafol does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408 (b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The acute analysis assumed 100 PCT for all commodities. For the
chronic analysis, the Agency used PCT for the following uses: Apple
15%; grape 5%; and raisin 1%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and California Department of
Pesticide Regulation (CalDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) for the
chemical/crop combination for the most recent 10 years. EPA uses an
average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis and a maximum PCT for
acute dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing
use is derived by combining available public and private market survey
data for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding up
to the nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT
is less than 1% or less than 2.5%. In those cases, the Agency would use
less than 1% or less than 2.5% as the average PCT value, respectively.
The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the most recent 10 years of available public and private market
survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple
of 5%, except where the maximum PCT is less than 2.5%, in which case,
the Agency uses less than 2.5% as the maximum PCT.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which flutriafol may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for flutriafol in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of flutriafol.

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.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST),
Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM5-
VVWM) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of flutriafol for acute
exposures are estimated to be 29.5 parts per billion (ppb) for surface
water and 630 ppb for ground water. For chronic exposure assessments,
the EDWCs are estimated to be 5.8 ppb for surface water and 540 ppb for
ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 630 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 540 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).
    Flutriafol is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Golf course turf. EPA assessed
residential exposure using the following assumptions: Residential
handler exposure is not expected as result of the golf course use.
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 flutriafol (i.e. golf courses). The quantitative exposure/
risk assessment for residential post-application exposures is based on
the following scenario:
     Dermal exposures for children (6 to <11 years old),
children (11 to <16 years old), and adults contacting residues
deposited on turf resulting from broadcast golf course applications.
    These lifestages are not the only lifestages that could be
potentially exposed for these post-application scenarios; however, the
assessment of these lifestages are considered health protective for the
exposures and risks for any other potentially exposed lifestages.
    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.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to flutriafol and any other
substances. Although the conazole fungicides (triazoles) produce 1,2,4
triazole and its acid-conjugated metabolites (triazolylalanine and
triazolylacetic acid), 1,2,4 triazole and its acid-conjugated
metabolites do not contribute to the toxicity of the parent conazole
fungicides (triazoles). The Agency has assessed the aggregate risks
from the 1,2,4 triazole and its acid-conjugated metabolites
(triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid) separately. The new uses of
flutriafol are not expected to quantitatively alter the dietary
exposure estimates used in the most recent aggregate risk assessment
for the common triazole metabolites. The most recent triazole aggregate
risk assessment (Common Triazole Metabolites: Updated Aggregate Human
Health Risk Assessment to Address New Section 3 Registrations For Use
of Difenoconazole and Mefentrifluconazole; DP451447, dated May 15,
2019) can be found at https://www.regulations.gov at docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0002. Flutriafol does not appear to produce any other
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that flutriafol has a common
mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

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. There is evidence of
increased quantitative and qualitative prenatal and postnatal
susceptibility for flutriafol in rats. In the first of two rat
developmental toxicity studies, developmental effects (delayed
ossification or non-ossification of the skeleton in the fetuses) were
observed at a lower dose than that where maternal effects were
observed. In the second rat developmental study, developmental effects
(external, visceral, and skeletal malformations; embryo lethality;
skeletal variations; a generalized delay in fetal development; and
fewer live fetuses) were more severe than the decreased food
consumption and body-weight gains observed in the dams at the same
dose. For rabbits, decreased number of live fetuses, complete litter
resorptions and increased post-implantation loss were observed. Under
current practices, these effects are considered both maternal and
developmental effects, and it is unknown whether the effects occurred
from toxicity to maternal animals or the fetuses. In the two-generation
reproduction studies, effects in the offspring [decreased litter size
and percentage of live births (increased pup mortality) and liver
toxicity] was observed at the same dose as systemic toxicity in the
parental animals (decreased body weight and food consumption and liver
toxicity).
    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 flutriafol is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that flutriafol is a neurotoxic
chemical, and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional uncertainty factors (UFs) to account for neurotoxicity.
Signs of neurotoxicity were reported in the acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies at the highest dose tested only. In the acute
neurotoxicity study, these effects were primarily seen in animals that
were agonal (at the point of death) and, thus, are not indicative of
neurotoxicity. In addition, there was no evidence of neurotoxicity in
any additional short-term or long-term toxicity studies in rats, mice,
and dogs.
    iii. There are no concerns or residual uncertainties for prenatal
and/or

postnatal toxicity. There is evidence of increased quantitative and
qualitative susceptibility in developmental and reproduction toxicity
studies; however, there concern is low based on the following:
     Clear NOAELs and LOAELs were established for effects in
the fetuses/offspring.
     The dose-response for these effects are well defined and
characterized.
     Developmental endpoints are used for assessing acute
dietary risks to the most sensitive population (females 13 to 49) as
well as all other short-term and intermediate-term exposure scenarios.
     The acute reference dose for females 13 to 49 is 1,000-
fold lower than the dose at which quantitative susceptibility in the
first developmental rat study was observed.
     The chronic reference dose is greater than 300-fold lower
than the doses at which the offspring effects were observed in the 2-
generation reproduction studies.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were somewhat refined
in that the chronic analysis used some average field trial residue data
as well as some percent crop treated information. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to flutriafol in drinking water. These assessments
will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by flutriafol.

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. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this unit
for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water to
flutriafol will occupy 69% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old, the
population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
flutriafol from food and water will utilize 75% of the cPAD for all
infants <1 years 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
flutriafol 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). Flutriafol 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 flutriafol.
    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 380 for adults,
500 for youth ages 11 to <16 years old, and 160 for children ages 6 to
<11 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for flutriafol is an 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,
flutriafol is not registered for any use patterns that would result in
intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
flutriafol.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, flutriafol 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 flutriafol residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology based on validation data were
provided as part of the magnitude residues studies. In addition, the
QuECHERS method has been shown to support and enforce the tolerance
expression.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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.
    There are no Codex MRLs established for residues of flutriafol in/
on the proposed commodities.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based on the analysis of available field trial data and the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) tolerance
calculation procedure, EPA is establishing higher tolerance levels for
residues in/on alfalfa forage and hay than what the petitioner proposed
as it appears the petitioner averaged the residues from the two
cuttings for both commodities. EPA used the higher residues of the two
cuttings as this represents a worst-case scenario. Based on the
increased dietary burden from new additional feed commodities (i.e.,
alfalfa forage and hay), EPA calculates that the established tolerances
for residues of flutriafol in/on fat, liver, and meat byproducts,
except liver of cattle,

goat, horse, and sheep; eggs; and fat and meat byproducts of poultry
need to be increased to avoid adulteration of those commodities. In
accordance with 40 CFR 180.6, EPA is increasing those tolerances in
this rulemaking.
    EPA is not recommending tolerances for rice hulls or rice straw as
these commodities are no longer considered to be significant feed items
or for rice bran as it is lower than the rice, grain (RAC) tolerance.
Finally, EPA is expressing tolerance values to be consistent with
OECD's rounding class practice.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of flutriafol,
()[hyphen][alpha][hyphen](2[hyphen]fluorophenyl[hyphen][alpha][hyph
en](4[hyphen]fluorophenyl)[hyphen]1H[hyphen]1,2,4[hyphen]triazole[hyphen
]1[hyphen]ethanol), in or on alfalfa, forage at 20 parts per million
(ppm); alfalfa, hay at 70 ppm; barley, grain at 1.5 ppm; barley, hay at
7 ppm; barley, straw at 8 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at 9 ppm; corn,
sweet kernels plus cobs with husks removed at 0.03 ppm; corn, sweet,
stover at 8 ppm; rice, grain at 0.5 ppm. Based on the increased dietary
burden from the new additional feed commodities, that agency is
revising the following established tolerances of flutriafol in or on
cattle, fat at 0.2 parts per million (ppm); cattle, liver at 1.5 ppm;
cattle, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.08 ppm; egg at 0.02 ppm;
goat, fat at 0.2 ppm; goat, liver at 1.5 ppm; goat, meat byproducts,
except liver at 0.08 ppm; horse, fat at 0.2 ppm; horse, liver at 1.5
ppm; horse, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.08 ppm; poultry, fat at
0.02 ppm; poultry, meat byproducts at 0.02 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.2 ppm;
sheep, liver at 1.5 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts, except liver at 0.08
ppm. Also, this regulation removes established tolerances for
inadvertent or indirect residues of flutriafol in corn, sweet, forage
at 0.09 ppm; corn, sweet, kernels plus cobs with husks removed at 0.01
ppm; and corn, sweet, stover at 0.07 ppm the entries for the tolerances
contained in paragraph (d) of Sec.  180.629. These tolerances are
superseded and no longer necessary with the establishment of the new
tolerances for sweet corn commodities.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes and modifies 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: January 23, 2020.
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.  180.629:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (a):
0
i. Add alphabetically the entries for ``Alfalfa, forage''; ``Alfalfa,
hay''; ``Barley, grain''; ``Barley, hay''; and ``Barley, straw'';
0
ii. Revise the entries for ``Cattle, fat''; ``Cattle, liver''; and
``Cattle, meat byproducts, except liver'';
0
iii. Add alphabetically the entries for ``Corn, sweet, forage'';
``Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed''; and ``Corn, sweet,
stover''; and
0
iv. Revise the entries for ``Egg''; ``Goat, fat''; ``Goat, liver'';
``Goat, meat byproducts, except liver''; ``Horse, fat''; ``Horse,
liver''; ``Horse, meat byproducts, except liver''; ``Poultry, fat'';
``Poultry, meat byproducts''; ``Sheep, fat''; ``Sheep, liver''; and
``Sheep, meat byproducts, except liver''; and
0
b. In paragraph (d):
0
i. In the introductory text, remove ``table below'' and ``specified
below'' and add in their places ``table 2 to this paragraph (d)'' and
``specified in table 2 to this paragraph (d),'' respectively; and
0
ii. Revise the table.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  180.629  Flutriafol; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Alfalfa, forage.............................................          20
Alfalfa, hay................................................          70

                                * * * * *
Barley, grain...............................................         1.5
Barley, hay.................................................           7
Barley, straw...............................................           8

                                * * * * *
Cattle, fat.................................................         0.2
Cattle, liver...............................................         1.5
Cattle, meat byproducts, except liver.......................        0.08

                                * * * * *
Corn, sweet, forage.........................................           9
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed..............        0.03
Corn, sweet, stover.........................................           8

                                * * * * *
Egg.........................................................        0.02

                                * * * * *
Goat, fat...................................................         0.2
Goat, liver.................................................         1.5
Goat, meat byproducts, except liver.........................        0.08

                                * * * * *
Horse, fat..................................................         0.2
Horse, liver................................................         1.5
Horse, meat byproducts, except liver........................        0.08

                                * * * * *
Poultry, fat................................................        0.02
Poultry, meat byproducts....................................        0.02

                                * * * * *
Sheep, fat..................................................         0.2
Sheep, liver................................................         1.5
Sheep, meat byproducts, except liver........................        0.08

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

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                        Table 2 to Paragraph (d)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rice, grain.................................................         0.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-02035 Filed 2-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52212-52215]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21205]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0002; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-42-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Continental Motors, Inc. Reciprocating
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain Airmotive Engineering Corp. (AEC) replacement parts
manufacturer approval (PMA) cylinder assemblies marketed by Engine
Components International Division (ECi). We subsequently issued an
initial supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) that proposed to modify the schedule
for removal of the affected cylinder assemblies, added that overhauled
affected cylinder assemblies be removed within 80 hours, eliminated a
reporting requirement, and removed a requirement for initial and
repetitive inspections. This second SNPRM reopens the comment period to
allow the public the chance to comment on additional information added
to the docket of this proposed rule. We are proposing this SNPRM to
prevent failure of the cylinder assemblies, which could lead to failure
of the engine, in-flight shutdown, and loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this SNPRM by September 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Engine Components International Division, 9503 Middlex Drive, San
Antonio, TX 78217; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.eci.aero/pages/tech_svcpubs.aspx. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2012-
0002; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jurgen E. Priester, Aerospace
Engineer, Delegation Systems Certification Office, FAA, Rotorcraft
Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; phone: 817-222-
5190; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-0002;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-42-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 because of 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

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that
would apply to certain AEC replacement PMA cylinder assemblies marketed
by ECi. These assemblies are used on Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI)
model 520 and 550 reciprocating engines, and all other CMI engine
models approved for the use of models 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies
such as the CMI model 470 when modified by STC. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on August 12, 2013 (78 FR 48828). The NPRM
proposed to require initial and repetitive inspections, immediate
replacement of cracked cylinder assemblies, and replacement of cylinder
assemblies at reduced times-in-service (TIS) since new. The NPRM also
proposed to prohibit the installation of affected cylinder assemblies
into any engine.
    We subsequently issued an SNPRM which published in the Federal
Register on January 8, 2015 (80 FR 1008). The SNPRM proposed a modified
schedule for removal of the affected cylinder assemblies, added that
overhauled affected cylinder assemblies be removed within 80 hours,
eliminated a reporting requirement, and removed the requirement for
initial and repetitive inspections.

Actions Since Previous SNPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the SNPRM (80 FR 1008, January 8, 2015), we
received numerous additional comments on the proposed rule. After
reviewing the comments, we decided to reopen the docket so that we
could provide additional information to explain the rationale for this
AD action. We also wanted to provide commenters with the opportunity to
comment on this additional information. We added the following
information to Docket No. FAA-2012-0002: (1) The risk analysis
conducted by the FAA's Chief Scientific and Technical Adviser, Aircraft
Safety Analysis; (2) a risk analysis using the Small Airplane Risk
Analysis methods; (3) a June 2011, presentation by Airmotive
Engineering to the FAA

concerning its ECi cylinder assemblies; (4) a list of ECi cylinder
assembly failure reports consisting of only those reports where both
cylinder serial number and Time in Service are included in the reports;
(5) a list of additional failures of ECi cylinder assemblies reported
by a maintenance organization; (6) copies of the slides discussed with
the NTSB on June 9, 2015 during the meeting with the NTSB to understand
its comments to 2011-NE-42-AD, and (7) Airmotive Engineering
Corporation Technical Report 1102-13, dated April 30, 2011.
    In addition, we met with National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) representatives on June 9, 2015, to clarify the NTSB's basis for
its comments of FAA's actions in this proposed rule.
    We are taking this opportunity to respond to a limited number of
comments. Specifically, we found that numerous commenters cited
differences between the FAA's proposed action and the NTSB's
recommendations in NTSB Safety Recommendation A-12-7. We will respond
to remaining comments to the initial SNPRM (80 FR 1008, January 8,
2015) and to this second SNPRM when we issue the final rule.

Comments to the Previous SNPRM

Request To Provide Supporting Information

    Danbury Aerospace, Inc., and others in their comments to the SNPRM
(80 FR 1008, January 8, 2015), requested that we provide additional
information that supports this AD action.
    We agree. We added our risk analyses and other technical
information, such as the list of cylinder failures noted above and ECi
Technical Report 1102-13 that supports this proposed rule, to Docket
No. FAA-2012-0002 to help commenters and the general public understand
the need for this proposed rule.

Request To Withdraw the SNPRM Because ECi Cylinder Assemblies Are Not
Unsafe

    Several operators, maintenance organizations, and private citizens
asked that we withdraw the SNPRM (80 FR 1008, January 8, 2015) because
the affected ECi cylinder assemblies have an equivalent, or lower,
failure rate than that of cylinder assemblies manufactured by the
original equipment manufacturer (OEM).
    We disagree. We found that the failure rate for ECi cylinder
assemblies is much higher than for OEM cylinder assemblies over the
same period. Accident data confirms, that engines and airplanes may not
always continue to operate safely with a separated cylinder and that
separated cylinders have been the precipitating event in at least two
fatal accidents. This accident data is included in the risk analyses
that we uploaded to the docket (see NTSB Accident Identifiers
NYC02FA178 and ERA11WA008, which are cited in these analyses). We did
not withdraw this proposed rule.

Request To Review Comparison of Failure Rate Between OEM and ECi
Cylinder Assemblies

    The NTSB commented that the comparison between failure rates of OEM
and ECi cylinder assemblies was not valid because the cylinder heads
represented substantially different designs.
    We disagree that the comparison between OEM and ECi cylinder
assemblies is not valid. The ECi PMA design was reverse engineered by
ECi from earlier vintage OEM cylinders, and uses the same time between
overhaul (TBO) as the OEM cylinders. Since these ECi cylinder
assemblies are approved to the same TBO as the OEM cylinders, the ECi
cylinders should have durability that is equivalent to the OEM
cylinders. Our comparison of ECi cylinder assembly service history with
the OEM cylinder assembly history showed that the rate of separation
for the affected ECi cylinder assemblies is at least 32 times greater
than that of OEM cylinder assemblies over the same period. We uploaded
this data for commenter review. It may be viewed in Docket No. FAA-
2012-0002. We did not change this proposed AD.

Request To Revise Applicability

    The NTSB commented that it has not investigated any cases involving
engines with cylinder assemblies ranging from serial number (S/N) 1
through S/N 1043. The NTSB indicated that cylinder assemblies in this
S/N range should not be affected by the AD.
    We disagree. Cylinder assemblies with S/N 1 through S/N 1043 have
the same design as noted in this SNPRM, exhibit the same unsafe
condition, and therefore must be included in the applicability. We did
not change this proposed AD.
    The NTSB also commented that AD 2004-08-10, which was issued on May
5, 2004, requires replacement before further flight of ECi cylinder
assemblies ranging from S/N 1044 through S/N 7708 installed on CMI 520
and 550 series engines. According to AD 2004-08-10, ECi identified a
manufacturing discrepancy that occurred between September 2002 and May
2003 affecting cylinder assemblies S/N 1044 through S/N 7708, which
resulted in an over-hardened condition that would reduce the fatigue
strength of the aluminum cylinder head. The NTSB commented, therefore,
that cylinder assemblies S/N 1044 through S/N 7708 should not be
included in the proposed AD.
    We disagree. AD 2004-08-10 does not apply to all cylinder
assemblies S/N 1044 through S/N 7708; it applies only to cylinder
assemblies having specific cast markings. Cylinder assemblies S/N 1004
through S/N 7708 have the same design as noted in this SNPRM, exhibit
the same unsafe condition, and therefore must be included in the
applicability. We did not change this proposed AD.
    The NTSB also commented that, based on its review of the additional
seal band interference fit data provided by ECi, action is only
required for 165 cylinder assemblies S/N 36210 through S/N 61176.
    We disagree. We have received reports of separations of cylinder
assemblies S/N 36210 through S/N 61176 that were not among the 165
cylinders that ECi claimed may be at risk for separation due to
insufficient head to barrel interference fit. We have uploaded
information in Docket No. FAA-2012-0002 that identifies S/Ns of failed
cylinder assemblies that were not among the 165 cylinder assemblies
identified by ECi. We did not change this proposed AD.
    The NTSB commented that the applicability represented by the
SNPRM--S/N 1 through S/N 61176--represents a much larger number of
affected cylinder assemblies than is supported by its investigations.
    We disagree. ECi's next increase in the design interference fit was
incorporated beginning with S/N 61177. Consequently, all cylinder
assemblies S/N 1 through S/N 61176 are at risk for separation in the
first thread due to insufficient interference fit. We, therefore, find
that based on service failure data, identified in the docket as ``U.S.
DOT/FAA--04 ECi 520-550 Cylinder Separations,'' and ECI's
implementation of design improvements, this proposed AD must apply to
cylinder assemblies S/N 1 through S/N 61176. We did not change this
proposed AD.

Request To Include Repetitive Inspection Requirement

    The NTSB commented that we should impose a repetitive inspection
requirement for certain ECi cylinder assemblies and their removal once
they reach the manufacturer's recommended TBO. This repetitive
inspection requirement was part of the NPRM (78

FR 48828, August 12, 2013), but we removed it from the SNPRM (80 FR
1008, January 8, 2015).
    The NTSB observed that the FAA had published Special Airworthiness
Information Bulletin (SAIB) NE-07-09R1, dated March 21, 2007, and
approved ECi Mandatory Service Bulletin 06-2, Revision 2, dated October
26, 2006. Both of these documents emphasize the importance of
conducting periodic inspections of ECi cylinder assemblies.
    We disagree. We have found, based on service experience since the
publication of SAIB NE-07-09R1, that the inspection and tests are not
reliable in detecting cracked cylinders and the cost associated with
such ongoing tests outweighs the safety benefit. In addition, the crack
propagation growth rate is unknown. As a result, we have received field
reports of separated cylinders that occurred within the repetitive 50-
hour compression test and leak check inspection intervals proposed by
the NPRM. We did not change this proposed AD.
    The NTSB also noted that repetitive inspections are not perfect but
are still effective in detecting cracks that have propagated through
the cylinder wall. These inspections provide an added level of safety
from the time of the issuance of the final rule AD until the required
removal of the cylinder assembly.
    We disagree. We find that repetitive inspections until TBO are
inconsistent with the serious hazard represented by cylinder assembly
failures. See the ``U.S. DOT/FAA-01 Risk Analysis White Paper'' for
2011-NE-42-AD that we uploaded to the AD docket on June 23, 2015.
Therefore, we are requiring removal of affected cylinder assemblies
from service prior to TBO. We did not change this proposed AD.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this SNPRM to allow the public the opportunity to
comment on additional information we added to the docket of this
proposed rule.

Proposed Requirements of this SNPRM

    As proposed in the first SNPRM published on January 8, 2015 (80 FR
1008), this second SNPRM would require removal of the affected cylinder
assemblies, including overhauled cylinder assemblies, according to a
phased removal schedule.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 5,000 CMI
models IO-520, TSIO-520, IO-550, and IOF-550 reciprocating engines and
all other CMI engine models approved for the use of CMI models 520 and
550 cylinder assemblies (such as the CMI model 470 when modified by
STC), installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate
is $85 per hour. We estimate that about 18 hours would be required to
replace all six cylinder assemblies during overhaul maintenance. We
estimate the pro-rated value of the cost of replacement of six cylinder
assemblies to be about $4,202 per engine. Based on these figures, we
estimate the total cost of this proposed AD to U.S. operators to change
all ECi cylinder assemblies to be $28,660,000. Our cost estimate is
exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

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 products 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Continental Motors, Inc. (formerly Teledyne Continental Motors,
Inc., formerly Continental): Docket No. FAA-2012-0002; Directorate
Identifier 2011-NE-42-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 28, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Continental Motors, Inc. (CMI) model 520
and 550 reciprocating engines, and to all other CMI engine models
approved for the use of model 520 and 550 cylinder assemblies such
as the CMI model 470 when modified by supplemental type certificate
(STC), with Airmotive Engineering Corp. replacement parts
manufacturer approval (PMA) cylinder assemblies, marketed by Engine
Components International Division (hereinafter referred to as ECi),
part number (P/N) AEC631397, with ECi Class 71 or Class 76, serial
number (S/N) 1 through S/N 61176, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by multiple failure reports of cylinder
head-to-barrel separations and cracked and leaking aluminum cylinder
heads. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the cylinder
assemblies, which could lead to failure of the engine, in-flight
shutdown, and loss of control of the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) Review the engine maintenance records to determine if any
affected cylinder assemblies are installed.
    (2) If you cannot determine based on review of engine
maintenance records if any affected cylinder assemblies are
installed, comply with paragraph (e)(4) of this AD.

    (3) If you do not have any of the affected ECi cylinder
assemblies installed on your engine, no further action is required.

(4) Cylinder Identification and Serial Number Location

    (i) Check the cylinder assembly P/N and Class number. The ECi
cylinder assembly, P/N AEC631397, Class 71 or Class 76, is stamped
on the bottom flange of the cylinder barrel. Guidance on the P/N and
Class number description and location can be found in ECi Service
Instruction No. 99-8-1, Revision 9, dated February 23, 2009.
    (ii) If you cannot see the cylinder assembly P/N when the
cylinder assembly is installed on the engine, you may use the
following alternative method of identification:
    (A) Remove the cylinder assembly rocker box cover.
    (B) Find the letters ECi, cast into the cylinder head between
the valve stems.
    (C) Check the cylinder head casting P/N. Affected cylinder
assemblies have the cylinder head casting P/N, AEC65385, cast into
the cylinder head between the valve stems.
    (D) Find the cylinder assembly S/N as specified in paragraph
(e)(4)(iii) or (e)(4)(iv) of this AD, as applicable.
    (iii) For ECi cylinder assemblies, P/N AEC631397, manufactured
through 2008, find the cylinder assembly S/N stamped on the intake
port boss two inches down from the top edge of the head.
    (iv) For ECi cylinder assemblies, P/N AEC631397, manufactured on
or after January 1, 2009, find the cylinder assembly S/N stamped
just below the top edge of the head on the exhaust port side.

(5) Removal From Service

    (i) For any affected cylinder assembly with 680 or fewer
operating hours time-in-service (TIS) since new on the effective
date of this AD, remove the cylinder assembly from service before
reaching 1,000 operating hours TIS since new.
    (ii) For any affected cylinder assembly with more than 680
operating hours TIS since new and 1,000 or fewer operating hours TIS
since new on the effective date of this AD, remove the cylinder
assembly from service within the next 320 operating hours TIS or
within 1,160 operating hours TIS since new, whichever occurs first.
    (iii) For any affected cylinder assembly with more than 1,000
operating hours TIS since new on the effective date of this AD,
remove the cylinder assembly from service within the next 160
operating hours or at next engine overhaul, whichever occurs first.
    (iv) For any affected cylinder assembly that has been
overhauled, remove the cylinder assembly from service within the
next 80 operating hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.

(f) Installation Prohibitions

    After the effective date of this AD:
    (1) Do not repair, or reinstall onto any engine, any cylinder
assembly removed per this AD.
    (2) Do not install any affected ECi cylinder assembly that has
been overhauled, into any engine.
    (3) Do not install any engine that has one or more affected
overhauled ECi cylinder assemblies, onto any aircraft.
    (4) Do not return to service any aircraft that has an engine
installed with an ECi cylinder assembly subject to this AD, if the
cylinder assembly has 1,000 or more operating hours TIS.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Delegation Systems Certification Office, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19
to make your request.

(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jurgen E.
Priester, Aerospace Engineer, Delegation Systems Certification
Office, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth,
TX 76193; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For ECi Service Instruction No. 99-8-1, Revision 9, dated
February 23, 2009, contact Engine Components International Division,
9503 Middlex Drive, San Antonio, TX 78217; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Internet: http://www.eci.aero/pages/tech_svcpubs.aspx.
    (3) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 10, 2015.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-21205 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8236-8237]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02870]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2014-0017]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated January 22, 2014, Caltrain Commuter Railroad Company (PCMZ) has
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR part 236, Rules, Standards, and
Instructions Governing the Installation Inspection and Maintenance, and
Repair of Signal and Train Control Systems, Devices, and Appliances.
FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2014-0017. PCMZ seeks
relief from the 2-year periodic testing requirements of 49 CFR part
236, Sections 236.377--Approach locking; 236.378--Time locking;
236.379--Route locking; 236.380--Indication locking; and 236.381--
Traffic locking; on vital microprocessor-based systems. PCMZ proposes
to verify and test signal locking systems controlled by microprocessor-
based equipment using alternative procedures every 4 years after the
initial baseline testing or a program change as follows:
     Verify the cyclic redundancy check, checksum, and
universal control number of the existing location's specific
application logic to the previously tested version.
     Test the appropriate interconnection to the associated
signaling hardware equipment outside the processor (switch, track, and
searchlight signal indications, and approach locking (if external))
verifying that the correct and intended inputs to and outputs from the
processor are maintained.
    PCMZ submitted their petition with a list of 30 signal locations
subject to the relief being requested.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at http://www.regulations.gov/ and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by March 28, 2014 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's

complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477).

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-02870 Filed 2-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P