[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34656-34663]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15721]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0771; FRL-9958-88-OAR]

Notice of Opportunity To Comment on an Analysis of the Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Attributable to Production and Transport of Beta vulgaris
ssp. vulgaris (Sugar Beets) for Use in Biofuel Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
inviting comment on its analysis of the upstream greenhouse gas
emissions attributable to the production of Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris
(sugar beets) for use as a biofuel feedstock. This notice describes
EPA's greenhouse gas analysis of sugar beets produced for use as a
biofuel feedstock, and describes how EPA may apply this analysis in the
future to determine whether biofuels produced from sugar beets meet the
necessary greenhouse gas reduction threshold required for qualification
as renewable fuel under the Renewable Fuel Standard program. This
notice considers a scenario in which non-cellulosic beet sugar is
extracted for conversion to biofuel and the remaining beet pulp co-
product is used as animal feed. Based on this analysis, we anticipate
that biofuels produced from sugar beets could qualify as renewable fuel
or advanced biofuel, depending on the type and efficiency of the fuel
production process technology used.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 25, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0771, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or withdrawn from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Ramig, Office of Air and
Radiation, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6401A,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
564-1177; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This notice is organized as follows:

I. Introduction
II. Analysis of GHG Emissions Associated With Production and
Transport of Sugar Beets for Use as a Biofuel Feedstock
    A. Overview of Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris (Sugar Beets)
    B. Analysis of Upstream GHG Emissions
    1. Methodology and Scenarios Evaluated
    2. Domestic Impacts
    3. International Impacts
    4. Feedstock Transport
    5. Results of Upstream GHG Lifecycle Analysis
    6. Fuel Production and Distribution
    7. Risk of Potential Invasiveness
III. Summary

I. Introduction

    Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act establishes the renewable fuel
standard (``RFS'') program, under which EPA sets annual percentage
standards specifying the amount of renewable fuel, as well as three
subcategories of renewable fuel, that must be used to reduce or replace
fossil fuel present in transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel.
With limited exceptions, renewable fuel produced at facilities that
commenced construction after enactment of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (``EISA''), must achieve at least a twenty percent
reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions as compared to baseline
2005 transportation fuel. Advanced biofuel and biomass-based diesel
must achieve at least a fifty percent reduction, and cellulosic biofuel
must achieve at least a sixty percent reduction.
    As part of changes to the RFS program regulations published on
March 26, 2010 \1\ (the ``March 2010 RFS rule'') to implement EISA
amendments to the RFS program, EPA identified a number of renewable
fuel production pathways that satisfy the greenhouse gas reduction
requirements of the Act. Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 of the RFS
regulations lists three critical components of approved fuel pathways:
(1) Fuel type; (2) feedstock; and (3) production process. In addition,
for each pathway, the regulations specify a ``D code'' that indicates
whether fuel produced by the specified pathway meets the requirements
for renewable fuel or one of the three renewable fuel subcategories.
EPA may independently approve additional fuel pathways not currently
listed in Table 1 to 40 CFR 80.1426 for participation in the RFS
program, or a party may petition for EPA to evaluate a new fuel pathway
in accordance with 40 CFR 80.1416. Pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416, EPA
received petitions from Green Vision Group, Tracy Renewable Energy, and
Plant Sensory Systems, submitted under

partial claims of confidential business information (CBI), requesting
that EPA evaluate the GHG emissions associated with biofuels produced
using sugar beets as feedstock, and that EPA provide a determination of
the renewable fuel categories, if any, for which such biofuels may be
eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 75 FR 14670.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's lifecycle analyses are used to assess the overall GHG impacts
of a fuel throughout each stage of its production and use. The results
of these analyses, considering uncertainty and the weight of available
evidence, are used to determine whether a fuel meets the necessary GHG
reductions required under the CAA for it to be considered renewable
fuel or one of the subsets of renewable fuel. Lifecycle analysis
includes an assessment of emissions related to the full fuel lifecycle,
including feedstock production, feedstock transportation, fuel
production, fuel transportation and distribution, and tailpipe
emissions. Per the CAA definition of lifecycle GHG emissions, EPA's
lifecycle analyses also include an assessment of significant indirect
emissions, such as indirect emissions from land use changes and
agricultural sector impacts.
    This document describes EPA's analysis of the GHG emissions from
feedstock production and feedstock transport associated with sugar
beets when used to produce biofuel, including significant indirect
impacts. This notice considers a scenario in which non-cellulosic beet
sugar (primarily sucrose, glucose and/or fructose) is extracted for
conversion to biofuel and the remaining beet pulp co-product is used as
animal feed. As will be described in Section II, we estimate the GHG
emissions associated with production and transport of sugar beets for
use as a biofuel feedstock are approximately 45 kilograms of
CO2-equivalent per wet short ton (kgCO2e per wet
short ton) of sugar beets.\2\ Based on these results, we believe
biofuels produced from sugar beets through recognized conversion
processes could qualify as advanced biofuel and/or conventional (non-
advanced) renewable fuel, depending on the type and efficiency of the
fuel production process technology used. EPA is seeking public comment
on its analysis of greenhouse gas emissions related to sugar beet
feedstock production and transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For purposes of this notice, we assume that sugar beets have
an average moisture content of 76%. See Food and Agriculture
Organization, 1999, ``Agribusiness Handbooks Vol. 4 Sugar Beets/
White Sugar'', http://www.responsibleagroinvestment.org/sites/responsibleagroinvestment.org/files/FAO_Agbiz%20handbook_White%20Sugar_0.pdf (Last Accessed: January 4,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If appropriate, EPA will update this analysis based on comments
received in response to this notice. EPA will use this updated analysis
as part of the evaluation of facility-specific petitions received
pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 that propose to use sugar beets as a
feedstock for the production of biofuel.\3\ Based on this information,
EPA will determine the GHG emissions associated with petitioners'
biofuel production processes, as well as emissions associated with the
transport and use of the finished biofuel. EPA will combine these
assessments into a full lifecycle GHG analysis used to determine
whether the fuel produced at an individual facility satisfies the CAA
GHG emission reduction requirements necessary to qualify as renewable
fuel or one of the subcategories of renewable fuel under the RFS
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Assuming the fuel pathway proposed in such petitions involve
extraction of non-cellulosic beet sugar for conversion to biofuel
and use of the resulting beet pulp co-product as animal feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Analysis of GHG Emissions Associated With Production and Transport
of Sugar Beets for Use as a Biofuel Feedstock

A. Overview of Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris (Sugar Beets)

    Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris, (commonly known as sugar beets) of the
order Caryophylalles, is a widely cultivated plant of the Altissima
group. Sugar beets are cultivated for their high percentage
concentration of sucrose in their root mass. Domestication of the plant
group took place approximately 200 years ago in Europe to selectively
breed for sugar content from crosses between Beta vulgaris cultivars,
including chard plants and fodder beets.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Juliane C. Dohm et al., ``The Genome of the Recently
Domesticated Crop Plant Sugar Beet (Beta Vulgaris),'' Nature 505,
no. 7484 (January 23, 2014): 546-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sugar beets are a biennial crop species grown across a wide
tolerance of soil conditions in areas of temperate climate, and tend to
be grown in rotation with other plant varieties.\5\ Sugar beets are
grown for their relatively high sugar content, approximately 13 to 18
percent of the plant's total mass, with around three quarters of the
plant mass comprised of water.\6\ Once harvested, sugar beets are
highly perishable and need to be processed in a short period of
time.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Michael J. McConnell, ``USDA ERS--Background,'' Crops Sugar
& Sweeteners Background, October 12, 2016, http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-sweeteners/background/.
    \6\ FAO, ``Sugar Crops and Sweeteners and Derived Products,''
accessed November 30, 2016, http://www.fao.org/es/faodef/fdef03e.HTM.
    \7\ Michael J. McConnell, ``USDA ERS--Policy,'' USDA ERS--
Policy, November 1, 2016, https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-sweeteners/policy.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the largest
region for sugar beet production is the area of the Red River Valley of
western Minnesota and eastern North Dakota, and sugar beets are
commonly grown at agricultural scale across five regions of the
country, encompassing 11 states.\8\ Western regions tend to require
more irrigation while sugar beets grown in the eastern U.S. region make
greater use of natural rainfall.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Michael J. McConnell, ``USDA ERS--Background.''
    \9\ Michael J. McConnell, ``USDA ERS--Background.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the mid-1990s, sugar beets have accounted for about 55
percent of sugar production in the U.S.\10\ Sugar beets are included in
the U.S. sugar program, designed to support domestic sugar prices
through loans to sugar processors. The U.S. sugar program also includes
a marketing allotment that sets the amount of sugar that domestic
processors can sell in the U.S. for human consumption, and provides
quotas on the amount of sugar that can be imported into the U.S.\11\
Sugar produced under the program cannot be used for biofuel purposes
with an exception for surplus sugar made available under the USDA
Feedstock Flexibility Program that specifically directs the excess
sugar to be used for the purpose of domestic biofuel production.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Michael J. McConnell, ``USDA ERS--Background.''
    \11\ The U.S. sugar program is managed by USDA and supports
domestic sugar prices through loans to sugar processors, a marketing
allotment program, and quotas on the amount of sugar that can be
imported to the U.S. Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Public Law 107-171, Sec. 1401-1403.
    \12\ ``Feedstock Flexibility Program,'' page, accessed November
17, 2016, https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/energy-programs/feedstock-flexibility/index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like other sugars, beet sugar can be fermented and used as a
feedstock for biofuel production. The non-cellulosic sugars of sugar
beets, the vast majority of which is sucrose, can be converted directly
into a refined sugar available for processes such as alcoholic
fermentation to produce biofuels (e.g., ethanol).\13\ Much of the water
needed

for the fermentation process is provided by the sugar beets themselves.
Sugar beet pulp is a fibrous co-product of the beet sugar extraction
process.\14\ The sugar beet pulp is often dried to reduce
transportation costs and is widely sold as feed supplement for cattle
and other livestock.\15\ While biofuel production from beet sugar has
historically been limited in the U.S., sugar beets accounted for about
17 percent of European ethanol production in 2014.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Dr. Hossein Shapouri, Dr. Michael Salassi, and J. Nelson
Fairbanks, ``The Economic Feasibility of Ethanol Production from
Sugar in the United States'' (USDA, July 2006), http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/EthanolSugarFeasibilityReport3.pdf.
    \14\ Eggleston, Gillian et al., ``Ethanol from Sugar Crops.''
In, Singh, Bharat P., Industrial Crops and Uses. CABI, 2010, pp. 74-
75.
    \15\ Greg Lardy, ``Feeding Sugar Beet Byproducts to Cattle,''
accessed November 30, 2016, https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/livestock/feeding-sugar-beet-byproducts-to-cattle.
    \16\ ePURE, ``European Renewable Ethanol--Key Figures,''
accessed November 17, 2016, http://epure.org/media/1227/european-renewable-ethanol-statistics-2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Analysis of Upstream GHG Emissions

    EPA evaluated the upstream GHG emissions associated with using
sugar beets as a biofuel feedstock based on information provided by
USDA, petitioners, and other data sources. Upstream GHG emissions
include emissions from production and transport of sugar beets used as
a biofuel feedstock. The methodology EPA used for this analysis is
generally the same approach used for the March 2010 RFS rule for
lifecycle analyses of several other biofuel feedstocks, such as corn,
soybean oil, and sugarcane.\17\ The subsections below describe this
methodology, including assumptions and results of our analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The March 2010 RFS rule preamble (75 FR 14670, March 26,
2010) and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (EPA-420-R-10-006)
provide further discussion of our approach. These documents are
available online at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/renewable-fuel-standard-rfs2-final-rule-additional-resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Methodology and Scenarios Evaluated
    The analysis EPA prepared for sugar beets used the same set of
models that were used for the March 2010 RFS rule, including the
Forestry and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model (FASOM) developed
by Texas A&M University for domestic impacts, and the Food and
Agricultural Policy and Research Institute international models as
maintained by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (FAPRI-
CARD) at Iowa State University for international impacts. For more
information on the FASOM and FAPRI-CARD models, refer to the March 2010
RFS rule preamble (75 FR 14670) and Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA).\18\ Several modifications were made to the domestic and
international agricultural economic modeling that differed from
previous analyses in order to accurately represent the U.S. sugar
program.\19\ Memoranda to the docket include detailed information on
model inputs, assumptions, calculations, and the results of our
assessment of the upstream GHG emissions for sugar beet biofuels.\20\
We invite comments on the scenarios and assumptions used for this
analysis, in particular on the key assumptions described in this
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The March 2010 RFS rule preamble (75 FR 14670, March 26,
2010) and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (EPA-420-R-10-006)
provide further discussion of our approach. These documents are
available online at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/renewable-fuel-standard-rfs2-final-rule-additional-resources.
    \19\ These differences are discussed further in Sections II.D.2
and II.D.3 below.
    \20\ The memoranda and modeling files are available in the
docket. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sugar beets grown under the U.S. sugar program cannot be used for
the purpose of biofuel production, except under very limited conditions
specified in the Feedstock Flexibility Program.\21\ Therefore, for this
analysis, EPA assumed that there would be no change in sugar production
on U.S. sugar program-designated acres because of demand for beet sugar
for biofuel feedstock use.\22\ In our modeling, growers selling sugar
beets to sugar processors under the U.S. sugar program in the control
case continued to do so regardless of new demand for sugar beets as a
biofuel feedstock in the test case. As a result of this assumption, in
our modeling, demand for acreage to grow sugar beets for biofuel
feedstock could only be fulfilled by converting acres from other crops
besides sugar beets, and/or from other land uses besides crop
production (e.g., pastureland, Conservation Reserve Program land).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Harry Baumes, et al. (USDA), ``Summary of Discussions
Between US EPA and USDA Regarding Sugar Beets.''
    \22\ The U.S. sugar program designates acres of land used to
grow sugar beets sold to domestic sugar processors who receive price
support loans and are regulated by USDA market allotments under the
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our analysis also considers the significant restrictions on the
trade of sugar beets between the U.S. and other countries. The U.S.
does not export beet sugar, as this would violate the terms of
participation in the sugar program. While the U.S. does import cane
sugar under international agreements, it does not import raw beet
sugar.\23\ Beet sugar may only enter the U.S. as refined sugar from
Canada or Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
and similar trade agreements, or as components of sugar-containing
products.\24\ This quantity is strictly regulated. EPA is unaware of
existing trade agreements that would allow raw beet sugar imports for
any purpose, including biofuel production. This makes it unlikely that
beet sugar would be imported for use as biofuel feedstock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The international agreements that allow for sugar import to
the U.S. are primarily governed by NAFTA and the Uruguay Round
Agreement on Agriculture, but also by CAFTA. See USDA's Web site on
the Sugar Import Program for more details: https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/sugar-import-program (Last accessed December 30, 2016).
    \24\ Mark A. McMinimy, ``U.S. Sugar Program Fundamentals,''
April 6, 2016, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43998.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although sugar beets were modeled as grown in the U.S., we also
intend that this analysis would cover sugar beets grown and processed
into biofuels from other countries and imported to the U.S. as finished
biofuel. We expect the vast majority of beet sugar-based biofuel used
in the U.S. will come from sugar beets produced in the U.S., and
incidental amounts of fuel from crops produced in other nations will
not impact our average GHG emissions. Sugar beets require similar
climatic regions as those where they are grown in the U.S., and would
similarly impact crops such as wheat in those regions while sugar beet
pulp would displace corn as livestock feed. Therefore, EPA interprets
this upstream analysis as applicable, regardless of the country of
origin assuming that sugar beet pulp is used as a livestock feed
supplement.
    To assess the impacts of an increase in sugar beet demand for
renewable fuel production, EPA modeled two scenarios: (1) A control
case with ``business-as-usual'' assumptions \25\ and no biofuel
production from sugar beets

and (2) a sugar beet biofuel case where 300 million ethanol-equivalent
gallons of biofuels are assumed to be from beet sugar in 2022,
requiring the use of 12 million wet short tons of sugar beets for
biofuel production. The analysis presented in this notice considered
all GHG emissions associated with the cultivation and production of
sugar beets intended for biofuel feedstock use, as well as emissions
from transporting these sugar beets to a biofuel production facility.
In lifecycle analysis literature these emissions are often referred to
as the ``upstream'' emissions, because they occur upstream of the fuel
production facility (i.e., before the biofuel feedstock arrives at that
facility).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ To assess the impacts of an increase in renewable fuel
volume from business-as-usual (what is likely to have occurred
without the RFS biofuel mandates) to levels required by the statute,
we established a control case and other cases for a number of
biofuels. The control case included a projection of renewable fuel
volumes that might be used to comply with the RFS renewable fuel
volume mandates in full. The case is designed such that the only
difference between the scenario case and the control case is the
volume of an individual biofuel, all other volumes remaining the
same. In the March 2010 RFS rule, for each individual biofuel, we
analyzed the incremental GHG emission impacts of increasing the
volume of that fuel from business as usual levels to the level of
that biofuel projected to be used in 2022, together with other
biofuels, to fully meet the CAA requirements. Rather than focus on
the GHG emissions impacts associated with a specific gallon of fuel
and tracking inputs and outputs across different lifecycle stages,
we determined the overall aggregate impacts across sectors of the
economy in response to a given volume change in the amount of
biofuel produced. For this analysis, we compared impacts in the
control case to the impacts in a new sugar beets case. The control
case used for the March 2010 RFS rule, and used for this analysis,
has zero gallons of sugar beet biofuel production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis presented in this notice does not include fuel
production or ``downstream'' emissions, which consists of emissions
associated with fuel transport and fuel combustion. Once comments on
the upstream emissions described in this notice have been considered,
we intend to combine the upstream analysis with the fuel production and
downstream emissions associated with fuel produced at an individual
biofuel facility to determine the lifecycle GHG emissions associated
with that fuel. This lifecycle analysis would reflect any differences
in emissions that may exist between producing different types of
biofuels from sugar beets. Our analysis of the upstream emissions
associated with sugar beets assumed that non-cellulosic sugars are
extracted from the beets before the sugars are converted, and that the
beet pulp would then be sold into feed markets. Fuel production methods
that also convert the pulp into fuel (e.g., through pyrolysis of the
beet) or use the pulp for other purposes may not be compatible with
this analysis.
    We evaluated a scenario with biofuels produced from this amount of
sugar beets for multiple reasons. Although biofuel production from
sugar beets is currently small in the U.S., recent trends in domestic
sugar beet yields and acreage indicate that 12 million wet short tons
of sugar beets could be produced as biofuel feedstocks if a significant
market demand emerged. An additional 12 million wet short tons of sugar
beets would represent a 34 percent increase in U.S. sugar beet
cultivation compared to 2015 levels.\26\ According to USDA data,
harvested acres of sugar beets since 2010 were, on average, about 30
percent lower than their most recent peak levels in the 1990s, an
average difference of approximately 360,000 harvested acres.\27\
Increasing beet yields over time has reduced the number of acres needed
to satisfy production targets under the U.S. sugar program.\28\
National average sugar beet yields since 2010 have been approximately
25 percent higher than yields during the 1990s, and reached almost 31
wet short tons per acre in the 2015 crop year.\29\ Were beet acres to
return to their 1990s peak, the additional approximately 360,000
harvested acres would produce about 11.2 million wet short tons of
beets at these 2015 yield levels. However, based on the steady increase
in yields over time, it seems likely that beet yields will continue to
increase between now and 2022. If national average beet yields reach at
least 33.4 wet short tons per acre by 2022, a fairly modest increase of
about 8 percent over 2015 levels, an additional 12 million wet short
tons of beets could be produced on these additional 360,000 acres.
Since further expansion of beet area beyond the historical peak is also
possible, an increase in beet production of 12 million wet short tons
appears to be very feasible. We welcome comment on this assumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See, USDA, ``Sugarbeet Area and Planted Harvested Yield and
Production States and United States 2013-2015,'' in Crop Production
2015 Summary, January 2016, ISSN: 1057-7823, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProdSu/CropProdSu-0112-2016.pdf. This assumes an ethanol conversion rate of 25 gallons of
ethanol/wet short ton of beets.
    \27\ USDA, ``NASS Quick Stats'', https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov (Last Accessed: November 16, 2016).
    \28\ USDA, ``NASS Quick Stats'', https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov (Last Accessed: November 16, 2016).
    \29\ USDA, ``NASS Quick Stats'', https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov (Last Accessed: November 16, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our analysis, FASOM allowed for sugar beet production in all
areas of the continental 48 states where sugar beets had been grown
historically, including states and areas that do not currently take
part in the U.S. sugar program. The model was allowed to determine
which of these regions would be optimal for growing sugar beets for
biofuel feedstock, based on least cost of production and transport, and
considering the opportunity cost of using that land for other uses
(e.g., to produce other crops, grazing, forestry). The factors that
contributed to these crop production choices include crop yield, input
quantities, and growing strategies.
    Following the methodology established in the March 2010 RFS rule,
EPA used the FAPRI model to evaluate the international impacts of
producing and transporting 12 million wet short tons of sugar beets for
biofuel production in the U.S. The FAPRI model included a
representation of the U.S. sugar program, and modeled domestic sugar
production as a function of this program. Production and consumption
levels in the U.S. were set according to the parameters of the sugar
program and were not affected by market forces. Because the existing
U.S. sugar production module in FAPRI did not respond to market forces,
for modeling purposes EPA had to make assumptions regarding in which
regions sugar beets for biofuel feedstock use would be grown. Crop
yields and the quantity of crop area displaced by expanded sugar beet
production also had to be set by assumption, since the U.S. sugar
module in FAPRI lacks market forces to create demand-pull for new beet
acres. In order to derive the quantity of crop area displaced, EPA used
a crop yield of approximately 26 wet short tons per acre, the 10-year
national average yield for sugar beets (for crop years 2005 through
2014).\30\ Actual yields on any given acre may be higher or lower than
this assumed value, based on factors such as location, annual variation
in growing conditions, growing practices, and crop rotation strategies.
Because the FAPRI analysis assumed to displace acres in North Dakota
and California, we did not believe that it was appropriate to use the
USDA 2022 national average projections for sugar beets yield. As an
alternative, EPA believes using the 10-year national average was a
reasonable assumption for our international agricultural sector
modeling. The increase in sugar yield trends over the last few decades
suggests that future yields are unlikely to be lower than the 10-year
average. As further support for our yield assumptions in FAPRI, we note
that FASOM projected sugar beet yields in 2022 that are close to the
assumptions used in FAPRI.\31\ We welcome comment on this assumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ USDA, ``NASS Quick Stats'', https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov (Last Accessed: November 16, 2016).
    \31\ See ``Sugar Beets for Biofuel Upstream Analysis Technical
Memorandum'' in the docket for details. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purposes of FAPRI modeling, EPA assumed that sugar beets
for fuel use would be produced in equal amounts in North Dakota and
California for the following reasons: At the onset of our analysis,
these were the regions with indications of significant sugar beet
biofuel interest.\32\ They are also

both regions with a long history of sugar beet production. As a
simplifying assumption, EPA assumed that all crops grown in each of
these regions were displaced by sugar beets proportionally to their
crop area in the control case. We recognize there are significant
differences in the way the sugar beet biofuel scenarios were
implemented in FASOM and FAPRI for this analysis. For example, FASOM
chose to produce all sugar beets for biofuels in North Dakota, whereas
in FAPRI we modeled this production in North Dakota and California by
assumption. Since these modeling exercises occurred concurrently, not
sequentially, we could not anticipate what choices FASOM would make at
the outset of our FAPRI modeling. This led to some differences in the
regions utilized to produce beets. However, the nationwide agricultural
market results projected by FASOM and FAPRI were similar, due to
similar dominant trends in feed markets and crop exports at the
national level. The similarity of these relevant national market
results between the two models, despite differences in U.S. growing
regions, indicates that the international impacts projected by the
FAPRI model would not have been significantly different if we had
applied the growing assumptions from FASOM. These results are discussed
below and are available in the docket for this notice.\33\ We welcome
comment on these assumptions and our results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ At the time of this modeling we had received the petitions
from Green Vision Group proposing to produce ethanol from sugar
beets grown in North Dakota and Tracy Renewable Energy proposing to
produce ethanol from sugar beets grown in California but we had not
received the petition from Plant Sensory Systems proposing to
produce ethanol from sugar beets grown in Florida. EPA does not
expect results would have varied significantly if sugar beets had
been modeled by assumption in Florida under FAPRI due to the
similarity of these results to the results from FASOM.
    \33\ See EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The sugar beet scenario modeled included a number of key
assumptions, such as biofuel and pulp yields per wet short ton of
beets, and the amount of corn livestock feed displaced per pound of
pulp. These key assumptions are discussed below. Information on
additional assumptions, including sugar beet crop inputs (e.g.,
fertilizer, energy) is available in the docket for this notice.
    In conducting research for this analysis, we located sources for
beet pulp yield of 0.06 dry short tons of sugar beet pulp per wet short
tons of sugar beets \34\ and displacement rates of 0.9 pounds of corn
feed displaced in cattle diets \35\ for every pound of sugar beet pulp.
In livestock production, the fibrous sugar beet pulp is used as a
roughage replacement making it of use primarily for ruminants rather
than other types of livestock.\36\ In our analysis, sugar beet pulp use
by the livestock market was an important factor leading to GHG
reductions. Therefore this notice evaluates only using the non-
cellulosic portion of sugar beets for biofuel production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Panella, Lee and Stephen R. Kaffka, ``Sugar Beet (Beta
vulgaris L) as a Biofuel Feedstock in the United States.'' Chapter
10 in Sustainability of the Sugar and Sugar Ethanol Industries;
Eggleston, G.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society:
Washington DC, 2010, pp. 165.
    \35\ To make a simplifying assumption, we averaged the value
from corn in backgrounding diets and finishing diets. Lardy, Greg,
and Rebecca Schafar, ``Feeding Sugar Beet Byproducts to Cattle,''
North Dakota State University, May 2008, pp. 2.
    \36\ Harry Baumes, et al. (USDA), ``Summary of Discussions
Between US EPA and USDA Regarding Sugar Beets''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Domestic Impacts
    On the basis of least cost, FASOM chose to grow all sugar beets in
North Dakota, with approximately 477,000 acres of land required to grow
the additional sugar beets.
    The vast majority of the new sugar beet acres in North Dakota was
from displacement of other crops rather than from new cropland (432,000
acres from displaced crops, or nearly 91 percent of needed acres).
Increasing sugar beet production in North Dakota primarily displaced
wheat acreage, but also soybeans, corn, and hay among other crops.\37\
Most of these displaced crops shifted to other U.S. regions, and some
crops, such as soybeans, shifted to new acreage that was more
productive than the North Dakota acres from where they were displaced.
Table II.1 indicates that production levels for hay, soy, and most
other crops are maintained.\38\ However, national crop area and
production for wheat and corn declined significantly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See ``FASOM Sugar Beets Results'' in the docket. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0771.
    \38\ Soy is captured in the ``All Else'' category in Table II.1.
See ``FASOM Sugar Beets Results'' in the docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0771
for more detail.

  Table II.1--Changes in U.S. Production (Million Pounds) and Harvested
       Area (Thousand Acres) in 2022 Relative To Control Case \39\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Harvested area
                                            Production       difference
                                            difference     from control
                                           from control        case
                                          case  (million     (thousand
                                              pounds)         acres)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sugar Beets.............................         +23,976            +477
Hay.....................................              +8            -106
Corn....................................            -867             -96
Wheat...................................            -352             -98
All Else................................              +3             -56
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................         +22,768            +121
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reductions in corn and wheat production were driven by
different proximate causes (though both were ultimately driven by
increased demand for sugar beets) and led to somewhat different impacts
on commodity use and trade. In the case of wheat, the decline in
production led to a decline in exports. As shown in Section II.B.3, the
decline in wheat exports created pressure on international wheat
markets and wheat production increased outside the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Totals may differ from subtotals due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of corn, the potential market impacts were mitigated by
the increased availability of sugar beet pulp into U.S. feed markets as
a result of beet sugar biofuel production. As described in Section
II.A, sugar beet pulp is a co-product used as livestock feed
supplement, mainly substituting for corn. Based on the FASOM results
for 2022, approximately 1.4 billion pounds of sugar beet pulp were
produced and sent to the feed market. In turn this displaced
approximately 1.2 billion pounds of corn, which was significantly
greater than the approximately 867 million pounds of corn production
lost to displaced acres. This led to a decrease in total demand for
corn in U.S. markets and, as a result, U.S. exports of corn increased.
As discussed in Section II.B.3 below, this reduced the price of corn
internationally and lessened the demand pull for corn to be grown in
other countries.
    The rest of the needed sugar beet acres in North Dakota,
approximately 46,000 acres, came from new cropland, particularly from
cropland pasture (high-value pasture land that can also be utilized as
cropland with minimal preparation) and from acres that would otherwise
take part in the Conservation Reserve Program. Pasture area rose
modestly in some other states causing the conversion of some forest
acres to pasture. This relatively small decrease in forestland pushed
up prices slightly for forest products, leading foresters to intensify
growth on their stands. Relative to other feedstocks EPA has evaluated
for the RFS program, these domestic shifts in land use were minor, and
after the various land use changes were considered the net domestic
land use change emissions impacts were close to zero.
3. International Impacts
    In the FAPRI model, the expansion of sugar beet cropland used to
produce biofuel feedstock also led to increases in corn exports and
decreases in wheat exports. Similar to the drivers of the

domestic results discussed in Section II.B.2, beet production displaced
wheat acres, but the beet pulp co-product reduced domestic demand for
corn. Further, the magnitude of these export impacts was quite similar
between the two models, as shown in Table II.2 below.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Impacts on the exports of other crops were relatively
minor, but interested readers can examine the full set of FAPRI crop
trade impacts in the docket.

 Table II.2--Changes in U.S. Corn and Wheat Exports in 2022 Relative To
                          Control Case by Model
                            [Million pounds]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Difference      Difference
                                           from control    from  control
                                          case in  FASOM   case in FAPRI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn....................................            +307            +355
Wheat...................................            -292            -281
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With sugar beet pulp displacing corn feed, FAPRI modeling indicated
that in 2022, both corn production and acreage would decline globally.
Production outside the U.S. of certain other crops however increased in
response to U.S. increasing demand for sugar beets; most significantly
wheat and soybeans. Wheat increased internationally in terms of both
production and acreage, with a strong response particularly in India.
Soybean acres and production also increased, particularly in Brazil.
Table II.3 below summarizes the non-U.S. increases in harvested area by
crop type, while Table II.4 shows which countries had the largest
impacts.

 Table II.3--Non-U.S. Harvested Area by Crop in 2022 Relative To Control
                                  Case
                          [Thousand acres] \41\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Difference
                                                           from control
                                                               case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sugar Beets.............................................               0
Corn....................................................             -45
Wheat...................................................             +43
Soybeans................................................             +20
All Else................................................             +37
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................             +55
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As increasing sugar beet pulp use for livestock feed in the U.S.
freed up more corn for export, international livestock feed prices
declined modestly, and with it was a small rise in meat production
globally. Many of these changes occurred in Brazil and this caused some
expansion in grazing land, including in the Amazon region. This caused
further international land use change impacts, as shown in Table II.4
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ These totals do not include pastureland in Brazil. Totals
may differ from subtotals due to rounding.
    \42\ Totals may differ from subtotals due to rounding. Brazil
totals include pastureland. Other regions are cropland only.

          Table II.4--Non-U.S. Changes in Agricultural Land by Region in 2022 Relative To Control Case
                                              [Thousand acres] \42\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Change in       Change in     Total  change
                                                                  area harvested   pasture acres     in acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazil..........................................................              +9             +20             +29
India...........................................................             +15  ..............             +15
Rest of Non-USA.................................................             +32  ..............             +32
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Non-USA...............................................  ..............  ..............             +75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Feedstock Transport
    When harvested, sugar beets are heavy and perishable; therefore,
transport of sugar beets from field to processing site is expected to
occur over short distances. Information from stakeholders and
literature states that sugar beets used for biofuels are shipped by
truck from point of production to the plant with typical distances for
transport around 30 miles.\43\ GHG emissions for the transport of sugar
beets are based on emission factors developed for the March 2010 RFS
rule for trucks including capacity, fuel economy, and type of fuel
used.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Farahmand, K., N. Dharmadhikari, and V. Khiabani.
``Analysis of Transportation Economics of Sugar-Beet Production in
the Red River Valley of North Dakota and Minnesota using
Geographical Information System.'' Journal of Renewable Agriculture
7(2013):126-131.
    \44\ The March 2010 RFS rule preamble (75 FR 14670, March 26,
2010) and Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (EPA-420-R-10-006)
provide further discussion of our approach. These documents are
available online at https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program/renewable-fuel-standard-rfs2-final-rule-additional-resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Results of Upstream GHG Lifecycle Analysis
    As described above, EPA analyzed the GHG emissions associated with
feedstock production and transport. Table II.5 below breaks down by
stage the calculated GHG upstream emissions for producing biofuels from
sugar beets in 2022.

      Table II.5--Upstream GHG Lifecycle Emissions for Sugar Beets
                         [gCO2-eq/wet short ton]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Emissions  (gCO2-eq/wet
                   Process                            short ton)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Agriculture (w/o land use change).......                     +21,615
Domestic Land Use Change....................                        -882
International Land Use Change, Mean.........                     +16,038
(Low/High)..................................             (+9249/+23,672)

Feedstock Transport.........................                      +8,183
                                             ---------------------------
    Total Upstream Emissions, Mean..........                     +44,954
    (Low/High)..............................           (+38,210/+52,588)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Net agricultural emissions included domestic and international
impacts related to changes in crop inputs such as fertilizer, energy
used in agriculture, livestock production, and other agricultural
changes in the scenario modeled. Increased demand for sugar beets
resulted in positive net agricultural emissions relative to the control
case. Compared with other crops, sugar beets required relatively high
levels of agricultural chemical inputs (e.g., herbicides and
pesticides).\45\ Domestic land use change emissions were close to zero
for sugar beets, as described in Section II.B.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Harry Baumes, et al. (USDA), ``Summary of Discussions
Between US EPA and USDA Regarding Sugar Beets''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    International land use change emissions increased as a result of
demand for sugar beets. The increase in international land use change
emissions for sugar beets was significantly larger than the decrease in
domestic land use change emissions. This is because increased demand
for sugar beets led to a significant reduction in key U.S. crop exports
(e.g., wheat exports), but very little change in domestic consumption
of agricultural goods. These greater international emissions led to a
net increase in global land use change emissions. Feedstock transport
included emissions from moving sugar beets from the farm to a biofuel
production facility, as described in Section II.B.4 above.
6. Fuel Production and Distribution
    Sugar beets are suitable for the same biofuel conversion processes
as sugarcane. In Europe, where sugar beets are widely used as biofuel
feedstock, virtually all of the fuel is non-cellulosic beet sugar
ethanol produced through fermentation with the beet pulp sold into the
feed markets. Based on these data, and on information from our
petitioners and other stakeholders, EPA anticipates that most biofuel
produced from sugar beets in the U.S. would also be from the non-
cellulosic sugars via fermentation. Our upstream analysis would apply
for all facilities where non-cellulosic beet sugar is converted to
biofuel and the co-product beet pulp is used as animal feed.
    Given the importance of the beet pulp co-product on the upstream
GHG emissions associated with beet pulp, pathways that do not produce a
beet pulp feed coproduct, or use it for purposes other than animal
feed, may not be compatible with our analysis. EPA would likely need to
conduct supplemental upstream GHG analysis in order to determine the
lifecycle GHG emissions associated with fuels produced under these
types of pathways.
    After reviewing comments received in response to this action, EPA
will combine the evaluation of upstream GHG emissions associated with
the use of sugar beet feedstock with an evaluation of the GHG emissions
associated with individual producers' production processes and finished
fuels to determine whether fuel produced at petitioners' facilities
from the sugar in sugar beets satisfy the CAA lifecycle GHG emissions
reduction requirements for renewable fuels. Each biofuel producer
seeking to generate Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) for non-
grandfathered volumes of biofuel from sugar beets will need to submit a
petition requesting EPA's evaluation of their new renewable fuel
pathway pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416 of the RFS regulations, and include
all of the information specified at 40 CFR 80.1416(b)(1).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Petitioners with pending petitions involving use of sugar
from sugar beets as feedstock will not be required to submit new
petitions. However, if any information has changed from their
original petitions, EPA will request that they update that
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because EPA is evaluating the GHG emissions associated with the
production and transport of sugar beet feedstock through this notice
and comment process, petitioners requesting EPA's evaluation of biofuel
pathways involving sugar beet feedstock need not include the
information for new feedstocks specified at 40 CFR 80.1416(b)(2). Based
on our evaluation of the upstream GHG emissions attributable to the
production and transport of sugar beet feedstock, including our
assumptions regarding the average yield of ethanol in mmBtu per wet
short ton of sugar beets used, EPA anticipates that if a facility
produces emissions of no more than approximately 23 kgCO2e/
mmBtu of ethanol, the fuel produced would meet the 50 percent advanced
biofuel GHG reduction threshold.\47\ If a facility produces no more
than 53 kgCO2e/mmBtu of ethanol, EPA anticipates it would
meet the 20 percent renewable fuel GHG reduction threshold. EPA will
evaluate petitions for fuel produced from sugar beet feedstock on a
case-by-case basis, and will make adjustments as necessary for each
facility including consideration of differences in the yield of ethanol
per wet short ton of sugar beets used.\48\ We welcome comments on this
application of our upstream analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ In this case, emissions produced by the facility refers to
fuel production emissions, including emissions associated with
energy used for fuel, feedstock and co-product operations at the
facility. For more details on the assumptions used in this analysis,
see ``Sugar Beets for Biofuel Upstream Analysis Technical
Memorandum'' in the docket. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0771.
    \48\ For example, EPA may need to consider additional feedstock
transportation emissions in cases where beet sugar extraction and
biofuel production do not occur in the same location, as may be the
case for biofuel produced under the USDA Feedstock Flexibility
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Risk of Potential Invasiveness
    Sugar beets were not listed on the Federal noxious weed list nor
did they appear on USDA's composite listing of introduced, invasive,
and noxious plants by U.S state.49 50 Based on consultation
with USDA, EPA does not believe sugar beets pose a risk of invasiveness
at this time. Current cultivars of sugar beets require extensive weed
management to survive.\51\ However, USDA notes that future cross
breeding, hybridization, and genetic manipulation could change the

invasiveness potential of beets, in which case a re-evaluation may be
required.\52\ Based on currently available information, EPA does not
believe monitoring and reporting of data for invasiveness concerns
would be a requirement for biofuel producers generating fuel from sugar
beets at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ USDA, ``Federal Noxious Weed List,'' July 13, 2016, https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weedlist.pdf.
    \50\ USDA, ``State and Federal Noxious Weeds List,'' accessed
November 17, 2016, http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxComposite.
    \51\ Harry Baumes, et al. (USDA), ``Summary of Discussions
Between US EPA and USDA Regarding Sugar Beets.''
    \52\ Harry Baumes, et al. (USDA), ``Summary of Discussions
Between US EPA and USDA Regarding Sugar Beets.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary

    EPA invites public comment on its analysis of GHG emissions
associated with the production and transport of sugar beets as a
feedstock for biofuel production. This notice analyzes a non-cellulosic
sugar beet-to-biofuel production process. Although EPA has not received
a petition for cellulosic sugar beet biofuel production, the agency is
aware of interest in this process and invites comment on the analysis
of beet pulp and its effect on agricultural markets. EPA will consider
public comments received when evaluating petitions received pursuant to
40 CFR 80.1416 that involve pathways using sugar beets as a feedstock.

    Dated: January 18, 2017.
Christopher Grundler,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2017-15721 Filed 7-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


<EPA BIOPESTICIDES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF
FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  >

<EPA Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division contact: [Raderrio
Wilkins;<PHONE_NUMBER>]>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company
name],” with the information specific to your action.>

<SUBMISSION: E-mail the completed template to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<TEMPLATE:>

<[Biomor Israel Ltd.]>

<[9F7558]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([9F7558]) from [Biomor Israel
Ltd.], [PO Box 81, Qatzrin 12900, ISRAEL] proposing, pursuant to section
408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for biochemical pesticide [Tea Tree Oil].>

<	Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of  FFDCA, as amended, [insert
company name] has submitted the following summary of information, data,
and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary was
prepared by [insert company name] and EPA has not fully evaluated the
merits of the pesticide petition. The summary may have been edited by
EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary contained
extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the reader
conclude that the findings reflected EPA’s position and not the
position of the petitioner.>

<I. [Biomor Israel Ltd.]  Petition Summary>

<	[9F7558]>

<A. Product Name and Proposed Use Practices>

<	[Tea Tree Oil Technical is intended for use in a formulated pesticide
product (Timorex Gold; 23.80% ai) to be applied as a fungicide to
growing crops.]>

<B. Product Identity/Chemistry>

α-terpinene,1,8-cineole, γ-terpinene, p-cymene and terpinen-4-ol, all
of which are cleared by the FDA for use as direct food additives (21 CFR
172.515; Synthetic flavoring substances and adjuvants).  Tea Tree Oil
has a long history of safe use in a wide range of cosmetics and personal
care products (mouthwash, toothpaste, shampoo, deodorants, lotions,
antifungal treatments), as well as in animal care products.

	Tea Tree Oil has antifungal properties and is effective against broad
spectrum of plant pathogenic fungi, including powdery and mildews, downy
mildew, early and late blights and rust diseases in a broad range of
crops.  The mode of action of the fungicidal activity of Tea Tree Oil is
not clearly understood.  Tea Tree Oil has been shown to effect
respiration in yeast and showed alternations in cell membrane structure.
 From that information it can be concluded that Tea Tree Oil has a broad
and non-specific mode of action similar to inorganic compounds like
copper salts with multi-site contact activity.]>

<	2. Magnitude of residues at the time of harvest and method used to
determine the residue. [NA-REMOVE]>

<	3. A statement of why an analytical method of detecting and measuring
the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. [An analytical
method for residues is not applicable.  It is expected that, when used
as proposed, Tea Tree Oil would not result in residues that are of
toxicological concern.]>

<C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile>

<	[Acute Toxicity:  In acute toxicity studies Tea Tree Oil has shown an
oral LD50 of 1.9 mL/kg bw (1682 – 1721 mg/kg bw) for the technical
grade active ingredient (100%) and an oral LD50 of >2000 mg/kg bw for
the formulated end-use product (Timorex Gold; 23.80%).  A dermal LD50 of
>2000 mg/kg bw for the technical grade active ingredient (100%) and the
formulated end-use product (Timorex Gold; 23.80%).  An inhalation LC50
>5.4 mg/L air for the formulated end-use product (Timorex Gold; 23.80%)
(Schuler, 2009); equivalent to Toxicity Category IV.  Both the technical
grade active ingredient (100%) and the formulated end-use product
(Timorex Gold; 23.80%) are irritants to eyes and skin. The technical
grade active ingredient (100%) is not sensitizer and the formulated
end-use product (Timorex Gold;23.80%) is a dermal sensitzer.>

Genotoxicity:  Three genotoxicity studies have been performed on the
technical grade active ingredient (100%) and all reported Tea Tree Oil
is not a mutagen.

Waivers have been requested for all other Tier 1 biochemical pesticide
data requirements including subchronic and developmental toxicity.  Data
waiver rationales are based on the facts that there is a lack of human
exposure from intended uses, the main components of Tea Tree Oil are
ubiquitous in nature and have a safe history of use in the food,
fragrance, flavoring, cosmetic and personal care product industries, the
results of acute toxicity studies show low toxicity to mammals and there
is a lack of residues of Tea Tree Oil on treated food commodities.

α-terpinene,1,8-cineole, γ-terpinene, p-cymene and terpinen-4-ol) are
cleared by the FDA for use as direct food additives (21 CFR 172.515;
Synthetic flavoring substances and adjuvants).  Tea Tree Oil has a long
history of safe use in a wide range of cosmetics and personal care
products (mouthwash, toothpaste, shampoo, deodorants, lotions,
antifungal treatments), as well as in animal care products.

The results of toxicity testing, listing of the main components are
direct food additives, and the lack of residues on treated commodities
show there is no risk to human health from Tea Tree Oil.  Both dietary
and non-dietary exposures would not be expected to pose any quantifiable
risk due to a lack of residues of toxicological concern.]

<D. Aggregate Exposure>

<1. Dietary exposure. >

<	i. Food. [Dietary exposure from use of Tea Tree Oil, as proposed, is
minimal.  The intended use of Tea Tree Oil is application to growing
agricultural crops as a fungicide.  Tea Tree Oil is a plant volatile
that rapidly degrades in the environment.  It is a naturally occurring
ingredient and is not considered persistent based on its
characteristics, properties or known degradation pathways.

		Acute toxicity studies have shown that Tea Tree Oil is not toxic and
is moderately irritating to mammals.  The main components of Tea Tree
Oil (identified as α-terpinene,1,8-cineole, γ-terpinene, p-cymene and
terpinen-4-ol) are cleared by the FDA for use as direct food additives
(21 CFR 172.515; Synthetic flavoring substances and adjuvants).  Tea
Tree Oil has a long history of safe use in a wide range of cosmetics and
personal care products (mouthwash, toothpaste, shampoo, deodorants,
lotions, antifungal treatments), as well as in animal care products.

		No residues of Tea Tree Oil are expected to occur on food due to the
fact that the components of the active ingredient are volatile and
dissipate soon after application.   Tea Tree Oil has been shown to
volatilize up to 90% twenty-four hours after application and residue
studies with the formulated end-use product (Timorex Gold; 23.80%) on
tomatoes, peppers and grapes have shown no detectable residues.

		The results of toxicity testing, listing of the main components as
direct food additives, and the lack of residues on treated commodities
show there is no risk to human health from Tea Tree Oil.  Dietary
exposures would not be expected to pose any quantifiable risk due to a
lack of residues of toxicological concern.]>

<	ii. Drinking water. [Similarly, exposure to humans from residues of
Tea Tree Oil in consumed drinking water would be unlikely.  Potential
exposure to surface water would be negligible and exposure to drinking
water (well or ground water) would be impossible to measure. The
intended use of Tea Tree Oil is application to growing agricultural
crops as a fungicide.  The ingredient is not applied directly to water.

		No residues of Tea Tree Oil are expected to occur on food due to the
fact that the components of the active ingredient are volatile and
dissipate soon after application.   Tea Tree Oil has been shown to
volatilize up to 90% twenty-four hours after application and residue
studies with the formulated end-use product (Timorex Gold; 23.80%) on
tomatoes, peppers and grapes have shown no detectable residues.

		The results of toxicity testing, listing of the main components as
direct food additives, and the lack of residues on treated commodities
show there is no risk to human health from Tea Tree Oil. Drinking water
exposures would not be expected to pose any quantifiable risk due to a
lack of residues of toxicological concern.]>

<2. Non-dietary exposure. [The potential for non-dietary exposure to the
general population, including infants and children, is unlikely as the
proposed use sites are agricultural.  The intended use of Tea Tree Oil
is application to growing agricultural crops as a fungicide.  Tea Tree
Oil is a plant extract volatile that rapidly degrades in the
environment.  It is a naturally occurring ingredient and is not
considered persistent based on its characteristics, properties or known
degradation pathways.

	Acute toxicity studies have shown that Tea Tree Oil is not toxic and is
moderately irritating to mammals.  The main components of Tea Tree Oil
(identified as α-terpinene,1,8-cineole, γ-terpinene, p-cymene and
terpinen-4-ol) are cleared by the FDA for use as direct food additives
(21 CFR 172.515; Synthetic flavoring substances and adjuvants).  Tea
Tree Oil has a long history of safe use in a wide range of cosmetics and
personal care products (mouthwash, toothpaste, shampoo, deodorants,
lotions, antifungal treatments), as well as in animal care products.

	The results of toxicity testing, listing of the main components as
direct food additives, and the lack of residues on treated commodities
show there is no risk to human health from Tea Tree Oil. Non-dietary
exposures would not be expected to pose any quantifiable risk due to a
lack of residues of toxicological concern.]>

<E. Cumulative Effects>

<	[  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 It is not expected that, when used as proposed,
Tea Tree Oil would result in residues that are of toxicological concern.
The intended use of Tea Tree Oil is application to growing agricultural
crops as a fungicide.  Tea Tree Oil is a plant extract volatile that
rapidly degrades in the environment.  It is a naturally occurring
ingredient and is not considered persistent based on its
characteristics, properties or known degradation pathways.

α-terpinene,1,8-cineole, γ-terpinene, p-cymene and terpinen-4-ol) are
cleared by the FDA for use as direct food additives (21 CFR 172.515;
Synthetic flavoring substances and adjuvants).  Tea Tree Oil has a long
history of safe use in a wide range of cosmetics and personal care
products (mouthwash, toothpaste, shampoo, deodorants, lotions,
antifungal treatments), as well as in animal care products.

&

'

2

3

ఀܪ栖ᥴ¡䨰"࠼喁Ĉ⪐ᘁ5

[

\

]

c

d

e

j

k

l

~

‚

¢

£

¤

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

W

X

t

‹

B*

B*

Ѐ1摧粚

B*

B*

ఀܪ栖粚

ఀܪ栖粚

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

B*

pate soon after application.   Tea Tree Oil has been shown to volatilize
up to 90% twenty-four hours after application and residue studies with
the formulated end-use product (Timorex Gold; 23.80%) on tomatoes,
peppers and grapes have shown no detectable residues.  The results of
toxicity testing, listing of the main components as direct food
additives, and the lack of residues on treated commodities show there is
no risk to human health from Tea Tree Oil.]>

<F. Safety Determination>

<	1. U.S. population. [The results of toxicity testing, listing of the
main components as direct food additives, and the lack of residues on
treated commodities show there is no risk to human health from Tea Tree
Oil.  The intended use of Tea Tree Oil is application to growing
agricultural crops as a fungicide.  Tea Tree Oil is a plant extract
volatile that rapidly degrades in the environment.  It is a naturally
occurring ingredient and is not considered persistent based on its
characteristics, properties or known degradation pathways.  There is a
reasonable certainty of no harm to the general US population from
exposure to this active ingredient.]>

<	2. Infants and children. [As mentioned above, it is not expected that,
when used as proposed, Tea Tree Oil would result in residues that are of
toxicological concern. There is a reasonable certainty of no harm for
infants and children from exposure to Tea Tree Oil from the proposed
uses.]>

<G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems>

<	[To date there is no evidence to suggest that Tea Tree Oil functions
in a manner similar to any known hormone, or that it acts as an
endocrine disrupter.]>

<H. Existing Tolerances>

<	[There is no US. EPA Tolerance for Tea Tree Oil.]>

<I. International Tolerances>

<	[A Codex Alimentarium Commission Maximum Residue Level (MRL) is not
required for Tea Tree Oil.]>

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register: August 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 169)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 50896-50899]
[DOCID:fr29au08-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0933; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-261-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to all Boeing Model 777 airplanes. The
existing AD requires, for the drive mechanism of the horizontal
stabilizer, repetitive detailed inspections for discrepancies,
repetitive lubrication of the ballnut and ballscrew, repetitive
measurements of the freeplay between the ballnut and the ballscrew, and
corrective action if necessary. This proposed AD would revise the
compliance times of the existing AD. This proposed AD results from a
report of extensive corrosion of a ballscrew in the drive mechanism of
the horizontal stabilizer on a Boeing Model 757 airplane, which is
similar in design to the ballscrew on Model 777 airplanes. We are
proposing this AD to prevent an undetected failure of the primary load
path for the ballscrew in the drive mechanism of the horizontal
stabilizer and subsequent wear and failure of the secondary load path,
which could lead to loss of control of the horizontal stabilizer and
consequent loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 14,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; 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 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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. 2008-0933; Directorate
Identifier 2007-NM-261-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

    On August 14, 2007, we issued AD 2007-17-12, amendment 39-15170 (72
FR 49158, August 28, 2007), for all Boeing Model 777 airplanes. That AD
requires, for the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer,
repetitive detailed inspections for discrepancies, repetitive
lubrication of the ballnut and ballscrew, repetitive measurements of
the freeplay between the ballnut and the ballscrew, and corrective
action if necessary. That AD resulted from a report of extensive
corrosion of a ballscrew in the drive mechanism of the horizontal
stabilizer on a Boeing Model 757 airplane, which is similar in design
to the ballscrew on Model 777 airplanes. We issued that AD to prevent
an undetected failure of the primary load path for the ballscrew in the
drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer and subsequent wear and
failure of the secondary load path, which could lead to loss of control
of the horizontal stabilizer and consequent loss of control of the
airplane.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2007-17-12, Boeing submitted a letter asking
that we clarify the compliance times specified in that AD. In this
letter Boeing states that the wording in the existing AD has resulted
in some confusion and may not adequately account for airplanes that
have replacement actuators that are new or have been overhauled. Boeing
proposes that the AD use the following three different categories for
the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA):
     HSTA not replaced;
     HSTA replaced with a new or overhauled HSTA; and
     HSTA replaced with a HSTA that was not new or overhauled.
    Boeing further states that the existing AD does not account for
airplanes receiving a certificate of airworthiness after the effective
date of the AD. Boeing suggests that the following changes be made to
the existing AD to address the three different categories and revise
the compliance times.
    Boeing proposes that we make changes to paragraph (g) of AD 2007-
17-12 to include subparagraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) as follows:

    (g) For airplanes that have received a certificate of
airworthiness prior to the effective date of this AD: Within 180
days or 3,500 [flight hours] after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, perform a maintenance records check or
inspect to determine the status of the horizontal stabilizer trim
actuator as follows:
    (1) Original horizontal stabilizer trim actuator still
installed;
    (2) Original horizontal stabilizer trim actuator replaced with a
new or overhauled horizontal stabilizer trim actuator;
    (3) Original horizontal stabilizer trim actuator replaced with a
serviceable horizontal stabilizer trim actuator that was not new or
overhauled, and has not received a detailed inspection and freeplay
measurement since the replacement conducted per the Service Bulletin
identified in paragraph (f) of this AD.

    Boeing further suggests that we change paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2),
(i)(1), (i)(2), (j)(1), and (j)(2) of AD 2007-17-12, as follows:

    (1) For airplanes identified in sub-paragraph (g)(1) of this AD
and those receiving a certificate of airworthiness on or after the
effective date of this AD: Before the accumulation of 15,000 total
flight hours or within 18 months after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For airplanes identified in sub-paragraph (g)(2) of this AD:
Before the accumulation of 15,000 flight hours since replacement of
the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator, or within 18 months after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

Boeing further suggests that we add a new subparagraph (3) to
paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of AD 2007-17-12, as shown:

    (3) For airplanes identified in sub-paragraph (g)(3) of this AD:
Before the accumulation of 3,500 flight hours or within 12 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    We agree with Boeing that the compliance times need to be
clarified. Therefore, we are proposing this AD, which would supersede
AD 2007-17-12, and retain the actions specified in the existing AD but
with revisions to paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) to reflect Boeing's
suggestions and to clarify the compliance times. This proposed AD also
contains new paragraphs (h)(4), (i)(4), and (j)(4) to address airplanes
that received an original airworthiness certificate or original export
certificate of airworthiness on or after the effective date of this AD.
    We have also determined that an additional category is needed to
account for airplanes on which the HSTA has been replaced with an
actuator that is not new or not overhauled but that has received a
detailed inspection and freeplay measurement as described in paragraphs
(h) and (i) of this proposed AD since that replacement. Accordingly, we
have added paragraph (g)(4) to this proposed AD.
    We have also clarified the wording in paragraph (l) of this
proposed AD to specify that the credit is for replacement of the HSTA.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to develop on other airplanes of the
same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD, which
would supersede AD 2007-17-12, to retain the actions specified in the
existing AD but with new initial inspection compliance times.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 596 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This proposed AD would affect about 203 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The new requirements of this proposed AD add no
additional economic burden. The current costs of the existing AD are
repeated for the convenience of affected operators, as follows.
    The maintenance records check would take about 1 work hour per
airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these
figures, the estimated cost of the maintenance records check for U.S.
operators is $16,240, or $80 per airplane.
    The proposed detailed inspection would take about 1 work hour per
airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these
figures, the estimated cost of the inspection for U.S. operators is
$16,240, or $80 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
    The proposed freeplay measurement would take about 5 work hours per
airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these
figures, the estimated cost of the freeplay measurement for U.S.
operators is $81,200, or $400 per airplane, per measurement cycle.
    The proposed required lubrication would take about 1 work hour per
airplane, at an average labor rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these
figures, the estimated cost of the lubrication for U.S. operators is
$16,240, or $80 per airplane, per lubrication cycle.

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 have 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 that the 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); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-15170 (72 FR 49158, August 28, 2007) and adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2008-0933; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
261-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October
14, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2007-17-12.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 777 airplanes,
certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report of extensive corrosion of a
ballscrew in the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer on a
Boeing Model 757 airplane, which is similar in design to the
ballscrew on Model 777 airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent
an undetected failure of the primary load path for the ballscrew in
the drive mechanism of the horizontal stabilizer and subsequent wear
and failure of the secondary load path, which could lead to loss of
control of the horizontal stabilizer and consequent loss of control
of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Restatement of Requirements of AD 2007-17-12 With Revised Compliance
Times

Service Bulletin Reference

    (f) The term ``service bulletin,'' as used in this AD, means
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-27A0059, Revision 1, dated August
18, 2005.

    Note 1: The service bulletin refers to the Boeing 777 Aircraft
Maintenance Manual (AMM), Subjects 12-21-05, 27-41-13, and 29-11-00,
as additional sources of service information for accomplishing the
actions required by this AD.

Maintenance Records Check

    (g) For airplanes that have received an original airworthiness
certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness prior to
the effective date of this AD: Within 180 days or 3,500 flight hours
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform
a maintenance records check or inspect to determine the status of
the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA) as specified in
paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), (g)(3), or (g)(4) of this AD, as
applicable:
    (1) The original HSTA has been neither replaced nor overhauled;
    (2) The original HSTA has been replaced with a new or overhauled
HSTA;
    (3) The original HSTA has been replaced with a serviceable HSTA
that was not new or not overhauled, and which has not received a
detailed inspection and freeplay measurement as described in
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD since that replacement; or
    (4) The original HSTA has been replaced with a serviceable HSTA
that was not new or not overhauled, and which has received a
detailed inspection and freeplay measurement as described in
paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD since that replacement.

Detailed Inspection

    (h) Within the compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(1),
(h)(2), (h)(3), or (h)(4) of this AD, as applicable: Perform a
detailed inspection for discrepancies of the horizontal stabilizer
trim actuator ballnut and ballscrew in accordance with Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Repeat the
detailed inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,500
flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first. If any
discrepancy is found during any inspection required by this AD,
before further flight, replace the actuator with a new or
serviceable actuator, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the service bulletin.
    (1) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD:
Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight hours, or within 18
months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(4) of
this AD: Before the accumulation of 15,000 flight hours since the
replacement of the HSTA, or within 18 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD:
Before the accumulation of 3,500 flight hours since the replacement
of the HSTA, or within 12 months after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
    (4) For airplanes that have received an original airworthiness
certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness on or
after the effective date of this AD: Before the accumulation of
15,000 total flight hours, or within 18 months after the issuance of
the original airworthiness certificate or original export
certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs later.

Freeplay Measurement (Inspection)

    (i) Within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (i)(1),
(i)(2), (i)(3), and (i)(4) of this AD, as applicable: Perform a
freeplay measurement of the ballnut and ballscrew in accordance with
Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
Repeat the freeplay measurement thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 18,000 flight hours or 60 months, whichever occurs first. If
the freeplay is found to exceed the limits specified in the service
bulletin during any measurement required by this AD, before further
flight, replace the actuator with a new or serviceable actuator in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletin.
    (1) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD:
Before the accumulation of

15,000 total flight hours, or within 18 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(4) of
this AD: Before the accumulation of 15,000 flight hours since the
replacement of the HSTA, or within 18 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD:
Before the accumulation of 3,500 flight hours since the replacement
of the HSTA, or within 12 months after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
    (4) For airplanes that have received an original airworthiness
certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness on or
after the effective date of this AD: Before the accumulation of
15,000 total flight hours, or within 18 months after the issuance of
the original airworthiness certificate or original export
certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs later.

Lubrication

    (j) Within the compliance times specified in paragraphs (j)(1),
(j)(2), (j)(3), and (j)(4) of this AD, as applicable: Lubricate the
ballnut and ballscrew in accordance with Part 3 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Repeat the
lubrication thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight hours
or 12 months, whichever occurs first.
    (1) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD:
Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight hours, or within 18
months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(2) or (g)(4) of
this AD: Before the accumulation of 15,000 flight hours since the
replacement of the HSTA, or within 18 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD:
Before the accumulation of 3,500 flight hours since the replacement
of the HSTA, or within 12 months after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
    (4) For airplanes that have received an original airworthiness
certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness on or
after the effective date of this AD: Before the accumulation of
15,000 total flight hours, or within 18 months after the issuance of
the original airworthiness certificate or original export
certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs later.

Credit for Using Original Issue of Service Bulletin

    (k) Actions performed prior to the effective date of this AD, in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-27A0059, dated
September 18, 2003, are considered acceptable for compliance with
the corresponding actions specified in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j)
of this AD.

Credit for Hard-Time Replacement of HSTA

    (l) Any HSTA overhauled within the compliance times specified in
paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this AD or before the effective date
of this AD--as part of a ``hard-time'' replacement program that
includes removal of the HSTA from the airplane and overhaul of the
stabilizer ballscrew in accordance with original equipment
manufacturer component maintenance manual instructions--meets the
intent of one detailed inspection, one freeplay inspection, and one
lubrication of the HSTA. Therefore, any such HSTA is considered
acceptable for compliance with the initial accomplishment of the
actions specified in paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, and
repetitions of those actions may be determined from the performance
date of that overhaul.

Parts Installation

    (m) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install,
on any airplane, a horizontal stabilizer trim actuator that is not
new or overhauled, unless a detailed inspection, freeplay
measurement, and lubrication of that actuator are performed in
accordance with paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) of this AD, as
applicable.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (n)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, ATTN: Kelly McGuckin, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment
Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 21, 2008.
Kevin Hull,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-20087 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P