[Federal Register: December 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 245)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68168-68173]
[DOCID:fr23de09-14]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0536 and 2007-0097; FRL-8793-5]

Fenarimol; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
fenarimol in or on hop, dried cones. This regulation additionally
increases the established tolerance in or on apple. Interregional
Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested the tolerance on hop and EPA
proposed the tolerance increase on apple under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective December 23, 2009. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 22, 2010,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0536. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations
at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR cite
at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr. To access the OPPTS Harmonized Test
Guidelines referenced in this document, go directly to the guidelines
at http://www.epa.gov/oppts and select ``Test Methods & Guidelines'' on
the left side navigation menu.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may
file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request
a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request
a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0536 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and
must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR
part 178 on or before February 22, 2010.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0536, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 22, 2007 (72 FR 47010) (FRL-8142-
5) (Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0536, EPA issued a notice pursuant
to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the
filing of a pesticide petition (PP 6E7074) by IR-4, 500 College Road
East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540-6635. The petition requested
that 40 CFR 180.421 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues
of the fungicide fenarimol,

alpha-(2-chlorophenyl)-alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)-5-pyrimidinemethanol, in
or on hop at 1.0 parts per million (ppm). That notice referenced a
summary of the petition prepared on behalf of IR-4 by Gowan Company,
the registrant, which is available to the public in the docket, http://
www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    In the Federal Register of June 6, 2007 (72 FR 31221) (FRL-8122-7)
(Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0097). EPA issued a proposed rule
pursuant to sections 408(e) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e). The rule
proposed that 40 CFR 180.421 be amended by increasing the tolerance for
residues of the fungicide fenarimol, alpha-(2-chlorophenyl)-alpha-(4-
chlorophenyl)-5-pyrimidinemethanol, in or on apple from 0.1 ppm to 0.3
ppm. EPA proposed the tolerance increase in order to harmonize with a
Codex Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) of 0.3 ppm on apples. The proposal
explained the basis for EPA's conclusion that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to
infants and children, from aggregate exposure to fenarimol, including
exposure under the amended apple tolerance. The proposal established a
60-day public comment period. Comments were received in response to the
proposed rule. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit
IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised the proposed tolerance on hop, dried cones. The reason for this
change is explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of fenarimol on hop, dried cones at 5.0 ppm and
apple at 0.3 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated
with establishing tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Fenarimol has a relatively low order of acute toxicity via the
oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure. It is not a dermal
sensitizer but causes corneal opacity in rabbits. Chronic studies
indicated that the liver is a target organ for toxicity. Liver toxicity
was manifested by liver weight increases and the presence of ``fatty
liver'' in rats. In dogs, increased liver weights and increases in
serum enzymes, indicative of liver toxicity, were noted. Additionally,
reproduction and developmental studies showed that fenarimol inhibited
aromatase, an enzyme involved in the conversion of androgens to
estrogens. Two acceptable rodent carcinogenicity studies showed no
evidence of significant tumor increases; therefore, fenarimol has been
classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.''
Additionally, the toxicity database indicates no evidence of
mutagenicity or neurotoxicity.
    The toxicology data for fenarimol provides no indication of
increased susceptibility, as compared to adults, of rat and rabbit
fetuses to in utero exposure in developmental studies. Developmental
kidney effects (hydronephrosis) in the rat were shown to be reversible.
The multi-generation reproduction study in rats indicates that
fenarimol causes reduced fertility in males and dystocia in females;
these effects were attributed to the inhibition of aromatase. Decreased
litter size was also noted in the study.
    Non-guideline reproductive performance studies in mice, guinea
pigs, and rabbits resulted in decreased reproductive performance in
male mice, but no such effect in the guinea pig or rabbit studies. A
pubertal assay conducted in female rats resulted in decreased T4
thyroid hormone coupled with an increase in circulating thyroid
stimulating hormone (TSH) levels. A female rat uterotrophic assay
resulted in significant uterine weight increases accompanied by
increased serum follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) levels and decreased
serum T3 levels.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by fenarimol as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://
www.regulations.gov in document ``Fenarimol. Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Proposed Food Use of Fenarimol on Hops,'' pages 46
to 49 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0536.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, a toxicological point of departure (POD) is
identified as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk
assessment. The POD may be defined as the highest dose at which no
adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) in the toxicology study
identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment. However, if a
NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of
concern are identified (the LOAEL) or a benchmark dose (BMD) approach
is sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the POD to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
dietary risks by comparing aggregate food and water exposure to the
pesticide to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic
population adjusted dose (cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. Aggregate short-term,
intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded. This latter value is referred to as the level of
concern (LOC).

    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates
risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect
greater than that expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for fenarimol used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
document ``Fenarimol. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed
Food Use of Fenarimol on Hops,'' pages 28 to 29 in docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0536.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to fenarimol, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing fenarimol tolerances in 40 CFR
180.421. EPA assessed dietary exposures from fenarimol in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
fenarimol; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment
is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing Surveys
of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). The chronic dietary exposure
assessment for fenarimol is refined using anticipated residues (ARs)
from field trial data, processing factors, and percent crop treated
(PCT) data.
    ARs based on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) monitoring data
were used for apples, bananas, cherries, grapes, and pears. Tolerance
values were assumed for foods covered by all additional tolerances. PCT
data was used for apples, cherries, grapes, and pears. Dietary Exposure
Evalution Model (DEEM) default processing factors were used for all
food commodities, except apple juice, pear juice, grape juice, and
raisins, which used factors derived from processing studies.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the absence of significant tumor increases in
two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, EPA has classified
fenarimol as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.'' Therefore, a
quantitative exposure assessment to evaluate cancer risk is
unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the AR
levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide
residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such
information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that
data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified,
or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above
the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such
Data Call-Ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and
authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be
submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these
tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a. The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b. The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c. Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency used PCT information as follows:
    Apples, 20%; cherries, 15%; grapes, 25%; and pears, 10%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from USDA/National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), proprietary market surveys, and
the National Pesticide Use Database for the chemical/crop combination
for the most recent 6 years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic
dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figure for each existing use is
derived by combining available public and private market survey data
for that use, averaging across all observations, and rounding to the
nearest 5%, except for those situations in which the average PCT is
less than one. In those cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5%
is used as the maximum PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary
risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum
value reported within the recent 6 years of available public and
private market survey data for the existing use and rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5%.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which fenarimol may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for the total residues of concern, including parent
fenarimol and its organic degradates (U-1, U-2, U-6, and U-7), in
drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the
physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of fenarimol.
Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in
pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/
oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-
GROW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of
fenarimol for surface water are estimated to be 66 parts per billion

(ppb) for chronic exposures. For ground water, the estimated drinking
water concentration is 19 ppb.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 66 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Fenarimol is currently registered for use on professionally managed
turf areas, such as stadia and golf course tees, greens, and fairways.
Short-term postapplication dermal exposure to adult golfers is
possible.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found fenarimol to share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and fenarimol does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that fenarimol does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/
cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor (SF). In applying this provision,
EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional SF when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The database for prenatal
developmental (in rats and rabbits) and reproductive (in rats) toxicity
is considered complete and includes special studies in addition to
conventional guideline studies. The rat developmental study showed
evidence of hydronephrosis in fetuses at dose levels equal to or
possibly lower than doses causing maternal toxicity; however, a special
study showed this effect to be reversible and therefore not considered
an adverse effect. Additionally, the decreased live born litter size
and survival indices in the rat multi-generation reproduction study are
considered to be secondary consequenies of parental effects (e.g.
dystocia and fertility), and is not an indicator of increased
susceptibility. Therefore, there is no evidence of increased
susceptibility of fetuses following in utero exposure in the rat or
rabbit developmental toxicity study or of offspring following prenatal
and postnatal exposure in the rat reproduction study, and there are no
concerns or residual uncertainties for prenatal and/or postnatal
toxicity.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for fenarimol is complete except for
immunotoxicity testing. Recent changes to 40 CFR part 158 make
immunotoxicity testing (OPPTS Harmonized Test Guideline 870.7800)
required for pesticide registration; however, the available data for
fenarimol do not show potential for immunotoxicity. Consequently, the
EPA believes the existing data are sufficient for endpoint selection
for exposure/risk assessment scenarios and for evaluation of the
requirements under the FQPA, and an additional database UF does not
need to be applied.
    ii. There is no indication that fenarimol is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that fenarimol results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment utilized
tolerance-level residues or ARs that are based on reliable field trial
data, and factors derived from processing studies (for apple juice,
pear juice, grape juice, and raisins) or DEEM default processing
factors. For several currently registered commodities, the chronic
assessment also utilized PCT data that have a valid basis and are
considered to be reliable. EPA made conservative (protective)
assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess
exposure to fenarimol in drinking water. EPA made similarly
conservative assumptions to assess postapplication exposures. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
fenarimol.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the aPAD and cPAD.
The aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into
account all appropriate SFs. EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD by
dividing the POD by all applicable UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the probability of additional cancer cases given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term, and
chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate
food, water, and residential exposure to the POD to ensure that the MOE
called for by the product of all applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account exposure estimates from acute dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single-oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
fenarimol is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
fenarimol from food and water will utilize 76% of the cPAD for infants
less than 1-year old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
fenarimol is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Fenarimol is
currently registered for use on professionally managed turf, including
stadia and golf

course tees, greens, and fairways, which could result in short-term
postapplication dermal exposure to golfers. The Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and
water with short-term residential exposures to fenarimol.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of 8,800
for adults 20-49 years old. EPA has determined that this assessment
adequately estimates the risk for youth golfers as well. As the
aggregate MOE is greater than 1,000 (the LOC), short-term aggregate
exposure to fenarimol is not of concern to EPA.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Fenarimol is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Therefore, the
intermediate-term aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from exposure
to fenarimol through food and water, which has already been addressed,
and will not be greater than the chronic aggregate risk.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iii., EPA has classified fenarimol as ``not likely to be
carcinogenic to humans,'' and it is not expected to pose a cancer risk
to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to fenarimol residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, gas chromatography (GC) with an
electrolytic conductivity detector (ECD), is available to enforce the
tolerance expression, and is published in the Pesticide Analytical
Manual (PAM) Vol. II (Method R039).

B. International Residue Limits

     Residue definitions are harmonized between the United States,
Codex, and Mexico. In order to harmonize with a Codex MRL of 0.3 ppm
for apples, EPA is increasing the tolerance for residues of apples from
0.1 ppm to 0.3 ppm. Additionally, a Codex MRL exists on hop dried cones
at 5.0 ppm. The Agency is establishing a tolerance on hop, dried cones
at 5.0 ppm to harmonize MRLs between the United States and Codex for
this commodity.

C. Response to Comments

    EPA received one comment to the proposed rule of June 6, 2007,
which made a general objection to the presence of any pesticide
residues on crops and stated that EPA should set no pesticide tolerance
greater than zero. The Agency understands the commenter's concerns and
recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides should be
banned completely. However, the existing legal framework provided by
section 408 of the FFDCA states that tolerances greater than zero may
be set when it has been demonstrated that the pesticide meets the
safety standard imposed by that statute. This citizen's comment appears
to be directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation
of it; the citizen has made no contention that EPA has acted in
violation of the statutory framework.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    Based upon review of the data supporting the IR-4 petition, EPA
revised the proposed tolerance for hop, dried cones from 1.0 ppm to 1.2
ppm. EPA revised the tolerance level based on analysis of the residue
field trial data using the Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet in accordance
with the Agency's ``Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on
Field Trial Data.'' However, it was discovered that a Codex MRL exists
on hops, dried cones at 5.0 ppm. As a result, EPA has increased the
hop, dried cones tolerance from 1.2 ppm to 5.0 ppm to harmonize with
Codex. The potentially greater exposure under this increased tolerance
value was included in EPA's fenarimol risk assessment.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of fenarimol,
alpha-(2-chlorophenyl)-alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)-5-pyrimidinemethanol, in
or on hop, dried cones at 5.0 ppm. Additionally, the established
tolerance of fenarimol in or on apple is increased from 0.1 ppm to 0.3
ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) and
408(e) of FFDCA following an agency initiated proposal. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule on hops, dried cones, do not require the issuance of a
proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply to this tolerance. The tolerance on
apples, however, was initiated by an EPA proposal and thus the RFA is
applicable. Pursuant to the RFA, the Agency hereby certifies that the
apple tolerance will not have significant negative economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Establishing a pesticide
tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a pesticide tolerance
is, in effect, the removal of a regulatory restriction on pesticide
residues in food and thus such an action will not have any negative
economic impact on any entities, including small entities.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10,

1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not
apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 8, 2009.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec. 180.421 the table in paragraph (a) is amended by revising
the entry for ``Apple'' and by alphabetically adding the entry for
``Hop, dried cones'' to read as follows:

Sec.  180.421  Fenarimol; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Commodity                                            Parts per million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple............................................................                                            0.3
                                                    * * * * *
Hop, dried cones.................................................                                            5.0
                                                    * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-30371 Filed 12-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: June 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 37568-37570]
[DOCID:fr30jn06-71]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0302; FRL-8075-9]

Dichlorvos Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decision; Notice of
Availability

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  This notice announces the availability of EPA's Interim
Reregistration Eligibility Decision (IRED) for the organophosphate (OP)
pesticide dichlorvos (DDVP), and opens a public comment period on this
document. The Agency's risk

assessments and other related documents also are available in the DDVP
Docket. DDVP is an organophosphate insecticide and fumigant registered
for use in controlling flies, mosquitoes, gnats, cockroaches, fleas,
and other insect pests. EPA has reviewed DDVP through the public
participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in
developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment
decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides
meet current health and safety standards.

DATES:  Comments must be received on or before August 29, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0302, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2002-0302. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Dayton Eckerson, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
     ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to
ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards. EPA
completed an IRED for the OP pesticide DDVP on June 23, 2006, and is
now issuing this document for public comment. DDVP is an OP insecticide
and fumigant registered for use in controlling flies, mosquitoes,
gnats, cockroaches, fleas, and other

insect pests. Formulations of DDVP include pressurized liquid,
granular, emulsifiable concentrate, total release aerosol, and
impregnated material. DDVP is applied with aerosols and fogging
equipment, with ground spray equipment, and through slow release from
impregnated materials, such as resin strips and pet collars. DDVP is
registered to control insect pests on agricultural sites; commercial,
institutional and industrial sites; and for domestic use in and around
homes (i.e., resin strips) and on pets. DDVP is used preplant in
mushroom houses, and postharvest in storage areas for bulk, packaged
and bagged raw and processed agricultural commodities, food
manufacturing/processing plants, animal premises, and non-food areas of
food-handling establishments. It is also registered for direct dermal
pour-on treatment of cattle and poultry, and swine. DDVP is not
registered for direct use on any field grown commodities. The DDVP IRED
presents the Agency's conclusions on the risks posed by exposure to
DDVP alone; however, section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) directs the Agency also to consider available
information on the cumulative risk from substances sharing a common
mechanism of toxicity. Because the OP pesticides share a common
mechanism of toxicity, the Agency will evaluate the cumulative risk
posed by this group before making final reregistration eligibility
decisions on individual OPs.
    During completion of the OP cumulative assessment, the Agency is
proceeding with risk assessments and interim risk management for
individual OP pesticides. EPA has determined that, but for the
cumulative risk assessment, the data base to support DDVP
reregistration is substantially complete and that products containing
DDVP will be eligible for reregistration, provided the risks are
addressed in the manner described in the IRED. After assessing OP
cumulative risks, EPA will make a final reregistration decision under
section 4(g)(2)(C) for products containing DDVP. When the Agency
finalizes decisions for DDVP and other OP pesticides, further risk
mitigation may be required for DDVP. On completion of these final
decisions for DDVP and other OP pesticides, EPA will also consider all
DDVP tolerances, or legal limits, for residues of DDVP in or on food
commodities to be reassessed in accordance with the current FFDCA
safety standard.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, was published in the Federal Register on May 14,
2004 (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9). DDVP was reviewed through the public
participation process during which, EPA worked with stakeholders and
the public to reach the regulatory decisions for DDVP.
    The reregistration program is being conducted under Congressionally
mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely
reregistration decisions and to involve the public. The Agency is
issuing the DDVP IRED for public comment. This comment period is
intended to provide an additional opportunity for public input and a
mechanism for initiating any necessary amendments to the IRED. All
comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must
be received by EPA on or before the closing date. These comments will
become part of the Agency Docket for DDVP. Comments received after the
close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not
required to consider these late comments.
    The Agency will carefully consider all comments received by the
closing date and will provide a Response to Comments Memorandum in the
Docket and regulations.gov. If any comment significantly affects the
document, EPA also will publish an amendment to the IRED in the Federal
Register. In the absence of substantive comments requiring changes, the
risk management decisions reflected in the DDVP IRED will be
implemented as presented. These decisions may be supplemented by
further risk mitigation measures when EPA considers its cumulative
assessment of the OP pesticides.
    The Agency received a submission on June 2, 2006, from the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), petitioning the Agency to conclude
the DDVP Special Review, Reregistration and Tolerance Reassessment
processes, and to revoke all tolerances and cancel all registrations
for DDVP. This petition has been placed in the public docket. The IRED
released today does not constitute a response to this petition. The
Agency is currently reviewing this petition and will respond to it in
conjunction with all other public comments received, after the comment
period on the IRED closes.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission
of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, ``the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration,'' before calling in
product-specific data on individual end-use products and either
reregistering products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory
action.''
    Section 408(q) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to review
tolerances and exemptions for pesticide residues in effect as of August
2, 1996, to determine whether the tolerance or exemption meets the
requirements of section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review is to
be completed by August 3, 2006.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: June 23, 2006.

Debra Edwards,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 06-5892 Filed 6-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27382-27386]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10739]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0022; FRL-9946-11-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana;
Permitting of Greenhouse Gases

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove a revision to the Louisiana
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Louisiana on
December 21, 2011. This revision outlines the State's program to
regulate and permit emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the
Louisiana Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. We are
proposing to approve those provisions to the extent that they address
the GHG permitting requirements for sources already subject to PSD for
pollutants other than GHGs. We are proposing to disapprove those
provisions to the extent they require PSD permitting for sources that
emit only GHGs above the thresholds triggering the requirement to
obtain a PSD permit since that is no longer consistent with federal
law. The EPA is proposing this action under section 110 and part C of
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2012-0022, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed 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, please contact Ms. Adina Wiley, (214)
665-2115<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adina Wiley, (214) 665-
2115<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Ms. Wiley or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-
7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever

``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    On January 2, 2011, GHGs became subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act and thus regulated under the PSD permitting program. See
75 FR17004, April 2, 2010. To establish a process for phasing in the
permitting requirements for stationary sources of GHGs under the CAA
PSD and title V programs, on June 3, 2010, the EPA promulgated a final
rule ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse
Gas Tailoring Rule'' (referred to as the Tailoring Rule). See 75 FR
31514. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) adopted
revisions to the Louisiana Administrative Code on April 20, 2011, to
address the PSD permitting requirements for sources with GHG emissions.
These revisions, which included content from the Tailoring Rule, were
submitted to the EPA on December 21, 2011, for inclusion in the
Louisiana SIP. Specifically, the LDEQ submitted new definitions for
``carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2e),'' ``greenhouse
gases (GHGs)'' and revisions to the existing definitions of ``major
stationary source'' and ``significant'' at LAC 33:III.509(B). The
submittal also included revisions to the general permitting program
requirements at LAC 33:III.501(C)(14) to limit the regulation of GHGs
under Louisiana's SIP to match any future changes in federal law or
decisions by the Supreme Court or U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit. The December 21, 2011 submittal also included revisions to the
Louisiana title V program at LAC 33:III.502 which is not a part of the
SIP requirements under section 110 of the Act and will be addressed by
the EPA in a separate action at a later date.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

    In Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on January 2, 2011,
the EPA limited application of PSD and title V requirements to sources
only if they were subject to PSD or title V ``anyway'' due to their
emissions of pollutants other than GHGs. These sources are referred to
as ``anyway sources.'' Under its understanding of the CAA at the time,
the EPA believed the Tailoring Rule was necessary to avoid a sudden and
unmanageable increase in the number of sources that would be required
to obtain PSD and title V permits under the CAA because the sources
emitted GHGs over applicable major source and major modification
thresholds.
    In Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 2011, the
PSD and title V permitting requirements under the CAA applied to some
sources that were classified as major, and, thus, required to obtain a
permit, based solely on their GHG emissions or potential to emit GHGs,
and to modifications of otherwise major sources that required a PSD
permit because they increased only GHG emissions above the level in the
EPA regulations. We generally describe the sources covered by PSD
during Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule as ``Step 2 sources.''
    On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in
Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, addressing
the application of stationary source permitting requirements to GHG
emissions. The Supreme Court held that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an
air pollutant for the specific purpose of determining whether a source
is a major source (or a modification thereof) and thus require the
source to obtain a PSD or title V permit. The Court also said that the
EPA could continue to require that PSD permits for emissions of
pollutants other than GHGs contain limitations on GHG emissions based
on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). With
respect to PSD, the ruling effectively upheld PSD permitting
requirements for GHG emissions under Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for
``anyway sources'' and invalidated PSD permitting requirements for Step
2 sources. In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10,
2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the D.C. Circuit) issued an Amended Judgment vacating the regulations
that implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations
that implement Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule. The amended judgment
preserves, without the need for additional rulemaking by the EPA, the
application of the BACT requirement to GHG emissions from Step 1 or
``anyway sources.'' With respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C. Circuit's
judgment ordered that the EPA regulations under review (including 40
CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v)) be vacated ``to the
extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if
greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or
has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds,
or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase from a
modification.''
    The EPA promulgated a final rule on August 19, 2015, removing the
portions of the PSD permitting provisions for Step 2 sources from the
federal regulations that the D.C. Circuit specifically identified as
vacated (40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v)). See 80 FR 50199.
We no longer have the authority to conduct PSD permitting for Step 2
sources, nor can we approve provisions submitted by a state for
inclusion in their SIP providing this authority.

A. Evaluation of the Louisiana Automatic Rescission Provisions

    Louisiana's December 21, 2011 SIP submission submittal adds
automatic rescission provisions to the State's PSD regulations at LAC
33:III.501(C)(14). The automatic rescission provisions provide that in
the event that there is a change in federal law, or the D.C. Circuit or
the U.S. Supreme Court issues an order which limits or renders
ineffective the regulation of GHGs under title I of the CAA, then the
corresponding provisions of the Louisiana PSD program shall be limited
or rendered ineffective to the same extent.
    The EPA is proposing to approve the Louisiana automatic rescission
provisions. In assessing the approvability of automatic rescission
provisions, the EPA considers two key factors: (1) Whether the public
will be given reasonable notice of any change to the SIP that occurs as
a result of the automatic rescission provisions, and (2) whether any
future change to the SIP that occurs as a result of the automatic
rescission provisions would be consistent with the EPA's interpretation
of the effect of the triggering action on federal GHG permitting
requirements. See, e.g., 79 FR 8130 (February 11, 2014) and 77 FR 12484
(March 1, 2012). These criteria are derived from the SIP revision
procedures set forth in the CAA and federal regulations.
    Regarding public notice, CAA section 110(l) provides that any
revision to a SIP submitted by a State to EPA for approval ``shall be
adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing.'' In
accordance with CAA section 110(l), LDEQ followed applicable notice-
and-comment procedures prior to adopting the automatic rescission
provisions. Thus, the public is on notice that the automatic rescission
provisions in the Louisiana PSD program will enable the Louisiana PSD
program and the Louisiana SIP to update automatically to reflect any
order by a federal court or any change in federal law that limits or
renders ineffective the regulation of GHGs under the CAA's PSD
permitting program. Additionally, the EPA interprets this provision to
require the

LDEQ to provide notice to the general public and regulated community of
the changes to the Louisiana PSD program in the event that the
automatic rescission provision is triggered. The EPA invites comment,
particularly from the State, regarding this interpretation.
    The EPA's consideration of whether any SIP change resulting from
Louisiana's automatic rescission provisions would be consistent with
the EPA's interpretation of the effect of the triggering action on
federal GHG permitting requirements is based on 40 CFR 51.105, which
states that ``[r]evisions of a plan, or any portion thereof, will not
be considered part of an applicable plan until such revisions have been
approved by the Administrator in accordance with this part.'' To be
consistent with 40 CFR 51.105, any automatic SIP change resulting from
a court order or federal law change must be consistent with the EPA's
interpretation of the effect of such order or federal law change on GHG
permitting requirements. We interpret this provision to mean that
Louisiana will wait for and follow the EPA's interpretation as to the
impact of any federal law change or the D.C. Circuit or the U.S.
Supreme Court issues an order before Louisiana's SIP would be changed.
In the event of a court decision or federal law change that triggers
(or likely triggers) application of Louisiana's automatic rescission
provisions, the EPA intends to promptly describe the impact of the
court decision or federal law change on the enforceability of its GHG
permitting regulation. The EPA invites comment, particularly from the
State, regarding this interpretation.

B. Evaluation of the Submitted Revisions to the Louisiana PSD Program

    Prior to the court decisions, the State submitted amended PSD
provisions to enable permitting Step 1 and Step 2 sources and the GHG
emissions from such sources on December 21, 2011. The EPA has an
obligation under section 110 of the CAA to act upon a submitted
revision to a state's SIP within 18 months of receipt. The December 21,
2011 SIP revisions have not been withdrawn; therefore, the EPA has an
obligation to act on the submitted provisions. We have the authority
under section 110(k)(3) of the Act to partially approve and partially
disapprove portions of a SIP submittal that are not wholly approvable.
Accordingly, we find it appropriate to propose partial approval under
section 110(k)(3) of the Act of the submitted provisions that enable
the State to permit GHG emissions from Step 1 sources consistent with
federal requirements. Simultaneously, we are proposing disapproval of
the provisions that enable the permitting of Step 2 sources under the
PSD program.
    Our evaluation finds that the revised rules in Louisiana's December
21, 2011 SIP submission achieve the same result as the Step 1
permitting provisions in 40 CFR 51.166 that remain applicable at this
time. However, the state rules achieve this result in a manner that
differs from the way the EPA's regulations are presently written. The
state has not enacted limitations on the meaning of the term ``subject
to regulation'' as reflected in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(iv). Instead, the
State has adopted a significance level for GHGs whereby the net
emissions increase of GHGs calculated on a mass basis equals or exceeds
0 tpy and the net emission increase of GHGs calculated on a
CO2e basis is 75,000 tons per year CO2e for new
major stationary sources or major modifications, which applies to
determine whether the BACT requirement applies to GHGs in PSD
permitting. Although the Louisiana SIP submission is structured
differently than the EPA's federal rules, the primary practical effect
of both is the same: The PSD BACT requirement does not apply to GHG
emissions from an ``anyway source'' unless the source emits GHGs at or
above the 75,000 ton per year threshold. Therefore, we find this aspect
of Louisiana's SIP submissions to be approvable because it is
consistent with the relevant provisions of 40 CFR 51.166.
    It is important to note, however, that the EPA's proposed approval
is not based on determination by either EPA or the state that 75,000
tons per year CO2e is an appropriate de minimis level for
GHGs. The EPA's proposed approval of the significant emissions rate for
GHGs in LDEQ's rule is based only on the recognition that Louisiana's
rule applies the same applicability level for the GHG BACT requirement
that is presently reflected in the EPA's regulations.
    In establishing the significance level, the State rulemaking does
not establish that 75,000 is a de minimis amount of GHG. Nothing in the
state's rulemaking record and nothing in this EPA action provide
support to substantiate 75,000 tons per year significance level as a de
minimis level. See UARG, 134 S. Ct. 2427, at 2449 (noting that the EPA
had not established the 75,000 tons per year level in the Tailoring
Rule as a de minis threshold below which BACT is not required for a
source's GHG emissions).
    Given the deficiencies in the justification for the GHG BACT
applicability level in the existing EPA regulations, the EPA is
planning to move forward in a separate, national rulemaking to propose
a GHG Significant Emission Rate (SER) that would be justified as a de
minis threshold level for applying the BACT requirement to GHG
emissions under PSD. In the event that the EPA ultimately promulgates a
final GHG SER, Louisiana, like all other SIP-approved states, may be
obligated to undertake rulemaking to demonstrate consistency with
federal requirements or may be subject to a SIP Call to correct a
deficiency in the SIP-approved program.

III. Proposed Action

    Section 110(k)(3) of the Act states that the EPA may partially
approve and partially disapprove a SIP submittal if we find that only a
portion of the submittal meets the requirements of the Act. We are
proposing to approve the revisions to the Louisiana PSD permitting
program submitted on December 21, 2011, that provide the State the
authority to regulate and permit emissions of GHGs from Step 1 sources
in the Louisiana PSD program. The EPA has made the preliminary
determination that the revisions are approvable because the submitted
rules are adopted and submitted in accordance with the CAA and are
consistent with the laws and regulations for PSD permitting of GHGs.
Therefore, under section 110 and part C of the Act, the EPA proposes to
approve the following specific revisions to the Louisiana SIP for PSD
permitting:
     New provisions at LAC 33:III.501(C)(14) adopted on April
20, 2011 and submitted December 20, 2011;
     New definitions of ``carbon dioxide equivalent'' and
``greenhouse gases'' at LAC 33:III.509(B) adopted on April 20, 2011 and
submitted December 20, 2011; and
     Revisions to the definitions of ``major stationary
source'' paragraphs (a) and (b) and ``significant'' at LAC
33:III.509(B) adopted on April 20, 2011 and submitted December 20,
2011.
    Upon promulgation of a final approval of these proposed revisions,
the EPA would also remove the provisions at 40 CFR 52.986(c) under
which the EPA narrowed the applicability of the Louisiana PSD program
to regulate sources consistent with federal requirements. The
provisions at 40 CFR 52.986(c) will no longer be necessary when we
finalize approval of the state regulations into the Louisiana SIP.
    We are also proposing to disapprove the provisions submitted on
December 21, 2011, that would enable the State of

Louisiana to regulate and permit Step 2 sources, under the Louisiana
PSD program because the submitted provisions are no longer consistent
with federal laws. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to disapprove
revisions to the definitions at LAC 33:III.509 for ``major stationary
source'' paragraph (c) ``significant'' as it pertains to Step 2
sources, as adopted on April 20, 2011 and submitted December 20, 2011.
Finalization of this proposed disapproval will not require the EPA to
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan because the Louisiana PSD
program would continue to regulate GHG emissions consistent with
federal statutory and regulatory permitting requirements. We are
proposing this disapproval under section 110 and part C of the Act; as
such, we will also not impose sanctions as a result of a final
disapproval.
    The EPA is also taking the opportunity to correct an omission in
our proposed approval of revisions to the Louisiana Major New Source
Review program on August 19, 2015. In that action we neglected to
specifically identify the revisions submitted on December 20, 2005 to
the PSD definition of ``major stationary source'' at LAC 33:III.509(B)
as part of our proposed action. In both the TSD associated with docket
EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0131 and in the TSD accompanying today's action, we
have evaluated this submission and found the revised regulations to be
consistent with federal requirements at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(1)(iii). As
such, we are also proposing approval of the revisions to the definition
of ``major stationary source'' at LAC 33:III.509(B) submitted on
December 20, 2005 as subparagraph (e), but was moved to subparagraph
(f) in the December 20, 2011 submittal.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to the Louisiana regulations as described in the
Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action proposes approval of the portions of the submitted revisions to
State law for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions consistent
with federal requirements and proposes disapproval of the portions of
the state laws that do not meet Federal requirements for the regulation
and permitting of GHG emissions.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. There is no burden imposed under the PRA because this action
proposes to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer
consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG
emissions.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action
proposes to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer
consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG
emissions, and therefore will have no impact on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector. This action proposes
to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with
federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions, and
therefore will have no impact on small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action proposes to disapprove provisions of
state law that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the
regulation and permitting of GHG emissions; there are no requirements
or responsibilities added or removed from Indian Tribal Governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it disapproves state permitting
provisions that are inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation
and permitting of GHG emissions.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations. This action is not subject to Executive
Order 12898 because it disapproves state permitting provisions that are
inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG
emissions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 29, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2016-10739 Filed 5-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 237)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 65697-65699]
[DOCID:fr11de09-13]

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

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0331; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-40-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. TFE731
Series Turbofan Engines

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

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

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

SUMMARY: This supplemental NPRM revises an earlier proposed
airworthiness directive (AD), for Honeywell International Inc. TFE731
series turbofan engines with certain second stage low-pressure
compressor rotor (LPCR) discs and/or certain third stage LPCR discs
installed. That proposed AD would have required removing from service
certain second stage LPCR discs and/or certain third stage LPCR discs.
That proposed AD resulted from a report of cracks found during a
fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) of the disc bore. This
supplemental NPRM revises the proposed AD to correct a P/N error, to
clarify the applicability, and to clarify the instructions in the
compliance section. This supplemental proposed AD results from a report
of cracks found during an FPI of the disc bore. We are proposing this
supplemental proposed AD to prevent an uncontained failure of a second
stage LPCR disc and or a third stage LPCR disc due to cracks in the
bore, which could result in damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by January 25,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD
from Honeywell Engines and Systems Technical Publications and
Distribution, M/S 2101-201, P.O. Box 52170, Phoenix, AZ 85072-2170,
telephone: Global Customer Care toll free<PHONE_NUMBER>; International
callers<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0331; Directorate
Identifier 2008-NE-40-AD'' in the subject line of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD
in light 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
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

    On April 6, 2009, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to add an AD, for Honeywell
International Inc. TFE731 series turbofan engines with certain second
stage LPCR discs and/or certain third stage LPCR discs installed. The
proposed AD published as an NPRM in the Federal Register on April 13,
2009 (74 FR 16807). That NPRM proposed to require removing from
service, certain second and third stage LPCR discs, P/Ns 3072396-1,
3072397-1, 3075109-1, or 2075192-1.
    Since we issued that NPRM, we became aware that LPCR disc P/N
2075192-1 is incorrect. We changed the AD to the correct disc P/N of
3075192-1.
    We also became aware that the NPRM compliance is unclear in that it
describes the affected parts as ``second and third stage LPCR disc''.
To clarify, we changed the description to ``a second stage LPCR disc
and/or a third stage LPCR disc.'' We also changed the applicability
statement from ``* * * turbofan engines with certain low-pressure
compressor rotor (LPCR) discs, part numbers (P/Ns) 3072396-1, 3072397-
1, 3075190-1, or 2075192-1, installed'' to ``turbofan engines with
certain second stage low-pressure compressor rotor (LPCR) discs, part
number (P/N) 3072396-1 or 3075190-1, and/or certain third stage LPCR
discs, P/N 3072397-1 or 3075192-1, installed.'' Because we are making
these

corrections, this supplemental NPRM reopens the comment period.
    As we stated in the original proposed AD, we received a report of
cracks found during an FPI of the disc bore. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in an uncontained failure of a second stage
LPCR disc and/or third stage LPCR disc due to cracks in the bore, which
could result in damage to the airplane.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products
of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require
removing from service engines with second stage LPCR discs and/or third
stage LPCR discs that have a S/N:
     In Table 5 of ASBs TFE731-72-A3748, dated August 21, 2008,
or TFE731-72-A3749, dated August 21, 2008, within 100 cycles-in-service
(CIS) after the effective date of this proposed AD, and
     In Table 6 of ASBs TFE731-72-A3748, dated August 21, 2008,
or TFE731-72-A3749, dated August 21, 2008, within 2,000 CIS or the next
access after the effective date of this proposed AD, whichever occurs
first.
    The proposed AD would require you to use the service information
described previously to perform these actions.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this supplemental proposed AD would affect 27
engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 4 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed
actions during scheduled maintenance and 140 work-hours per engine for
the proposed actions during unscheduled maintenance. The average labor
rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $31,000 per
engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the
proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $900,000.

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. Would 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. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the
Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Honeywell International Inc. (Formerly AlliedSignal Inc., formerly
Garrett Turbine Engine Company): Docket No. FAA-2009-0331;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-40-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive
comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by February 9,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. TFE731-2,
TFE731-2A, TFE731-2C, TFE731-3, TFE731-3A, TFE731-3AR, TFE731-3B,
TFE731-3BR, TFE731-3C, TFE731-3CR, TFE731-3D, TFE731-3DR, TFE731-3R,
TFE731-4, TFE731-4R, TFE731-5, TFE731-5AR, TFE731-5BR, and TFE731-5R
series turbofan engines with certain second stage low-pressure
compressor rotor (LPCR) discs, part number (P/N) 3072396-1 or
3075190-1, and/or certain third stage LPCR discs, P/N 3072397-1 or
3075192-1, installed. These engines are installed on, but not
limited to, the airplanes listed in Table 1 of this AD.

             Table 1--Installed on Airplanes by Manufacturer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Manufacturer                             Model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dassault-Aviation or Dassault       Falcon 10 (Falcon 100) and Mystere-
 Aviation.                           Falcon 20, 50, 900 and MF900
                                     series.
Cessna Aircraft Company...........  Model 650, Citation III, VI, and
                                     VII.
Gulfstream Aerospace LP...........  1125 Westwind Astra.
Israel Aircraft Industries........  1124 and 1124A (Westwind).
Learjet Inc.......................  31, 31A, 35, 35A, 36, 36A, 55, 55B,
                                     55C, and M31.
Lockheed Martin Corporation         1329-23A, 1329-23D, 1329-23E, and
 (formerly Lockheed-Georgia).        1329-25.
Raytheon Corporate Jets (formerly   DH.125 Series 1A, 3A, and 3A/RA,
 British Aerospace and Hawker        HS.125 Series F3B and F3B/RA,
 Beechcraft Corporation).            BH.125 and DH.125 Series 400A,
                                     HS.125 Series 403B, F400B, and
                                     F403B, HS.125 Series 600A, BH.125
                                     Series 600A, HS.125 Series F600B,
                                     700A, and 700B, BAe.125 Series 800
                                     and 1000, and Hawker 800 and 850XP
                                     series.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report of cracks found during a
fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) of the disc bore. We are
issuing this AD to prevent an uncontained failure of a second stage
LPCR disc and/or a third stage LPCR disc due to cracks in the bore,
which could result in damage to 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.

Removing LPCR Discs From Service

    (f) For engines with any of the serial number (S/N) LPCR discs
listed in Table 5 of Honeywell International Inc. Alert Service
Bulletins (ASBs) TFE731-72-A3748, dated August 21, 2008, and/or
Table 5 of TFE731-72-A3749, dated August 21, 2008, remove those LPCR
discs from service within 100 cycles-in-service (CIS) after the
effective date of this AD.
    (g) For engines with any of the S/N LPCR discs listed in Table 6
of Honeywell International Inc. ASBs TFE731-72-A3748, dated August
21, 2008, and or Table 6 of TFE731-72-A3749, dated August 21, 2008,
do the earlier of the following:
    (1) Remove the LPCR disc from service within 2,000 CIS after the
effective date of this AD, or
    (2) Remove the LPCR disc from service the next time the
intermediate case is removed from the low-pressure compressor case.

Installation Prohibition

    (h) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any of
the S/Ns of LPCR discs listed in Table 5 of Honeywell International
Inc. ASBs TFE731-72-A3748, dated August 21, 2008, and the discs
listed in Table 5 of TFE731-72-A3749, dated August 21, 2008, into
any engine. Also, do not install any of the S/Ns of LPCR discs
listed in Table 6 of Honeywell International Inc. ASBs TFE731-72-
A3748, dated August 21, 2008, and the discs listed in Table 6 of
TFE731-72-A3749, dated August 21, 2008, into any engine.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (i) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, has
the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for this
AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (j) Contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (562) 627-
5210, for more information about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 4, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-29482 Filed 12-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P