[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5942-5947]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02676]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0516; FRL-9972-36]

Rimsulfuron; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances, including tolerances
with regional registration, for residues of rimsulfuron in or on
multiple commodities that are identified and discussed later in this
document. In addition, this regulation removes several previously
established tolerances that are superseded by this final rule.
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 12, 2018. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 13, 2018, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0516, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0516 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 13, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0516, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of Thursday, March 23, 2017 (82 FR 14846)
(FRL-9957-99), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section
408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide
petition (PP 6E8496) by IR-4 Headquarters, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.478 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the herbicide rimsulfuron, N-
[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonyl]-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-
pyridinesulfonamide, in or on Berry, low growing, except strawberry,
subgroup 13-07H at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); Fruit, citrus, group
10-10 at 0.01 ppm; Fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.01 ppm; Fruit, small,
vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.01 ppm;
Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.01 ppm; Nut,

tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm; Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup
1C at 0.1 ppm; and tolerances with regional restrictions in or on
Fescue, forage at 0.01 ppm; Fescue, hay at 0.01 ppm; Ryegrass,
perennial, forage at 0.01 ppm; and Ryegrass, perennial, hay at 0.01
ppm. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by E.
I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, the registrant, which is available
in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments
received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is
establishing tolerance levels that vary from what the petition
requested. The reason for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . .
. .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for rimsulfuron including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with rimsulfuron 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.
    The toxicity database indicates that target organs for rimsulfuron
are the liver and kidney in the rat and dog, along with the testis and
blood in the mouse and dog. In the mouse, the stomach was also a target
organ.
    Adverse changes in body weight and food consumption were observed
in rats, mice and dogs. In subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in
rats, toxic effects included decreased body weight, decreased body
weight gain, increased relative liver and absolute kidney weights, and
diuresis. In the subchronic study in mice, increased red blood cell and
hemoglobin, and decreased body weight gain and food efficiency were
observed. In the chronic study in mice, decreased body weight,
increased incidences of dilation and cysts in the glandular stomach,
and degeneration of the testicular artery and tunica albuginea were
observed. In the subchronic study in dogs, diuresis was indicated by
urinary volume, platelet concentration and kidney weights accompanied
by decreased urinary osmolality. In the chronic study in dogs,
increased absolute liver and kidney weights, increased seminiferous
tubule degeneration, and increased number of spermatid giant cells
present in epididymides in males were observed.
    In the developmental toxicity study in rats, no toxicity was seen
at the highest dose tested (HDT). In the developmental toxicity study
in rabbits, and in the 2-generation reproduction toxicity study in
rats, developmental/offspring toxicity was seen in the presence of
maternal/systemic toxicity and at similar dose levels. There is no
quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility
following pre- and/or post-natal exposures in the developmental and
reproduction studies.
    There is no indication in the database that rimsulfuron is
neurotoxic or immunotoxic. Rimsulfuron is not mutagenic and has been
classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans,'' based on the
lack of evidence for carcinogenicity in studies conducted in rats and
mice.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by rimsulfuron 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 entitled, ``SUBJECT: Rimsulfuron. Human
Health Risk Assessment in Support of a Petition (PP#6E8496) for the
Establishment of Permanent Tolerances on Tuberous and Corm Vegetable
Subgroup 1C, Small Vine Climbing Fruit Except Fuzzy Kiwifruit Subgroup
13-07F, Low Growing Berry Except Strawberry Subgroup 13-07H, Tolerances
with Regional Registrations for Ryegrass and Fescue and Crop Group
Conversions for Citrus Fruit Group 10-10, Pome Fruit Group 11-10, Stone
Fruit Group 12-12, and Tree Nut Group 14-12,'' dated May 5, 2017 at pp.
31-34 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0516.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

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

                    Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Rimsulfuron for
                                       Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute Dietary (All populations)..  An endpoint attributable to a single dose was not identified in the database.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 11.8 mg/kg/    Chronic RfD = 0.118  Combined Chronic/Carcinogenicity--
                                    day.                  mg/kg/day.           Rat.
                                   UFA = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.118 mg/kg/  LOAEL = 121 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 decreased body weight gains and
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        liver effects.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)   Rimsulfuron is considered ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans'' due to
                                        the absence of tumors in the available rat and mouse carcinogenicity
                                                                      studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor, NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level, LOAEL = lowest
  observed adverse effect level, PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic) RfD = reference dose,
  LOC = level of concern, UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies), UFH = potential variation in
  sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to rimsulfuron, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing rimsulfuron tolerances in 40 CFR
180.478. EPA assessed dietary exposures from rimsulfuron 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 rimsulfuron; 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) 2003-2008 National Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As
to residue levels in food, EPA assumed that rimsulfuron residues were
present at tolerance levels in all commodities for which tolerances
have been established and currently proposed, and 100 percent crop
treated (PCT) with rimsulfuron.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that rimsulfuron does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary
assessment for rimsulfuron. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were
assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for rimsulfuron in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of rimsulfuron. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Pesticides in Flooded Applications Model (PFAM) and
the Wisconsin cranberry (worst case) scenario to conduct an assessment
of surface water exposure to total toxic residue (TTR) of rimsulfuron
(PFAM model was developed specifically for regulatory applications to
estimate exposure for pesticides used in flooded agriculture such as
rice paddies and cranberry bogs) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground
Water (PRZM GW) and the Tier I assessment for applications of
rimsulfuron to corn in Wisconsin (worst case), the estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs) of rimsulfuron for acute exposures are
estimated to be 9.59 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 22.2
ppb for ground water. Chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are
estimated to be 1.70 ppb for surface water and 19.7 ppb for ground
water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 19.7 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).
    Rimsulfuron is not registered for any specific use patterns that
would result in residential exposure.
    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.''
    Rimsulfuron belongs to the class of pesticides known as
sulfonylureas (SUs). The SUs share a core chemical structure with
varying degrees of structural similarity. In addition, the SUs share a
pesticidal mode of action (i.e., the inhibition of acetolactate
synthase (ALS)), although the function of ALS in humans is unknown and
the relevance of this mode of action (MOA) in humans in unclear. Based
on toxicity studies, the SUs do not share a common toxicological
profile; instead the target organs vary among the class and are often
unspecific, such as changes in body weight or general effects on the
liver. Further dividing the SUs into subclasses based on the urea
substituent did not result in a clear association of a target organ
with any particular substructure.
    Based on the weight of the evidence, considering the lack of common
toxicological profile of the SUs, the uncertainty in the human
relevance of ALS inhibition, and the lack of

mammalian MOA data, a testable hypothesis for a common mechanism of
action cannot be identified. Therefore, the Agency concludes that no
common mechanism of toxicity exists among these pesticides and a
cumulative risk assessment (CRA) approach is not appropriate for this
class of pesticides. For further explanation, see ``SUBJECT:
Sulfonylureas: Screening Analysis of Toxicological Profiles to Consider
Whether a Candidate Common Mechanism Group Can Be Established'', dated
9/9/2015, found at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2016-0516.
    For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA SF. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X,
or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In the developmental
toxicity study in rats, no developmental toxicity was seen at the
highest dose tested. In the developmental toxicity study in rabbits and
in the 2-generation reproductive study in rats, developmental and
offspring toxicity were seen only in the presence of maternal/systemic
toxicity. There is no evidence of quantitative or qualitative increased
susceptibility following pre- and/or postnatal exposures to
rimsulfuron.
    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 rimsulfuron is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that rimsulfuron is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or increased SF to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that rimsulfuron 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. No acute toxicological endpoint was identified. The chronic
dietary food and drinking water exposure assessment utilizes tolerance-
level residues and 100 PCT information for all commodities. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to rimsulfuron in drinking water.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by rimsulfuron.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
rimsulfuron 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
rimsulfuron from food and water will utilize 1.5% of the cPAD for all
infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for rimsulfuron.
Therefore, the chronic aggregate risk is the same as the chronic
dietary risk and not of concern.
    3. Short- and intermediate-term risks. Short- and intermediate-term
aggregate exposures take into account short- and intermediate-term
residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level). Because there is no
short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary
exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective
cPAD, no further assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is
necessary.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, rimsulfuron is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    5. 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 rimsulfuron residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology, DuPont method 15033 using high-
performance liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization tandem mass
spectrometry (HPLC/ESI-MS/MS), is available for determination of
residues of rimsulfuron in petitioned-for commodities.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

B. International Residue Limits

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

C. International Trade Considerations

    In this final rule, EPA is establishing a crop subgroup tolerance
for subgroup

1C (vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C) at 0.10 ppm. This
subgroup includes the commodity potato, for which a tolerance is
currently set at 0.1 ppm. Setting a new tolerance at 0.10 ppm on potato
as part of subgroup 1C has a theoretically trade restrictive effect on
the import of potatoes, resulting from rounding to significant figures
when quantifying residues of rimsulfuron, compared with the current
tolerance of 0.1 ppm.
    In accordance with the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement, EPA intends to promptly
publish this action with the WTO. Although he subgroup 1C tolerance is
being established at 0.10 ppm and is unlikely to impact trade, EPA is
establishing an expiration date for the existing potato tolerance
following publication of this rule in order to provide a six-month
reasonable interval for producers in exporting countries to adapt the
modified tolerance. Before that date, residues of rimsulfuron on potato
will be permitted under the current tolerance of 0.1 ppm; after that
date, residues will need to be in compliance with the new 0.10 ppm
subgroup 1C tolerance level.
    The tolerance level is appropriate based on available data and
residues levels resulting from registered use patterns. The tolerance
level for all subgroup 1C commodities is not discriminatory; the same
food safety standard contained in the FFDCA applies equally to
domestically produced and imported foods. None of the other tolerance
actions taken in this rulemaking restrict permissible pesticide
residues below currently allowed levels in the United States.
    Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that
are treated with the pesticides subject to this final rule, and that
are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocation, shall
be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by FQPA. Under
this unit, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall
not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the
satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that:
    1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of
the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA.
    2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the
time of the application or use to be present on the food under a
tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was
lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the
pesticide was applied to such food.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    EPA is establishing the tolerance level for ``Berry, low growing,
except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H'' at 0.02 ppm, instead of 0.01 ppm
as requested, to fully account for residue loss in the field trial
samples during freezer storage from the time of harvest to the time of
analysis. Concurrent storage stability samples indicate that as much as
half of the residue present in the samples may have been lost between
the time of harvest and the time of analysis; therefore, 0.02 ppm
(twice LOQ) was selected as the appropriate tolerance for subgroup 13-
07H. In addition, the tolerance for subgroup 1C is being established as
0.10 ppm rather than 0.1 ppm to conform with the Agency's practice of
using two significant figures.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of rimsulfuron,
N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonyl]-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-
pyridinesulfonamide, to be determined by measuring only rimsulfuron, in
or on Berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H at 0.02
ppm; Fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.01 ppm; Fruit, pome, group 11-10
at 0.01 ppm; Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,
subgroup 13-07F at 0.01 ppm; Fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.01 ppm;
Nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.01 ppm; Vegetable, tuberous and corm,
subgroup 1C at 0.10 ppm; and tolerances with regional restriction on
Fescue, forage at 0.01 ppm; Fescue, hay at 0.01 ppm; Ryegrass,
perennial, forage at 0.01 ppm; and Ryegrass, perennial, hay at 0.01
ppm. In addition, the Agency is removing the existing tolerances for
``fruit, citrus, group 10'', ``fruit, pome, group 11'', ``fruit, pome,
group 12'', ``grape'', ``nut, tree, group 14'', and ``pistachio'' since
they are superseded by the tolerances being established in this action.
Finally, the Agency is establishing a six-month expiration date for the
existing ``potato'' tolerance at 0.1 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: January 22, 2018.
Michael L. Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.478:
0
i. Remove the entries for ``Fruit, citrus group 10''; ``Fruit, pome,
group 11''; ``Fruit, stone, group 12''; ``Grape''; ``Nut, tree, group
14''; and ``Pistachio'' from the table in paragraph (a).
0
ii. Add alphabetically the entries to the table in paragraph (a)
``Berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H''; ``Fruit,
citrus, group 10-10''; ``Fruit, pome, group 11-10''; ``Fruit, small,
vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F''; ``Fruit,
stone, group 12-12''; and ``Nut, tree, group 14-12''.
0
iii. Revise the entry for ``Potato'' in the table in paragraph (a).
0
iv. Add alphabetically the entry to the table in paragraph (a)
``Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C''.
0
v. Add footnote 1 to the table in paragraph (a).
0
vi. Revise paragraph (c).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  180.478  Rimsulfuron; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

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

                              * * * * * * *
Berry, low growing, except strawberry, subgroup 13-07H..            0.02

                              * * * * * * *
Fruit, citrus, group 10-10..............................            0.01
Fruit, pome, group 11-10................................            0.01
Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,                0.01
 subgroup 13-07F........................................
Fruit, stone, group 12-12...............................            0.01

                              * * * * * * *
Nut, tree, group 14-12..................................            0.01

                              * * * * * * *
Potato 1................................................             0.1

                              * * * * * * *
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C...............            0.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 This tolerance expires on August 12, 2018.

* * * * *
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with
regional registrations, as defined in Sec.  180.1(1), are established
for residues of the herbicide rimsulfuron, including its metabolites
and degradates, in or on the commodities in the following table.
Compliance with the tolerance levels specific in the following table is
to be determined by measuring only rimsulfuron, N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-
pyrimidinyl)amino] carbonyl]-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fescue, forage..........................................            0.01
Fescue, hay.............................................            0.01
Ryegrass, perennial, forage.............................            0.01
Ryegrass, perennial, hay................................            0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-02676 Filed 2-9-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 25852-25853]
[DOCID:fr10my10-45]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0817, FRL-9149-2; EPA ICR No. 2366.01; OMB Control No.
2040-NEW]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Stormwater Management Including Discharges From
Developed Sites Questionnaires

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request for a new collection.
The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the nature of the
information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 9, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2009-0817 to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Docket, Mailcode
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan Matuszko, Engineering and Analysis
Division, Office of Water, (4303T), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
202-566-1035; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Holly Galavotti, Water Permits Division,
(4203M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
564-6392; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56191-56193), EPA sought comments
on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received over 80 comments
from associations, environmental groups, cities, counties,
municipalities, States, universities, State and private transportation
departments, and individuals. The topics raised in these comments
address both general matters related to the ICR, such as legal
authority, recipients, burden, additional data sources, and suggested
revisions to specific questions. The comments are summarized in the
supporting statement for this ICR. Any additional comments on this
proposed ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this
notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0817, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Stormwater Management Including Discharges from Developed
Sites Questionnaires.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2366.01, OMB Control No. 2040-NEW.

    ICR Status: This ICR is for a new information collection activity.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: In order to evaluate current stormwater management
practices, the scope of the current State and local programs, current
new and redevelopment projects, and any EPA regulation to control long
term stormwater discharges from developed sites, EPA is proposing
several data collection activities. Because this regulation could
impact many different types of entities, the ICR announced today
consists of multiple questionnaire instruments designed to collect
information from: Owners and developers of residential, commercial,
industrial, and non-commercial sites; owners and operators of Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) (including transportation-related
facilities such as State, county, and local departments of
transportation that own/operate roadway systems); and States and EPA
regions which are NPDES permitting authorities.
    EPA is distributing the Owner/Developer Questionnaires to collect
information on development and redevelopment projects and long term
stormwater discharge controls and/or BMPs installed at these projects.
EPA is particularly interested in obtaining information on those
controls/BMPs that promote onsite stormwater retention. This
information will be used to assist EPA in evaluating various regulatory
options and determining the project level and nationwide costs and
pollutant reductions associated with regulating long-term stormwater
discharges associated from newly developed and redeveloped sites.
Additionally, EPA will collect financial data to assess the economic
impact of the proposed rulemaking.
    The MS4, Transportation, and NPDES Permitting Authority
Questionnaires will collect information on the scope of current State,
county and local stormwater programs and the stormwater management
practices or standards that are currently required for controlling long
term stormwater discharges from developed sites. This includes
stormwater program implementation such as jurisdiction, implementation,
oversight, enforcement, maintenance and monitoring as well as program
requirements such as retrofit of existing development and performance
standards, design criteria, or retention practices for long term
stormwater discharge control at newly and redeveloped sites.
Additionally, EPA will collect associated budget and funding
information. EPA intends to use this information to assess existing
conditions, regulatory options, and the costs and impact to MS4s, and
NPDES Permitting Authorities that may result from a regulation.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR support statement contained in the docket provides a
detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate, which is only briefly
summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 5,516.
    Frequency of response: Once.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 167,669.
    Estimated total annual costs: $7,009,179. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $6,971,692 for labor and $37,487 for
operations and maintenance.

    Dated: May 3, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-10995 Filed 5-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 146)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43067-43071]
[DOCID:fr31jy06-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[FRL-8204-4]

Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to codify a longstanding
generator-specific delisting determination for brine purification muds
(K071) generated by Olin Corporation (Olin) at its facility in
Charleston, Tennessee. This rule will amend the Code of Federal
Regulations to reflect the delisting, which was granted by EPA in
December 1981 and by the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation in June 1983 after full notice and comment. The rule will
not impose any new requirements on Olin or any other member of the
regulated community.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 29, 2006 without further
notice unless we receive adverse comment by August 30, 2006. If we
receive adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R04-RCRA-
2006-0478, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or deliver: Kristin Lippert, North Enforcement and
Compliance Section, Mail Code 4WD-RCRA, RCRA Enforcement and Compliance
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn
Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

http://www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not

know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Library, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 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 in either location
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general and technical information
about this Direct Final Rule, contact Kristin Lippert, North
Enforcement and Compliance Section, Mail Code 4WD-RCRA, RCRA
Enforcement and Compliance Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303 or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:

I. Legal Background
II. Olin's Petition to Delist its Waste
III. Evaluation of Olin's Petition
IV. History of this Rulemaking
V. Final Action and Effective Date
VI. Regulatory Impact
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
VIII. Executive Order 12875
IX. Executive Order 12898
X. Executive Order 13211
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
XII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
XIII. Executive Order 13045
XIV. Executive Order 13175
XV. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
XVI. Executive Order 13132 Federalism
XVII. Submission to Congress and General Accounting Office

I. Legal Background

    On January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final
regulations implementing section 3001 of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes
from non-specific and specific sources. This list has been amended
several times and is published in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(40 CFR) 261.31 and 261.32. These wastes are listed as hazardous
because: (1) They exhibit one or more of the characteristics of
hazardous waste identified in subpart C of part 261 (i.e.,
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity); or (2) they meet
the criteria for listing contained in 40 CFR 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).
    Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste
that is described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a
specific waste from an individual facility meeting the listing
description may not be. For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22
provide an exclusion procedure, called delisting, which allows persons
to demonstrate that a specific waste generated at a particular facility
should not be regulated as a hazardous waste.

II. Olin's Petition to Delist its Waste

    On July 13, 1981, Olin petitioned EPA to amend 40 CFR part 261 to
exclude sodium chloride purification muds generated at Olin's facility
in Charleston, Tennessee. The muds meet the listing description for EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K071--brine purification muds from the mercury cell
process in chlorine production, where separately prepurified brine is
not used.
    Olin's petition included a description of its production and
treatment processes. Olin's Charleston facility manufactures chlorine
using a mercury cell chlor-alkali process. The chlor-alkali production
process at Charleston involves the preparation of a strong brine from
rock salt, which then circulates through mercury where part of the
dissolved sodium chloride is separated by electrolysis into chlorine
and sodium. The chlorine is collected and processed into liquid
chlorine and the sodium amalgamates with the mercury of the cell and is
separated and decomposed to form sodium hydroxide. The weak brine
leaves the cells, is dechlorinated, resaturated, and purified. The
purification (settling and filtration) of the resaturated brine
produces brine muds which contain low levels of mercury carried over
from the cells. The muds are dewatered using gravity. Liquid brine and
dissolved mercury drain out and are returned to the brine system.
    Olin's petition also included a description of total constituent
and EP toxicity analyses of the muds for mercury, the constituent of
concern for K071, and provided a plan for continuous testing of the
muds prior to disposal.

III. Evaluation of Olin's Petition

    Based on the information submitted by Olin, EPA granted a
conditional temporary exclusion for Olin's sodium chloride purification
muds on December 16, 1981 (46 FR 61272, December 16, 1981). The
exclusion is conditioned on Olin's testing of samples from each batch
of mud for mercury prior to disposal. Batches with a mercury
concentration of 0.05 parts per million (ppm) or less are considered
nonhazardous and are disposed of in Olin's on-site solid waste
landfill. Batches that exceed 0.05 ppm of mercury are considered
hazardous and are disposed of accordingly. EPA requested public
comments on the delisting of Olin's brine purification muds. No adverse
comments were received by the Agency.
    At EPA's direction on September 28, 1981, Olin also submitted a
delisting petition to the Tennessee Division of Solid Waste Management
because, at that time, Tennessee had Phase 1 Interim Authorization. On
February 17, 1982, Tennessee published notice of its tentative decision
to grant Olin's delisting petition and requested public comments. No
public comments were received by Tennessee. On June 28, 1983, Tennessee
granted final approval of Olin's petition. Under the terms of the final
approval, Olin must analyze samples from every batch of mud before
disposal and submit the results to Tennessee on a quarterly basis. If a
batch exceeds a mercury concentration of 0.05 ppm, Olin must handle the
batch as a hazardous waste.
    In 1984, Congress passed the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(``HSWA'') to RCRA. HSWA included additional criteria for evaluating
proposed exclusions of certain listed waste. In anticipation of HSWA,
EPA and Tennessee asked Olin to supply additional information that
would allow evaluation of Olin's delisting under HSWA's proposed
criteria. Olin complied, supplying detailed information supporting the
delisting determination previously made by the agencies. Subsequently,
both agencies confirmed that final exclusions, such as Olin's
delisting, which were granted before November 8, 1984 were not affected
by HSWA.

IV. History of This Rulemaking

    In 2004, Olin contacted EPA seeking confirmation that use of
potassium chloride as a raw material in the mercury cell process would
not affect application of Olin's delisting to brine purification muds
generated in that process, provided the muds meet the criteria of the
delisting. Olin determined that use of potassium chloride as a raw
material in the production process will not alter the composition or
characteristics of the resulting brine purification muds with respect
to mercury, the constituent of concern, nor will use of potassium
chloride introduce any other hazardous constituents into the muds. EPA
agreed with Olin's determination and concluded that Olin did not need a
modification to its current delisting in order to use the delisting to
manage muds generated in the potassium chloride process.

    In the course of EPA's review of Olin's determination regarding use
of potassium chloride, the Agency noted that Olin's delisting is not
listed in the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA is issuing this direct
final rule to correct this oversight.

V. Final Action and Effective Date

    By this rule, EPA is taking direct final action to incorporate
Olin's longstanding delisting into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA
is publishing this as a direct final rule because the Agency views this
as a non-controversial amendment to the Code of Federal Regulations and
anticipates no adverse comments. Interested parties had two prior
opportunities to comment on Olin's delisting petition, first at the
federal level and later at the state level, and no adverse comments
were submitted. EPA sees no reason to provide a third comment period.
    This rule will be effective upon publication in the Federal
Register. Section 3010(b) of RCRA allows rules to become effective
immediately when the regulated community does not need time to come
into compliance. That is the case here because this rule will codify
Olin's longstanding delisting for brine purification muds by amending
the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect the delisting. The rule does
not impose any new requirements on Olin or any other member of the
regulated community. This reason also provides a basis for making this
rule effective immediately, upon publication, under the Administrative
Procedure Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

VI. Regulatory Impact

    Because EPA is issuing today's rule under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting
provisions are affected. This exclusion may not be effective in states
that have received EPA's authorization to make their own delisting
decisions.
    Under section 3009 of RCRA, EPA allows states to impose their own
non-RCRA regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's
requirements. These more stringent requirements may include a provision
that prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the
state. EPA urges petitioners to contact the state regulatory authority
to establish the status of their wastes under state law.
    EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting
program in place of the federal program, that is, to make state
delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those
authorized states. If Olin manages brine purification muds in any state
with delisting authorization, Olin must obtain delisting authorization
from the state before Olin can manage the brine purification muds as
nonhazardous in that state.
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA
must conduct an ``assessment of the potential costs and benefits'' for
all ``significant'' regulatory actions. Today's rule is not significant
because its effect is to reduce the overall costs and economic impact
of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations. This reduction is
achieved by excluding waste generated at a specific facility from EPA's
lists of hazardous wastes, thus enabling a facility to manage its waste
as nonhazardous. Because there is no additional impact from today's
rule, the rule is not a significant regulation, and no cost/benefit
assessment is required. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
also exempted this rule from the requirement for OMB review under
Section (6) of Executive Order 12866.

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, whenever an
agency is required to publish a general notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public
comment a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of
the rule on small entities (that is, small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). No regulatory
flexibility analysis is required, however, if the Administrator or
delegated representative certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Today's rule will not have any impact on small entities since its
effect is to reduce the overall costs of EPA's hazardous waste
regulations on one facility. Accordingly, EPA hereby certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This rule, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.

VIII. Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local,
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of state, local, and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

IX. Executive Order 12898

    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population'' (February
11, 1994), is designed to address the environmental and human health
conditions of minority and low-income populations. EPA is committed to
addressing environmental justice concerns and has assumed a leadership
role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental
quality for all citizens of the United States. The Agency's goals are
to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color,
national origin, income, or net worth bears disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental impacts as a result of EPA's
policies, programs, and activities. In response to Executive Order
12898, and to concerns voiced by many groups outside the Agency, EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) formed an
Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of environmental
justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop an overall
strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER Directive No.
9200.3-17). Today's final rule applies to a single waste at a single
facility. We have no data indicating that today's final rule would
result in disproportionately negative impacts on minority or low income
communities.

X. Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (May 18, 2001), addresses the
need for regulatory actions to more fully consider the potential energy
impacts of the proposed rule and resulting actions.

Under the Order, agencies are required to prepare a Statement of Energy
Effects when a regulatory action may have significant adverse effects
on energy supply, distribution, or use, including impacts on price and
foreign supplies. Additionally, the requirements obligate agencies to
consider reasonable alternatives to regulatory actions with adverse
effects and the impacts the alternatives might have upon energy supply,
distribution, or use. Today's final rule applies to a single waste at a
single facility and is not likely to have any significant adverse
impact on factors affecting energy supply. EPA believes that 66 FR
28355 Executive Order 13211 is not relevant to this action.

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). Because there are no paperwork requirements as part of
this final rule, EPA is not required to prepare an Information
Collection Request (ICR) in support of today's action.

XII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), Public Law 104-4, which was signed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA generally must prepare a written statement for rules with Federal
mandates that may result in estimated costs to State, local, and tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year.
    When such a statement is required for EPA rules, under section 205
of the UMRA EPA must identify and consider alternatives, including the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. EPA must select that alternative,
unless the Administrator explains in the final rule why it was not
selected or it is inconsistent with law.
    Before EPA establishes regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, EPA must develop under section 203 of the UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA's regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them
on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The UMRA generally defines a Federal mandate for regulatory
purposes as one that imposes an enforceable duty upon state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector.
    EPA finds that today's rule is deregulatory in nature and does not
impose any enforceable duty on any State, local, or tribal governments
or the private sector. Therefore, no statement is required under
section 205 of the UMRA. In addition, this rule does not establish any
regulatory requirements for small governments and so does not require a
small government agency plan under UMRA section 203.

XIII. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks,'' applies to any rule that EPA determines: (1) Is economically
significant as defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) the
environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by EPA. Today's rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because the rule is not economically significant
as defined under Executive Order 12866.

XIV. Executive Order 13175

    Under Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), EPA
may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and
that is not required by statute, unless funds necessary to pay the
direct costs incurred by the Indian tribal government or the tribe in
complying with the regulation are provided by the Federal government or
EPA takes certain steps prior to the formal promulgation of the
regulation. Those steps include: (1) Consulting with tribal officials
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation; (2)
providing to the Director of OMB, in a separately identified section of
the regulation's preamble, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with tribal officials, a summary of the nature of their
concerns and EPA's position supporting the need to issue the
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of
tribal officials have been met; and (3) making available to the
Director of OMB any written communications submitted to EPA by tribal
officials.
    Today's rule does not have tribal implications because it will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to
this rule.

XV. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, EPA is directed to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. Where
available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards are
not used by EPA, the Act requires that EPA provide Congress, through
OMB, with an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.
    Today's rule does not establish any new technical standards and,
therefore, EPA is not required to consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards in developing this rule.

XVI. Executive Order 13132 Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), entitled
``Federalism,'' requires EPA to develop an accountable process to
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' are
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with

State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless EPA consults
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation.
    Today's rule does not have federalism implications. It does not
have a substantial direct effect on 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, because the rule only affects one
facility.

XVII. Submission to Congress and Government Accountability Office

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.
    Under section 804 of the Congressional Review Act, rules of
particular applicability are exempted from the requirements of section
801. See 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report
regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of
particular applicability. This rule is effective on September 29, 2006.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).

    Dated: July 18, 2006.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Director, Waste Management Division, Region 4.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended as
follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

0
2. In Table 2 of Appendix IX of Part 261, the following waste is added
in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec.  260.20 and
260.22

* * * * *

                                 Table 2.--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Facility                            Address                        Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Olin Corporation........................  Charleston, TN.............  Sodium chloride purification muds and
                                                                        potassium chloride purification muds
                                                                        (both classified as EPA Hazardous Waste
                                                                        No. K071) that have been batch tested
                                                                        using EPA's Toxicity Characteristic
                                                                        Leaching Procedure and have been found
                                                                        to contain less than 0.05 ppm mercury.
                                                                        Purification muds that have been found
                                                                        to contain less than 0.05 ppm mercury
                                                                        will be disposed in Olin's on-site non-
                                                                        hazardous waste landfill or another
                                                                        Subtitle D landfill. Purification muds
                                                                        that exceed this level will be
                                                                        considered a hazardous waste.

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

[FR Doc. 06-6587 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38708-38709]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15393]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC13-99-000.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
    Description: Amendment to April 29, 2013 Joint Section 203
Application of Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 6/17/13.
    Accession Number: 20130617-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/13.

    Docket Numbers: EC13-119-000.
    Applicants: Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc.
    Description: Application under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act
submitted by Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging, Inc.
    Filed Date: 6/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130614-5190.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/13.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2719-014; ER10-2718-014; ER10-2633-014;

ER10-2570-014; ER10-2717-014; ER10-3140-014; ER13-55-004.
    Applicants: East Coast Power Linden Holding, L.L.C., Cogen
Technologies Linden Venture, L.P., Birchwood Power Partners, L.P.,
Shady Hills Power Company, L.L.C., EFS Parlin Holdings, LLC, Inland
Empire Energy Center, LLC, Homer City Generation, L.P.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of the GE
Companies.
    Filed Date: 6/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130614-5194.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1403-001.
    Applicants: Dominion Bridgeport Fuel Cell, LLC.
    Description: Dominion Bridgeport Fuel Cell, LLC submits tariff
filing per 35.17(b): Amended Baseline and Cert. of Concurrence as .rtf
to be effective 7/7/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130614-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/24/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1696-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
06-14-2013 SA 2523 ITC-Pheasant Run GIA (J075) to be effective 6/15/
2013.
    Filed Date: 6/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130614-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1697-000.
    Applicants: Kiwi Energy Inc.
    Description: Kiwi Energy Inc. submits MBR Application to be
effective 6/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130614-5152.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1698-000.
    Applicants: Kiwi Energy NY LLC.
    Description: Kiwi Energy NY LLC submits MBR Application to be
effective 6/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130614-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1699-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. submits
06-14-2013 SA 6500 Escanba Amended SSR Agr to be effective 6/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 6/14/13.
    Accession Number: 20130614-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/5/13.

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

    Dated: June 17, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-15393 Filed 6-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 49)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12152-12154]
[DOCID:fr15mr10-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0223; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-105-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19
(Regional Jet Series 100 & 440), CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700,
701 & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and CL-600-2D24
(Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Several cases of corrosion in lower structural members of the
passenger door have been reported. It was subsequently determined
that a drainage ramp (constructed from resin) had deteriorated with
time and was retaining moisture. * * * Corrosion left undetected
could eventually affect the structural integrity of the door and
surrounding structure.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Yates, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0223;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-105-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that
address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to
provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The
comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which
is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation, which is the aviation authority
for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-23,
dated May 19, 2009 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct
an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Several cases of corrosion in lower structural members of the
passenger door have been reported. It was subsequently determined
that a drainage ramp (constructed from resin) had deteriorated with
time and was retaining moisture. The ramp, therefore, requires
removal, both to prevent further corrosion and to allow full access
to the door structure during future scheduled inspections. Corrosion
left undetected could eventually affect the structural integrity of
the door and surrounding structure.

    The required actions include a general visual inspection for
corrosion and damage of the lower inner section of the door, repair if
necessary, and application of corrosion inhibitor compound. You may
obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued the modification summary packages listed in
the following table. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

                                               Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Bombardier service
               Model                         information               Revision                  Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CL[dash]600-2B19...................  Bombardier Modification      A1................  April 24, 2009.
                                      Summary IS601R52110030.
CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15 and CL-600- Bombardier Modification      A1................  April 24, 2009.
 2D24.                                Summary IS67052110074.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 1,072 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate
that it would take about 28 work-hours per product to comply with the
basic requirements of this proposed AD. Required parts would cost about
$0 per product. Where the service information lists required parts
costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will
be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage
for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than
estimated here. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S.
operators to be $2,551,360, or $2,380 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Bombardier, Inc: Docket No. FAA-2010-0223; Directorate Identifier
2009-NM-105-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 29, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc. airplanes identified
in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in
any category.
    (1) Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes,
serial numbers 7003 through 8089 inclusive;
    (2) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702)
airplanes, serial numbers 10003 through 10265 inclusive; and
    (3) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24
(Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through
15173 inclusive.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52: Doors.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Several cases of corrosion in lower structural members of the
passenger door have been reported. It was subsequently determined
that a drainage ramp (constructed from resin) had deteriorated with
time and was retaining moisture. The ramp, therefore, requires
removal, both to prevent further corrosion and to allow full access
to the door structure during future scheduled inspections. Corrosion
left undetected could eventually affect the structural integrity of
the door and surrounding structure.
    The required actions include a general visual inspection for
corrosion and damage of the lower inner section of the door, repair
if necessary, and application of corrosion inhibitor compound.

Compliance

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

Actions

    (g) Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight hours, or
within 5,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, do the actions specified in paragraphs
(g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Remove the lower passenger door ramp, in accordance with the
applicable Bombardier modification summary package specified in
Table 1 of this AD.
    (2) Do a general visual inspection for any damage and corrosion
behind the drainage ramp in the lower portion of the passenger door.
If any damage or corrosion is found, before further flight repair in
accordance with a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA)
(or its delegated agent).
    (3) Remove the lower passenger door ramp and apply corrosion
inhibitor compound, in accordance with the applicable Bombardier
modification summary package specified in Table 1 of this AD.
Applying corrosion inhibitor compound is a terminating action for
the requirements of this AD.

                                          Table 1--Service Information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Applicable airplanes           Bombardier service information        Revision               Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model CL-600-2B19 airplanes.......  Bombardier Modification Summary     A1.............  April 24, 2009.
                                     Package IS601R52110030.
Model CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15,     Bombardier Modification Summary     A1.............  April 24, 2009.
 and CL-600-2D24 airplanes.          Package IS67052110074.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Inspections and modifications accomplished before the
effective date of this AD according to Bombardier Modification
Summary Package IS601R52110030, Revision A, dated July 5, 2006; or
IS67052110074, Revision A, dated July 5, 2006; as applicable; are
considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding
inspection or modification specified in this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows:
    The MCAI does not require an inspection or application of a
corrosion inhibitor compound. This AD requires both actions.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York, 11590; telephone 516-
228-7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal
maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-23,
dated May 19, 2009, and the Bombardier modification summary packages
listed in Table 1 of this AD, for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on March 4, 2010.
Suzanne Masterson,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-5515 Filed 3-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:This proposed regulation is very complex and requires more time for a thorough, thoughtful response. My attached document formally requests an extension in the comment period.