[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8447-8454]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02241]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0718 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0076; FRL-10002-06]

Difenoconazole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
difenoconazole in or on vegetable, root, subgroup 1A, except ginseng;
vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2; and tea, dried. In
addition, this regulation amends the tolerances for residues of
difenoconazole in or ginseng; cattle, liver; goat, liver; horse, liver;
and sheep, liver. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 14, 2020. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 14, 2020, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0718 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-
0076, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of
Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the
Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket
available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0718 and EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0076 in the
subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and
requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the
Hearing Clerk on or before April 14, 2020. Addresses for mail and hand
delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR
178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0718 and EPA-
HQ-OPP-2019-0076, 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 June 7, 2019 (84 FR 26630) (FRL-9993-93)
and in the Federal Register of May 9, 2019 (84 FR 20320) (FRL-9992-36),
EPA issued documents pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP 8F8695 and
8E8728, respectively) by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, P.O. Box 18300,
Greensboro, NC 27419. Pesticide

petition 8F8695 requested that 40 CFR 180.475 be amended by
establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide difenoconazole in
or on root vegetable crop subgroup 1A at 0.60 parts per million (ppm)
and leaves of root and tuber vegetables crop group 2 at 8.0 ppm; PP
8E8728 requested the establishment of a tolerance for residues of
difenoconazole in or on tea at 30 ppm. Those documents referenced
summaries of the petitions prepared by Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC,
the registrant, which are available in their respective dockets, http://www.regulations.gov. One comment was received on EPA's May 9, 2019
notice of filing in docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0076. EPA's response
to this comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA is
establishing tolerances that vary from what the petitioner requested as
permitted by FFDCA section 408(d)(4)(A)(i). These differences are
explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for difenoconazole including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with difenoconazole
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.
    Subchronic and chronic toxicity studies with difenoconazole in mice
and rats showed decreased body weights and effects on the liver (e.g.,
hepatocellular hypertrophy, liver necrosis, fatty changes in the
liver). No systemic toxicity was observed at the limit dose in a rat
dermal toxicity study. Difenoconazole exhibits low acute toxicity by
the oral, dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. It is not an eye or
skin irritant and is not a sensitizer.
    Acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies showed evidence of mild
neurotoxic effects. However, the selected endpoints of toxicity for
risk assessment are protective of any potential neurotoxicity.
    The available toxicity studies indicated no increased
susceptibility of rats or rabbits from in utero or postnatal exposure
to difenoconazole. In prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats
and rabbits and in the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, fetal
and offspring toxicity, when observed, occurred at equivalent or higher
doses than in the maternal and parental animals. In a rat developmental
toxicity study, developmental effects were observed at doses higher
than those which caused maternal toxicity. Developmental effects in the
rat included increased incidence of ossification of the thoracic
vertebrae and thyroid, decreased number of sternal centers of
ossification, increased number of ribs and thoracic vertebrae, and
decreased number of lumbar vertebrae. In the rabbit study,
developmental effects (increases in post-implantation loss and
resorptions and decreases in fetal body weight) were also seen at
maternally toxic (decreased body weight gain and food consumption)
doses. Since the developmental effects are more severe than the
maternal effects, qualitative susceptibility is indicated in the rabbit
developmental study; however, the selected POD is protective of this
effect. In the 2-generation reproduction study in rats, toxicity to the
fetuses and offspring, when observed, occurred at equivalent or higher
doses than in the maternal and parental animals.
    Although there is some evidence that difenoconazole affects
antibody levels at doses that cause systemic toxicity, there are no
indications in the available studies that organs associated with immune
function, such as the thymus and spleen, are affected by
difenoconazole. Difenoconazole is not mutagenic or genotoxic, and no
evidence of carcinogenicity was seen in rats. Evidence for
carcinogenicity was seen in mice as induction of liver tumors at doses
which were considered to be excessively high for carcinogenicity
testing. Difenoconazole has been classified as ``Suggestive Evidence of
Carcinogenic Potential'' based on liver tumors observed in mice. EPA
has concluded that the chronic point of departure (POD) for assessing
chronic risk will be protective of any cancer effects for the following
reasons: (1) Tumors were seen in only one species; (2) carcinoma tumors
were observed only at the two highest doses in the mouse
carcinogenicity study; (3) benign tumors and necrosis were observed at
the mid-dose; (4) the absence of tumors at the study's lower doses; (5)
the absence of genotoxic or mutagenic effects. The cRfD is well below
the no-observed- adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) of the mouse
carcinogenicity study, at which no effects on the biological endpoints
relevant to tumor development (i.e., hepatocellular hypertrophy, liver
necrosis, fatty changes in the liver and bile stasis) were seen. As a
result, EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate
for assessing cancer risk to difenoconazole and a separate quantitative
cancer exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by difenoconazole 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 ``Difenoconazole. Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed New Foliar Uses on All Members of Vegetable,
Root, Subgroup 1A and Vegetable, Leaves of Root and Tuber, Group 2 and
Establishment of a Tolerance with No U.S. Registration in/on Imported
Tea'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0718.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological 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
NOAEL and 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 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 difenoconazole used
for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Difenoconazole 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)..  NOAEL = 25 mg/kg/day  Acute RfD = 0.25 mg/ Acute Neurotoxicity Study in Rats.
                                   UFA = 10x...........   kg/day.             LOAEL = 200 mg/kg/day in males
                                   UFH = 10x...........  aPAD = 0.25 mg/kg/    based on reduced fore-limb grip
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                 strength in males on Day 1 and
                                                                               increased motor activity on Day
                                                                               1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 0.96 mg/kg/    Chronic RfD = 0.01   Combined Chronic Toxicity/
                                    day                   mg/kg/day.           Carcinogenicity (rat, dietary).
                                   UFA = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.01 mg/kg/   LOAEL = 24.1/32.8 mg/kg/day (male/
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 female) based on cumulative
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        decreases in body-weight gains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oral short-term (1 to 30 days)...  NOAEL= 1.25 mg/kg/    Residential LOC for  Reproduction and Fertility Study
                                    day                   MOE = <100.          (rat dietary).
                                   UFA = 10x...........                       Parental/Offspring LOAEL = 12.5 mg/
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        kg/day based on decreased pup
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        weight in in males on Day 21 and
                                                                               reduction in body weight gain of
                                                                               F0 females prior to mating,
                                                                               gestation and lactation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days)   NOAEL = 1.25 mg/kg/   LOC for MOE = <100.  Reproduction and Fertility Study
 and intermediate-term (1 to 6      day (dermal                                (rat, dietary).
 months).                           absorption factor =                       Parental/Offspring LOAEL = 12.5 mg/
                                    6%)                                        kg/day based on decreased pup
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        weight in males on Day 21 and
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        reduction in body weight gain of
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        F0 females prior to mating,
                                                                               gestation and lactation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30     NOAEL= 1.25 mg/kg/    LOC for MOE = <100.  Reproduction and Fertility Study
 days) and intermediate-term (1     day                                        (rat, dietary).
 to 6 months).                     UFA = 10x...........                       Parental/Offspring LOAEL = 12.5 mg/
* Inhalation and oral absorption   UFH = 10x...........                        kg/day based on decreased pup
 assumed equivalent.               FQPA SF = 1x........                        weight in males on Day 21 and
                                                                               reduction in body weight gain of
                                                                               F0 females prior to mating,
                                                                               gestation and lactation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)  Difenoconazole is classified ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic
                                    Potential''. Quantification of cancer risk is not required. The RfD would
                                    address the concern for chronic toxicity, including carcinogenicity, likely
                                    to result from exposure to difenoconazole.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to difenoconazole, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing difenoconazole
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.475. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
difenoconazole in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. Such effects were identified
for difenoconazole. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food
consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,
What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA) 2003 to 2008. As to residue
levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues, 100 percent crop
treated (PCT), and available empirical or default processing factors.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/
WWEIA 2003 to 2008. As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance-
level residues for some commodities, average field trial residues and
USDA Pesticide Data Program monitoring samples for the remaining
commodities, available

empirical or default processing factors, and average PCT assumptions
for some commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing
cancer risk due to difenoconazole. Cancer risk was assessed using the
same exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii., chronic
exposure.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area.
    In addition, the Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any
estimates used. To provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate
of PCT as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require
registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency estimated the PCT for existing uses as follows: Almond
15%, apples 25%, apricot 10%, artichoke 15%, blueberry 10%, broccoli
2.5%, cabbage 10%, cantaloupe 2.5%, carrot 2.5%, cauliflower 2.5%,
cherry 2.5%, cucumbers 5%, garlic 10%, grapefruit 10%, grape (raisin)
10%, grape (table) 25%, grape (wine) 15%, hazelnut 2.5%, lemon 5%,
onions 10%, orange 5%, peach 10%, pear 10%, pecan 5%, peppers 15%,
pistachio 10%, plum/prune 10%, potato 20%, pumpkin 5%, soybean 2.5%,
squash 10%, strawberry 2.5%, sugar beets 20%, sweet corn 5%, tangerine
5%, tomato 35%, walnut 5%, watermelon 15%, and wheat 15%.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and California Department of
Pesticide Regulation (CalDPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) for the
chemical/crop combination for the most recent 10 years. EPA uses an
average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The average PCT figures
for each existing use is derived by combining available public and
private market survey data for that use, averaging across all
observations, and rounding up to the nearest 5%, except for those
situations in which the average PCT is less than 1% or less than 2.5%.
In those cases, the Agency would use less than 1% or less than 2.5% as
the average PCT value, respectively. The maximum PCT figure is the
highest observed maximum value reported within the most recent 10 years
of available public and private market survey data for the existing use
and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%, except where the maximum
PCT is less than 2.5%, in which case, the Agency uses less than 2.5% as
the maximum PCT.
    The Agency believes that the three conditions discussed in Unit
III.C.1.iv. have been met. With respect to Condition a, PCT estimates
are derived from Federal and private market survey data, which are
reliable and have a valid basis. The Agency is reasonably certain that
the percentage of the food treated is not likely to be an
underestimation. As to Conditions b and c, regional consumption
information and consumption information for significant subpopulations
is taken into account through EPA's computer-based model for evaluating
the exposure of significant subpopulations including several regional
groups. Use of this consumption information in EPA's risk assessment
process ensures that EPA's exposure estimate does not understate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group and allows the Agency
to be reasonably certain that no regional population is exposed to
residue levels higher than those estimated by the Agency. Other than
the data available through national food consumption surveys, EPA does
not have available reliable information on the regional consumption of
food to which difenoconazole may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The drinking water
assessment was performed using a total toxic residue method, which
considers both parent difenoconazole and its major metabolite, CGA
205375, or total toxic residues (TTR) from difenoconazole uses, in
surface and groundwater. The Agency used screening level water exposure
models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for
difenoconazole in drinking water. These simulation models take into
account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of difenoconazole plus CGA 205375. 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 Tier II Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC v1.52)
model and Tier 1 Rice Model, the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of TTR of difenoconazole for acute exposures are
estimated to be 33.4 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 2.0
ppb for ground water. Chronic exposure EDWCs for non-cancer assessments
are estimated to be 27.4 ppb for surface water and 0.60 ppb for ground
water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 33.4 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 27.4 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). Difenoconazole is
currently registered for the following uses that could result in
residential exposures: Treatment of ornamental plants in commercial and
residential landscapes and interior plantscapes as well as turf
applications to golf courses. EPA assessed residential exposure using
the following assumptions: For residential handlers, adult short-term
dermal and inhalation exposure is expected from mixing, loading, and
applying difenoconazole on ornamentals (gardens and trees). For
residential post-application exposures, short-term dermal exposure is
expected for both adults and children (6 < 11 years old and 11 < 16
years old) from post-application activities in treated residential
landscapes and on golf courses. There are no residential uses

for difenoconazole that would result in incidental oral exposure to
children.
    The scenarios used in the aggregate assessment were those that
resulted in the highest exposures. The highest exposures consist of the
short-term dermal exposure to adults from post-application activities
in treated gardens and short-term dermal exposure to children 6 to 11
years old from post-application activities in treated gardens. Further
information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic inputs for
residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to difenoconazole and any
other substances, although EPA has previously concluded that there are
no conclusive data that difenoconazole shares a common mechanism of
toxicity with other conazole pesticides. Although the conazole
fungicides (triazoles) produce 1,2,4 triazole and its acid-conjugated
metabolites (triazolylalanine and triazolylacetic acid), 1,2,4 triazole
and its acid-conjugated metabolites do not contribute to the toxicity
of the parent conazole fungicides (triazoles). A separate aggregate
risk assessment was conducted for triazole and the conjugated triazole
metabolites (Common Triazole Metabolites: Updated Aggregate Human
Health Risk Assessment to Address New Section 3 Registrations For Use
of Difenoconazole and Mefentrifluconazole; DP451447, dated May 15,
2019) and it can be found at https://www.regulations.gov at docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0002. These new uses of difenoconazole
considered with existing uses of triazole compounds do not result in a
risk of concern for 1,2,4-trizaole and its metabolites. Difenoconazole
does not appear to produce any other toxic metabolite produced by other
substances. For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not
assumed that difenoconazole has a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.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 Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The available toxicity
studies indicated no increased quantitative susceptibility of rats or
rabbits from in utero or postnatal exposure to difenoconazole. In
prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and in the
2-generation reproduction study in rats, fetal/offspring toxicity, when
observed, occurred at equivalent or higher doses than in the maternal/
parental animals. In rabbits there was qualitative susceptibility since
the developmental effects were more severe than the maternal effects
seen at the same dose; however, the selected POD is protective of this
effect. In a rat developmental toxicity study, developmental effects
were observed at doses higher than those which caused maternal
toxicity. Developmental effects in the rat included increased incidence
of ossification of the thoracic vertebrae and hyoid, decreased number
of sternal centers of ossification, increased number of ribs and
thoracic vertebrae, and decreased number of lumbar vertebrae. In the
rabbit study, developmental effects (increases in post-implantation
loss and resorptions and decreases in fetal body weight) were also seen
at maternally toxic (decreased body weight gain and food consumption)
doses. In the two-generation reproduction study in rats, toxicity to
the fetuses/offspring (reduction in the body weight of F1 male pups),
when observed, occurred at equivalent or higher doses than in the
maternal/parental animals (reductions in body weight gain).
    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 difenoconazole is sufficient for a
full hazard evaluation and is considered adequate to evaluate risks to
infants and children.
    ii. There are no clear signs indication that difenoconazole is a
neurotoxic chemical following acute, subchronic, or chronic dosing in
multiple species in the difenoconazole database. The effects observed
in acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies are considered non-
adverse as they were transient in nature and were only observed in one
sex (males as reduced fore-limb grip strength with no histologic
findings) and the selected endpoints of toxicity for risk assessment
are protective of any potential neurotoxicity. There is no need for a
developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for
neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that difenoconazole results in increased
quantitative susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study. However, in the developmental toxicity study in rabbits,
developmental effects (increases in post-implantation loss and
resorptions and decreases in fetal body weight) were also seen at
maternally toxic doses (decreased body weight gain and food
consumption). Because these effects are more severe, qualitative
susceptibility is evident in the rabbit. The PODs selected to assess
dietary exposures are protective of these effects.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on tolerance-level residues and 100% CT for the acute assessment while
the chronic assessment used USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP)
monitoring data, average field trial residues for some commodities,
tolerance level residues for remaining commodities, and average percent
crop treated for some commodities. These assumptions will not
underestimate dietary exposure to difenoconazole. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to difenoconazole in drinking water. EPA used
similarly conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure
of children. These

assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
difenoconazole.

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
aPAD and 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. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to difenoconazole will occupy 52% of the aPAD for all infants <1 year
old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
difenoconazole from food and water will utilize 53% of the cPAD for all
infants <1 year old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
difenoconazole is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus average exposure levels to
food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
Difenoconazole is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to difenoconazole.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 180 for adults
and 240 for children 6 to <11 years old. Because EPA's level of concern
for difenoconazole is an MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of
concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
difenoconazole is not registered for any use patterns that would result
in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
difenoconazole.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit
III.A., EPA has determined that use of the chronic reference dose will
be protective of the potential for cancer risk. Because the chronic
exposure does not exceed the Agency's level of concern, EPA concludes
that exposure to difenoconazole would not pose an unacceptable cancer
risk.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to difenoconazole residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate tolerance enforcement method, gas chromatography with
nitrogen-phosphorus detection (GC/NPD) method AG-575B, is available for
the determination of residues of difenoconazole in/on plant
commodities. An adequate enforcement method, gas chromatography with
mass spectrometry detection (GC/MSD) method AG-676A, is also available
for the determination of residues of difenoconazole per se in/on canola
and barley commodities. A confirmatory method, GC/MSD method AG-676, is
also available.
    An adequate tolerance enforcement method, Method REM 147.07b, is
available for livestock commodities. The method determines residues of
difenoconazole and CGA-205375 in livestock commodities by liquid
chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry detection (LC-MS/MS).
Adequate confirmatory methods, Method AG-544A and Method REM 147.06,
are available for the determination of residues of difenoconazole and
CGA-205375, respectively, in livestock 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_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    Codex has established MRLs for difenoconazole in or on carrot at
0.2 ppm; edible offal at 1.5 ppm; sugar beet at 0.2 ppm; ginseng at
0.08 ppm; ginseng, dried at 0.8 ppm; and ginseng, extracts at 0.6 ppm.
Several of these MRLs are different than the tolerances established for
difenoconazole in the United States. The U.S. tolerance in/on crop
subgroup 1A, except ginseng (0.6 ppm), being established in this
rulemaking, is based on radish root data and cannot be harmonized with
the Codex MRL for carrot, which is lower than the subgroup tolerance;
doing so could result in exceedances of the tolerances even when
growers followed label directions. The U.S. tolerance for ginseng has
been harmonized with the Codex MRL for ginseng, dried and is inclusive
of the lower tolerances for ginseng and ginseng, extracts. The
tolerances for cattle, liver; goat, liver; horse, liver; and sheep,
liver cannot be harmonized with Codex MRLs due to different dietary
burdens.

C. Response to Comments

    EPA received one comment opposing pesticide residues in food,
although no substantive information was provided for EPA to take into
consideration in its safety assessment. Although the commenter
generally expressed concern about the potential for exposure to
difenoconazole to be carcinogenic, EPA has evaluated the available data
on

carcinogenicity and exposure and determined that aggregate exposure to
difenoconazole will not cause a cancer risk. The FFDCA authorizes EPA
to establish tolerances that permit certain levels of pesticide
residues in or on food when the Agency can determine that such residues
are safe. EPA has made that determination for the tolerances subject to
this action; the commenter provided no information relevant to that
conclusion.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The terms ``tea;'' ``root vegetable crop subgroup 1A;'' ``leaves of
root and tuber vegetables crop group 2'' requested in the petition are
being replaced with ``tea, dried;'' ``vegetable, root, subgroup 1A,
except ginseng;'' and ``vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2'',
respectively, to reflect the correct commodity definitions. The EPA has
modified the tolerance on tea, dried from the requested 30 ppm to 15
ppm to harmonize with Japan's draft MRL. The ginseng tolerance has been
removed from the vegetable, root, subgroup 1A and set at 0.8 to
harmonize with the highest Codex MRL. Tolerances for cattle, liver;
goat, liver; horse, liver; and sheep, liver have been increased from
0.40 to 0.7 ppm based on the re-calculated dairy cattle dietary burden
and the available feeding study data for residues of difenoconazole and
its metabolite CGA-205375. Trailing zeroes have been removed from
tolerances in accordance with current Agency practices.

E. International Trade Considerations

    In this final rule, EPA is reducing the existing tolerance for
ginseng from 1.0 ppm to 0.8 ppm in order to harmonize with the Codex
MRL. Available residue data demonstrates that the new tolerance is
sufficient to cover residues on ginseng.
    In accordance with the World Trade Organization's (WTO) Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Agreement, EPA intends to notify the
WTO of this revision in order to satisfy its obligation. In addition,
the SPS Agreement requires that Members provide a ``reasonable
interval'' between the publication of a regulation subject to the
Agreement and its entry into force to allow time for producers in
exporting Member countries to adapt to the new requirement. At this
time, EPA is establishing an expiration date for the existing ginseng
tolerance to allow that tolerance to remain in effect for a period of
six months after the effective date of this final rule, in order to
address this requirement. After the six month period expires, residues
of difenoconazole on ginseng cannot exceed the new tolerance of 0.8
ppm.
    This reduction in tolerance levels is not discriminatory; the same
food safety standard contained in the FFDCA applies equally to
domestically produced and imported foods. The new tolerance levels are
supported by available residue data.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of
difenoconazole, difenoconazole, in or on vegetable, root, subgroup 1A,
except ginseng at 0.6ppm; vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2
at 8 ppm; and tea, dried at 15 ppm. Tolerances are amended for ginseng
from 1.0 to 0.8 ppm; and cattle, liver; goat, liver; horse, liver; and
sheep, liver from 0.40 ppm to 0.7 ppm. In addition, the Agency is
removing the existing tolerances for beet, sugar; and carrot as they
are unnecessary upon the establishment of the tolerance for vegetable,
root, subgroup 1A, except ginseng. Finally, the Agency is amending the
existing tolerance for ginseng by adding an expiration date.

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) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject
to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the 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: December 19, 2019.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.475:
0
 a. In the table in paragraph (a)(1):
0
i. Remove the entries ``Beet, sugar'' and ``Carrot''.
0
 ii. Revise the entry for ``Ginseng''.
0
 iii. Add a second entry for ``Ginseng'' after the existing entry for
``Ginseng'' and add alphabetically the entries ``Tea, dried'';
``Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2''; and ``Vegetable,
root, subgroup 1A, except ginseng''.
0
 iv. Add footnotes 1 and 2 to the end of the table.
0
b. Revise the entries ``Cattle, liver''; ``Goat, liver''; ``Horse,
liver''; and ``Sheep, liver'' in the table in paragraph (a)(2).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  180.475  Difenoconazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Ginseng \2\.................................................         1.0
Ginseng.....................................................         0.8

                                * * * * *
Tea, dried \1\..............................................          15

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2................           8
Vegetable, root, subgroup 1A, except ginseng................         0.6

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations for these commodities.
\2\ This tolerance expires on August 14, 2020.

    (2) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Cattle, liver...............................................         0.7

                                * * * * *
Goat, liver.................................................         0.7

                                * * * * *
Horse, liver................................................         0.7

                                * * * * *
Sheep, liver................................................         0.7

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-02241 Filed 2-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 37355]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16058]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Second Meeting: Special Committee 234 (SC 234)

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

ACTION: Second meeting notice of Special Committee 234.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
second meeting of the Special Committee 234.

DATES: The meeting will be held October 7th--9th from 9:00 a.m.-5:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at EASA, Ottoplatz 1, Cologne,
Germany (CGN), Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or
Karan Hofmann, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-330-0680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Special Committee 234. The agenda
will include the following:

Wednesday, October 7, 2015--9:00am-5:00pm

1. Welcome and Administrative Remarks
2. Agenda Review and Meeting #1 Minutes Review
3. Status Report of Task-Group Leaders (TG #1-#4)
    a. TG-1--General Background, Regulations, App, etc.
    b. TG-2--Front Door Guidance
    c. TG-3--Back Door Guidance
    d. TG-4--Continuous Airworthiness
4. Review of Completeness of previous WG-99/SC-234 tasks
5. Integration of outcome into Revised ED-130 and new RTCA document
structure
6. Review of program schedule
7. Any other Business
8. Date and Place of Next Meeting
9. Adjourn

Thursday, October 8, 2015--9:00am-5:00pm

    1. Continuation of Plenary or Working Group Session

Friday, October 9, 2015--9:00am-11:30am

    1. Continuation of Plenary or Working Group Session

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 24, 2015.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Program Oversight and
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-16058 Filed 6-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 226 (Monday, November 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56102-56103]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25526]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0313]

60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Driver
Commuting Practices Survey

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA is seeking approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, FMCSA is requesting
comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of
information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of
public comment.
    FMCSA proposes a survey to inquire about driver commuting practices
to fulfill Section 5515 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
Act, 2015 (FAST Act). Section 5515 of the FAST Act requires FMCSA to
conduct a study on the safety effects of motor carrier operator
commutes exceeding 150 minutes. The administrator is then required to
submit a report to Congress containing the findings of the study.
    The survey proposed within this information collection request is
seeking to gather information on the prevalence of excessive (greater
than 150 minutes) driver commuting in the commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) industry, including the number and percentage of drivers who
commute; the distances traveled, time zones crossed, time spent
commuting, and methods of transportation used; research on the impact
of excessive commuting on safety and CMV driver fatigue; and the
commuting practices of CMV drivers and policies of motor carriers.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2017-0313 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see
the Public Participation heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Michel, Research Division,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by email at [email protected], or
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Impact of Driver Commuting on Safety
    OMB Control Number: 2126-00XX.
    Type of Request: New information collection.
    Respondents: A random sample of licensed CMV operators, to include
both freight operators and those with a passenger bus endorsement.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 500 CMV drivers (250 each of
freight drivers and passenger bus drivers).
    Estimated Time per Response: The estimated average time for a
driver to complete the survey is 20 minutes.
    Expiration Date: N/A. This is a new information collection request
(ICR).
    Frequency of Response: This survey requires a one-time response per
CMV operator, with an estimated total of 500 respondents (250 each of
freight drivers and passenger bus drivers).
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: The estimated total annual burden is
166.7 hours, or $3,945.79 (based on an average labor cost of $23.67 per
hour for each responding driver).

I. Background

    On December 4, 2015, the FAST Act was signed into law (Pub. L. 114-
94,129 Stat. 1312, 1557 (Dec. 4, 2015)). Section 5515 of the FAST Act
directs the FMCSA Administrator to ``conduct a study on the safety
effects of motor carrier operator commutes exceeding 150 minutes''
(subsection (a)). The Act further specifies that a report containing
the findings of this study should be submitted to Congress no later
than 18 months after the date of enactment of the Act (subsection (b)).
FMCSA must complete this information collection to the meet the
specified congressional requirements set forth in the FAST Act.
    Additionally, during the 114th Congress (2015-2016), legislation
entitled the Truck Safety Act was introduced. This legislation provided
greater context to inform study of this area (S. 1739, 114th Cong.
Sec.  7) by proposing the following:

SECTION. 7. STUDY ON COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVER COMMUTING.

    (a) EFFECTS OF EXCESSIVE COMMUTING.--The Administrator of the
FMCSA shall conduct a study of the effects of excessive commuting on
safety and commercial motor vehicle driver fatigue.
    (b) STUDY.--In conducting the study, the Administrator shall
consider--
    (1) the prevalence of excessive driver commuting in the
commercial motor vehicle industry, including the number and
percentage of drivers who commute;
    (2) the distances traveled, time zones crossed, time spent
commuting, and methods of transportation used;
    (3) research on the impact of excessive commuting on safety and
commercial motor vehicle driver fatigue;
    (4) the commuting practices of commercial motor vehicle drivers
and policies of motor carriers;
    (5) the FMCSA regulations, policies, and guidance regarding
excessive driver commuting; and
    (6) any other matters the Administrator considers appropriate.

    In the past two decades, as the number of workers has increased and
the distance to affordable housing has also increased in most
metropolitan areas, commuting times have increased in the United
States. According to the 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard,\1\ travel
delays due to traffic congestion caused drivers to waste more than 3
billion gallons of fuel and kept travelers stuck in their cars for
nearly 7 billion extra hours (42 hours per rush-hour commuter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Schrank, David; Eisele, Bill; Lomax, Tim; and Bak, Jim.
(2015.) 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard. Texas A&M Transportation
Institute and Inrix, Inc., available at: http://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-scorecard-2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Long commuting times can adversely affect commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers in multiple ways, for example:
     Compromising off-duty time. Long commuting times can
reduce a driver's available off-duty time for sleep and personal
activities. This can lead to excessive fatigue while on duty, creating
safety concerns for both the CMV driver and other drivers on the roads.
     Impacting driver health. A recent study was conducted that
monitored 4,297 adults from 12 metropolitan Texas counties. In this
region, 90 percent of people commute to work. The study found that the
drivers who have long commuting times were more likely to have poor
cardiovascular health and be less physically fit.\2\ This study showed
that people who commute long distances to work weigh more, are less
physically active, and have higher blood pressure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Hoehner, Christine; Barlow, Carolyn; Allen, Peg; and
Schootman, Mario. (2012.) Commuting Distance, Cardiorespiratory
Fitness, and Metabolic Risk. American Journal of Preventive Medicine
42(6): 571-578.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The objective of the survey proposed in this ICR is to learn more
about the following CMV driver characteristics:
     Work history;
     Commuting time, transportation mode, and recording of that
time;
     Driving schedules;
     Rests and breaks;
     Miles driven annually; and
     Demographics.

II. Data Collection Plan

    The information collection is a one-time, Web-based collection,
including surveys of current and past drivers of freight and passenger
vehicles. The survey will be entirely online. There will be no paper
survey. The general survey approach and design is as follows:
    1. FMCSA will provide a random sample of 12,000 drivers based on
recent Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) data,
augmented with the drivers' last known mailing address, obtained by
cross-referencing Commercial Driver's License Information System
(CDLIS) data with the licensing States' CDL driver histories. The
samples will be divided into one list for drivers who operate (or
previously operated) freight vehicles and a second list for those who
drive (or previously drove) passenger-carrying vehicles.
    2. Using a mail-Web methodology, the driver commute survey will be
sent out by the research team, on behalf of FMCSA, to the 12,000
selected drivers identified in step 1. These drivers will be solicited
to complete an online survey, using a recruitment letter (with a $2
pre-incentive), a reminder postcard, and a second follow-up letter. The
letter will inform the drivers that they will receive a check for $10
upon completion of the survey, which is expected to average 20 minutes
to complete. Our initial expectation is that 4.17 percent of the 12,000
(500) will complete the survey on the Web. The burden analysis is based
on this figure of 500 responses.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520)
prohibits agencies from conducting information collection (IC)
activities until they analyze the need for the collection of
information and how the collected data will be managed. Agencies must
also analyze whether technology could be used to reduce the burden
imposed on those providing the data. The Agency must estimate the time
burden required to respond to the IC requirements, such as the time
required to complete a particular form. The Agency submits its IC
analysis and burden estimate to OMB as a formal ICR; the Agency cannot
conduct the information collection until OMB approves the ICR.

V. Request for Public Comments

    FMCSA asks for comment on the IC requirements of this study.
Comments can be submitted to the docket as outlined under ADDRESSES at
the beginning of this notice. You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including:
    1. Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the performance
of FMCSA's functions.
    2. The accuracy of the estimated burden.
    3. Ways for FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity
of the collected information.
    4. Ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the
quality of the collected information.

    Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: November
17, 2017.
G. Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2017-25526 Filed 11-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 62782]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19710]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-11363-01-R3]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Order on Petition for
Objection to the Title V Permit for Delaware City Refinery

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on petition.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed an order dated July 5,
2023, granting in part and denying in part a petition dated September
16, 2022, from Delaware Audobon Society, Delaware Concerned Residents
for Environmental Justice, Environmental Justice Health Alliance for
Chemical Policy Reform, the Widener Environmental and Natural Resources
Law Clinic, Environmental Integrity Project, and Earthjustice. The
petition requested that EPA object to a Clean Air Act (CAA) title V
operating permit issued by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control (DNREC) to the Delaware City Refinery for its
facility located in New Castle County, Delaware.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final order, the petition, and all pertinent
information relating thereto can be requested by electronic mail to the
address set forth below in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
The final order and petition are available electronically at:
www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Britlyn Barnes, EPA Region 3, (215)
814-2089, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to
review and object to, as appropriate, title V operating permits
proposed by state permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA
authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days
after the expiration of this review period to object to a state title V
operating permit if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only
on objections raised with reasonable specificity during the public
comment period, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was
impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or that
the grounds for objection or other issue arose after the comment
period.
    EPA received a petition from Delaware Audobon Society, Delaware
Concerned Residents for Environmental Justice, Environmental Justice
Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, the Widener Environmental
and Natural Resources Law Clinic, Environmental Integrity Project, and
Earthjustice dated September 16, 2022, requesting that EPA object to
the issuance of operating permit no. AQM-003/00016--Parts 1-3, issued
by DNREC to Delaware City Refinery in New Castle County, Delaware. On
July 5, 2023, the EPA Administrator issued an order granting in part
and denying in part the petition. The order itself explains the basis
for the EPA's decision.
    Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner
may request judicial review of those portions of an order that deny
issues in a petition. Any petition for review shall be filed in the
United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit no later
than November 13, 2023.

Cristina Fernandez,
Director, Air & Radiation Division, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2023-19710 Filed 9-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62709-62711]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19673]

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1823; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00314-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain MHI RJ Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 &
702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet
Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25
(Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by
a report of a passenger seat Y-belt (lap belt) re-installed in the
wrong orientation, due to an incorrect maintenance manual. This
proposed AD would require inspecting certain Y-belts for correct
installation and damage and corrective actions if necessary. This
proposed AD would also prohibit the use of certain revisions of a
maintenance task. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by October 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1823; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For MHI RJ service information identified in this NPRM,
contact MHI RJ Aviation Group, Customer Response Center, 3655 Ave. des
Grandes-Tourelles, Suite 110, Boisbriand, Qu[eacute]bec J7H 0E2 Canada;
North America toll-free telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or direct-dial telephone
450-990-7272; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website
mhirj.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fatin Saumik, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1823; Project Identifier
MCAI-2023-00314-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Fatin
Saumik, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued Transport Canada AD CF-2023-10, dated February 17, 2023
(Transport Canada AD CF-2023-10) (also referred to after this as the
MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on certain MHI RJ Aviation ULC
(formerly Bombardier, Inc.) Model CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2C11, CL-600-
2D15, CL-600-2D24, and CL-600-2E25 airplanes. The MCAI states that
following maintenance on a Model CL-600-2C10 airplane, a Y-belt (also
known as lap belt) was re-installed in the wrong orientation. The MCAI
further states that the instructions contained within the aircraft
maintenance manual (AMM) on how to install the passenger seat Y-belts,
showed an incorrect orientation of the Y-belt assembly. The MCAI
confirms the manufacturer updated the AMM tasks and these instructions
have been

corrected. Y-belts installed in the wrong orientation, if not
corrected, could result in passenger injury due to head impact on the
front monument during an emergency landing.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1823.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-25-135, Revision B,
dated November 25, 2022. This service information specifies procedures
to inspect for correct installation (as shown in certain maintenance
tasks) of each passenger seat Y-belt. This service information also
specifies corrective actions, which include re-installing each
incorrectly installed Y-belt per certain maintenance tasks and
addressing damage (includes dents or misshapen hooks that attach the
belt to the seat).
    This is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    These products has/have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI and service information described above. The FAA is issuing
this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require inspecting certain Y-belts for
correct installation and damage and corrective actions if necessary.
This proposed AD would also prohibit the use of certain revisions of a
maintenance task.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 606 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170...........................              $0             $170         $103,020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these replacements.

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost                 Parts cost       Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 0.5 work-hours x $85 per    Up to $550 per Y-   Up to $593.
 hour = $43.                       belt assembly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA 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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier,
Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2023-1823; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00314-
T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by October 30, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate
previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) airplanes, certificated in any
category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (1) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) and
CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes, serial numbers (S/
N) 10001 through 10348 inclusive.
    (2) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) and CL-600-2D24
(Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, S/N 15001 through 15499
inclusive.
    (3) Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, S/N
19001 through 19064 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 25, Equipment/
Furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a passenger seat Y-belt
(lap-belt) re-installed in the wrong orientation, due to an
incorrect maintenance manual. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect
and address Y-belts that are incorrectly installed. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in passenger injury due to
head impact, on the front monument during an emergency landing.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Within 24
months after the effective date of this AD, inspect each Y-belt for
correct installation and damage and, if any incorrect installation
or damage is found, within 24 months after the effective date of
this AD, do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with
paragraph B, ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of
MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-25-135, Revision B, dated November 25,
2022. For this AD, damage includes dents or misshapen hooks that
attach the belt to the seat.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g): Y-belts are also known as lap belts.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information

    Where paragraph B, ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment
Instructions of MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-25-135, Revision B,
dated November 25, 2022, specifies to ``refer to AMM'' replace those
words with ``in accordance with AMM.''

(i) Maintenance Task Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, it is prohibited to use MHI
RJ Aviation ULC Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) task 25-21-04-400-
801, revision 69 or earlier.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using the service information identified in
paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of this AD, provided the actions were done
using MHI RJ AMM Revision 70, dated May 25, 2022, or Revision 71,
dated December 16, 2022.
    (1) MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-25-135, dated June 1, 2022.
    (2) MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-25-135, Revision A, dated
August 30, 2022.

(k) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD.
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the Manager of the
International Validation Branch, mail it to ATTN: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, at the address identified in
paragraph (l)(2) of this AD or email to: [email protected].
If mailing information, also submit information by email. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada or MHI RJ Aviation ULC's
Transport Canada Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by
the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(l) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2023-10, dated February 17,
2023, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found
in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1823.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Fatin Saumik,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (m)(3) and (4) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) MHI RJ Service Bulletin 670BA-25-135, Revision B, dated
November 25, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For MHI RJ Aviation ULC service information identified in
this AD, contact MHI RJ Aviation Group, Customer Response Center,
3655 Ave. des Grandes-Tourelles, Suite 110, Boisbriand,
Qu[eacute]bec J7H 0E2 Canada; North America toll-free telephone 833-
990-7272 or direct-dial telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website mhirj.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 7, 2023.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-19673 Filed 9-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P