[Federal Register: October 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 205)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60261-60266]
[DOCID:fr24oc07-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0471; FRL-8151-5]

Bifenthrin; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
bifenthrin in or on mayhaw; vegetable, root, subgroup 1B except sugar
beet and garden beet; beet, garden, roots; beet, garden, tops; radish,
tops; soybean, seed; soybean, hulls; soybean, refined oil;
groundcherry; pepino; peanut; pistachio; and grain, aspirated
fractions. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective October 24, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before December 24, 2007,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0471. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced

Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

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

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, any person may file an objection
to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on
this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0471 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before December 24, 2007.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0471, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental

Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S.
Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 1, 2007 (72 FR 42074) (FRL-8140-
4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP)
(6E7125, 6E7126, 6E7127, and 6E7128) by IR-4, 500 College Road East,
Suite 201 W., Princeton, NJ 08540. The petitions requested that 40 CFR
180.442 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
insecticide bifenthrin, (2-methyl [1,1'-biphenyl]-3-yl) methyl-3-(2-
chloro-3,3,3,-trifluoro-1-propenyl)-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, in or on pistachio at 0.05 parts per
million (ppm) (PP 6E7127); mayhaw at 1.4 ppm (PP 6E7125); vegetables,
fruiting, group 8 at 0.5 ppm (PP 6E7128); peanut at 0.05 ppm (PP
6E7127); soybean, seed at 0.2 ppm (PP 6E7128); vegetable, root, except
sugar beet and garden beet, subgroup 1B at 0.07 ppm (PP 6E7126); beet,
garden, roots at 0.45 ppm (PP 6E7126); and beet, garden, tops at 15 ppm
(PP 6E7126). That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared
by FMC Corporation, the registrant, which is available to the public in
the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received

in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised commodity definitions and/or tolerances for vegetable, root,
except sugar beet and garden beet, subgroup 1B; soybean, hulls;
soybean, refined oil; and vegetable, fruiting, group 8. The reason for
these changes is explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 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 the 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 the 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....'' These provisions were added to the FFDCA by the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of the FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for
tolerances for residues of bifenthrin on mayhaw at 1.4 ppm; vegetable,
root, subgroup 1B except sugar beet and garden beet at 0.10 ppm; beet,
garden, roots at 0.45 ppm; beet, garden, tops at 15 ppm; radish, tops
at 4.5 ppm; soybean, seed at 0.2 ppm; soybean, hulls at 0.50 ppm;
soybean, refined oil at 0.30 ppm; groundcherry at 0.5 ppm; pepino at
0.5 ppm; peanut at 0.05 ppm; pistachio at 0.05 ppm; and grain,
aspirated fractions at 70 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks
associated with establishing the tolerances follow.

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. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by bifenthrin 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.
 The referenced studies are available in the

Bifenthrin Human Health Risk Assessment on pages 52-54 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0471.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern (LOC) is derived
from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the
NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in
risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is
sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute
population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all
applicable UFs. Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term risks are
evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded.
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases.
Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/1997/November/Day-26/p30948.htm
.

    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for bifenthrin used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the

Bifenthrin Human Health Risk Assessment on pages 27-28 in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0471.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to bifenthrin, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing bifenthrin tolerances in (40 CFR
180.442). EPA assessed dietary exposures from bifenthrin 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.

    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted a Tier 3, acute
probabilistic dietary exposure and risk assessment for all supported
(and pending) food uses. Anticipated residues (ARs) were developed
based on the latest USDA's Pesticide Data Program (PDP) monitoring data
1998-2005, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data, or field trial data
for bifenthrin. ARs were further refined using percent crop treated
(%CT) data and processing factors where appropriate.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, a refined chronic dietary
exposure assessment was conducted for all the supported (and pending)
food uses of bifenthrin using single point estimates of anticipated
bifenthrin residues field trials. ARs were further refined using %CT
data for some food commodities.
    iii. Cancer. Bifenthrin was classified as a group ``C'' (possible
human carcinogen). The Agency concluded that the chronic risk and
exposure assessment, making use of the cPAD, to be protective of any
potential carcinogenic risk. Therefore, no separate exposure assessment
was conducted pertaining to cancer risk.
    iv. Anticipated residue and %CT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of the 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 pursuant to section 408(f)(1)
of the FFDCA require 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 section
408(b)(2)(E) of the FFDCA and authorized under section 408(f)(1) of the
FFDCA. Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from
the date of issuance of this tolerance. Section 408(b)(2)(F) of the
FFDCA states that the Agency may use data on the actual percent of food
treated for assessing chronic dietary risk only if:
    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
such pesticide residue.
    b. The exposure estimate does not underestimate exposure for any
significant subpopulation group.
    c. Data are available on pesticide use and food consumption in a
particular area, the exposure estimate does not understate exposure for
the population in such area. In addition, the Agency must provide for
periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To provide for the periodic
evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(F), EPA may require registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The Agency used PCT information for chronic dietary exposures as
follows: Raspberries 70%; honeydew melon 55%; hops 35%; Brussel sprouts
1%; blackberries 20%; cantaloupes 20%; sweet corn 20%; cabbage 15%;
artichokes 10%; broccoli 1%; cauliflower 5%; corn 1%; cucumbers 5%;
grapes 1%; citrus 1%; lettuce 1%; peas, green 5%; pears 1%; peppers 5%;
pumpkins 15%; spinach 1%; tomatoes 5%; watermelons 5%; tree nuts 1%;
squash 5%; beans, green 30%; strawberries 15%; cotton 1%; and lettuce
1% EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining
available federal, state, and private market survey data for that use,
averaging by year, averaging across all years, and rounding up to the
nearest multiple of 5% except for those situations in which the average
PCT is less than one. In those cases < 1% is used as the average and
< 2.5% is used as the maximum. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary
risk analysis. The maximum PCT figure is the single maximum value
reported overall from available federal, state, and private market
survey data on the existing use, across all years, and rounded up to
the nearest multiple of five percent. In most cases, EPA uses available
data from USDA/National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA/NASS),
Proprietary Market Surveys, and the National Center for Food and
Agriculture Policy (NCFAP) for the most recent six years.
    The Agency believes that the conditions listed in Unit
III.C.1.iv.a., b., and c.; 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 information on the regional consumption of food to
which bifenthrin may be applied in a particular area.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for bifenthrin in drinking water. Because
the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water
concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling
taking into account data on the environmental fate characteristics of
bifenthrin. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm
.

    The environmental fate database for bifenthrin is considered
adequate for the characterization of drinking water exposure. The
submitted data indicate that bifenthrin is relatively persistent under
both laboratory and field conditions. Bifenthrin is relatively immobile
in four soils tested. Due to its low mobility, bifenthrin is not likely
to reach subsurface soil environments (lower microbial activity) or
ground waters. Various terrestrial field dissipation studies confirm
that bifenthrin remains mostly in the upper soil level. Due to its low
solubility and high level of binding it appears that bifenthrin would
remain bound to the soils during run-off events and it may reach
surface waters if the run-off event is accompanied by erosion.The
drinking water estimates are based on an application to lettuce at the
highest application rate.
    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST), and
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, the
estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of bifenthrin for acute
and chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.0140 parts per billion
(ppb) for surface water. The EECs for acute and chronic exposures are
estimated to be 0.003 ppb for ground water.

    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute and chronic dietary
risk assessments, the water concentration value of 0.0140 ppb (lettuce-
highest application rate (0.5 lb ai/A/season) 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).
    Bifenthrin is currently registered for the following residential
non-dietary sites: Indoor and outdoor residential non-dietary sites.
Adults are potentially exposed to bifenthrin residues during
residential application of bifenthrin. Adults and children are
potentially exposed to bifenthrin residues after application (post-
application) of bifenthrin products in residential settings. Exposure
estimates were generated for residential handlers and individuals
potential post-application contact with lawn, soil, and treated indoor
surfaces using the EPA's Draft Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for
Residential Exposure Assessment, and dissipation data from a turf
transferable residue (TTR) study. These estimates are considered
conservative, but appropriate, since the study data were generated at
maximum application rates. Short- to intermediate-term dermal and
inhalation exposures may occur for residential handlers of bifenthrin
products. Although residential handler risks from inhalation exposures
to bifenthrin vapor are considered unlikely since the vapor pressure of
bifenthrin is low, inhalation exposure was assessed during residential
mixing, loading, and application of granular products. Adults and
children may be potentially exposed to bifenthrin residues after
application of bifenthrin products in residential settings. Short-term
and intermediate-term post-application dermal exposures for adults, and
short-term and intermediate-term post-application dermal and incidental
oral exposures for children are anticipated. Exposure estimates were
generated for potential contact with lawn, soil, and treated indoor
surfaces.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Bifenthrin is a member of the pyrethroid class of pesticides.
EPA is not currently following a cumulative risk approach based on a
common mechanism of toxicity for the pyrethroids. Although all
pyrethroids alter nerve function by modifying the normal biochemistry
and physiology of nerve membrane sodium channels, available data show
that there are multiple types of sodium channels and it is currently
unknown whether the pyrethroids as a class have similar effects on all
channels or whether modifications of different types of sodium channels
would have a cumulative effect, nor do we have a clear understanding of
effects on key downstream neuronal function, e.g., nerve excitability,
or how these key events interact to produce their compound specific
patterns of neurotoxicity. Without such understanding, there is no
basis to make a common mechanism of toxicity finding. There is ongoing
research by the EPA's Office of Research and Development and pyrethroid
registrants to evaluate the differential biochemical and physiological
actions of pyrethroids in mammals. This research is expected to be
completed by 2007. When available, the Agency will consider this
research and make a determination of common mechanism as a basis for
assessing cumulative risk. For information regarding EPA's procedures
for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common mechanism
on EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall
apply an additional (``10X'') tenfold 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. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X
when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or,
if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA
safety factor value based on the use of traditional UFs and/or special
FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. EPA concluded there is not a
concern for prenatal and/or postnatal toxicity resulting from exposure
to bifenthrin. There was no quantitative or qualitative evidence of
increased susceptibility of rat or rabbit fetuses to in utero exposure
to bifenthrin in developmental toxicity studies and no quantitative or
qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility of neonates (as
compared to adults) to bifenthrin in a 2-generation reproduction study
in rats. Further, there was no quantitative or qualitative evidence of
increased susceptibility of neonates (as compared to adults) to
bifenthrin in a developmental neurotoxicity study. There are no
concerns or residual uncertainties for prenatal and/ or postnatal
toxicity following exposure to bifenthrin.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for bifenthrin is complete.
    ii. There is no evidence that bifenthrin 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 or the developmental neurotoxicity study.
    iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on anticipated residues and percent crop treated. These assumptions are
based on reliable data and will not underestimate the exposure and
risk. Conservative ground and surface water modeling estimates were
used. Similarly conservative Residential SOPs were used to assess post-
application exposure to children as well as incidental oral exposure of
toddlers. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and
risks posed by bifenthrin.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional
cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term,
and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to
the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all
applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to bifenthrin will occupy 25% of the aPAD for the population group all
infants <  1 year old, the highest estimated acute risk receiving the
greatest exposure. Therefore, EPA does not expect the aggregate
exposure to exceed 100% of the aPAD.

    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
bifenthrin from food and water will utilize 53% of the cPAD for the
population group children 3-5 years old, the highest estimated chronic
risk. Based on the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to
residues of bifenthrin is not expected.Therefore, EPA does not expect
the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the cPAD.
    3. Short-term and intermediate-term risks. Short-term and
intermediate-term aggregate exposures take into account residential
exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a
background exposure level).
    Bifenthrin is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term and intermediate-term residential exposures and the Agency
has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic food and
water and short-term and intermediate-term exposures for bifenthrin.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term and intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that food,
water, and residential exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs of
220 for the U.S. general population, 270 for all infants < 1 year old,
and 150 for children 3-5 years old, the subpopulation at greatest
exposure. These aggregate MOEs do not exceed the Agency's LOC for
aggregate exposure to food, water and residential uses. Therefore, EPA
does not expect short and intermediate-term aggregate exposures to
exceed the Agency's LOC.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency considers
the chronic aggregate risk assessment, making use of the cPAD, to be
protective of any aggregate cancer risk. See Unit III.E.2.
    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 bifenthrin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography (GC)/electron-
capture detection (ECD) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

B. International Residue Limits

    There are no Codex MRLs for the tolerances being requested in the
current petition.

C. Explanation of Tolerance Revisions

    1. Vegetable, fruiting, group 8. Tolerances are established for
residues of bifenthrin per se at 0.05 ppm in/on eggplant, at 0.15 ppm
in/on tomato, and at 0.5 ppm in/on bell and non-bell pepper. EPA has
determined that a fruiting vegetables crop group tolerance for residues
of bifenthrin per se is not appropriate for the following reasons:
Maximum residues in eggplant are more than a factor of five lower than
the tolerance for tomatoes and the use pattern for tomato and tomatillo
are different from the other members of the crop group in terms of the
PHI, maximum seasonal use rate, number of applications, and interval
between applications. However, EPA is establishing tolerances for
residues in/on groundcherry and pepino at 0.50 ppm based on the 0.5 ppm
tolerance for bell and non-bell pepper. As 40 CFR 180.1 indicates that
a tolerance for residues in/on tomato applies to tomatillo, a tolerance
for residues in/on tomatillo is not required.
    2. Vegetable, root, except sugar beet and garden beet, subgroup 1B.
Carrot and radish are the representative commodities of the root
vegetables, except sugar beet, crop subgroup (1B). The petitioner has
proposed tolerances for residues of bifenthrin in/on root vegetables,
except sugar beet, crop subgroup (1B) at 0.07 ppm. Residues of
bifenthrin ranged from < 0.05 to 0.07 ppm in radish roots with 4 of 6
trials showing residues levels less than the LOQ (< 0.05 ppm). Residues
of bifenthrin were less than the LOQ (< 0.05 ppm) in/on carrots from all
of the submitted trials (10 trials). Based upon the submitted data, EPA
concludes a tolerance for residues of bifenthrin per se in/on root
vegetables, except sugar beet and garden beet, crop subgroup (1B) at
0.10 ppm is appropriate.
    3. Radish, tops. Although not proposed in the Federal Register,
based upon the submitted data, HED concludes that a separate tolerance
for residues of bifenthrin per se in radish, tops at 4.5 ppm is
appropriate.
    4. Soybean, hulls and refined oil. The highest-average field trial
(HAFT) value for residues of bifenthrin in/on soybean, seed is 0.18
ppm. The processing factors for soybean, seeds to hulls, meal, refined
oil, and AGF are as follows:
     Soybean, seed hulls: 0.18 ppm x 2.6 = 0.47 ppm.
     Soybean, seed meal: No concentration of residues.
     Soybean, seed refined oil: 0.18 ppm x 1.6 = 0.29 ppm.
     Soybean, seed grain, aspirated fractions: 0.18 ppm x 380 =
68.4 ppm.
    Therefore, EPA concludes that tolerances should be established for
residues of bifenthrin in/on soybean, seed hulls at 0.50 ppm, soybean,
seed refined oil at 0.30 ppm and grain, aspirated fractions at 70 ppm.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerances are established for residues of
bifenthrin in or on mayhaw at 1.4 ppm; vegetable, root, subgroup 1B
except sugar beet and garden beet at 0.10 ppm; beet, garden, roots at
0.45 ppm; beet, garden, tops at 15 ppm; radish, tops at 4.5 ppm;
soybean, seed at 0.2 ppm; soybean, hulls at 0.50 ppm; soybean, refined
oil at 0.30 ppm; groundcherry at 0.5 ppm; pepino at 0.5 ppm; peanut at
0.05 ppm; pistachio at 0.05 ppm; and grain, aspirated fractions at 70
ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA 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 rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, 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 final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes,

nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power
and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption
provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. As such, the Agency has
determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect
on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the
national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus,
the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
(65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition,
This rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: October 10, 2007.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

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

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180. 442 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodities to the table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.442  Bifenthrin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. * * * (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Beet, garden, roots..................................               0.45
Beet, garden, tops...................................                 15
                                * * * * *
Grain, aspirated fractions...........................                 70
                                * * * * *
Groundcherry.........................................                0.5
                                * * * * *
Mayhaw...............................................                1.4
                                * * * * *
Peanut...............................................               0.05
                                * * * * *
Pepino...............................................                0.5
                                * * * * *
Pistachio............................................               0.05
                                * * * * *
Radish, tops.........................................                4.5
                                * * * * *
Soybean, hulls.......................................               0.50
Soybean, refined oil.................................               0.30
Soybean, seed........................................                0.2
                                * * * * *
Vegetable, root, subgroup 1B except sugar beet and                  0.10
 garden beet.........................................

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-20753 Filed 10-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register: December 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 248)]
[Notices]
[Page 76800]
[DOCID:fr28de05-89]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 459-144]

Union Electric Company d/b/a AmerenUE; Notice Dismissing
Complaint

December 20, 2005.
    On December 5, 2005, Osage River Flood Control Association, Inc.
filed a formal complaint against Union Electric Company, doing business
as AmerenUE, licensee of the Osage Hydroelectric Project No. 459. The
project is located on the Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri. The pleading
generally alleges that Osage River Flood Control Association's concerns
raised during the Alternative Licensing Process were ignored by
AmerenUE, and requests consideration of certain issues in the relicense
proceeding for the Osage Project.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ They request consideration of the following: a 30-year
license term rather than the 40-year term requested by AmerenUS;
earlier release of water in anticipation of rain than proposed by
AmerenUE; continuation in the new license of current maximum flow
levels while the project generates power rather than unlimited flow
levels which may increase erosion; creation of a new flood
management process; the effect of project on lower river recreation;
and assistance by the licensee to downstream farmers in raising the
height of the access to their islands of farm land in the lower
river.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issues raised in the pleading relate to conditions to be
considered in the ongoing relicense proceeding. As such, they are not
properly the subject of a formal complaint. Accordingly, the complaint
is dismissed and the comments raised in the pleading will be considered
in the relicense proceeding.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7926 Filed 12-27-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 54020-54021]
[DOCID:fr21se07-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL07-97-000, QF99-95-002, QF07-129-001]

Chugach Electric Association, Inc., Marlow Power & Steam, Inc.,
Tiqun Energy, Inc.; Notice of Filing

 September 17, 2007.
    Take notice that on September 12, 2007, Chugach Electric
Association, Inc., Marlow Power & Steam, Inc. and Tiqun Energy, Inc.
filed a Motion for Revocation of Qualifying Facility Status and
Petition for Declaratory Order seeks the revocation of the qualifying
facility status of KAPP and Pioneer.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the

comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to
serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the
Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 12, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-18656 Filed 9-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14394-14396]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05340]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0920; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-7]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes;
South and Central United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes three United States Area Navigation
(RNAV) routes, designated T-370, T-398, and T-419, in the south and
central United States. These routes supplement certain VHF
Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways in support of the VOR
Minimum Operational Network (MON) program, and they expand the
availability of RNAV routing in the National Airspace System (NAS).

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, May 19, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA,
email: [email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve
the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2021-0920, in the Federal Register (86 FR 60186; November 1, 2021),
to establish new RNAV routes T-370, T-398, and T-419 in the southern
and central United States. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal. One comment was received, but no specifics pertaining to
the proposal were included.
    United States RNAV T-routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA
Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15,
2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV
routes listed in this document would be subsequently published in FAA
Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing three new RNAV
routes T-370, T-398, and T-419 in the southern and central United
States. These routes overlie certain VOR Federal airways that are based
on navigation aids (NAVAIDs) that are planned for decommissioning under
the FAA's VOR MON program. The new routes are described below.
    T-370: T-370 extends between the BURBIN, TX, waypoint (WP) and the
VLKNN, AL, WP. T-370 overlies VOR Federal airway V-278 that extends
between the Bowie, TX, (UKW) VHF Omnidirectional Range Tactical Air
Navigation (VORTAC), and the Vulcan, AL, (VUZ) VORTAC. A number of
navigation aids (NAVAIDs) that currently form V-278 are planned for
decommissioning. Therefore, in the T-370 description, those NAVAIDs are
replaced by RNAV WPs as follows. The BURBN, TX, WP replaces the Bowie,
TX, (UKW) VORTAC. The RRORY, TX, WP replaces the Bonham, TX, (BYP)
VORTAC. The TASEY, TX, WP replaces the Paris, TX, (PRX) VOR/DME. The
SLOTH, TX, WP replaces the Texarkana, TX, (TXK) VORTAC. The RICKG, AR,
WP replaces the Monticello, AR, (MON) VOR/DME. The EJKSN, MS, WP
replaces the Greenville, MS, (GLH) VOR/DME. The IZAAC, MS, WP replaces
the Sidon, MS, (SQS) VORTAC. The SKNNR, MS, WP replaces the Bigbee, MS,
(IGB) VORTAC. The VLKNN, AL, WP replaces the Vulcan, AL, (VUZ) VORTAC.
    T-398: T-398 extends between the SLOTH, TX, WP, and the GMINI, NC,
WP. T-398 overlies VOR Federal airway V-54 that currently extends
between the Texarkana, TX, (TXK) VORTAC, and the Sandhills, NC, (SDZ)
VORTAC. A number of NAVAIDs that currently form V-54 are planned for
future decommissioning. Therefore, in the T-398 description, those
NAVAIDs are replaced by WPs as follows. The SLOTH, TX, WP replaces the
Texarkana, TX, (TXK) VORTAC. The LITTR, AR, WP replaces the Little
Rock, AR, (LIT) VORTAC. The EMEEY, AR, WP replaces the Marvell, AR,
(UJM) VOR/DME. The GOINS, MS, WP replaces the Holly Springs, MS, (HLI)
VORTAC. The HAGIE, AL, WP replaces the Muscle Shoals, AL, (MSL) VORTAC.
The FILUN, AL, WP replaces the Rocket, AL, (RQZ) VORTAC. The JILIS, GA,
WP replaces the Choo Choo, TN, (GQO) VORTAC. The BALNN, GA, WP replaces
the Harris, GA, (HRS) VORTAC. The BURGG, SC, WP replaces the
Spartanburg, SC, (SPA) VORTAC. The CRLNA, NC, WP replaces the
Charlotte, NC, (CLT) VOR/DME. The GMINI, NC, WP replaces the Sandhills,
NC, (SDZ) VORTAC.
    T-419: T-419 extends between the MAHTY, AR, WP, and the TERGE, IN,
WP. T-419 overlies those segments of VOR Federal airway V-305 that
extend between the Walnut Ridge, AR, (ARG) VORTAC, and the Pocket City,
IN, (PXV) VORTAC. A number of NAVAIDs that currently form V-305 are
planned for future decommissioning. Therefore, in the T-419
description, those NAVAIDs are replaced by WPs as follows. The MAHTY,
AR, WP replaces the Walnut Ridge, AR, (ARG) VORTAC. The FRNIA, MO, WP
replaces the Malden, MO, (MAW) VORTAC. The MESSR, KY, WP replaces the
Cunningham, KY, (CNG) VOR/DME. The TERGE, IN, WP replaces the Pocket
City, IN, (PXV) VORTAC.
    The full route legal descriptions of T-370, T-398, and T-419 are
listed in ``The Amendment'' section, below. These changes provide RNAV
routing to supplement VOR Federal airways that will be impacted by the
VOR MON program, and support the transition to a more efficient
Performance Based Navigation route structure.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of establishing three RNAV
routes T-370, T-398, and T-419, in support of efforts transitioning the
NAS from ground-based to satellite-based navigation, qualifies for
categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part
1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes
from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that
designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and
reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D,
and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting
Points); and paragraph 5-6.5b, which categorically excludes from
further environmental impact review ``Actions regarding establishment
of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15, Designation of jet
routes and VOR Federal airways) . . .'' As such, this action is not
expected to result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-370 BURBN, TX to VLKNN, AL [New]

BURBN, TX                     WP                  (Lat. 33[deg]32'09.20''N, long. 097[deg]49'15.83''W)
RRORY, TX                     WP                  (Lat. 33[deg]32'14.95''N, long. 096[deg]14'03.45''W)
TASEY, TX                     WP                  (Lat. 33[deg]32'32.56''N, long. 095[deg]26'54.55''W)
SLOTH, TX                     WP                  (Lat. 33[deg]30'49.99''N, long. 094[deg]04'24.38''W)
RICKG, AR                     WP                  (Lat. 33[deg]33'43.12''N, long. 091[deg]42'56.29''W)
EJKSN, MS                     WP                  (Lat. 33[deg]31'24.65''N, long. 090[deg]58'57.87''W)
IZAAC, MS                     WP                  (Lat. 33[deg]27'49.87''N, long. 090[deg]16'37.75''W)
SKNRR, MS                     WP                  (Lat. 33[deg]29'07.75''N, long. 088[deg]30'49.63''W)
BESOM, AL                     Fix                 (Lat. 33[deg]35'10.73''N, long. 087[deg]39'23.49''W)
NESTS, AL                     WP                  (Lat. 33[deg]36'53.34''N, long. 087[deg]20'51.86''W)
VLKNN, AL                     WP                  (Lat. 33[deg]40'12.47''N, long. 086[deg]53'58.83''W)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-398 SLOTH, TX to GMINI, NC [New]

SLOTH, TX                     WP                  (Lat. 33[deg]30'49.99''N, long. 094[deg]04'24.38''W)
MUFRE, AR                     Fix                 (Lat. 34[deg]05'31.32''N, long. 093[deg]10'43.80''W)
LITTR, AR                     WP                  (Lat. 34[deg]40'39.90''N, long. 092[deg]10'49.26''W)
EMEEY, AR                     WP                  (Lat. 34[deg]34'30.29''N, long. 090[deg]40'27.14''W)
GOINS, MS                     WP                  (Lat. 34[deg]46'12.64''N, long. 089[deg]29'46.81''W)
HAGIE, AL                     WP                  (Lat. 34[deg]42'25.87''N, long. 087[deg]29'29.76''W)
FILUN, AL                     WP                  (Lat. 34[deg]47'50.14''N, long. 086[deg]38'01.14''W)
JILIS, GA                     WP                  (Lat. 34[deg]57'23.98''N, long. 085[deg]08'03.46''W)
CRAND, GA                     Fix                 (Lat. 34[deg]57'28.88''N, long. 084[deg]51'20.59''W)
BALNN, GA                     WP                  (Lat. 34[deg]56'34.20''N, long. 083[deg]54'56.42''W)
BURGG, SC                     WP                  (Lat. 35[deg]02'00.55''N, long. 081[deg]55'36.86''W)
GAFFE, SC                     Fix                 (Lat. 35[deg]05'38.90''N, long. 081[deg]33'23.92''W)
CRLNA, NC                     WP                  (Lat. 35[deg]12'49.48''N, long. 080[deg]56'57.32''W)
LOCAS, NC                     Fix                 (Lat. 35[deg]12'05.18''N, long. 080[deg]26'44.89''W)
RELPY, NC                     Fix                 (Lat. 35[deg]12'45.70''N, long. 079[deg]47'28.76''W)
GMINI, NC                     WP                  (Lat. 35[deg]12'23.01''N, long. 079[deg]34'01.98''W)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-419 MAHTY, AR to TERGE, IN [New]

MAHTY, AR                     WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]06'36.35''N, long. 090[deg]57'12.65''W)
FRNIA, MO                     WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]33'18.69''N, long. 089[deg]54'40.47''W)
MESSR, KY                     WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]00'30.44''N, long. 088[deg]50'13.16''W)
TERGE, IN                     WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]55'42.47''N, long. 087[deg]45'44.19''W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-05340 Filed 3-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1103]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28387]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0886]

Special Local Regulation; Hanohano Ocean Challenge, San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the Hanohano Ocean Challenge
special local regulations on the waters of Mission Bay, California on
January 25, 2020. These special local regulations are necessary to
provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor
vessels, and general users of the waterway. During the enforcement
period, persons and vessels are prohibited from anchoring, blocking,
loitering, or impeding within this regulated area unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 will be enforced from 6 a.m.
through 2 p.m. on January 25, 2020 for Item 16 in Table 1 of Section
100.1101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
publication of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Briana Biagas,
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone
(619) 278-7656, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the special
local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1101 for the Hanohano Ocean Challenge
in Mission Bay, CA in 33 CFR 100.1101, Table 1, Item 16 of that section
from 6 a.m. until 2 p.m. on Saturday, January 25, 2020. This
enforcement action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waterways during the event. The Coast Guard's regulation for
recurring marine events in the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone
identifies the regulated entities and area for this event. Under the
provisions of 33 CFR 100.1101, persons and vessels are prohibited from
anchoring, blocking, loitering, or impeding within this regulated area,
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal,
State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast
Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notification of
this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine
information broadcasts, and local advertising by the event sponsor.
    If the Captain of the Port Sector San Diego or his designated
representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced
for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with
the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated
area.

    Dated: December 27, 2019.
T.J. Barelli,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2019-28387 Filed 1-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 167 (Wednesday, September 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49091-49092]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18801]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition To Modify an Exemption of a Previously Approved
Antitheft Device; Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition to modify an exemption of a previously
approved antitheft device.

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

SUMMARY: On February 2, 2009, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) granted in full Mitsubishi Motors R&D
(Mitsubishi) of America's petition for an exemption from the Federal
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (theft prevention standard) for
its Mitsubishi Outlander vehicle line beginning in model year (MY)
2011. On November 12, 2012, the agency granted Mitsubishi's first
petition to modify its previously approved exemption for the Outlander
vehicle line beginning with MY 2014. On August 1, 2019, Mitsubishi
submitted a second petition to modify its previously approved exemption
for the Outlander vehicle line beginning with MY 2022. On February 17,
2021, Mitsubishi submitted a third petition to modify its previously
approved exemption for a confidential variant of the Outlander vehicle
line beginning with MY 2023. Mitsubishi also requested confidential
treatment for specific information in its petition. Therefore, no
confidential information provided for purposes of this notice has been
disclosed.

DATES: The modification granted by this notice is effective beginning
with the 2023 MY.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-439, NRM-310, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is
(202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 2, 2009, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register a notice granting in full a petition from Mitsubishi
for an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541) for the Outlander vehicle line
beginning with its MY 2011 vehicles (see 74 FR 5891). Mitsubishi
equipped the MY 2011 Outlander vehicles with a passive, transponder-
based, electronic engine immobilizer device and an audible and visible
alarm.
    On August 6, 2012, Mitsubishi submitted a petition to modify the
previously approved exemption for the Outlander vehicle line. On
November 28, 2012 (see 77 FR 71030), the agency granted the petition
for modification of the previously granted exemption for the Outlander
vehicle line beginning with its MY 2014 vehicles. On August 1, 2019,
Mitsubishi submitted a second petition to modify the previously
approved exemption for the Outlander vehicle line. On May 11, 2020 (see
85 FR 27798), the agency granted the petition for modification of the
previously granted exemption for the Outlander vehicle line beginning
with its MY 2021 vehicles, although Mitsubishi later notified the
agency that the modification would be applied starting with its MY 2022
vehicles. On February 17, 2021, Mitsubishi submitted a third petition
to modify the previously approved exemption for a confidential variant
of the Outlander vehicle line beginning with its MY 2023 vehicles.
    Mitsubishi's submission is a complete petition, as required by 49
CFR part 543.10(d), in that it meets the general requirements contained
in 49 CFR part 543.5 and the specific content requirements of 49 CFR
part 543.6. Mitsubishi's petition for modification provides a detailed
description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the
components of the antitheft device proposed for installation beginning
with the 2023 MY.
    The details of Mitsubishi's first three previously-approved
antitheft devices are described in the February 2009, November 2012,
and May 2020 Federal Register notices granting their petitions for
exemption (see 74 FR 5891, 77 FR 71030, and 85 FR 27798), as discussed
above.
    In its third modification for its 2023 vehicles, Mitsubishi stated
that it will offer the one touch starting system (OSS 3) as standard
equipment for all confidential variants of the Outlander vehicles. The
OSS 3 is a transponder-based electronic immobilizer system that starts
the engine without using a mechanical key as long as the registered
iKey Fob is located in close proximity to the driver.
    When the ignition switch is pushed to the ``on'' position, the
transceiver module reads the specific ignition key code for the vehicle
and transmits an encrypted message containing the key code to the
electronic control unit (ECU) or hands free module (HFM), which
verifies that the key is correct. The immobilizer then sends a separate
encrypted start-code signal to the engine ECU or HFM to allow the
driver to start

the vehicle. The powertrain will function only if the key code matches
the unique identification key code previously programmed into the ECU
or HFM. If the codes do not match, the powertrain engine/motor will be
disabled.
    Mitsubishi stated that its immobilizer system is further enhanced
by several features that make it impossible to defeat, including
encrypted communication between the transponder and the ECU (HFM).
There are millions of different possible key codes for the new OSS 3
system making a successful key code duplication nearly impossible.
Mitsubishi stated that the immobilizer device and the ECU or HFM share
security data when first installed during vehicle assembly, making them
a matched set. These matched modules will not function if taken out and
reinstalled separately on other vehicles. Mitsubishi also stated that
the device is extremely reliable and durable because there are no
moving parts, the key does not require a separate battery and it is
impossible to mechanically override the device and start the vehicle.
    Mitsubishi stated that the Mitsubishi Outlander has been equipped
with the immobilizer device since MY 2007. Mitsubishi also stated that
the Eclipse, Galant, Endeavor, Lancer, Outlander Sport, I-MiEv, Mirage,
and the Eclipse Cross vehicle lines have been equipped with a similar
type of immobilizer device since January 2000, January 2004, April
2004, March 2007, September 2010, October 2011, July 2013 and December
2017 respectively, and they have all been granted parts-marking
exemptions by the agency. Mitsubishi further stated that its Eclipse
vehicle line has been equipped with a similar device since introduction
of its MY 2000 vehicles. Mitsubishi further stated that the theft rate
for the MY 2000 Eclipse decreased by almost 42% when compared with that
of its MY 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse (unequipped with an immobilizer
device).
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.8(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. In this
case, Mitsubishi's petition is granted under 49 U.S.C. 33106(d) and 49
CFR 543.8(c), which state that if the Secretary of Transportation
(NHTSA, by delegation) does not make a decision about a petition within
120 days of the petition submission, the petition shall be deemed to be
approved and the manufacturer shall be exempt from the standard for the
line covered by the petition for the subsequent model year.
    Separately, the agency finds that Mitsubishi has provided adequate
reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for its vehicle line
is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard. This conclusion is based on the information
Mitsubishi provided about its antitheft device. NHTSA believes, based
on the supporting evidence submitted by Mitsubishi and other
information NHTSA has received about the effectiveness of antitheft
devices, that the antitheft device for the confidential variant of the
Outlander vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the theft prevention standard.
    The agency concludes that Mitsubishi's antitheft device will
continue to provide the five types of performance listed in Sec.
543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to the efforts
of unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other
than a key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by
unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of
the device.
    The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies
those lines that are exempted from the theft prevention standard for a
given model year. 49 CFR 543.8(f) contains publication requirements
incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced
listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the
beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general
description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law
enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-
marking requirements of the theft prevention standard.
    If Mitsubishi decides not to use the exemption for this line, it
must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line
must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6
(marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Mitsubishi wishes in the future to modify the
device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. Section 543.8(d) states that a part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, section 543.10(c)(2) provides for
the submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use
of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified
in the exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that
section 543.10(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and
itself. The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if
Mitsubishi contemplates making any changes, the effects of which might
be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before
preparing and submitting a petition to modify.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby announces a grant in
full Mitsubishi's petition to modify the exemption for the confidential
variant of the Outlander vehicle line, beginning with its MY 2023
vehicles. NHTSA has determined that the modified device is likely to be
as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541.

Jane Doherty,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2021-18801 Filed 8-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5819-5822]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01673]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0025; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00804-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

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 Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (604 Variant)
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of oxygen leaks
caused by cracked, brittle, or broken oxygen hoses that were found
during scheduled maintenance tests of the airplane oxygen system. This
proposed AD would require replacing oxygen system hoses having any part
number in the O2C20T1 and O2C20T14 series. This AD also would prohibit
installation of affected oxygen hoses. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 16,
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-2023-0025; 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 service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response

Center, 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9,
Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email bombardier.com">[email protected]bombardier.com;
website bombardier.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: Elizabeth Dowling, Aerospace Engineer,
Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<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-2023-0025; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-00804-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
the 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
Elizabeth Dowling, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and
Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-
794-5531; 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-2022-34, dated June 20, 2022 (Transport
Canada AD CF-2022-34) (also referred to after this as the MCAI), to
correct an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-
2B16 (604 Variant) airplanes. The MCAI states oxygen leaks were caused
by cracked, brittle, or broken oxygen hoses that were found during
scheduled maintenance tests of the airplane oxygen system. A leak in
the oxygen system may result in failure to provide oxygen to passengers
and crew and result in an oxygen-enriched atmosphere creating a fire
risk on the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background
information.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-0025.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-006, Revision
01, dated January 28, 2022. This service information specifies
procedures for replacing oxygen system hoses having any part number in
the O2C20T1 and O2C20T14 series.
    The FAA also reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-35-002,
Revision 01, dated January 28, 2022. This service information specifies
procedures for replacing oxygen system hoses having any part number in
the O2C20T1 series. The service information also specifies optional
mitigating actions for certain airplanes (repetitive testing until
affected parts are replaced).
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is 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 accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described. This proposed AD would
also prohibit installation of affected oxygen hoses.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 42 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255...........................            $100             $355          $14,910
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                      Estimated Costs for Optional Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                                  Labor cost                                       Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85..............................................             $85              $85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
optional mitigating actions. The FAA has no way of determining the
number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255....            $100             $355
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the
cost impact on affected operators.

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:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2023-0025; Project Identifier MCAI-
2022-00804-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by March 16, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2B16 (604
Variant) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers
5701 through 5990 inclusive, and 6050 through 6162 inclusive, with
an interior modified in accordance with Supplemental Type
Certificate (STC) ST02355NY.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of oxygen leaks caused by
cracked, brittle or broken oxygen hoses that were found during
scheduled maintenance tests of the airplane oxygen system. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address a leak in the oxygen system. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure to
provide oxygen to passengers and crew and result in an oxygen
enriched atmosphere creating a fire risk on the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement

    At the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs
(g)(1) and (2) of this AD: Replace oxygen system hoses having any
part number in the O2C20T1 series, and, as applicable, the O2C20T14
series, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service information specified in figure 1 to paragraph
(g) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes having, as of the effective date of this AD, 6
years or less from the completion of the interior modification
specified in STC ST02355NY: Within 31 months after the effective
date of this AD, or no later than 12 months after the completion of
the interior modification specified in STC ST02355NY, whichever
occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes having, as of the effective date of this AD,
more than 6 years from the completion of the interior modification
specified in STC T02355NY: Within 7 months after the effective date
of this AD.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30JA23.000

(h) Optional Mitigation for Certain Airplanes

    For airplanes identified Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-35-002,
Revision 01, dated January 28, 2022, having, as of the effective
date of this AD, less than 6 years from the completion of the
interior modification specified in STC ST02355NY: In lieu of
accomplishing the oxygen system hose replacement required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, comply with all conditions specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (1) The passenger oxygen system is tested within 6 months after
the effective date of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 36 months, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-35-002, Revision 01, dated
January 28, 2022.
    (2) If, during a test specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD,
any leak is found on any hose, all oxygen system hoses having a part
number in the O2C20T1 series must be replaced before further flight
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 650-35-002, Revision 01, dated January 28, 2022.
Doing this replacement terminates the tests specified in paragraph
(h)(1) of this AD.
    (3) Except as specified by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, all
oxygen system hoses having a part number in the O2C20T1 series must
be replaced within 6 years from the completion of the interior
modification specified in STC ST02355NY. Doing this replacement
terminates the tests specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install any
oxygen system hose having a part number in the O2C20T1 and O2C20T14
series on any airplane.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) 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 Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-
006, dated August 23, 2021; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-35-
002, dated August 23, 2021; as applicable.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions specified in
paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-35-
002, dated August 23, 2021.

(k) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO 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 New York ACO
Branch, mail it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, at the address identified in paragraph (k)(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, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Bombardier, Inc.'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-2022-34, dated June 20,
2022, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found
in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-0025.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Elizabeth
Dowling, Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative
Services Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 516-794-
5531; 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 605-35-006, Revision 01, dated
January 28, 2022.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 650-35-002, Revision 01, dated
January 28, 2022.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400
C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email bombardier.com">[email protected]bombardier.com; website
bombardier.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 January 24, 2023.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-01673 Filed 1-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P