[Federal Register: November 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 216)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68701-68702]
[DOCID:fr09no10-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0397; Airspace Docket No. 10-AAL-7]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment and Amendment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes;
Alaska

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes two and modifies four Area Navigation
(RNAV) routes in Alaska. T and Q-routes are Air Traffic Service (ATS)
routes, based on RNAV, for use by aircraft having instrument flight
rules (IFR)-approved Global Positioning System (GPS)/Global Navigation
Satellite System (GNSS) equipment, or Distance Measuring Equipment
(DME)/DME Inertial Reference Unit (IRU) navigation capability. The FAA
is taking this action to enhance safety and improve the efficient use
of the navigable airspace in Alaska.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, January 13, 2011. 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 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace, Regulations and
ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

History

    On June 7, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish and amend Area Navigation
Routes in Alaska (75 FR 32120). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal. No comments were received. This amendment is the same as
that proposed in the NPRM.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 establishing two RNAV T-routes, T-267 and T-271, and modifying
three RNAV T-routes and one Q-route in Alaska. In response to comments
received for a NPRM published February 12, 2009, (74 FR 7012), a new T-
route (T-267) is established, which will circumvent the ocean near
Kotzebue, AK, allowing IFR aircraft to fly closer to the shoreline.
Also, one modified T-route continues south from Frederick's Point Non-
directional Beacon, for connectivity between Juneau and Ketchikan, AK.
Two T-routes are modified to allow lower minimum en route altitudes to
be flown. Additionally, one Q-route is revised to provide a more direct
route between Anchorage and Galena, AK. The RNAV routes described in
this rule will enhance safety, and facilitate more flexible and
efficient use of the navigable airspace for en route IFR operations in
Alaska.
    High Altitude RNAV routes are published in paragraph 2006, and Low
Altitude RNAV routes are published in paragraph 6011, in FAA Order
7400.9U dated August 18, 2010, and effective September, 15, 2010, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The airspace designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
    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.
Therefore, this regulation: (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 will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    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 establishes and amends RNAV routes in Alaska.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any
potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 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 the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2006 United States Area Navigation Routes

* * * * *

Q-8 ANC to GAL [Revised]

GAL.........................  VOR/DME.............  (Lat. 64[deg]44'17'' N., long. 156[deg]46'38'' W.)
ANC.........................  VOR/DME.............  (Lat. 61[deg]09'03'' N., long. 150[deg]12'24'' W.)

* * * * *

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes

* * * * *

T-227 SYA to SCC [Modified]

SYA.........................  VORTAC..............  (Lat. 52[deg]43'06'' N., long. 174[deg]03'44'' E.)
JANNT.......................  WP..................  (Lat. 52[deg]04'18'' N., long. 178[deg]15'37'' W.)
BAERE.......................  WP..................  (Lat. 52[deg]12'12'' N., long. 176[deg]08'09'' W.)
ALEUT.......................  FIX.................  (Lat. 54[deg]14'17'' N., long. 166[deg]32'52'' W.)
MORDI.......................  FIX.................  (Lat. 54[deg]52'50'' N., long. 165[deg]03'15'' W.)
GENFU.......................  FIX.................  (Lat. 55[deg]23'19'' N., long. 163[deg]06'22'' W.)
BINAL.......................  FIX.................  (Lat. 55[deg]46'00'' N., long. 161[deg]59'56'' W.)
PDN.........................   NDB/DME............  (Lat. 56[deg]57'15'' N., long. 158[deg]38'51'' W.)
BATTY.......................  FIX.................  (Lat. 59[deg]03'57'' N., long. 155[deg]04'42'' W.)
AMOTT.......................  FIX.................  (Lat. 60[deg]53'56'' N., long. 151[deg]21'46'' W.)
ANC.........................  VOR/DME.............  (Lat. 61[deg]09'03'' N., long. 150[deg]12'24'' W.)
FAI.........................  VORTAC..............  (Lat. 64[deg]48'00'' N., long. 148[deg]00'43'' W.)
SCC.........................  VOR/DME.............  (Lat. 70[deg]11'57'' N., long. 148[deg]24'58'' W.)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-266 CGL to ANN [Modified]

CGL.........................  NDB.................  (Lat. 58[deg]21'33'' N., long. 134[deg]41'58'' W.)
FPN.........................  NDB.................  (Lat. 56[deg]47'32'' N., long. 132[deg]49'16'' W.)
ANN.........................  VOR/DME.............  (Lat. 55[deg]03'37'' N., long. 131[deg]34'42'' W.)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-267 OME to OTZ [New]

OME.........................  VOR/DME.............  (Lat. 64[deg]29'06'' N., long. 165[deg]15'11'' W.)
BALIN.......................  FIX.................  (Lat. 64[deg]33'55'' N., long. 161[deg]34'32'' W.)
OTZ.........................  VOR/DME.............  (Lat. 66[deg]53'09'' N., long. 162[deg]32'24'' W.)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-271 CDB to AMOTT [New]

CDB.........................  VORTAC..............  (Lat. 55[deg]16'03'' N., long. 162[deg]46'27'' W.)
BINAL.......................  FIX.................  (Lat. 55[deg]46'00'' N., long. 161[deg]59'56'' W.)
AKN.........................  VORTAC..............  (Lat. 58[deg]43'29'' N., long. 156[deg]45'08'' W.)
AMOTT.......................  FIX.................  (Lat. 60[deg]53'56'' N., long. 151[deg]21'46'' W.)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-273 FAI to ROCES [Modified]

FAI.........................  VORTAC..............  (Lat. 64[deg]48'00'' N., long. 148[deg]00'43'' W.)
AYKID.......................  FIX.................  (Lat. 65[deg]50'58'' N., long. 147[deg]16'34'' W.)
TUVVO.......................  FIX.................  (Lat. 67[deg]37'20'' N., long. 146[deg]04'49'' W.)
ROCES.......................  WP..................  (Lat. 70[deg]08'34'' N., long. 144[deg]08'16'' W.)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 2, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-28192 Filed 11-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48787-48788]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21087]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 395

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0248]
RIN 2126-AC19

Hours of Service

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

ACTION: Notice of public listening sessions.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces two additional public listening sessions
on potential changes to its hours-of-service (HOS) rules for truck
drivers. On August 23, 2018, FMCSA published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public comment on four specific
aspects of the HOS rules for which the Agency is considering changes:
The short-haul HOS limit; the HOS exception for adverse driving
conditions; the 30-minute rest break provision; and the sleeper berth
rule to allow drivers to split their required time in the sleeper
berth. In addition, the Agency requested public comment on petitions
for rulemaking from the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
(OOIDA) and TruckerNation.org (TruckerNation). The Agency encourages
vendors of electronic logging devices (ELDs) to participate to address
potential implementation issues should changes to the HOS rules be
made. The listening sessions will be held in Orlando, FL, and in
Joplin, MO, and will be webcast for the benefit of those not able to
attend in person. The listening sessions will allow interested persons
to present comments, views, and relevant research on topics mentioned
above. All comments will be transcribed and placed in the rulemaking
docket for the FMCSA's consideration.

DATES: The listening sessions will be September 28, 2018, in Joplin,
MO, from 3:30-5 p.m., CDT, and on October 2, 2018, in Orlando, FL, from
9:30-11:30 a.m., EDT. The sessions will end earlier if all participants
wishing to express their views have done so.

ADDRESSES: The September 28, 2018, session will be held at 4 State
Trucks, 4579 MO-43, Joplin, MO 64804. The October 2, 2018, session will
be held at MetroPlan Orlando, 250 S Orange Ave., Suite 200, Orlando, FL
32801.
    You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0248
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Submissions Containing Confidential Business Information
(CBI): Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments, including collection of information comments for the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For special accommodations for the HOS
listening sessions, such as sign language interpretation, contact Ms.
Shannon L. Watson, Senior Advisor to the Associate Administrator for
Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, at
(202) 385-2395 or [email protected], two weeks in advance of each
session to allow us to arrange for such services. For information on
the listening sessions,

please contact Ms. Watson. For information concerning the HOS rules,
contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier Operations Division,
(202) 366-4325, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
ANPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0248), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each section applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0248, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period for the ANPRM. Late comments will be considered to the
extent practicable.
Confidential Business Information
    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is customarily not made available to the public by the
submitter. Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBI is eligible for
protection from public disclosure. If you have CBI that is relevant or
responsive to the ANPRM and associated listening sessions, it is
important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI.
Accordingly, please mark each page of your submission as
``confidential'' or ``CBI.'' Submissions designated as CBI and meeting
the definition noted above will not be placed in the public docket for
the ANPRM and associated listening sessions. Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation
Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, or via email
at [email protected]. Any commentary that FMCSA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period for the ANPRM.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0248, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On August 23, 2018 (83 FR 42631), FMCSA published an ANPRM
concerning potential changes to its hours-of-service rules. The ANPRM
indicated the Agency is considering changes in four areas of the HOS
rules: the short-haul HOS limit [49 CFR 395.1(e)(1)(ii)(A)]; the HOS
exception for adverse driving conditions [Sec.  395.1(b)(1)]; the 30-
minute rest break provision [Sec.  395.3(a)(3)(ii)]; and the sleeper
berth rule to allow drivers to split their required time in the sleeper
berth [Sec.  395.1(g)(1)(i)(A) and (ii)(A)]. In addition, the Agency
requested public comment on petitions for rulemaking from the Owner-
Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and TruckerNation.org
(TruckerNation). The ANPRM provides an opportunity for additional
discussion of each of these topics. The listening sessions will provide
interested persons an opportunity to share their views on these topics
with representatives of the Agency. The Agency encourages ELD vendors
to participate to address potential implementation issues should
changes to the HOS rules be made.

III. Meeting Participation

    The listening sessions are open to the public. Speakers' remarks
will be limited to 2 minutes each. The public may submit material to
the FMCSA staff at each session for inclusion in the public docket,
FMCSA-2018-0248. The sessions will be webcast live in their entirety,
providing the opportunity for remote participation via the internet.
For information on participating in the live webcasts, please go to
www.fmcsa.dot.gov.

IV. Questions for Discussion During the Listening Sessions

    In preparing their comments, meeting participants should consider
the questions posed in the ANPRM about the current HOS requirements.
Answers to these questions should be based upon the experience of the
participants and any data or information they can share with FMCSA.

    Issued on: September 24, 2018.
Cathy F. Gautreaux,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-21087 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

AN INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)

1.	Identification of the Information Collection

1(a).  Title of the Information Collection

Title:	Tolerance Petitions for Pesticides on Food/ Feed Crops and New
Inert Ingredients

EPA ICR No. 0597.10		 OMB Control No. 2070-0024

1(b).  Short Characterization/Abstract

The use of pesticides to increase crop production often results in
pesticide residues in or on the crop.  To protect the public health from
unsafe pesticide residues, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
sets limits on the nature and level of residues permitted pursuant to
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (See
Attachment A).  A pesticide may not be used on food or feed crops unless
the Agency has established a tolerance (maximum residue limit) for the
pesticide residues on that crop, or established an exemption from the
requirement to have a tolerance.

Under the law, EPA is responsible for ensuring that the maximum residue
levels likely to be found in or on food/feed are safe for human
consumption through a careful review and evaluation of residue chemistry
and toxicology data.  In addition, EPA must ensure that adequate
enforcement of the tolerance can be achieved through the testing of
submitted analytical methods.  If the data are adequate for EPA to
determine that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from aggregate exposure, the Agency will establish the tolerance or
grant an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

There are basically three types of tolerance actions:

Permanent tolerance (or an exemption from the requirement for a
permanent tolerance) for residues which would result from a pesticide
use registered under FIFRA.  These tolerances can be established for raw
and processed foods and they can address both active and inert
ingredients in pesticides.  The vast majority of these actions are taken
in response to petitions, but the Agency may also initiate such actions.

Temporary tolerance (or an exemption from the requirement for a
temporary tolerance) to permit the sale of commodities containing
residues resulting from authorized experimental use of an unregistered
pesticide.  In the absence of such a tolerance or exemption, all such
commodities must be destroyed.  In submitting an application for
Experimental Use Permit (EUP), the applicant may also request that the
Agency establish a tolerance or an exemption from the tolerance
requirement.  This ICR does not cover EUP related tolerance information
collection activities, which are covered by the ICR entitled,
Application for Experimental Use Permit (EUP) to Ship and Use a
Pesticide for Experimental Purposes Only (OMB Control #2070-0040, EPA
ICR No. 0276).

Time-limited tolerance (or an exemption there from) to permit the sale
of commodities containing residues resulting from a pesticide whose use
was authorized under Section 18 of FIFRA.  Under FIFRA §18, EPA may
allow States to use a pesticide for an unregistered use for a limited
time if EPA determines that emergency conditions exist.  The Food
Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), which amended the two primary
statutes regulating pesticides, i.e., FFDCA and the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), requires EPA to establish
tolerances to cover all pesticide residues in food, even residues
resulting from emergency uses (see Attachment B).  Although the Agency
initiates these tolerance actions, these actions are taken in response
to petitions for the Agency to issue an action under FIFRA §18.  This
ICR does not cover information collection related to FIFRA §18
tolerance activities, which is collected under the ICR entitled,
Application and Summary Report for an Emergency Exemption for Pesticides
(OMB Control #2070-0032, EPA ICR No.0596).

This ICR only applies to the information collection activities
associated with the submission of a petition for a tolerance action.
While EPA is authorized to set pesticide tolerances, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is responsible for their enforcement.  Food or feed
commodities found to contain pesticide residues in excess of established
tolerances are considered adulterated, and are subject to seizure by
FDA, and may result in civil penalties.

2.	Need For and Use of the Collection

2(a).	Need/Authority for the Collection

The tolerances for pesticide residues in food or feed are set primarily
under the authority of section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended.  The Agency takes these tolerance
actions either on its own initiative pursuant to FFDCA §408(e) or in
response to a petition filed pursuant to FFDCA §408(d).  The
regulations covering tolerances are contained in Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 180.  Actual listings of individual
tolerances by chemical are also found in Part 180 (See Attachment C).

Under FFDCA §408(d), any person may file a petition with EPA, proposing
the issuance of a regulation establishing, modifying, or revoking (a) a
tolerance for a pesticide chemical residue in or on food, or (b) an
exemption from the requirement to have a tolerance for such residue.
The Agency publishes a notice of receipt for such petitions in order to
provide an opportunity for public comment on the request, and then
either issues a final regulation, or a notice denying the petitioner’s
request.  FFDCA §408(d)(4) directs the Agency to issue a final
regulation establishing, modifying, or revoke a tolerance for the
pesticide chemical residue or an exemption of the pesticide chemical
residue from the requirement of a tolerance,  or issue an order denying
the petition.

Under FFDCA §408(e), at any time the Agency may issue a regulation
establishing, modifying, suspending, or revoking (a) a tolerance for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on food, or (b) an exemption from the
requirement to have a tolerance for such residue.  When initiating such
actions, FFDCA §408(e)(2) requires the Agency to issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking to provide an opportunity for public comment.

FQPA requires that tolerances be set at a level to ensure that there is
“a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure.”  Among other things, FQPA requires EPA to consider a number
of factors when setting such tolerances or registering pesticide
products, including:

special protection for infants and children;

aggregate exposure and risk from foods and other known sources, such as
drinking water and household pesticide use;

consideration of common mechanisms of toxicity (some chemicals have
different molecular structures but cause deleterious effects in the same
manner); and,

Consideration of endocrine disruptor effects.

The collection of information covered by this ICR is needed to ensure
that the statutory requirements related to tolerances can be met by the
public and EPA.  Food or feed commodities found to contain residues of a
pesticide without or in excess of established tolerances are considered
adulterated, and are subject to seizure by FDA, and may result in civil
penalties.

2(b).	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The FQPA directs the Agency to consider aggregate exposures from dietary
and non-occupational sources when assessing the risks of a chemical and
setting tolerances.  In addition to dietary exposure, such sources as
drinking water and residential lawn care use need to be considered.  EPA
must make the statutory determination that the resulting pesticide
residues in food or feed will result in a reasonable certainty of no
harm effects of human health from aggregate exposure through dietary,
non-occupational, and drinking water routes of exposure before
establishing the tolerance. EPA applies the FQPA standard to all
tolerances for newly-registered chemicals and food uses.

EPA does not require tolerance petitioners to submit any additional
information under this ICR in order for the Agency to determine that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure.  However, Section 408 of FFDCA requires petitioners submit
“an information summary of the petition and of the data, information
and arguments submitted or cited in support of the petition.”  FQPA
requires EPA to consider additional information in order to make the
necessary regulatory decisions.  To allow for the most efficient
processing and review of tolerance petitions, the Agency provides a
description of the types of information it considers helpful in the
appendices to Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice No. 97-1 (See
Attachment D).  EPA encourages petitioners to submit supplemental
information with their petitions to help EPA determine whether there is
a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure.

EPA uses the data to make decisions about the tolerance petitions.  The
Agency’s risk managers review, among other things, the regulatory
aspects of each petition and coordinate scientific review of the
supporting data.  Agency residue chemists and toxicologists review all
the applicable data.   As a result of these reviews, EPA is able to make
the statutory determination that the resulting pesticide residues in
food or feed will not cause unreasonable adverse dietary effects on
human health.

3.	Non Duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

3(a).	Non duplication

To avoid potential overlap between the requirement of developing data in
support of a tolerance petition and the development of data required for
the registration of a pesticide under FIFRA, EPA allows the use of data
required to support a tolerance petition that are already archived in
EPA records for use as part of a FIFRA registration of a pesticide to be
used in a like manner and in the same use pattern.

3(b).	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), EPA published a Federal Register (FR)
Notice announcing this proposed information collection activity and
providing a 60-day public comment period (74 FR 8537; February 25,
2009).  One public comment was received by email regarding difficulty in
accessing an Agency contact by email (see Attachment E).  Since the
public comment did not provide information related to the burden
estimates, no adjustments were made to the ICR based on this comment.

3(c).	Consultations

In addition to the public notice that EPA published in the Federal
Register concerning the renewal of this ICR, the Agency consulted, as
required under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), with stakeholders who actively
interact with the Agency through the use of this collection instrument.
EPA staff contacted the following relevant stakeholders and asked them
for their assessment of the regulatory burden estimates expressed by the
Agency in this ICR:

John Abbott

CropLife

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Daniel Kunkel, Ph.D.

IR-4 Program, Rutgers University

732-932-9575

Greg Watson

Syngenta Regulatory Affairs

336-632-2993

	Dr. Kunkel of Interregional Project Number 4 (IR-4) responded that the
management hours to “prepare petition” have increased from 42 to 55
over the previous ICR.  The 13 hour increase has been reflected in this
ICR.  This increase is due to the additional time that IR-4 spends
collecting from each tolerance petitioner the label amendment required
to be submitted with the registration package to qualify for
registration fee waivers.  See section 6(a) “Estimating Respondent
Burden” for details.

	No other responses have been received.

  	3(d).	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Not applicable.  This activity is conducted only once per "event," so a
less frequent collection is not possible.

3(e).  General Guidelines

Due to the statutory mandate for the permanent retention of supporting
chemistry and toxicological data related to pesticides, the data
included in petitions must be maintained for the life of the pesticide.
This mandate exceeds the PRA guideline that records be retained for no
more than three years.

OMB’s regulations require agencies to provide a statement indicating
whether the proposed collection of information involves the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses, and an explanation of the decision
(5 CFR 1320.5(a)(iii)(E)).  Petitioners have the option to
electronically submit underlying study data required by the Agency in
support of the tolerance petition process. Under this option,
petitioners need only submit 2 two paper copies if they submit the
required study data in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) on a
compact disc.  As EPA staff has become familiar with the electronic
submission process and the technology, OPP believes this option is
allowing the Agency to operate efficiently in the regulation of
pesticides through electronic delivery, review, interchange capability
and archiving of data supporting the petitions. Under this option, the
time normally required for OPP to complete its review of the data should
be shortened, thereby allowing faster regulatory decision-making.

The Agency believes that petitioners have become familiar with the
electronic submission process and the technology, and that they are able
to prepare their data submissions in less time.  The OPP expects
petitioners to spend less time and money on preparing copies and using
the hybrid paper-electronic submission option, and that they are
benefiting from the efficiencies that EPA expects to experience during
data reviews.

At this time of this renewal, OPP is not offering a fully electronic
submission option.  It is, however, beginning the process of defining
requirements for electronic submission of studies as well as other
elements of applications and petitions.  This includes efforts to
develop information technology approaches to adequately protect FIFRA
Confidential Business Information submitted over the Internet.  In the
interim, please see EPA’s Electronic Submission Interim Guidance
documents (Attachment F).

3(f).  Confidentiality

Trade secret or confidential business information (CBI) is frequently
submitted to the EPA in this program because submissions usually include
the manufacturing process, product formulation, and supporting data.
When such information is provided to the Agency, the information is
protected from disclosure under FIFRA Section 10.  CBI data submitted to
the EPA is handled strictly in accordance with the provisions of the
FIFRA Confidential Business Information Security Manual.

3(g).  Sensitive Questions

Not applicable.  No information of a sensitive or private nature is
requested in this information collection activity.

4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a).  Respondents/NAICS Codes

Respondents to this information collection activity include anyone who
files a petition asking the Agency to take a specific tolerance action.
While any entity can file a petition with the Agency, such petitions
typically come from those businesses engaged in the manufacturing of
pesticides and the Interregional Research Project No.4 (IR-4) (see
Attachment G).  Thus, the Agency only calculates the burden for these
two groups.

Although it is impossible to identify all the North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes for all of the potential
respondents, the NAICS code for the most frequent type of respondent is:

Respondent

Category

NAICS code

Examples of potentially

affected entities

Pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing

325320

Individuals or entities engaged in activities related to the
registration of a pesticide product.

Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services	541600
Establishments primarily engaged in administrative management and
general management consulting services.

4(b).  Information Requested

(i)    Data Items, Including Record Keeping Requirements

In addition to a cover letter and fee, a tolerance petition must include
the following nine parts:

Chemical identity

The name, chemical identity, and composition of the pesticide chemical.
If the pesticide chemical is an ingredient of a pesticide, the complete
quantitative formula of the resulting pesticide product should be
submitted.  The submission of this information does not restrict the
application of any tolerance or exemption granted to the specific
formula(s) submitted.

Chemical use

The amount, frequency, and time of application of the pesticide
chemical.

Safety reports

Include reports of investigations made with respect to the safety of the
pesticide chemical.  These reports should include, when necessary,
detailed data derived from appropriate animal or other biological
experiments in which the methods used and the results obtained are
clearly set forth.

Residue test results

The results of tests on the amount of residue remaining, including
description of the analytical method used.  (See 40 CFR 180.34 for
further information about residue tests.)

Residue removal

Practicable methods for removing residue that exceeds any proposed
tolerance.

Proposed tolerance

Proposed tolerances for the pesticidal chemical if specific tolerances
are being proposed.

Grounds for petition

Reasonable grounds in support of the petition.

Supplemental information

Analysis of factors relevant to the provisions of FQPA

Summary

An informative summary of the petition or application, including a
summary of the supporting data, information, accompanying rationales,
and a statement providing permission to publish such summary.  This
summary should indicate how approval of the petition will meet the
statutory determination required of “reasonable certainty of no
harm.”

There are no forms associated with this information collection. The data
compiled should be submitted as separate sections, suitably identified.
If data have already been submitted with an earlier application, the
petitioner may incorporate it by reference in the present petition.  The
petition must be submitted in triplicate.  The petitioner must also show
that the pesticide is already registered for the related food or feed
use, or that an application for the registration of a pesticide for the
related food or feed use has been submitted pursuant to FIFRA section 3
(see Attachment H).

(ii)   Respondent Activities

In order for a tolerance to be established for a pesticide product, a
respondent (petitioner) must do the following:

Review regulations

Read applicable FFDCA provisions and related tolerance regulations;

Prepare information

Prepare supplemental information to aid Agency decision-making
concerning a tolerance petition, as encouraged by the Agency and
outlined in Pesticide Registration Notice 97-1.

If necessary, this may involve:

conducting additional toxicological or residue chemistry studies

developing analytical methods

*If review is conducted by IR-4, label amendments and PRIA incentives
review is conducted

Prepare correspondence

Generate petition correspondence, including preparing an informative
summary to be published in the Federal Register;

Review Agency comment

If applicable, read any Agency notice of petition deficiency;

Respond to Agency comment

Submit supplemental information or petition, or request that petition be
filed as submitted; and

Maintain records

Store, file and maintain the information submitted.

The Information Collected - Agency Activities, Collection Methodology,
and Information Management

5(a)	Agency Activities

Upon receipt of a tolerance petition, EPA performs the following
activities:

Log Receipt

Log petition and associated fee.

Review petition

Screen petition, fee, and supporting data for completeness and
acceptability; resolve any deficiencies with petitioner.

Prepare Federal Register notice

Upon acceptance, publish notice of filing in Federal Register.

Review data

Review supporting residue chemistry, toxicology data and other
assessments received.

Test analytical methods

Test proposed analytical methods in EPA laboratories, if they are new or
modified.

Integrate review

Integrate data reviews and determine adequacy; resolve any deficiencies
with petitioner, make registration decision.

Prepare decision document

Prepare decision document, Federal Register Notice with rule
establishing the tolerance(s) or exemption(s).

Maintain records

Record all actions and decisions in official records.

5(b).	Collection Methodology and Management

Specific studies submitted as part of petition are catalogued and
archived as they are received.  When the Agency review is complete, the
remaining portions of the petition record, including correspondence
subsequent to filing and all reviews, notices, and other materials
created by EPA in the course of its review, are catalogued and archived.
 All petition materials are retained permanently.

5(c).	Small Entity Flexibility

At times, small entities seek a tolerance or an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for pesticide residues resulting from
registered uses.  These actions are usually initiated for minor crop
uses for which the petitioner is unwilling to seek a tolerance or for
residues on commodities which are not grown in the United States and
therefore for which there is no U.S. registrant, such as import
tolerances.  In such cases, the EPA can reduce the burden and cost to
small entities by adjusting the range of data requirements to be
commensurate with the extent of pesticide use.  The Agency also uses
this type of regulatory flexibility to set tolerances for residues on
commodities which are not grown in the United States.

5(d).	Collection Schedule

Not applicable.  This is not a scheduled collection.  A petition is
required only once for each raw or processed commodity on which the
pesticide is used.

6.	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

6(a).   Estimating Respondent Burden

 	The current ICR renewal estimates that an average of 103 tolerance
petitions will be submitted to the Agency each year for the next three
years.  The Agency estimates that 64 of the 103 tolerance petitions will
be submitted directly by petitioners, and 39 will be submitted by IR-4.
This estimate is based on the average number of tolerance petitions
received by the Agency in the past three years (2006, 2007, and 2008),
and is a change from the estimate of the previous ICR of 150 tolerance
petitions.  The Agency estimates that the average paperwork burden
associated with the submission of a single tolerance petition is 1,726
hours for petitioners and 1,739 hours for those submitted through IR-4.
There is a 13 hour increase for processing each IR-4 petition due to a
fee waiver incentive to submit label amendments with the registration
package and the tolerance petitions.

	The Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) of 2003, renewed
under PRIA 2, established registration service fees for pesticide
registration actions.  (See Attachments I and J.)  On March 6, 2008, the
President signed a technical correction to PRIA 2 to exempt fees for
certain registration applications associated with IR-4 tolerance
petitions.  This correction became effective retroactively on October 1,
2007.  To qualify for the IR-4 provisions for this fee exemption, EPA
requires that the tolerance petitions be submitted solely in connection
with the registration package, and must include a label amendment
request indicating the new use(s), application rates, as well as any
precautionary and advisory statements under the proposed tolerance.
Thus, IR-4 is conducting more preliminary reviews for the label
amendments, which has resulted in a slightly increased burden when
compared with the other petitioners. (See Attachment K.)

	Assuming that the Agency will receive an average of 103 tolerance
petitions each year for the next 3 years, the Agency estimates that the
overall annual paperwork burden for all petitioners will be 178,285
hours.  This estimate is 80,615 hours less than the previous estimate,
resulting from a reduction in the estimated number of tolerance
petitions that the Agency anticipates receiving in the next three years.

Since 1995, the Agency has allowed for the use of a single petition to
request a tolerance action(s) for a group of similar crops, or "Crop
Groupings," rather than submitting individual petitions on a crop by
crop basis.  FQPA amendments also allow anyone to submit a petition,
where previously only registrants could submit the petition.  Currently,
the Agency does not have tracking mechanisms in place to disaggregate
petitions submitted as crop groupings from those submitted as individual
crops or to disaggregate the various groups of petitioners.   However, a
very informal review of some of the petitions seems to indicate
petitioners are taking advantage of at least the crop grouping
flexibility where  some have sought as many as 15 crops per petition.

In addition, the decrease in the number of petitions can be partially
attributed to a fee waiver incentive under PRIA and PRIA II for entities
who submit 6 or more food uses under one tolerance petition.
Particularly with new chemicals, the Agency has been receiving an
increasing number of multiple crop groups of 6 or more uses with the
initial application.  The burden hours for these types of petitions have
not increased over the previous ICR as there has been no change in the
process for activities involved with crop grouping submissions.

Section 408 of FFDCA requires petitioners submit an information summary
of the petition and of the data, information and arguments submitted or
cited in support of the petition. FQPA requires EPA to consider
additional information in order to make the necessary regulatory
decisions.  EPA encouraged petitioners who previously submitted data
prior to enactment of the law to supplement their original submissions
with additional information to aid the Agency’s decision-making
process in light of its new statutory mandates.  To allow for the most
efficient processing and review of tolerance petitions, the Agency
provided a description of the types of information that EPA considers
helpful in the appendices to Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice No.
97-1.

EPA continues to encourage petitioners to develop new and/or submit any
existing supplemental information with their petitions to help EPA
determine whether there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from aggregate exposure.  EPA uses the data to make decisions
about the tolerance petitions.  The Agency’s risk managers review,
among other things, the regulatory aspects of each petition and
coordinate scientific review of the supporting data.  Agency residue
chemists and toxicologists review all the applicable data.

Two types of respondent burden are considered in this analysis:
administrative burden and technical burden.  The respondents’
administrative burden is defined as the time spent to prepare and submit
a petition to the Agency.  This burden includes the time spent working
with the Agency throughout the petition process, gathering data and
supplemental information (such as safety reports, residue test data,
residue removal data), drafting the grounds for the petition, reviewing
and submitting the petition.  Technical burden includes the labor needed
to actually derive the test data which involves designing the test,
performing it, compiling test data and summarizing the results.  Only
burden related to the documentation of the test results, complying with
good laboratory standards in conducting the tests, and storing testing
information in files are included in the technical burden estimates for
this ICR.

	The Agency’s estimate of petitioner burden was largely developed for
the previous Tolerance Petition ICR, using information from the
regulated community, and underwent several rounds of public scrutiny.
The information was supplemented with additional feedback from IR-4 and
other tolerance petitioners.  The estimate also draws from the expertise
of the Agency’s lead divisions for the tolerance petition review
process (AD, BPPD, and RD), and their understanding of changing
programmatic requirements that may affect tolerance petitioners’
burden.  The Agency will consider information received through public
comment to further refine estimates of petitioner burden.

6(b) Estimating Respondent Cost

Consistent with recent ICR renewals, OPP has used labor cost estimates
from Agency

economists with respect to wages, benefits and overhead for all labor
categories for affected industries. The goal is to continue to use a
transparent, consistent methodology and current, publicly-available
data, to provide more accurate estimates and allow easy replication of
the estimates.

Methodology: The methodology uses data on each sector and labor type for
an Unloaded

wage rate (hourly wage rate), and calculates the Loaded wage rate
(unloaded wage rate +

benefits), and the Fully loaded wage rate (loaded wage rate + overhead).
Fully loaded wage rates are used to calculate respondent costs. This
renewal uses 2007 base data.

Unloaded Wage Rate: Wages are estimated for labor types (management,
technical, and

clerical) within applicable sectors. The Agency uses average wage data
for the relevant sectors available in the National Industry-Specific
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.

Sectors: The specific North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code and

website for each sector is included in that sector’s wage rate table.
Within each sector, the wage data are provided by Standard Occupational
Classification (SOC). The SOC system is used by Federal statistical
agencies to classify workers into occupational categories for the
purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating data (see
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm ).

Loaded Wage Rate: Unless stated otherwise, all benefits represent 43% of
unloaded wage

rates, based on benefits for all civilian non-farm workers, from
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm. However, if other sectors
are listed for which 43% is not applicable; the applicable percentage
will be stated.

Fully Loaded Wage Rate: We multiply the loaded wage rate by 50% (EPA
guidelines 20-

70%) to get overhead costs. A copy of the formula work sheets used to
re-estimate the labor rates and to derive the fully loaded rates and
overhead costs for all respondents (tolerance petitioners and
petitioners who submit through IR-4) and the Agency for this ICR renewal
are listed in AttachmentsL, M, and N respectively.

Table 1. PETITIONER BURDEN/COST ESTIMATES

ACTIVITIES	HOURS and RATES	COSTS

(per petition)

	Mgmt. $138/hr	Tech. $73/hr	Cler.

$42/hr	Total Hours

Total Costs

Review FFDCA regulations CFR citation; PRN 97-1	25	48	24	97	$7,962

Conduct Field Trial 	252	1,080	25	1,357	$114,666

Prepare Petition	42	30	116	188	$12,858

Read Notice of any petition deficiency	1	1	1	3	$253

Prepare response 	2	44	12	58	$3,992

Maintain information	1	8	14	23	$1,310

TOTAL BURDEN	323	1,211	192	1,726	$141,041

Data Source:  U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May,
2007. (See cost worksheet Attachment L).

Table 1. IR-4 BURDEN/COST ESTIMATES PER PETITION

ACTIVITIES	HOURS and RATES	COSTS

(per petition)

	Mgmt. $129/hr	Tech. $66/hr	Cler.

$36/hr	Total Hours

Total Costs

Review FFDCA regulations CFR citation; PRN 97-1	25	48	24	97	$7,257

Conduct Field Trial 	252	1,080	25	1,357	$104,688

Prepare Petition	55	30	116	201	$13,251

Read Notice of any petition deficiency	1	1	1	3	$231

Prepare response 	2	44	12	58	$3,594

Maintain information	1	8	14	23	$1,161

TOTAL BURDEN	336	1,211	192	1,739	$130,182

Data Source:  U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May,
2007. (See cost worksheet Attachment M).

 	For tolerance petitioners, the value of labor per hour for management,
technical, and clerical is $138, $73, and $42, respectively.  Labor
rates are by occupation for the Research and Development in the
Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences industry and are taken from the
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Labor rates are
fully loaded and include benefits and overhead costs applied using
procedures outlined in the Agency’s 2002 publication “EPA Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual”.  Using the Agency’s burden estimate
and fully-loaded labor rates, the Agency estimates petitioner costs to
be approximately $141,041 per response.  The overall annual cost to
petitioners associated with this information collection, based on an
estimate of 64 petitions per year, is estimated to be $9,026,624.

	For IR-4, the value of labor per hour for management, technical, and
clerical is $129, $66, and $36, respectively.  Labor rates are by
occupation for Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services
industry (NAICS 541600).  The managerial labor rate is based on the
Standard Occupational Code (SOC) for management occupations; the
technical labor rate is based on the SOC for life, physical and social
science occupations; and the clerical labor rate is based on the SOC for
office and administrative support occupations.  Data is from the U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Labor rates are fully
loaded and include benefits and overhead as described above.  Using the
Agency’s burden estimate and fully-loaded labor rates, the Agency
estimates IR-4 costs to be approximately $$130,182 per response.  The
overall annual cost to petitioners associated with this information
collection, based on an estimate of 39 petitions per year, is estimated
to be $5,077,098.

	The overall annual cost to respondents associated with this information
collection, including petitioners and IR-4, based on an estimate of 39
petitions per year, is estimated to be $14,103,722.

ANNUAL COSTS:

Industry

Management:	323 hours * $138 per hour * 64 tolerance petitions =
$2,852,736

Technical:	1,211 hours * $73 per hour * 64 tolerance petitions =
$5,657,792

Clerical:	192 hours * $42 per hour * 64 tolerance petitions =	$516,096

	Industry TOTAL:	$9,026,624

IR-4

Management:	336 hours * $129 per hour * 39 tolerance petitions =
$1,690,416

Technical:	1,211 hours * $66 per hour * 39 tolerance petitions =
$3,117,114

Clerical:	192 hours * $36 per hour * 39 tolerance petitions =	$269,568

	IR-4 TOTAL:	$5,077,098

	GRAND TOTAL:	$14,103,722

These labor burden estimates represent average time and costs.  Some
tolerance petitions will require less effort and more complicated
petitions will require more.  The analysis assumes that one respondent
will generate the data for a given petition.  If a consortium takes
responsibility for the petition, the burden and cost will be distributed
across members of the consortium.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA 2), which
became effective on October 1, 2007, requires the program to streamline
and create service fees for registration actions (see Attachment O).
This statute creates a more predictable evaluation process for affected
pesticide decisions, and couples the collection of individual fees with
specific decision review periods. PRIA 2 also promotes shorter decision
review periods for different types of pesticide applications.  PRA
burden hour and cost estimates for the PRIA program have been OMB
approved under the Pesticide Registration Fee Waivers ICR (OMB Control
No. 2070-0167; EPA No. 2147) and are not included in the estimates for
this ICR.  The program reconfigured internal organizations to meet these
new challenges, which has reduced the PRA burden hours and costs for the
petitioners, and increased PRA burden hours and costs on the Agency
under this ICR.

For this ICR renewal, the Agency is using data on internal OPP Divisions
that provide significant support and analysis for the FIFRA tolerance
petition ICR program.  This data is taken from the Time and Attendance
Information System (TAIS), which archives the Agency’s Full Time
Equivalents (FTEs) for most OPP program activities (see Attachment P).
In the past, the Agency burden calculations for this ICR reflected only
activities for the tolerance petition ICR lead divisions (the
Registration Division (RD), the Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention
Division (BPPD), and the Antimicrobial Division (AD)).  The 2009 renewal
has added the appropriate FTE activity data from the Health and Effects
Division (HED), the Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD),
Special Review and Re-registration Division (SRRD), Field and External
Affairs Division (FEAD) and the Environmental Fate and Effects Division
(EFED).  This approach reflects that (8) OPP Divisions work together to
complete the activities related to OPP tolerance petition reviews.  The
Agency believes that using data from the TAIS reflects the changes to
the internal operations for implementing and administering tolerance
petition activities.  The major impetus for internal program realignment
was to implement the requirements of the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 and the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of 2003 (PRIA) as
reauthorized.

Using this new source of data the estimated number of Agency FTE’s
dedicated to tolerance petition activities is approximately 3 managerial
FTEs as shown in Table 2, 19 technical FTEs as shown in Table 3, and 2
clerical FTEs as shown in Table 4.  The aggregated Agency estimated FTE
dedicated to tolerance petition activities is 24 and the burden hours
are 49,920, assuming 2,080 hours per FTE.

Table 2 – Distribution of Agency Managerial FTEs Supporting Tolerance
Petition Activities3

AD	BEAD	BPPD	EFED	FEAD	HED	RD	SRRD

<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	1.1	<1

Agency total 	3

Annual Agency burden hours were calculated using the number of hours per
FTE multiplied by the number of FTE’s (2080 * 3 = 6,240).

Table 3 – Distribution of Agency Technical FTEs Supporting Tolerance
Petition Activities

AD	BEAD	BPPD	EFED	FEAD	HED	RD	SRRD

<1	1.2	<1	2.5	<1	3.8	9.6	<1

Agency total 	19

Annual Agency burden hours were calculated using the number of hours per
FTE multiplied by the number of FTE’s (2080 *19 = 39,520).

Table 4 – Distribution of Agency Clerical FTEs Supporting FIFRA
Tolerance Petition Activities3

AD	BEAD	BPPD	EFED	FEAD	HED	RD	SRRD

<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1

Agency total 	2

Annual Agency burden hours were calculated using the number of hours per
FTE multiplied by the number of FTE’s (2080 * 2 = 4,160).

To determine Agency costs, the Agency used the Bureau of Labor
Statistics estimates of labor rates for the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code for the Federal Executive Branch
(NAICS 999100).  The managerial labor rate is based on the Standard
Occupational Code (SOC) for management occupations; the technical labor
rate is based on the SOC for life, physical and social science
occupations; and the clerical labor rate is based on the SOC for office
and administrative support occupations.  The labor rates are fully
loaded and indexed to 2007 dollars.  The fully loaded hourly mean wage
rate estimate for managerial occupations is $103 for an average annual
FTE cost of $214,240 ($103 per hour * 2,080 hours).  For technical
occupations, the fully loaded mean wage rate is $71 for an average
annual FTE cost of $147,680.  And for clerical occupations, the fully
loaded mean wage rate is $41 for an average annual FTE cost of $85,280.
(See Worksheet for NAICS 999100 EPA or Federal Government, Attachment
N.)

To calculate the Agency’s estimated annual cost of tolerance petition
activities, the number of FTEs allocated to tolerance petition
activities is multiplied by the cost per FTE.  This represents the
Agency’s estimate of its cost that will result from tolerance petition
activities for each of the next three years. Annual estimated management
costs are $642,720 (3 FTE * $214,240 per FTE); technical costs are
$2,805,920 (19 FTE * $147,680 per FTE); and clerical costs are $170,560
(2 FTE * $85,280 per FTE).  Total estimated Agency cost is $3,619,200.

	6(d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

Table 5 - Burden Hour and Cost Summary

	Burden Hours	Cost

Petitioner Burden	178,285	$14,103,722

Agency Burden	49,920	$3,619,200

6(e) Reason for Changes in Burden

Agency

The EPA has significantly lowered processing hours to about two-thirds
of the previous ICR due to changes in the anticipated number of
tolerance petitions in the next three years.  The Agency estimates that
an average of 103 tolerance petitions will be received annually.  This
is a decrease by 47 tolerance petitions annually.  The estimate is based
on the average number of tolerance petitions received by the Agency in
the years FY2006, FY2007, and FY2008.  In addition, the Agency is using
a new source of data consistent with its time reporting to calculate
burden.  According to this data source, processing tolerance petitions
requires significantly fewer hours than previously understood.  The
decrease in hours and costs reflects both internal program adjustments
and changes in the method used to calculate Agency burden

Petitioners (Respondents)

EPA estimates a net decrease of 80,615 hours annually over the expiring
ICR.  The decrease is primarily related to EPA’s projection that 47
fewer tolerance petitions will received from the pesticide registrant
community annually compared to the previous three years (2006, 2007, and
2008), down from 150 submissions to 103. This would result in a
corresponding 81,122 hour reduction in estimated annual burden.  The
change is an adjustment.  In addition, EPA estimates that IR-4
petitioners are changing the way in which they compile tolerance
petitions for submission to EPA in an effort to capture the new fee
waiver incentives under the Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal
Act.  This change in IR-4 petition preparation results in an additional
13 hours per response, resulting in a program change increase of 507
hours annually.

6(f) Burden Statement

 The annual respondent burden for collection of information associated
with tolerance petitions is estimated to average 1,726 hours for
petitions submitted by industry  and 1,739 for petitions submitted by
IR-4 participants.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.The Agency has established a public docket for
this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0927, which is available
for online viewing at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the OPP Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal
Drive, Arlington, VA.  This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  You may submit comments regarding
the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided
burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent
burden, including the use of automated collection techniques.

	Comments may be submitted to EPA electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or by mail addressed to Director, Collection
Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  You can also send
comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: Desk Office for EPA.  Include docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0927 and OMB control number 2070-0024 in any
correspondence but do not submit information under this collection to
these addresses.

Attachments List: Supporting Statement (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0927)

All of the attachments listed below can be found in the docket for this
ICR (unless otherwise noted); accessible electronically through
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/"  www.Regulations.gov  . On the
main page, select Advanced Search from the menu bar at the top and
select Docket Search. Enter the Docket ID Number, EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0927
in the Docket ID field. Click on the Submit button. From the results
page, you will be able to link to the docket view or directly open
select documents.

ATTACHMENT A:	FFDCA Section 408 (21 U.S.C. Sections 346a)

  HYPERLINK
"http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t21t25+14
9+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2821%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%
20w%2F10%20%28346a%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20"
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t21t25+149
+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2821%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%2
0w%2F10%20%28346a%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

ATTACHMENT B:     Accomplishments under the Food Quality Protection Act

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/fqpa_accomplishments
.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/fqpa_accomplishments.
htm

ATTACHMENT C:	40 CFR Part 180 - Tolerances and Exemptions from
Tolerances for Pesticide Chemicals in Food

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/40cfr180_04.html"
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/40cfr180_04.html

ATTACHMENT D:	PR Notice 97-1 - Agency Actions under the Requirements of
the Food Quality Protection Act

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr97-1.html"
http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/pr97-1.html

ATTACHMENT E: 	Public Comment (see docket)

ATTACHMENT F:	Electronic Submission Interim Guidance Documents

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/registering/submissions/"
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/registering/submissions/

ATTACHMENT G:	7 USC 450i: Competitive, special, and facilities research
grants

			  HYPERLINK
"http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/nri/nri_7usc450i.html"
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/nri/nri_7usc450i.html

ATTACHMENT H:	FIFRA Section 3 (7 U.S.C 136a) (see page 16):

  HYPERLINK
"http://agriculture.senate.gov/Legislation/Compilations/Fifra/FIFRA.pdf"
 http://agriculture.senate.gov/Legislation/Compilations/Fifra/FIFRA.pdf

7 U.S.C. 136a:

			  HYPERLINK
"http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/usc_sec_07_00000136---a000-.html"
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/7/usc_sec_07_00000136---a000-.html

ATTACHMENT I:	Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA)

 	  HYPERLINK
"http://agriculture.senate.gov/Legislation/Compilations/Fifra/FIFRA.pdf#
page=97"
http://agriculture.senate.gov/Legislation/Compilations/Fifra/FIFRA.pdf#p
age=97

ATTACHMENT J:	Pesticide Registration Improvement Renewal Act (PRIA 2)
Related applications and Their Fees (Primary and Secondary)

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/fees/related-apps.html"
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/fees/related-apps.html

ATTACHMENT K:	Registration Service Fees Guidance on IR-4 Exemptions

			  HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/questions/guidance_ir-4.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/fees/questions/guidance_ir-4.htm

ATTACHMENT L:	Worksheets Used to Calculate Pesticide Industry (Tolerance
Petitioner) Labor Costs

ATTACHMENT M:	Work Sheets used to Calculate IR-4 Labor Costs

ATTACHMENT N:	Worksheets Used to Calculate EPA and Federal Government
Labor Costs

ATTACHMENT O: 	PRIA 2: Fees for Registration Applications

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/fees/"
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/fees/

ATTACHMENT P:	Time and Attendance Information System (TAIS) Plan Program
Accomplishment (PPA) Codes Used to Calculate EPA and Federal Government
Burden Hours

     	PR Notice 97-1 applies to most applicants with registration
applications, non-crop-destruct experimental use permit applications,
and tolerance or tolerance exemption petitions pending within the
Agency.  It also applies to most future applicants seeking new or
amended pesticide registrations and all actions involving synthetic
chemicals, antimicrobial, biochemical and microbial pesticides.

 IR-4 industry classification based on National Economic Impact, Center
for Economic Analysis

Michigan State University, May 25, 2007,   HYPERLINK
"http://ir4.rutgers.edu/Other/IR4EconomicImpact.pdf"
http://ir4.rutgers.edu/Other/IR4EconomicImpact.pdf .

     	The Agency burden related to OPP’s Information Technology and
Resource Management Division (ITRMD) processing activities are not
included in the burden estimate because ITRMD provides the preliminary
data processing and tracking for many OPP ICR activities including
tolerance petitions.  These systems are integrated for efficient
processing, tracking, and maintaining data but they do not readily lend
themselves to a clear burden breakdown by ICR activity.

     	The FTE burden in SRRD and FEAD for each labor category
(managerial, technical and clerical) amounted to significantly less than
1 FTE. The estimate for the Agency FTE for each labor category was
rounded up to account for the contribution of FEAD and SRRD to the
tolerance petition FTE burden.

September 9, 2009

 PAGE

  PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  20

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register: March 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 45)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 10694-10696]
[DOCID:fr09mr10-18]

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

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0235; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-010-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; AeroSpace Technologies of Australia Pty
Ltd Models N22B, N22S, and N24A Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: The results of full scale
fatigue tests being conducted by the manufacturer have shown the need
for inspection of critical fastener holes in the stub wing upper front
spar cap, near the wing strut attachment. The proposed AD would require
actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in
the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 23, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0235;
Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-010-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On July 11, 1997, we issued AD 97-11-12, Amendment 39-10041 (62 FR
28997, May 29, 1997). That AD required actions intended to address an
unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 97-11-12, the manufacturer has revised the
service information to simplify the visual inspection method.
    The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which is the aviation
authority for Australia, has issued AD GAF-N22-52, Amendment 1, dated
January 2010 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    The results of full scale fatigue tests being conducted by the
manufacturer have shown the need for inspection of critical fastener
holes in the stub wing upper front spar cap, near the wing strut
attachment.
    Amendment 1 adopts the manufacturer's latest service bulletin.
Its new inspection method avoids having to remove the Huck bolts and
the potential to damage the holes.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    AeroSpace Technologies of Australia Limited has issued Nomad
Service Bulletin NMD-53-22, dated April 17, 2007. The actions described
in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe
condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

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

policies. Any such differences are highlighted in a NOTE within the
proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 25 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $4,250, or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 4 work-hours and require parts costing $2,500, for a cost of
$2,840 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-10041 (62 FR
28997, May 29, 1997), and adding the following new AD:

AeroSpace Technologies of Australia Pty Ltd: Docket No. FAA-2010-
0235; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-010-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 23, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes 97-11-12, Amendment 39-10041.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Models N22B, N22S, and N24A airplanes,
all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 57: Wings.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    The results of full scale fatigue tests being conducted by the
manufacturer have shown the need for inspection of critical fastener
holes in the stub wing upper front spar cap, near the wing strut
attachment.
    Amendment 1 adopts the manufacturer's latest service bulletin.
Its new inspection method avoids having to remove the Huck bolts and
the potential to damage the holes.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions in accordance
with Nomad Service Bulletin NMD-53-22, dated April 17, 2007:
    (1) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD or within the next 90 days after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, install an
inspection hole in the left-hand and right-hand stub wing bottom
skin.
    (2) Before further flight after installing the inspection holes
required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, initially inspect the stub
wing front spar cap for cracks. Repetitively inspect thereafter
every 600 hours TIS.
    (3) If any crack is found during any inspection required in
paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, before further flight contact Customer
Support Manager, Gippsland Aeronautics Pty Ltd., P.O. Box 881,
MORWELL, Victoria, 3040, Australia; phone: +61 3 5172 1200; fax: +61
3 5172 1201; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for an FAA-approved
repair scheme/modification and incorporate the repair scheme/
modification. Due to FAA policy, the repair scheme/modification for
crack damage must include an immediate repair of the crack. The
repair scheme cannot be by repetitive inspection only. The repair
scheme/modification may incorporate repetitive inspections in
addition to the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(2)
of this AD. Continued operational flight with un-repaired crack
damage is not permitted.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: The MCAI states to follow the service bulletin. The
service bulletin does not specifically call out a corrective action
if cracks are found. The FAA is including specific instruction of
corrective action in the AD.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) AD GAF-
N22-52,

Amendment 1, dated January 2010; and Nomad Service Bulletin NMD-53-
22, dated April 17, 2007, for related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 2, 2010.
Sandra J. Campbell,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-5009 Filed 3-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P