[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13078-13080]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5296]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0199; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-005-AD;
Amendment 39-16631; AD 2011-06-06]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eclipse Aerospace, Inc. Model EA500
Airplanes Equipped With a Pratt and Whitney Canada, Corp. (PWC) PW610F-
A Engine

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for the products listed above. That AD currently requires you to
incorporate operating limitations of maximum operating altitude of
37,000 feet into Section 2, Limitations, of the airplane flight manual
(AFM). This AD requires you to incorporate operating limitations of
maximum operating altitude of 30,000 feet into Section 2, Limitations,
of the AFM. This AD was prompted by several incidents of engine surge.
We are issuing this AD to prevent hard carbon buildup on the static
vane, which could result in engine surges. Engine surges may result in
a necessary reduction in thrust and decreased power for the affected
engine. In some cases, this could result in flight and landing under
single-engine conditions. It is also possible this could affect both
engines at the same time, requiring dual-engine shutdown.

DATES: This AD is effective March 21, 2011.
    We must receive any comments on this AD by April 25, 2011.

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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Kinney, Aerospace Engineer, Ft.
Worth Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, Texas 76137; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On November 17, 2008, we issued AD 2008-24-07, amendment 39-15747
(73 FR 70866, November 24, 2008), for certain Eclipse Aviation
Corporation (Eclipse) Model EA500 airplanes equipped with a Pratt and
Whitney Canada, Corp. (PWC) PW610F-A engine. That AD requires you to
incorporate operating limitations into Section 2, Limitations, of the
airplane flight manual (AFM). That AD resulted from several incidents
of engine surge. We issued that AD to prevent hard carbon buildup on
the static vane, which could result in engine surges. Engine surges may
result in a necessary reduction in thrust and decreased power for the
affected engine. In some cases, this could result in flight and landing
under single-engine conditions.

Actions Since AD was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2008-24-07, the unsafe condition of engine
surges due to hard carbon build up blocking the static vanes has
continued to occur at 37,000 feet altitude and lower.
    Six known events have occurred, five of which were at or below
37,000 feet altitude and four of which were in a two-week period.
    Operating effects may include a reduction of available thrust or an
in-flight shutdown of the affected engine. This could occur in flight
and require landing under single-engine conditions. It is also possible
that this could affect both engines at the same time, requiring dual-
engine shutdown.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires you to incorporate operating limitations of
maximum operating altitude of 30,000 feet into Section 2, Limitations,
of the AFM.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. The PWC PW610F-A engine is
certificated in Canada and is certificated as a foreign type-validated
engine under FAA TCDS E00074EN. The FAA understands that Transport
Canada (the airworthiness authority for Canada) and PWC are considering
potential actions to address the engine aspects of this condition. In
the meantime, the FAA is issuing this AD on the Eclipse Model EA500 to
address the immediate unsafe condition and to mandate the altitude
limitation.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because a
reduction of available thrust or an in-flight shutdown of the affected
engine might occur. This could occur in flight and require landing
under single-engine conditions. It is also possible that this could
affect both engines at the same time, requiring dual-engine shutdown.
Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment
are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment
effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send
your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include
the docket number

FAA-2011-0199 and directorate identifier 2011-CE-005-AD at the
beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the
overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 259 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                     Labor cost            Parts cost           product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporate operating limitations   1 work-hour x $85     Not Applicable......             $85          $22,015
 of maximum operating altitude of    per hour = $85.
 30,000 feet into Section 2,
 Limitations, of the AFM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The cost presented above is a cost estimate only. Since a person
holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section
43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may insert the
AFM change, the cost burden of this AD on the individual owner/operator
is minimal or nothing.

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) 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.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (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 removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2008-24-07, Amendment 39-15747 (73 FR 70866, November 24, 2008) and
adding the following new AD:

2011-06-06 Eclipse Aerospace, Inc. Model EA500 Airplanes Equipped
With a Pratt and Whitney Canada, Corp. (PWC) PW610F-A Engine:
Amendment 39-16631; Docket No. FAA-2011-0199; Directorate Identifier
2011-CE-005-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD is effective March 21, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2008-24-07, Amendment 39-15747.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model EA500 airplanes, all serial
numbers, that are:
    (1) equipped with a Pratt and Whitney Canada, Corp. PW610F-A
engine; and
    (2) certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 72, Engine.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by several incidents of engine surge.
We are issuing this AD to prevent hard carbon buildup on the static
vane, which could result in engine surges. Engine surges may result
in a necessary reduction in thrust and decreased power for the
affected engine. In some cases, this could result in flight and
landing under single-engine conditions. It is also possible this
could affect both engines at the same time, requiring dual-engine
shutdown.

Compliance

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

Actions

    (g) Before further flight, incorporate the following language
into Section 2, Limitations, of your airplane flight manual (AFM):
``Per AD 2011-06-06, LIMIT THE MAXIMUM OPERATING ALTITUDE TO 30,000
FEET (9144M) PRESSURE ALTITUDE.''
    (1) A person holding at least a private pilot certificate as
authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 43.7) may insert the operating limitations into Section 2,
Limitations, of the AFM. Make an entry into the aircraft logbook
showing compliance with this portion of the AD in accordance with
section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).
    (2) You may incorporate paragraph (g) of this AD into Section 2,
Limitations, of your AFM to comply with this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office,
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 local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person
identified in the Related Information section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

Related Information

    (i) For more information about this AD, contact Eric Kinney,
Aerospace Engineer, Ft. Worth Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone: (817) 222-
5459; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 3, 2011.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-5296 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

FOR AN INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a)	Title of the Information Collection

TITLE: Application for New and Amended Pesticide Registration

OMB No. 2070-0060		EPA No. 0277.15

1(b)	Short Characterization/Abstract

This data collection program is designed to provide the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) with necessary data to evaluate an application
of a pesticide product as required under Section 3 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as amended (see Attachment A). Under
FIFRA as amended, EPA must evaluate pesticides thoroughly before they
can be marketed and used in the United States to ensure that they will
not pose unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the
environment. Pesticides that meet this test are granted a license or
"registration" which permits their distribution, sale and use according
to requirements set by EPA to protect human health and the environment.

Registration of a pesticide is a scientific, legal and administrative
process through which EPA examines the ingredients of the pesticide; the
particular site or crop on which it is to be used; the amount, frequency
and timing of its use; and storage and disposal practices. In evaluating
a pesticide registration application, EPA assesses a wide variety of
potential human health and environmental effects associated with use of
the product. The producer of the pesticide must provide data from tests
done according to EPA guidelines. These tests must determine whether a
pesticide has the potential to cause adverse effects on humans,
wildlife, fish and plants, including endangered species and non-target
organisms, as well as possible contamination of surface water or
groundwater from leaching, runoff and spray drift. Potential human risks
include short-term toxicity and long-term effects such as cancer and
reproductive system disorders. EPA also must approve the language that
appears on each pesticide label. A pesticide product can only be used
according to the directions on the labeling accompanying it at the time
of sale, through its use and disposal. Following labeling instructions
carefully and precisely is necessary to ensure safe use.

An individual or entity wanting to obtain a registration for a pesticide
product must submit an application package consisting of information
relating to the identity and composition of the product, proposed
labeling, and supporting data (or compensation for others’ data) for
the product as outlined in 40 CFR part 158. The EPA bases registration
decisions for pesticides on its evaluation of a battery of test data
provided primarily by applicants for registration. Required studies
include testing to show whether a pesticide has the potential to cause
unreasonable adverse human health or environmental effects. The Agency
currently collects data on physical chemistry, toxicology, environmental
fate, ecological effects, worker exposure, residue chemistry,
environmental chemistry, and product performance.  If EPA’s evaluation
of the data shows that the statutory requirements of FIFRA are met, then
a registration is approved.

Registrants of EPA-registered pesticide products at times become subject
to regulations or guidance that includes labeling revisions. The revised
labeling is submitted as an amendment to the Agency along with the
completed application form (EPA Form 8570-1 and other forms as needed,
see Attachment B). Normally, data are not required or reviewed for
revised labeling regulations or guidance; however, EPA must review and
approve the revised labeling. This review is most often accomplished by
a Product Manager (PM), or Team Leader (TL), in one of the three
regulatory divisions within EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
responsible for pesticide registration: the Registration Division, the
Antimicrobial Division, and the Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention
Division who ensure that revisions comply with the applicable labeling
requirement or guidance.

The Agency has added to its basic registration information collection
additional information from registrants. This allows the implementation
of the Reduced-Risk Initiative (PR Notice 97-3, “Guidelines for
Expedited Review of Conventional Pesticides under Reduced-Risk
Initiative and for Biological Pesticides;” see Attachment C). The
guidance in this notice is intended to give scheduling priority in
registration consideration to those pesticide products that can be
expected to accomplish one or more of the following:

(1)	Reduce the risks of pesticides to human health.

(2)	Reduce the risks of pesticides to nontarget organisms.

(3)	Reduce the potential for contamination of groundwater, surface
water, or other valued environmental resources.

(4)	Broaden the adoption of integrated pest management strategies, or
make such strategies more available or more effective.

Applicants for the registration of such products are invited to provide
an explanation (rationale) accompanied by any supporting information on
their application with any associated tolerance petitions for special
consideration based on these factors. Products that are successfully
classified as presenting the potential to reduce risk will receive
priority treatment in the scheduling of scientific reviews with
resulting potential benefit of earlier registration and consequent
earlier marketability.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

Authorizing legislation is contained in section 3 of FIFRA as amended.
Governing regulations and guidelines are contained in 40 CFR parts 152,
156, 158 (attachments D, E, and F, respectively), and in PR Notice (PRN)
97-3. Label amendments, 40 CFR 156, may be required to maintain
continued registration following a regulatory review (e.g.,
reregistration). Labeling amendments pertaining to groups of products
may be implemented through Pesticide Registration (PR) or Federal
Register (FR) notices.

2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

	For conventional pesticides, the application is reviewed by the
Information Technology and Resources Management Division (ITRMD), the
Registration Division (RD), the Health Effects Division (HED), and the
Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED), and Biological and
Economic Analysis Division (BEAD).  For biological/biopesticide
pesticides, the application is reviewed by the Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD). Applications for antimicrobial
pesticide products are reviewed within the Antimicrobial Division (AD).
The degree and level of the review will depend on the complexity of the
product, and whether it is identical or substantially similar to other
products already registered. Products containing active ingredients
present in currently registered products and proposed for uses currently
registered (“me-too”) may require only a minimal review for
completeness of the application, the adequacy of the labeling, and the
satisfaction of data compensation requirements. However, a product
containing a new active ingredient may require multiple data reviews
related to physical chemistry, toxicology, environmental fate,
ecological effects, worker exposure, residue chemistry, environmental
chemistry, and product performance prior to approval.  Therefore, other
OPP Divisions such as the Heath and Effects Division (HED), the
Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD), Special Review and
Reregistration Division (SRRD), and the Environmental Fate and Effects
Division (EFED) are actively involved in the data analysis and agency
determination of OPP registration actions.

An application that is incomplete or that is found to be deficient in
data or labeling is rejected, and the applicant is permitted to correct
the deficiencies and resubmit the application. When all data reviews are
completed satisfactorily, the labeling is determined to be adequate, and
the product is determined to meet the statutory standards of FIFRA, then
registration is issued to the applicant.

Once issued, a registration also may be amended in various ways, such as
adding or deleting uses, modifying the labeling, or altering the product
composition in minor ways. To request these changes, the registrant is
required to submit an application for amended registration on EPA Form
8570-1, along with all appropriate additional forms, labeling and
supporting data..

Registrants submitting registration applications for pesticide products
that may fall within the scope of the Reduced-Risk Initiative may
provide a written rationale with any supporting information on why their
pesticide may qualify for special consideration because it presents the
opportunity for risk reduction. This rationale with supporting
information will be reviewed and evaluated and, if the pesticide
demonstrates the opportunity for risk reduction, the EPA uses this
finding as a factor in determining application review priority. This
policy specifies the standard format for registrants to use when
providing justification for a reduced-risk pesticide to allow efficient
processing within OPP.

3.	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a)	Non-duplication

Duplication will not occur in this program, as each applicant must
submit information unique to the particular product being offered for
registration. If the product is not unique, existing data may be
referenced by the applicant as described in item 5(c) below. On amended
applications, the applicant also is able to refer to any appropriate
information previously submitted, thereby satisfying data requirements,
if any data is needed, without the burden of providing duplicate
information or additional data development.

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

Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), ICR, EPA published a Federal Register (FR)
Notice (73 FR 17973; April 2, 2008).  The Agency did not receive any
public comments.

	3(c)	Consultations

Consultation and/or dialogue between the respondent and EPA occurs on an
informal, ongoing "as needed" basis, primarily during the submission and
review of the application for an experimental use permit. Historically,
when technical, administrative, or other problems arise, the respondent
has ample opportunity to inform the agency and vice versa.  It has been
the Agency’s experience that registrants do not hesitate to inform OPP
staff when problems or questions arise, and we welcome those contacts,
as well as suggestions for improvement in the process.  This
communication between both parties may take place either in a telephone
conversation or in a meeting setting, but not necessarily by a
prescribed schedule.

During the preparation of this ICR renewal, EPA staff contacted several
representatives of pesticide registrants by e-mail to seek feedback on
the information reporting requirements and process.  A sample copy of
the ICR questionnaire provided to industry representatives is in
Attachment J.  The Agency received no comments from the representatives
listed below during the consultation period.

Amy Roberts,

Regulatory Consultant

Technology Science Group, Inc.

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	Dr. Ray S. McAllister

Director Regulatory Affairs

CropLife

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Mr. Eric Maurer

Valent Corporation

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Robin G. Todd PhD BCE

Director

ICR, Inc.

1330 Dillon Heights Avenue

Baltimore, MD 21228-1199

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Not applicable. This information collection activity is initiated by
applicants for registration. Information is submitted in conjunction
with the application. There is no set means by which the EPA can reduce
the frequency. If the information were not submitted, EPA would be
unable to fulfill its statutory responsibilities relative to the review
and registration of pesticides and protection of human health, wildlife,
and the environment, including endangered species.

3(e)	General Guidelines

In accordance with a determination made by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in 1995, the third party disclosure requirement involving
the registrant’s disclosure of product specific information to
potential users and the general public through the pesticide label, is
not a collection of information because the information that must be
included as the product labeling has been approved and provided to the
registrant by EPA as part of the original registration (5 CFR
1320.3(c)(2)). As such, this ICR does not include any third party burden
or cost estimates specifically associated with the labeling activities
that are a part of the original registration. Please note, however, that
EPA must seek OMB concurrence whenever any general labeling changes
initiated by the Agency result in an estimated burden of more than 5,000
burden hours. In such cases, EPA must provide OMB with a brief
description of the general labeling change, along with the estimated
burden and costs. OMB has agreed to notify EPA of any comments or
questions within 10 days of receiving the information, after which EPA
may proceed with the labeling change.

The recordkeeping activities briefly described in this ICR exceed
OMB’s guideline that agencies not require that records be retained for
more than 3 years (5 CFR 1 320.5(d)(2)(iv)). As authorized under FIFRA
section 8, EPA regulations require that registrants retain records
containing research data relating to registered pesticides (including
all data submitted to EPA in support of a registration - see 40 CFR
169.2(k)) for as long as the registration is valid and the producer is
in business. However, the burden related to the recordkeeping
requirements is covered under another ICR (see OMB Control No.
2070-0028, Recordkeeping Requirements for Producers of Pesticides under
Section 8 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA)).

Also, 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)).  At this time, OPP is not offering a
fully electronic submission option. Additionally, OPP is not yet
prepared to accept the electronic submission of any forms listed in this
ICR. Forms-based submissions likely would be transmitted via the World
Wide Web and neither OPP nor the Agency’s Office of Environmental
Information have developed the information technology approaches that
would adequately protect FIFRA Confidential Business Information
submitted in this way. Therefore, the public should note that the
electronic submission option currently applies only to the submission of
studies and supplemental files.

Ordinarily, registrants would be required to submit 3 paper copies of
study data to EPA. However, as a option registrants 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.  Extensive guidance
regarding the electronic submission option is available to registrants
via the OPP Internet site at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/eds/esr_guidance.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/eds/esr_guidance.htm .

3(f)	Confidentiality

Although the EPA urges the submitter to minimize the amount of claimed
Confidential Business Information (CBI), all data and/or information
brought to the Agency in conjunction with this rule that may be claimed
as trade secret, commercial or financial information will be protected
from disclosure by EPA under FIFRA section 10 and the associated
regulation as contained in 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B.

	3(g)	Sensitive Questions

Not applicable. No information of a sensitive or private nature is
requested in conjunction with this collection activity. In addition,
this information collection activity complies with the provisions of the
Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB circular A-108.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a)	Respondents - NAICS Codes

Respondents affected by the collection activities under this ICR are
individuals or entities engaged in activities related to the
registration of pesticide products. The North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) assigned to the parties responding to this
information are as follows:

Category	NAICS codes

Examples of potentially affected

entities

Pesticide and other agricultural

chemical manufacturing	32532

Individuals or entities engaged in

activities related to the registration of

a pesticide product.

4(b)	Information Requested

		(i)	Data items, including recordkeeping requirements

There are two main categories of applicants for registration: those
requiring submission of a full complement of supporting data (e.g., new
active ingredients); and those requiring submission of little or no data
(e.g., “me-too” products) for currently registered chemicals and use
patterns. Applicants for “me-too” products (i.e., pesticide products
claimed to be identical or substantially similar in composition and use
to a product currently registered by the EPA) may be required only to
use the forms listed below to certify that the applicant intends to rely
on data previously submitted to the EPA by another producer, the
applicant has contacted the appropriate company (owning the data that
the applicant is referencing) and the applicant has offered to pay
reasonable compensation for the use of the data.

Applicants for new active ingredients will be required to submit a full
complement of chemistry, toxicology, environmental fate, ecological
effects, worker exposure, residue chemistry, environmental chemistry,
product performance, and perhaps efficacy data as identified in 40 CFR
158.

In addition to the annual reporting and record keeping burden associated
with a Section 3 registration, the Agency may promulgate guidance that
encourages registrants to submit amended labeling for their pesticide
products. The combined burden for such labeling guidance may be
considered representative of the additional labeling burden placed on
registrants by the Agency, and may enable EPA to create a “generic”
new labeling burden.

The completion and submission of the following forms, see Attachment B,
are necessary in order to register a pesticide product:

	EPA Form 8570-1, Application for Pesticide Registration, Amendment,
Other;

	EPA Form 8570-4, Confidential Statement of Formula (CSF)

	EPA Form 8570-27, Formulator’s Exemption Statement

	EPA Form 8570-34, Certification With Respect to Citation of Data

	EPA Form 8570-35, Data Matrix

	EPA Form 8570-36, Summary of the Physical/chemical Properties

	EPA Form 8570-37, Self-certification Statement for the
Physical/Chemical Properties

(ii) 	Respondent Activities

Respondent Paperwork Activity	Description

1. Read instructions	Read germane FIFRA legislation, 40 CFR regulations,
application form instructions, the Reduced-Risk policy, applicable
guidance and correspondence, and germane labeling PR and FR notices;

2. Plan activities	Decide whether pesticide being registered is a
“me-too” pesticide, as this will determine succeeding activities;

3. Create information	Arrange for testing of any physical chemistry,
toxicological, environmental fate, ecological effects, worker exposure,
residue chemistry, environmental chemistry, product performance, and
efficacy data that appear to be required by germane regulations to
support registration.

4. Gather information	Canvass/contact other chemical firms holding EPA
registrations, if any, to determine whether it would be appropriate to
share or rely on testing data already submitted by another company;

5. Compile and review	Assemble data, evaluate for accuracy,
appropriateness, and completeness;

6. Complete paperwork	Complete all appropriate application documents;

7. Store/maintain data	File and maintain copies of all registration data
submitted to the Agency.

Response Type

	Description/Example

Type A	Description: “Type A” activities support the registration of
new active ingredients and new uses. "Type A" activities involve a
registrant or applicant assembling and submitting an application for
registration of a new active ingredient or a new use for a currently
registered active ingredient. The items required to be submitted in this
application include generic data, product specific data, administrative
forms, product labeling, and a CSF. The generic and product specific
data specified in 40 CFR 158 must be generated by the registrants,
formatted properly, and submitted with the correct number of copies.
Administrative forms usually include the application for registration,
data compensation form, a data matrix, and a CSF. Five copies of the
complete labeling must be submitted as well.

	Example: An example of a "Type A" activity would be an application for
registration of a new active ingredient (a.i.). Typically, for new
a.i.'s, applications must be submitted for at least two new products --
the manufacturing use product (either imported or made in the U.S. that
may be formulated into end-use products) and at least one end-use
product (that bears directions for the intended end uses). An applicant
would need to determine generic and product specific data required by 40
CFR 158 for the new a.i. (taking into account the use patterns sought),
generate those data, and submit them with the application. For a new
a.i., the generic data consists of certain acute, sub-chronic, and
chronic toxicology; environmental fate; ecological effects (birds, fish,
invertebrates); and product chemistry. When the data are completed, the
applicant would format and submit the studies along with the other items
required for an application, as described above.

Type B	Description: "Type B" activities involve a registrant or
applicant assembling and submitting an application for registration of a
new or amended product that contains a currently registered active
ingredient. Generally, "Type B" activities involve far less data and
complexity than "Type A" activities. The items that must be submitted or
cited in this application include product specific data, administrative
forms, product labeling, and a CSF. The product specific data specified
in 40 CFR 158 must be generated by the registrant/applicant or cited
from an identical or substantially similar product. If submitted, the
data must be formatted properly and with the correct number of copies.
Administrative forms usually include the application for registration,
data compensation form, a data matrix, and a CSF. Five copies of the
complete labeling must be submitted as well.

	Example: An applicant might seek registration of a new product
containing an active ingredient that is already registered. Often, the
formulation of this product is identical or substantially similar to
that of a currently registered end-use product. This is called a
"me-too" registration. In this case, the applicant only needs to cite
data from another product (selective method) or from all products
containing that a.i. (cite-all method) to support the new product. The
applicant also submits the labeling and other administrative forms
without submitting any data. If a product is not substantially similar
to another product, the applicant must submit product specific data
(acute toxicity and product chemistry) for that product. Nevertheless,
this kind of application is far less complicated than a "Type A"
application.

Type C	Description: “Type C" activities involve registration of new
conventional active ingredients or uses that may qualify as "reduced
risk" chemicals and/or OP replacements that are given expedited
processing. An applicant must prepare an application that includes
specific information as described in PR notice 97-3 and/or 98-7 to
explain why the new conventional a.i. or use has inherently lower risk
than currently registered products.

	Example: A new a.i. may have a lower toxicity, exposure and risk
profile than a currently registered a.i. for the same conventional
commodity. If the applicant can document and explain why the new a.i. or
new use should be a reduced risk or OP replacement, the Agency will
accept the application as "reduced risk” and/or OP replacement and
will process it expeditiously, presuming that all required data have
been submitted. This kind of application is less complex than the "Type
A" activity, but more complex than "Type B."

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED – AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.

5(a)	Agency Activities

The pesticide registration application package, complete with the
required forms, necessary data, and labels, is mailed to OPP, where it
is received by the Front-End Processing Unit in the Information
Technology and Resources Management Division (ITRMD).  After screening
the application for administrative completeness, ITRMD then refers both
complete application and any accompanying data to the appropriate
regulatory division.  ITRMD is responsible for entering the registration
action into the appropriate database for tracking purposes.

If the application form is accompanied by data to support the
registration application (e.g., new active ingredients and new uses),
ITRMD will forward the registration data package to a contractor for
microfilming and for inputting into the tracking database. After this is
completed, the data package is routed to the PM or TL for processing.

If the registration application is clearly for a “me-too” pesticide
product or use, then the product may be registered on an expedited basis
by the PM or TL. If its similarity to a pesticide currently registered
by the EPA is questionable, it may be sent for a short interdisciplinary
review. The PM or TL ensures that the database is updated by identifying
where it is sent for review.

If the registration action is clearly not for a “me-too” pesticide
product or use, then the PM or TL logs in and routes the data to the
appropriate scientific evaluation group for full data reviews. Each
scientific discipline reviews the data and may develop a Data Evaluation
Report (DER) and appropriate risk assessments that summarize the data
review. The PM or TL examines all of the scientific reviews and proposed
labeling and determines whether the product may be registered. If the
product contains an active ingredient not currently registered by EPA,
the review summary is included as part of a decision package and
referred to the Director of OPP for the final decision to register a
pesticide.

If the registration action is for revised labeling in response to a PR
Notice, the revised labeling submitted along with appropriate EPA forms
will be reviewed by a PM or TL for compliance with the applicable Notice
and, following the registration decision, entered into the tracking
database.

Rationales with supporting information that propose to present a
reduced-risk product for registration are reviewed by senior OPP
scientists and risk managers who determine whether the product does
indeed warrant the priority treatment accorded to reduced-risk pesticide
applications. Pesticide applications with any associated tolerance
petitions for pesticides successfully classified as offering
opportunities for risk reduction will receive priority treatment in the
scheduling of scientific reviews.

The Agency sometimes allows registration to be altered in some way via
notification or “minor” amendment. Notifications are registration
modifications without need of extensive data review (e.g., product
chemistry and labeling) that require the registrant to inform the EPA
but do not require the Agency’s approval. Notifications for
conventional pesticides are screened in the RD Registration Support
Branch to ensure they are not beyond the scope of the notification
process. Biological/biopesticide notifications are reviewed by the BPPD;
antimicrobial notifications are reviewed by AD.

Agency Activity	Description

1. Receive Application	In the case of new registration applications, the
Front-End Processing Unit reviews the application for administrative
completeness and routes complete applications to the appropriate
regulatory division;

2. Plan activities	Registration actions accompanied by data to support
registration are routed to a contractor for loading into the tracking
database. The action then is routed to the appropriate PM/TL.
Registration actions not accompanied by data are loaded into the
tracking database by ITRMD. Following that, actions are routed to the
PM/TL who routes them for review. In the case of revised labeling
amendments such as those submitted in support of requirements under the
Worker Protection Standard (WPS), ITRMD will screen the application for
completeness and submit it to the appropriate regulatory division for
examination.

3. Create information	In the case of new active ingredient or new use
applications, the Agency scientists (or contractors) review all
submitted data and forward DERs and risk assessments to the PM/TL that
summarize the results of their reviews and presents their evaluation;

4. Gather information	The DERs and risk assessments from the scientific
disciplines are routed to a PM or TL;

5. Compile and review	The PM or TL reviews the data summaries and risk
assessments For new active ingredients and new uses, decision packages
are prepared and routed to the Director of OPP for the final decision.
For all other actions, the PM/TL makes a determination whether to
register a new or amended product.

6. Complete paperwork	Complete and send a Notice of Registration to the
applicant informing the applicant that the product has been registered
and specifying any conditions of registration. For labeling amendments,
a letter is sent to the applicant stating approval/disapproval with
comments.

7. Store/maintain data	Store, file, and maintain copies of any
registration notices and labeling information.

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

All registration actions are entered into the database to track progress
toward registration. Registration actions accompanied by data (e.g.,
products containing new active ingredients or new uses) also are entered
into OPP’s database to track progress toward registration. Once a
product has been registered, pertinent status information regarding the
product is revised in the tracking database. The system contains the
following types of information: new or amended product registrations,
suspensions, cancellations, product active ingredients, product uses,
and use deletions. ITRMD maintains official registration file jackets,
in which copies of the application, EPA’s reviews, registration
approvals, correspondence, the CSF and other related information are all
retained

5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

EPA Form 8570-27 (“Formulator’s Exemption Statement”) reduces the
data submission burden on an applicant for registration of a product
that uses an EPA-registered pesticide product as the source of its
active ingredient. This form exempts the applicant from furnishing the
generic data that already were submitted by the company registering the
source product.

The Agency also has cataloged and computerized its pesticide data base
so that one can easily determine whether a particular study has been
submitted, and by whom it was submitted. This identifies, by chemical
and site(s), each item of data in the EPA’s files. As a result,
applicants encounter little difficulty in identifying available data
needed to support an application for registration.

5(d)	Collection Schedule

Not applicable. The activity is conducted only as a registration
application is received for consideration. There is no set schedule for
the collection of this information.

6.	ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

The reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with Section 3
registration of pesticides may be thought of in terms of three general
categories of burden (including most registration actions except those
pertaining to setting tolerances and inert ingredients). Total aggregate
burden for all respondent registration activities is estimated to be
76,180 hours.

The annual burden for all respondents completing “Type A” activities
is estimated to be 27,160 hours, based on 140 responses at 194 hours per
response.

The annual burden for all respondents completing “Type B” activities
is estimated to be 42,560 hours, based on 3,040 responses at 14 hours
per response.

The annual burden for all respondents completing “Type C” activities
is estimated to be 6,460 hours, based on roughly 10 responses at 646
hours per response.

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

There are currently an estimated 1,725 pesticide registrants holding at
least one pesticide registration. The number of pesticide registrants
has decreased since the last ICR renewal from 2,100 to 1,725, a
difference of 375.  For purposes of determining the appropriate number
of responses for each activity, EPA averaged respondent data for
registration activities submitted to EPA from 2005-2007; EPA has
averaged almost 3,200 annual responses.  Thus, average number of
responses annually has also changed from the last ICR renewal from 7,021
to 3,190, a reduction of over 50%.

The annual costs associated with these activities are estimated to be
approximately $5,528,542 per year.

“Type A” activities are estimated to cost about $1,768,193 per year.

“Type B” activities are estimated to cost about $3,339,318 per year.

“Type C” activities are estimated to cost $421,030 per year.

	Agency economists revised the estimated wages, benefits and overhead
for all labor categories for affected industries, state government, and
EPA employees based on publicly available data from the US Bureau of
Labor Statistics. The formulas used to estimate the labor rates and
formulas used to derive the fully loaded rates and overhead costs for
this ICR renewal are listed in Attachment G

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 2006 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   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm"
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 (see Attachment G).  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   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm"
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   HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm"
 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.

The following tables present the estimated registration annual burden
and cost estimates:

Table 1-A: Est. Burden/Cost per “Type A” Antimicrobial Registration
Application (AD)

Collection Activities	Burden Hours	Total

	Mgmt.

$103.62/hr	Tech.

$67.05/hr	Cler.

$33.85/hr	Hours	Costs $

Read Instructions	18	0	0	18	1,865.16

Plan activities	4	0	0	4	414.48

Gather/create information	0	120	0	120	8,046.00

Compile and review	4	8	0	12	950.80

Complete paperwork	0	0	30	30	1,015.50

Store/maintain data	0	0	10	10	338.50

TOTAL	26	128	40	194	$12,630.52

Annual Costs:	194 hours x 16 responses per year = 3,104 hours

(a) Management:	26 hours x $103.62 x 16 Responses =	$  43,105.92

(b) Technical:	128 hours x $67.05 x 16 Responses =	$137,318.40

(c) Clerical:	40 hours x $33.85 x 16 Responses =	$  21,664.00

Total = 	$202,008.32

Table 1-B: Est. Burden/Cost per “Type A” Antimicrobial Registration
Application (BPPD)

Collection Activities	Burden Hours	Total

	Mgmt.

$103.62/hr	Tech.

$67.05/hr	Cler.

$33.85/hr	Hours	Costs $

Read Instructions	18	0	0	18	1,865.16

Plan activities	4	0	0	4	414.48

Gather/create information	0	120	0	120	8,046.00

Compile and review	4	8	0	12	950.80

Complete paperwork	0	0	30	30	1,015.50

Store/maintain data	0	0	10	10	338.50

TOTAL	26	128	40	194	$12,630.52

Annual Costs:	194 hours x 35 responses per year = 6,790 hours

(a) Management:	26 hours x $103.62 x 35 Responses =	$  94,294.20

(b) Technical:	128 hours x $67.05 x 35 Responses = 	$300,384.00

(c) Clerical:	40 hours x $33.85 x 35 Responses = 	$  47,390.00

	Total = 	$442,068.20

Table 1-C: Est. Burden/Cost per “Type A” Registration Application
(RD)

Collection Activities	Burden Hours	Total

	Mgmt.

$103.62/hr	Tech.

$67.05/hr	Cler.

$33.85/hr	Hours	Costs $

Read Instructions	18	0	0	18	1,865.16

Plan activities	4	0	0	4	414.48

Gather/create information	0	120	0	120	8,046.00

Compile and review	4	8	0	12	950.88

Complete paperwork	0	0	30	30	1,015.50

Store/maintain data	0	0	10	10	338.50

TOTAL	26	128	40	194	$12,630.52

Annual Costs:	194 hours x 89 responses per year = 17,266 hours

(a) Management:	26 hours x $103.62 x 89 Responses =	$239,776.68

(b) Technical:	128 hours x $67.05 x 89 Responses =	$763,833.60

(c) Clerical:	40 hours x $33.85 x 89 Responses = 	$120,506.00

	                                              Total =  	 $1,124,116.28

Table 1-D: “Type A” Annual Activity Burden/Cost Subtotals

Processing Division	Responses	Burden	Cost

AD	16	3,104 hours	$202,008.32

BPPD	35	6,790 hours	$442,068.20

RD	89	17,266 hours	$1,124,116.28

“Type A” Subtotal	  =SUM(ABOVE)  140 	27,160 hours	  =SUM(ABOVE)
$1,768,192.80

Table 2-A: Est. Burden/Cost per “Type B” Application/Notification
(AD)

Collection Activities	Burden Hours	Total

	Mgmt.

$103.62/hr	Tech.

$67.05/hr	Cler.

$33.85/hr	Hours	Costs $

Read Instructions	7.0	0.0	0.0	7.0	725.34

Plan activities	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.5	51.81

Gather/create information	0.0	1.5	0.0	1.5	100.58

Compile and review	0.5	0.5	0.0	1.0	85.34

Complete paperwork	0.0	0.0	3.0	3.0	101.55

Store/maintain data	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.0	33.85

TOTAL	8.0	2.0	4.0	14.0	  =SUM(ABOVE)  1,098.47

Annual Costs:	14 hours x 1,727 responses per year = 24,178 hours

(a) Management:	8 hours x $103.62 x 1,727 responses =	$1,431,613.92

(b) Technical:	2 hours x $ 67.05 x 1,727 responses =	  $   231,590.70

(c) Clerical:	4 hours x $ 33.85 x 1,727 responses =	  $   233,835.80

	                                                   Total =
$1,897,040.42

Table 2-B: Est. Burden/Cost per “Type B” Application/Notification
(BPPD)

Collection Activities	Burden Hours	Total

	Mgmt.

$103.62/hr	Tech.

$67.05/hr	Cler.

$33.85/hr	Hours	Costs $

Read Instructions	7.0	0.0	0.0	7.0	725.34

Plan activities	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.5	51.81

Gather/create information	0.0	1.5	0.0	1.5	100.58

Compile and review	0.5	0.5	0.0	1.0	85.34

Complete paperwork	0.0	0.0	3.0	3.0	101.55

Store/maintain data	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.0	33.85

TOTAL	8.0	2.0	4.0	14.0	  =SUM(ABOVE)  1,098.47

Annual Costs:	14 hours x 251 responses per year = 3,514 hours

(a) Management:	8 hours x $103.62 x 251 Responses =$208,068.96

(b) Technical:	2 hours x $67.05 x 251 Responses =	$  33,659.10

(c) Clerical:	4 hours x $33.85 x 251 Responses =	$  33,985.40

	                                              Total =	$275,713.46

Table 2-C: Est. Burden/Cost per “Type B” Application/Notification
(RD)

Collection Activities	Burden Hours	Total

	Mgmt.

$103.62/hr	Tech.

$67.05/hr	Cler.

$33.85/hr	Hours	Costs $

Read Instructions	7.0	0.0	0.0	7.0	725.34

Plan activities	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.5	51.81

Gather/create information	0.0	1.5	0.0	1.5	100.58

Compile and review	0.5	0.5	0.0	1.0	85.34

Complete paperwork	0.0	0.0	3.0	3.0	101.55

Store/maintain data	0.0	0.0	1.0	1.0	33.85

TOTAL	8.0	2.0	4.0	14.0	  =SUM(ABOVE)  1,098.47

Annual Costs:	14 hours x 1,062 responses per year = 14,868 hours

(a) Management:	8 hours x $103.62 x 1,062 Responses = $880,355.52

(b) Technical:	2 hours x $67.05 x 1,062 Responses = 	$142,414.20

(c) Clerical: 	4 hours x $33.85 x 1,062 Responses =   $143,794.80

		  Total =   1,166,564.52

Table 2-D: Type B Activity Burden/Cost Subtotals

Processing Division	Responses	Burden	Cost

AD	1,727	24,178 hours	$1,897,040.42

BPPD	251	3,514 hours	$275,713.46

RD	1,062	14,868 hours	$1,166,564.52

“Type B” Subtotal	  =SUM(ABOVE)  3,040 	42,560 hours	  =SUM(ABOVE)
$3,339,318.40

Table 3: Est. Burden/Cost per “Type C” Reduced Risk Application (RD
only)

Collection Activities	Burden Hours	Total

	Mgmt.

$103.62/hr	Tech.

$67.05/hr	Cler.

$33.85/hr	Hours	Costs $

Read Instructions	22	0	0	22	2,279.64

Gather Information	0	368	0	368	24,674.40

Process, Compile and Review Information	80	80	0	160	13653.60

Record and Report Information	0	0	72	72	2,437.20

Store, File and Maintain

Information	0	0	24	24	812.40

TOTAL	102	448	96	  =SUM(ABOVE)  646 	$  =SUM(ABOVE)  43,857.24

Annual Costs:	646 Hours x 10 responses per year = 6,460 Hours

(a) Management:	102 hours x $103.62 x 10 responses = 	$105,692.40

(b) Technical:	448 hours x $67.05 x 10 Responses =	$300,384.00

(c) Clerical:	96 hours x $33.85 x 10 Responses =	$  32,496.00

		Total =	$421,030.40

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

For this ICR renewal, the Agency is using a new data source to estimate
the Agency burden.  The projected burden figures use 2007 data, which
includes burden hours from internal OPP Divisions that provide
significant support and analysis for the FIFRA Section 3 ICR
registration program.

The Agency is using FIFRA Section 3 registration activity data from the
Time and Attendance Information System (TAIS), which archives the
Agency’s Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) for most OPP program activities.
 In the past, the Agency burden calculations reflected only the Section
3 ICR FTE activities for the Registration Division (RD), the
Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD), and the
Antimicrobial Division (AD) as used in the last renewal.  The 2008
renewal now also includes the appropriate FTE activity data from the
Heath and Effects Division (HED), the Biological and Economic Analysis
Division (BEAD), Special Review and Reregistration Division (SRRD),
Field and External Affairs Division (FEAD) and the Environmental Fate
and Effects Division (EFED).  Thus, eight (8) OPP Divisions work
together to complete the activities related to OPP registration actions.
 The Agency believes using this new data source reflects the changes to
the internal operations for implementing and administering the FIFRA
Section 3 registration 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 Section 3 registration and registration support activities
is approximately 22 managerial FTEs as shown in Table 1, 190 technical
FTEs as shown in Table 2, and 15 clerical FTEs as shown in Table 3.  The
aggregated Agency estimated FTE dedicated to Section 3 activities is 227
and the burden hours are 472,160.

Table 1 – Distribution of Agency Managerial FTEs Supporting FIFRA
Section 3 Registration and Registration Support Activities

BEAD 	RD	EFED	SRRD	FEAD	HED	AD	BPPD

2.0	6.6	3.0	<1	<1	4.4	2.7	2.6

Agency total 	22

Annual Agency burden hours were calculated using the number of hours per
FTE multiplied by the number of FTE’s (2080 x 22=45,760).

Table 2 – Distribution of Agency Technical FTEs Supporting FIFRA
Section 3 Registration and Registration Support Activities2

BEAD 	RD	EFED	SRRD	FEAD	HED	AD	BPPD

15.4	59.7	23.2	<1	<1	39.1	23.4	28.9

Agency total 	190

Annual Agency burden hours were calculated using the number of hours per
FTE multiplied by the number of FTE’s (2080 x 190=395,200).

Table 3 – Distribution of Agency Clerical FTEs Supporting FIFRA
Section 3 Registration and Registration Support Activities2

BEAD 	RD	EFED	SRRD	FEAD	HED	AD	BPPD

1.5	4.6	1.7	<1	<1	1.3	3.1	1.9

Agency total 	15

Annual Agency burden hours were calculated using the number of hours per
FTE multiplied by the number of FTE’s (2080 x 15=31,200).

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 $103.32 for an average
annual cost of $214,906 (i.e., $103.32/hour x 2080 hours).  For
technical occupations, the fully loaded mean wage rate is $71.04 for an
average annual cost of $147,763.  And for clerical occupations, the
fully loaded mean wage rate is $40.76 for an average annual cost of
$84,871. (Please see Attachment H - Worksheet for NAICS 999100 EPA or
Federal Government Worksheet.)

To calculate the Agency’s estimated annual cost of Section 3
activities, the number of FTE’s is multiplied by this number allocated
to registration activities for each year over the next three years,
which is estimated to be $4,727,932 for management (i.e., 22 FTE x
$214,906/FTE); $28,074,970 annually for technical (i.e., 190 FTE x
$147,763/ FTE); and $1,271,715 for clerical (i.e., 15 FTE x
$84,781/FTE).  The total estimated Agency cost is $34,074,617.

	6(d)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost

	ANNUAL TOTAL

	Responses	Hours	Costs

Annual “Type A” Responses	140	27,160	$1,768,192.80

Annual “Type B” Responses	3,040	42,560	$3,339,318.40

Annual “Type C” Responses	10	6,460	$421,030.40

Total Annual Response Burden	  =SUM(ABOVE)  3,190 	76,180	  =SUM(ABOVE)
$5,528,541.60

Agency Burden Estimate

472,160	$34,074,617

6(e)	Reasons for Changes in Burden

There is an annual burden reduction of 76,794 hours as a result of 3,831
fewer expected responses across all response types (i.e., Registration
Application Types A through C).  The reduction in EPA’s respondent
response estimate is due, in part, to the identification and elimination
of double-counting in the Agency’s data systems.  In addition, due to
some industry consolidation and based on registration maintenance fee
data, EPA has identified 375 fewer ICR respondents.  Therefore, the
estimated 76,794 hour decline in annual paperwork burden hours is an
adjustment.

6(f)	Burden Statement

The annual average reporting and recordkeeping burdens for a
registration applicant respondent are estimated to range from 14 hours
to 646 hours, depending upon the type of activity. Estimates for the
annual applicant respondent burden for collection of information
associated with Type “A” and “B” activities average: 194 hours
per application for “Type A” activities, which include new active
ingredients and new uses and 14 hours per application for “Type B”
activities, which include amendments and notifications. The burdens
estimate for “Type C” reduced risk products, which are handled only
by RD, is an average of 646 hours per product. These estimates include
time spent reading the regulations, planning the necessary data
collection activities, conducting tests, analyzing data, generating
reports and completing other required paperwork, and storing, filing,
and maintaining the data.

The Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0191, which is available for online viewing at
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.

Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0191 and
OMB Control No. 2070-0060, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method), or by mail to: Public Information and Records
Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Mail Code: 7502P, Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC
20503.ATTACHMENTS TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Attachments to the supporting statement are available in the public
docket established for this Information Collection Request (ICR) under
the docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0191.  These
attachments are available for online viewing at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  or otherwise accessed
as described in the sections below.

Attachment A:	7 U.S.C. 136a – Section 3 of FIFRA. Also available at
online at the US House of Representatives’   HYPERLINK
"http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t13t16+21
64+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2815%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC
%20w%2F10%20%282603%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20"  US Code
website

Attachment B:	Forms for Pesticide Registration – available
electronically as a PDF file on the internet at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/"  http://www.epa.gov/opprd001/forms/
.

EPA Form 8570-1 - Application for Pesticide, Registration, Amendment,
Other

EPA Form No. 8570-4 - Confidential Statement of Formula

EPA Form No. 8570-27 - Formulator's Exemption Statement

EPA Form No. 8570-34 - Certification with Respect to Citation of Data
Form

EPA Form No. 8570-35 - Data Matrix Form

EPA Form No. 8570-36 - Summary of the Physical/Chemical Properties Form

EPA Form No. 8570-37 - Self-Certification Statement for the Physical/
Chemical Properties

Attachment C:	Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 97-3 – Guidelines for
Expedited Review of Conventional Pesticides under the Reduced-Risk
Initiative and for Biological Pesticides. Also available at online at
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/pr97-3.html"
http://www.epa.gov/PR_Notices/pr97-3.html

Attachment D:	40 CFR 152 – Pesticide Registration and Classification
Procedures. Also available online at the National Archives and Records
Administration’s  HYPERLINK
"http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=88d9c3c9f74b07
b1127c67fbfa4acde0&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:<IP_ADDRESS>.3&idno=40"
Electronic CFR Website

Attachment E:	40 CFR 156 – Labeling Requirements for Pesticides and
Devices. Also available online at the National Archives and Records
Administration’s  HYPERLINK
"http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=88d9c3c9f74b07
b1127c67fbfa4acde0&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:<IP_ADDRESS>.7&idno=40"
Electronic CFR Website

Attachment F:	40 CFR 158 – Data Requirements For Registration. Also
available online at the National Archives and Records Administration’s
 HYPERLINK
"http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=88d9c3c9f74b07
b1127c67fbfa4acde0&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:<IP_ADDRESS>.9&idno=40"
Electronic CFR Website

Attachment G:	Work Sheets used to Calculate Pesticide Registrant
Industry Labor Costs

Attachment H:	Work Sheets used to Calculate EPA and Federal Government
Labor Costs

Attachment I:	Time and Attendance Information System (TAIS) Plan Program
Accomplishment (PPA) codes used to calculate EPA and Federal Government
Burden Hours

Attachment J:	Consultation:  List of Standard Questions

Attachment K:	Display Related to OMB Control #2070-0060 – Listings of
Related Regulations in 40 CFR 9.1. Also available online at the National
Archives and Records Administration’s  HYPERLINK
"http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=88d9c3c9f74b07
b1127c67fbfa4acde0&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:<IP_ADDRESS>.9&idno=40"
Electronic CFR Website

 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 the
FIFRA Section 3 ICR.  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 Section 3 FTE
burden.

October 16, 2008

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  20


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 153 (Monday, August 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47924-47925]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19577]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL_9930-45-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of
Washington's request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic
reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective September 9, 2015 for the State of
Washington's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and
accepted by the Agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements. Once an authorized
program has EPA's approval to accept electronic documents under certain
programs, CROMERR Sec.  3.1000(a)(4) requires that the program keep EPA
apprised of any changes to laws, policies, or the electronic document
receiving systems that have the potential to affect the program's
compliance with CROMERR Sec.  3.2000.
    On December 14, 2009, the Washington State Department of Health (WA
DOH) submitted an amended application titled ``Washington State Lab
Electronic Reporting System'' for revision to its EPA-approved program
under title 40 CFR part 142 to allow new electronic reporting. EPA
reviewed WA DOH's request to revise its EPA-authorized program and,
based on this review, EPA determined that the application met the
standards for approval of authorized program revision/modification set
out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d),
this notice of EPA's decision to approve Washington's request to revise
its Part 142--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation program to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part
141 is being published in the Federal Register.
    WA DOH was notified of EPA's determination to approve its
application with respect to the authorized program listed above.
    Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that
they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State
of Washington's request to revise its authorized public water system
program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(f).
Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30 days of
publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests should
include the following information:
    (1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual,
organization or other entity requesting a hearing;
    (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's
determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing,
and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to
consider when determining whether to grant the request;
    (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the
request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the
signature of a responsible official of the organization or other
entity.
    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide
notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days
prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial
requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public
hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order
either affirming today's determination or rescinding such
determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received

and granted, EPA's approval of the State of Washington's request to
revise its part 142--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation program to allow electronic reporting will become
effective 30 days after today's notice is published, pursuant to
CROMERR section 3.1000(f)(4).

Matthew Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Collection.
[FR Doc. 2015-19577 Filed 8-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 47)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 11481-11482]
[DOCID:fr11mr10-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0081 Airspace Docket No. 10-AAL-3]

Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Nenana, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revise Class E airspace at Nenana, AK.
The amendment of two Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs),
and an Obstacle Departure Procedure (ODP) at Nenana Municipal Airport
have made this action necessary to enhance safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2010-0081/Airspace Docket
No. 10-AAL-3 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit
comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review
the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and
any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket
Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the
Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the above address.
    An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours at the office of the Manager, Safety, Alaska Flight Service
Operations, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box
14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.faa.gov/about/
office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/
alaskan/rulemaking/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2010-0081/
Airspace Docket No. 10-AAL-3.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Communications must
identify both docket numbers for this notice. Persons interested in
being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the
FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to request a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution
System, which describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 71 by revising Class E airspace at Nenana Municipal
Airport, AK, to accommodate amended SIAPs and departure procedures at
Nenana Municipal Airport. This Class E airspace would provide adequate
controlled airspace upward from 700 feet above the surface, for the
safety and management of IFR operations at Nenana Municipal Airport.
    The Class E airspace areas designated as 700/1200 foot transition
areas are published in paragraph 6005 in FAA Order 7400.9T, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and
effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
would be subsequently published in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed 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 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. Because 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 1, 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 1, Section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it proposes to revise Class E airspace at Nenana Municipal Airport,
Nenana, AK, and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and
efficiently use the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 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]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15,
2009, is to be amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward from 700 Feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Nenana, AK [Revised]

Nenana Municipal Airport, AK
    (Lat. 64[deg]32[min]50[sec] N., long. 149[deg]04[min]26[sec] W.)
Ice Pool NDB
    (Lat. 64[deg]32[min]44[sec] N, long. 149[deg]04[min]37[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of the Nenana Municipal Airport, AK, and
within 3 miles each side of the 249[deg] bearing of the Ice Pool
NDB, extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 10.3 miles southwest of
the Nenana Municipal Airport, AK.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on February 19, 2010.
Anthony M. Wylie,
Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-5174 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 3, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60600-60602]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23908]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0952; Project Identifier 2019-CE-039-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH
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 Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH (DAI) Model DA 42, DA 42
M-NG, and DA 42 NG airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as dissolved or detached fuel tank hose material entering the
main fuel tank chambers, which could result in restricted fuel flow
with consequent fuel starvation. This proposed AD would require
removing the fuel tank connection hoses from service and inspecting the
fuel tank connection hoses for damage and detached rubber material. 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 December
20, 2021.

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 https://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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Diamond
Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Stra[szlig]e 5, A-2700 Wiener
Neustadt, Austria; phone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; email:
[email protected]; website: https://www.diamondaircraft.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0952; 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 MCAI,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Penelope Trease, Aviation Safety
Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Denver, CO 80249; phone:
(303) 342-1094; 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-2021-0952; Project Identifier
2019-CE-039-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.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 Penelope Trease, Aviation
Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Denver, CO 80249. Any
commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated
as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued
EASA AD 2019-0218, dated September 3, 2019 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to address an unsafe condition on certain DAI Model DA
42, DA 42M, DA 42 M-NG, and DA 42 NG airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Reports were received of dissolved fuel tank connections hoses.
Rubber parts were found within the fuel tank. The investigation
results showed that the affected parts are limited to 2 isolated
batches, some of which were installed on the production line. Other
affected parts have been supplied as spare for in-service
replacement.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to restricted fuel
flow from the tank, possibly resulting in fuel starvation and
consequent reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, DAI issued the
applicable MSB [Mandatory Service Bulletin], providing instructions
to identify and replace the affected parts. The applicable MSB
identifies the MSN [manufacturer serial numbers] of the aeroplanes
on which affected parts were installed during aeroplane production.
The applicable MSB also indicates that any other aeroplane may be
affected, if an affected part supplied as spare was installed.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires removal
and replacement of the affected parts, and, if a removed affected
part is found damaged, inspection of the fuel tank chambers and
removal of any detached rubber material. This [EASA] AD also
prohibits (re)installation of any affected parts.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0952.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Diamond Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB)
42-138/MSB 42NG-080, dated July 1, 2019 (issued as one document)
published with Diamond Aircraft Work Instruction (WI) MSB 42-138/WI-MSB
42NG-080, dated July 1, 2019 (issued as one document) attached. This
service information identifies the list of affected fuel tank
connection hoses and also contains procedures for replacing the fuel
tank connection hose and inspecting the main fuel tank chambers. 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 ADDRESSES.

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 referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM
after determining 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 removing the affected fuel tank
connection hoses from service. This proposed AD would also require
inspecting the fuel tank connection hoses and, if there is damage,
inspecting the main fuel tank chambers and removing any detached rubber
material.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    The MCAI applies to the Model DA 42 M airplane and this proposed AD
would not because it does not have an FAA type certificate.
    The service information specifies reporting information to DAI, and
this proposed AD would not require reporting.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 192 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that it would
take about 30 work-hours to do the actions of this proposed AD and
require a part costing $188. The average labor rate is $85 per work-
hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the cost to do the
actions of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $525,696 or $2,738
per airplane.
    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this 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:

Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2021-0952; Project
Identifier 2019-CE-039-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by December 20, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to:
    (1) Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH (DAI) Model DA 42 NG
airplanes, serial numbers (S/N) 42.N303 through 42.N314, 42.N319,
and 42.N320, certificated in any category, with a fuel tank
connection hose part number (P/N) D4D-2817-10-70 installed; or
    (2) DAI Models DA 42, DA 42 NG, and DA 42 M-NG airplanes, all
serial numbers, certificated in any category, with a fuel tank
connection hose P/N D4D-2817-10-70 identified in the Technical
Details, section I.11, of Diamond Aircraft Mandatory Service
Bulletin MSB 42-138/MSB 42NG-080, dated July 1, 2019 (issued as one
document) (MSB 42-138/42NG-080), installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2810, Fuel Storage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as dissolved or
detached fuel tank hose material entering the main fuel tank
chambers. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent restricted fuel
flow, which could result in fuel starvation. The unsafe condition,
if not addressed, could result in fuel starvation and reduced
control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective
date of this AD or within 4 months after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs first, replace the main fuel tank connection
hoses in accordance with the Instructions, sections III.1 and III.2,
in DAI Work Instruction WI-MSB 42-138 and WI-MSB 42NG-080, Revision
0, dated July 1, 2019, (issued as one document) attached to MSB 42-
138/42NG-080. Instead of P/N D4D-2817-10-70_01, you may also replace
a fuel tank connection hose with P/N D4D-2817-10-70 that is not
identified in paragraph (c) of this AD.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a fuel
tank connection hose P/N D4D-2817-10-70 identified in paragraph (c)
of this AD on any airplane.

(h) No Reporting Requirement

    This AD does not require you to report information as specified
in the Instructions, step III.1.12, in DAI Work Instruction WI-MSB
42-138/WI-MSB 42NG-080 (single document), Revision 0, dated July 1,
2019, which is co-published as one document with MSB 42-138/42NG-
080.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD or
email to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Penelope Trease,
Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Denver,
CO 80249; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0218, dated September 3, 2019, for more information. You may
examine the EASA AD in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2021-0952.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Stra[szlig]e 5, A-2700
Wiener Neustadt, Austria; phone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622
26780; email: [email protected]; website: https://www.diamondaircraft.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on October 27, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-23908 Filed 11-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P