[Federal Register: February 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 7102-7103]
[DOCID:fr12fe09-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0008]

Beall Corporation; Receipt of Application for a Temporary
Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224

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

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for temporary exemption from
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear impact
protection.

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

SUMMARY: We are asking for comments on the application of Beall
Corporation for a temporary exemption from the requirements of FMVSS
No. 224. The basis for the application is that compliance would cause
substantial economic hardship to the manufacturer which has tried in
good faith to comply with the standard.
    We are publishing this notice of receipt of the application in
accordance with our regulations on the subject. This action does not
mean that we have made a judgment about the merits of the application.

DATES: You should submit your comments not later than March 16, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ari Scott, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 4th Floor, Room W41-326,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the
procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, Beall Corporation, d/b/a Power Truckweld
(``Beall''), a Dump Body trailer manufacturer, has petitioned the
agency for a temporary exemption from the rear impact protection
requirements in FMVSS No. 224 (49 CFR 571.224). The basis for the
application is that compliance would cause substantial economic
hardship to the manufacturer, which has tried in good faith to comply
with the standard. A copy of the petition has been placed in the docket
for this notice.\1\ Beall has requested a three-year hardship
exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the application, go to http://www.regulations.gov
and enter the docket number set forth in the heading of this
document. The company has withdrawn its request for confidential
treatment of certain business and financial information submitted in
its petition for temporary exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beall is a company that manufactures trailers in Washington and
Oregon. The company has been in existence for over a decade. Beall
states that the total number of vehicles produced in the 12-month
period prior to filing the petition was 79. Of those vehicles, 64 were
dump body type trailers that would be covered by the requested
temporary exemption. The largest number of Dump Body trailers the
petitioner sold in recent years is 79 in 2005.
    Beall states that the denial of the requested exemption will result
in substantial economic hardship. According to the statements of the
petitioner, the denial of exemption could cost the company 40 percent
of its projected sales during the period covered by the exemption, a
situation which could cause the layoff of 100% of its employees.
Additionally, Beall asserts that if the exemption is denied, it would
lose the entire $800,000 goodwill investment associated with the 2001
purchase of Pioneer Truckweld. It also notes that several of its
competitors, such as Reliance and Columbia Body Manufacturing, have
received exemptions from FMVSS No. 224, and that it needs to be able to
compete effectively with these entities in the dump body trailer sales
market, as well as the dump body truck market, as many customers will
not allow a manufacturer to bid on a dump body truck if they cannot
supply a dump body trailer.
    Beall also provides specific financial information with its
statement for the years 2004 through 2006. In 2004, it indicates that
it posted a loss of over $200,000. In 2005, that loss was approximately
$138,000. Finally, in 2006, the total loss was over $53,000. In the
event that this petition is denied, Beall estimates that it will lose
over $24,000 in the year following the denial. While Beall did not
provide specific financial information regarding the projected
financial impact of a grant, it has stated that such a grant is
necessary for the survival of the Power Truckweld division.
    The petitioner believes that it is impossible to estimate the cost
of compliance because the method by which compliance may be achieved is
unknown at this time, and requires substantial further engineering
analysis. Beall states that it has tried, unsuccessfully, to design or
outsource the design of a device that would satisfy FMVSS No. 224 for
dump body trailers.
    In explaining why it has not been currently able to meet the rear
impact protection requirements, Beall points to a number a technical
challenges associated with designing a compliant rear impact protection
system. Namely,

it states that a device designed to satisfy FMVSS No. 224 for dump body
applications must also be capable of moving clear, so that the hopper
of the paving machines can pass through the space initially occupied by
the rear impact protection device. It argues that if the paving machine
cannot position itself underneath the dump body, the asphalt will spill
out as the dump body raises and unloads the asphalt. The petitioner
states that it has been pursuing the design of acceptable systems in a
joint project with the Mechanical Engineering department at Montana
State University, using techniques such as Finite Element analysis and
physical testing devices. In addition, it claims to have designed
acceptable guards for a number of non-asphalt paving applications.
    Beall states it has considered several alternative means of
compliance. These include plastically deforming devices and hinged and
retractable devices. However, the petitioner believes that there are a
number of problems with regard to these solutions. First, due to
clearance issues, space for retractable devices is not readily
available, and redesign of the vehicle to accommodate such devices
could result in decreased stability. Second, the petitioner states that
asphalt paving surface has the effect of rendering these sorts of
devices unusable over time. Finally, Beall notes that trailers could be
operated with these devices in the retracted position, resulting in no
safety benefits.
    Beall states that under a temporary exemption, it would continue to
pursue a compliant rear impact protection device that would meet the
current standards, including attachment and methods of maintenance to
ensure proper function while in service. The petitioner states that it
will continue to work with others in the paving industry to develop an
acceptable solution.
    Beall's believes that the public interest would benefit from this
exemption, stating the following:

    It would be in the public's interest to allow Pioneer Truckweld
to manufacture the equipment required to improve and expand the road
building effort in the Western United States while an intense effort
is maintained by Pioneer Truckweld to design an acceptable under
ride device that will perform well in a paving operation.

    Additionally, in its petition, Beall notes that the failure to
receive an exemption could cause the closure of the Pioneer Truckweld
operation and the layoff of 38 employees in U.S. operations. Also, we
note that given the relatively low number of vehicles produced by the
petitioner over its history, and the fact that they are primarily used
in road construction tasks as opposed to being driven in the flow of
traffic, the safety impact of the lack of required rear impact
protection equipment is likely to be relatively small.
    How you may comment on the application: We invite you to submit
comments on the application described above. You may submit comments
identified by docket number at the heading of this notice by any of the
following methods:
     Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by
clicking on ``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).

    Issued on: February 5, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E9-2975 Filed 2-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 230 (Friday, December 1, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 83813-83817]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26404]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 2023 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1409; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01645-T;
Amendment 39-22610; AD 2023-23-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019-07-
05, which applied to all Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model
A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model
A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model
A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD
2019-07-05 required repetitive inspections for cracking of the 10VU
rack fitting lugs and repair of any cracking. This AD continues to
require the requirements of AD 2019-07-05, with reduced compliance
times and removes airplanes having a certain modification from the
applicability. This AD was prompted by a determination that certain
repetitive inspection intervals need to be revised. The FAA is issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 5, 2024.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 5,
2024.

ADDRESSES:
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1409; 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 final rule, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, Rond-Point Emile
Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36
96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
website airbus.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1409.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2019-07-05, Amendment 39-19616 (84 FR
16386, April 19, 2019; corrected May 10, 2019 (84 FR 20542)) (AD 2019-
07-05). AD 2019-07-05 applied to all Airbus SAS Model A318 series
airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and
-232 airplanes. AD 2019-07-05 required repetitive inspections for
cracking of the 10VU rack fitting lugs, and repair of any cracking. The
FAA issued AD 2019-07-05 to address reading difficulties of flight-
critical information displayed to the flightcrew during a critical
phase of flight, such as an approach or takeoff, which could result in
loss of airplane control at an altitude insufficient for recovery.
    The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 13, 2023 (88 FR
44740). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0266, dated December 22, 2022,
issued by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is
the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA
AD 2022-0266) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that
during an unscheduled maintenance operation on an A330 airplane, the
10VU rack was removed for access, and cracks were discovered on 10VU
rack side fittings on lugs 1, 3, and 4. As a similar design is
installed on A320 family airplanes, a sampling review was done to
determine the possible fleet impact. The result showed that several
airplanes had cracked or broken 10VU rack side fittings. This
condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to a high
vibration level on the primary flight and navigation displays during
critical flight phases (take-off and landing), possibly creating
reading difficulties for the crew.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require repetitive
inspections for cracking of the 10VU rack fitting lugs, and repair of
any cracking. In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to require reduced
compliance times and to remove airplanes having a certain modification
from the applicability. The FAA is issuing this AD to address reading
difficulties of flight-critical information displayed to the flightcrew
during a critical phase of flight, such as an approach or takeoff,
which could result in loss of airplane control at an altitude
insufficient for recovery.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1409.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received comments from Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.
    The FAA received additional comments from United Airlines (United).
The following presents United's comments received on the NPRM and the
FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Revise Compliance Time

    United requested revising the proposed AD to add a grace period for
the reduced compliance times of the repetitive inspections. United
stated that it accomplished the initial inspections on most of the
fleet and already scheduled the repetitive inspections within the
20,000-flight-cycle or 40,000-flight-hour interval specified in AD
2019-07-05. United pointed out that the repetitive interval is reduced
to 10,000 flight cycles or 20,000 flight hours in the proposed AD.
United suggested a grace period of 20,000 flight cycles or 40,000
flight hours for the first repeat inspection and then 10,000 flight
cycles or 20,000 flight hours for the following repeat inspections.
    The FAA does not agree with the commenter's request to provide a
grace period. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this
action, the FAA considered the recommendations of the manufacturer and
EASA, the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the
availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of
accomplishing the required repair within a period of time that
corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected
operators. The compliance times are not expected to ground any
airplanes upon the effective date of this AD. United has not provided
data for the FAA to consider. However, under the provisions of
paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for
approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are
submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an
acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD in this
regard.

Request To Allow Flight With Known Cracking

    United requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD to align more
closely with EASA AD 2022-0266; Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1087,
Revision 04, dated May 16, 2022; and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-
1119, Revision 02, dated May 16, 2022. United stated that these
documents allow further flights up to 5,000 flight cycles, 10,000
flight hours, or 24 months, whichever occurs first, after any finding
of cracking on a single 10VU lug. The proposed AD would require repair
before further flight for any number of lugs found to have cracking.
    The FAA generally does not allow flights with known cracking.
Therefore, the FAA requires repairing known cracks before further
flight (although the FAA might make exceptions in certain cases of
unusual need, as discussed below). This is based on the fact that such
damaged airplanes do not conform to the FAA-certificated type design
and, therefore, are not airworthy until a properly approved repair is
made. While the FAA recognizes that repair deferrals might be necessary
at times, the FAA intends to minimize adverse human factors relating to
the lack of reliability of long-term repetitive inspections, which
might reduce the safety of the type-certificated design if such repair
deferrals are practiced routinely.
    As noted above, the FAA might allow an exception to these
requirements in certain cases, if there is an unusual need for a
temporary deferral and if the temporary fix will maintain an adequate
level of safety. Unusual needs include such circumstances as legitimate
difficulty in acquiring parts to accomplish repairs. Under such
conditions, the FAA might allow a temporary deferral of the repair,
subject to a stringent inspection program acceptable to the FAA. The
FAA acknowledges that the manufacturer has specified inspection
intervals that are intended to allow continued operation with known
cracks, and to prevent the need for extensive repairs. However, since
the FAA is not aware of any unusual need for repair deferral in regard
to this AD, the FAA has not evaluated these inspection intervals.
    The FAA considers the compliance times in this AD to be adequate to
allow operators to acquire parts to have on hand in the event that a
crack is detected during inspection. Therefore, the FAA has determined
that, due to the safety implications and consequences associated with
such cracking, any 10VU lug that is found to be cracked must be
repaired or modified before further flight. The FAA has not changed
this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    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
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the
comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting
this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial
changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the
changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Service Bulletins A320-92-1087, Revision
04, dated May 16, 2022; and A320-92-1119, Revision 02, dated May 16,
2022. This service information specifies procedures for repetitive
inspections for cracking of the 10VU rack fitting lugs, and repair of
any cracking. These documents are distinct since they apply to
different airplane configurations. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 461 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections (retained actions from AD   2 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $170         $78,370
 2019-07-05).                            hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the reporting requirement in this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the
cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S. operators to be $85
per product.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary repairs
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The FAA
has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these
repairs:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
83 work-hours x $85 per hour = $7,055.          $9,140          $16,195
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB
Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public
reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take
approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019-07-05, Amendment 39-19616
(84 FR 16386, April 19, 2019; corrected May 10, 2019 (84 FR 20542));
and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2023-23-08 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-22610; Docket No. FAA-2023-1409;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01645-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 5, 2024.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2019-07-05, Amendment 39-19616 (84 FR 16386,
April 19, 2019; corrected May 10, 2019 (84 FR 20542)) (AD 2019-07-
05).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus SAS airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any
category, all manufacturer serial numbers, except those on which
Airbus modification 157335 has been embodied in production.
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 92, Electric and
electronic common installation.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracks found during
maintenance inspections on certain 10VU rack fitting lugs, and a
determination that certain compliance times need to be revised. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address reading difficulties of flight-
critical information displayed to the flightcrew during a critical
phase of flight, such as an approach or takeoff, which could result
in loss of airplane control at an altitude insufficient for
recovery.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Definitions, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the definitions of paragraph (g) of AD
2019-07-05, with no changes. For the purpose of this AD, Group 1
airplanes are in a pre-Airbus Modification 35869 configuration, and
Group 2 airplanes are in a post-Airbus Modification 35869
configuration.

(h) Retained Repetitive Inspections, With Reduced Inspection Intervals
and Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2019-07-05, with reduced inspection intervals and revised service
information.
    (1) For Group 1 airplanes: At the later of the times specified
in Figure 1 to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, do a detailed inspection
for cracking of the 10VU rack fitting lugs, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1087,
Revision 04, dated May 16, 2022. Repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 10,000 flight cycles or 20,000 flight hours,
whichever occurs first.

Figure 1 to Paragraph (h)(1)--Initial Inspection Compliance Time for
Group 1 Airplanes

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE23.000

    (2) For Group 2 airplanes: At the later of the times specified
in Figure 2 to paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, do a detailed inspection
for cracking of the 10VU rack fitting lugs, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1119,
Revision 02, dated May 16, 2022. Repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 10,000 flight cycles or 20,000 flight hours,
whichever occurs first.

Figure 2 to Paragraph (h)(2)--Initial Inspection Compliance Time for
Group 2 Airplanes
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR01DE23.001

(i) Retained Repair, With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2019-07-05, with revised service information. If any crack is found
during any inspection required by paragraph (h)(1) or (2) of this
AD: Before further flight, do a repair in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1087,
Revision 04, dated May 16, 2022 (for Group 1 airplanes); or Airbus
Service Bulletin A320-92-1119, Revision 02, dated May 16, 2022 (for
Group 2 airplanes); as applicable. Repair of a 10VU rack fitting lug
does not terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraphs
(h)(1) and (2) of this AD.

(j) Reporting Requirement

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of
this AD: Submit a report of findings (positive and negative) of each
inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD to Airbus Service
Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus World (airbus.com)
or in accordance with B. ``Reporting Sheet'' of the Appendix of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1087, Revision 04, dated May 16,
2022 (for Group 1 airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-
1119, Revision 02, dated May 16, 2022 (for Group 2 airplanes); as
applicable.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (h)(1) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before May 24, 2019 (the effective date of AD 2019-07-05),
using Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1087, dated March 28, 2011,
which is not incorporated by reference in this AD; or Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-92-1087, Revision 01, dated May 17, 2011, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD; or Airbus Service Bulletin
A320-92-1087, Revision 02, dated November 25, 2014, which was
incorporated by reference in AD 2016-19-14.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (h)(1) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD, using Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-92-1087, Revision 03, dated July 31, 2017, which was
incorporated by reference in AD 2019-07-05.
    (3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (h)(2) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD, using Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-92-1119, dated July 28, 2017, which was incorporated
by reference in AD 2019-07-05; or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-
1119, Revision 01, dated August 5, 2019, which is not incorporated
by reference in this AD.
    (4) This paragraph provides credit for the reporting required by
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD, if that action was performed before the
effective date of this AD in accordance with the instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A320A-92-1087, Revision 03, dated July 31,
2017 (for Group 1 airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-
1119, dated July 28, 2017 (for Group 2 airplanes); as applicable;
except where Figure A-FAAAA, Sheet 02, of Appendix 01, ``Inspection
Report,'' of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1087, Revision 03,
dated July 31, 2017; and Figure A-FAAAA, Sheet 02, of Appendix 01,
``Inspection Report,'' of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1119,
dated July 28, 2017; specifies sending removed lugs to Airbus for
investigation, that action is not required by this AD. Airbus
Service Bulletin

A320A-92-1087, Revision 03, dated July 31, 2017; and Airbus Service
Bulletin A320-92-1119, dated July 28, 2017; were incorporated by
reference in AD 2019-07-05.

(l) Additional AD Provisions

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
International Validation Branch, mail it to the address identified
in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD or email to: [email protected]. If mailing information, also submit information by
email.
    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (ii) Global AMOC AIR-676-19-305, dated July 29, 2019, approved
as an AMOC for AD 2019-07-05, is approved as an AMOC for the
corresponding provisions of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or the European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (l)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(m) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2022-0266, dated December 22, 2022, for related information. This
EASA AD may be found in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1409.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Timothy Dowling,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (n)(3) and (4) of this AD.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1087, Revision 04, dated May
16, 2022.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-92-1119, Revision 02, dated
May 16, 2022.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine
No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website
airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or email [email protected].

    Issued on November 16, 2023.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-26404 Filed 11-30-23; 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

Submission of Protocols and Study Reports for Environmental Research
Involving Human Subjects

OMB No. 2070-0169;         	EPA No. 2195.03

1(b)	Short Characterization/Abstract

	The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, or the Agency) is responsible
for the regulation of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).  In January 2006, EPA issued a final rule to amend
the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (also known as
the Common Rule) at 40 CFR part 26.  EPA’s January 2006 final rule
significantly strengthens and expands the protections for subjects of
“third-party” human research (i.e., research that is not conducted
or supported by EPA).  In addition to other protections, the final rule
requires affected entities to submit information to EPA and an
institutional review board (IRB) prior to initiating, and to EPA upon
the completion of, certain studies that involve human research
participants.  The information collection activity imposed by this final
rule consists of activity-driven reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for those who intend to conduct research for submission to
EPA under the pesticide laws.  If such research involves intentional
dosing of human subjects, these individuals (respondents) are required
to submit study protocols to EPA and a cognizant local Human Subjects
IRB before such research is initiated so that the scientific design and
ethical standards that will be employed during the proposed study may be
reviewed and approved.  Also, respondents are required to submit
information about the ethical conduct of completed research that
involved intentional dosing of human subjects when such research is
submitted to EPA.

This renewal ICR estimates the third party response burden from
complying with the January 2006 final rule requirements. Information is
generally submitted by registrants of pesticide products to support the
registration of their products. It is estimated that the annual response
burden is approximately 1,400 hours valued at about $85,000.

2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection

The 2006 Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 109-54, required EPA to issue
the final rule (Attachment C) addressing third-party intentional dosing
human toxicity studies for pesticides, and EPA conduct of intentional
dosing human toxicity studies for pesticides.  This ICR applies to all
of the information collection activities identified in the
Congressionally-mandated final rule.  EPA’s statutory authority to
require and collect information identified in the final rule already
existed under FIFRA and FFDCA.

  Sections 3(c)(5), 3(g) and 4(g)(2)(D) of FIFRA generally require EPA
to determine that a pesticide would not present any unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment when deciding to grant a new or amended
pesticide registration or to continue an existing registration.  Section
4(g)(2)(E) of FIFRA and section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA generally
require EPA to determine that   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to
the residue of a pesticide chemical, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information when making pesticide tolerance decisions.  FIFRA section
12(a)(2)(P) forbids any person “to use any pesticide in tests on human
beings unless such human beings (i) are fully informed of the nature and
purposes of the test and of any physical and mental health consequences
which are reasonably foreseeable from, and (ii) freely volunteer to
participate in the test.”  EPA established this collection of
information as part of the final rule as authorized under section 25 of
FIFRA and section 408(e)(1)(C) of FFDCA to:

(1)	ensure that sound and appropriate scientific data are available to
EPA when 			making regulatory decisions about pesticides as described in
the previous 				paragraph; and,

(2)	protect the interests, rights and safety of human research subjects,
as required under FIFRA section 12(a)(2)(P).

Sections 3(c)(5), 3(g), 4(g)(2), and 25 of FIFRA and sections
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 408(e)(1)(C) of FFDCA are included as Supporting
Statement attachments A and B, respectively.

2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data

In order to ensure the availability of sound and appropriate scientific
data in its decisions, and to protect of the interests, rights and
safety of human research subjects, EPA extended the requirements of the
Agency’s Common Rule, 40 CFR Part 26, prospectively to third-party
research intended for submission to EPA under the pesticide laws and
involving intentional exposure of non-pregnant adult human subjects.
The information provided allows   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA to review
protocols and related information before covered research involving
human subjects is initiated, but after it has been reviewed and approved
by a local IRB.  In addition, anyone who submits to EPA a report of
research with human subjects must submit concurrently documentation of
the ethical conduct of the research.  This information collection
activity allows EPA to ensure all human subjects in research conducted
by EPA (first party), conducted by entities with support from EPA
(second parties), or conducted by third parties with the intention to
submit it to EPA are treated ethically.

3.		NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a)	Non duplication

		The information requirements identified in the final rule do not
duplicate other federal agency information collections.  Other federal
agencies have adopted the Common Rule and FDA has established
requirements similar to those in the Common Rule for third-party
researchers who perform human testing intended for submission to FDA.
None of those requirements, however, apply to third-party research that
is intended for submission to EPA.

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

 Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), EPA is publishing a Federal Register (FR)
notice soliciting comment on this information collection activity and
the Agency’s intent to renew the OMB approval of this ICR.  The FR
notice and the proposed renewal ICR as well as any public comment are
located in the docket for this action, which can be accessed at
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov
using the docket indentifier EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0414.

3(c)	Consultations

 		During preparation of this ICR renewal, EPA staff will contact
respondent representatives to seek feedback on the burden estimates in
the ICR and the clarity of guidance provided.  Their responses to
EPA’s consultation efforts will be summarized and made publicly
available with the final ICR renewal request, as Attachment D.

3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	Not applicable.  This is an event-driven
information collection activity and is conducted only as information is
submitted to EPA for consideration.  As such there is no set collection
frequency for the collection of this information.

3(e)	General Guidelines

		  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The only guideline established under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that may be exceeded in this collection is
the time period for retaining records.  EPA’s requirement at 40 CFR
169.2(k) states that records containing research data relating to
registered pesticides be retained for as long as the registration is
valid and the producer remains in business.  Registrations are valid
until they are either voluntarily canceled or withdrawn by the
registrant or until EPA has cause to suspend or cancel the registration.
 Since the average period of marketability of a pesticide ranges from 15
to 30 years, the PRA guidelines specifying that data other than health,
medical or tax records not be required to be retained for more than
three years will be exceeded in this collection activity.  This is an
existing requirement that was not changed by the final rule.  In any
case, EPA asserts that recordkeeping requirement merely codifies the
usual and customary business practices of IRBs and third-party
researchers; therefore no burden is attributed to the activity.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 OMB regulations require agencies to provide a
statement indicating whether the

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)).  EPA is not   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 offering a fully
electronic submission option at this time.  EPA is developing an
internet portal that would adequately secure any confidential and/or
sensitive information submitted electronically; however, EPA is not yet
ready to accept such information in this way.

		Respondents that submit study protocols and/or reports to EPA may
elect to submit certain information  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
“electronically” via compact disc.  Ordinarily, registrants would be
required to submit 3 paper copies of study data to EPA.  Under this
hybrid option, registrants need only submit 2 paper copies if they
submit the required study data in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format
(PDF) on a compact disc.  Once EPA staff have become familiar with the
electronic submission process and the technology, OPP believes that this
option will allow the Agency to achieve operating efficiencies in the
regulation of pesticides through the promotion and facilitation of the
electronic submission process, including the delivery, review, data
interchange capability and archiving of data supporting national
pesticide registration.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 OPP expects that
registrants will spend less time and money preparing copies and sending
their submissions using the hybrid paper-electronic submission option,
and stand to benefit from the efficiencies that EPA expects to
experience during data reviews.

3(f)		Confidentiality

		  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA has implemented procedures to protect any
confidential, trade secret or proprietary information from disclosure
that provide strict instructions regarding access to and contact with
documents confidential business information (CBI).  These procedures
comply with EPA’s CBI regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B.

3(g)	Sensitive Questions

This information collection activity complies with the provisions of the
Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-108.  No information of a
sensitive or private nature is requested in conjunction with this
information collection activity.  The protection of human research
subjects’ privacy is a basic, long-standing principle within the
scientific community.  Reports of human research submitted to federal
agencies should not identify subjects by name, or include recognizable
photographs, or otherwise identify them.  On the rare occasion that the
Agency receives identifying information, such information will be
treated as confidential and not released to third parties unless
required by law.

4. 		THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a)	Respondents/NAICS Codes

		This collection of information applies to any entity that submits
protocols and study reports for environmental research involving human
subjects under FIFRA and/or FFDCA. Although EPA has only received such
third-party research in conjunction with FIFRA from pesticide
registrants, it is conceivable that other entities could submit such
information to EPA under FIFRA and/or FFDCA in the future.    SEQ
CHAPTER \h \r 1 The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) code for the principal respondents to this ICR is 325320
(Pesticide and other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing).

		4(b)	Information Requested

Data items, including record keeping requirements

		The final rule sets forth those additional information activities that
are necessary to ensure the protection of human subjects of research
when such research is submitted to EPA for consideration under FIFRA
and/or FFDCA.

Respondent Activities

	The following information activities are required:

Rule Familiarization and Training - read, and understand what data are
to be submitted and understand the protocols must be developed to comply
with the Common Rule.

Submit Protocol to an IRB and EPA – Prepare and submit a proposal for
test protocol to IRB for review.  After approval by the IRB, submit the
proposal and related documentation, including a record of the IRB
approval, to EPA.

Prepare and Submit Ethics Information  for EPA Review - once a study is
conducted, compile applicable records to document ethical conduct of the
research.

Store, File and Maintain Information – ensure that research
information is placed in central records as required by FIFRA and
consistent with section 3(e) of this ICR.

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

5(a)	Agency Activities

		EPA’s information-related activities associated with this collection
consist of the following:

Conduct Prior review on study protocol – review and comment on study
protocol, document comments/review.

Review Ethical Aspect of a Protocol and Study Report – make formal EPA
determination on usefulness and ethical aspects of the study.

Record and Report Information – Document any formal decisions made.

Store, File and Maintain Information – compile information into
appropriate databases and archive.

5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	OPP completed a major review of its information
tracking systems to improve their efficiency and accuracy. This review
resulted in the development of a new integrated information system,
which, when complete, will improve the quality of the Agency's databases
and allows the EPA to respond more timely and accurately to queries from
registrants and the public, including requests made under the FOIA.

	OPP is also investigating the possibility of providing optional
electronic data transfer services to the industry as a means of
minimizing the burden of registration activities. The Agency's pesticide
program, along with the pesticide industry, recognizes the advantages in
terms of accuracy, speed, cost and personnel from electronic data
transfer technologies. In addition, OPP is consulting with industry
associations and other federal agencies, and participating in an
Agency-wide workgroup to develop electronic reporting standards intended
to facilitate collection of information from industry.

		OPP does not publish the studies submitted.  However, it maintains
records of each study in the Office of Pesticide Programs Information
Network (OPPIN), and provides public access to OPPIN bibliographies
through the National Pesticides Information Retrieval System (NPIRS).
NPIRS supports searches of the PDMS database by chemical, subject,
submission date, laboratory, guideline number, and document type, and
the public may request copies of studies that are non-confidential by
submitting a FOIA request.

5(c)	Small Entity Flexibility

Although the Agency cannot predict whether or how many small entities
might engage in the subject matter research, the burden and related cost
for researchers to comply with these information collection activities
is estimated to be a trivially small portion of the overall cost of
performing such studies.  After reviewing the history of EPA’s
consideration on human research in its various program offices, EPA
estimates that only a limited number of third-party human studies will
be impacted by these activities each year.  Because both the number of
affected studies is relatively small and the estimated current costs of
compliance with the Common Rule are low, the potential overall burden
and costs from these activities to third parties are also estimated to
be small, regardless of their size.  As a result, EPA has not provided
any special flexibility for small entities.

5(d)	Collection Schedule

		A   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 periodic collection schedule is not
appropriate for the information collection activity.  The information
collection activity is initiated by the respondents and therefore EPA
expects that respondents will engage in the activities described in this
ICR only once, whenever developing and performing a given research study
that involves human subjects as governed by EPA’s regulations.

6. 		ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden

		EPA is estimating only the incremental burden imposed upon respondents
for compliance with the paperwork requirements established in the final
rule.  EPA is neither estimating, de novo, the estimated paperwork
burden for compliance with the 1991 Common Rule in this ICR nor the
paperwork burden associated with the generation of certain study data
that is already covered by other ICRs, such as those requested by EPA in
a Data Call-In under FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B).  EPA does assume that
IRBs are already in compliance with the 1991 Common Rule requirements
and therefore believes that there is no additional burden imposed upon
IRBs for compliance with the paperwork requirements established in the
final rule and discussed in this document.

		Based upon historical data, EPA anticipates that respondents will
submit to OPP an average of 33 pesticide research studies per year under
FIFRA and/or FFDCA that will involve intentional exposure of human
subjects.  EPA also expects to receive other types of pesticide research
involving human subjects; an average of 29 studies annually.  While EPA
assumes that researchers conducting these studies would already be
required to comply with the 1991 Common Rule requirements, they will be
subject to some additional paperwork requirements under EPA’s Common
Rule amendments.  Therefore, EPA is estimating only the burden and costs
associated with the paperwork activities that are described in the final
rule.

The rule familiarization activities are intended to include
respondent-EPA communications regarding protocol development. Also, EPA
believes that protocols approved by an IRB and submitted to EPA will be
the same.  Therefore, although such respondents will be required to
submit protocols twice - once to an IRB and once to EPA - before a study
commences, EPA has estimated the burden related to protocol development
only once.  Lastly, the burden related to the development and submission
to EPA of ethics information that must be submitted to EPA along with
the completed human studies is expected to be minimal as much of the
information is likely generated during the study period. As shown in
Tables 1 and 2, the total annual estimated burden associated with this
information collection activity is 1,056 hours for all submitted
pesticide research that involves intentional exposure of human subjects,
and 348 hours for all other pesticide research that involves human
subjects.  Therefore the total annual burden for this information
collection activity is estimated to be 1,404 hours.

Table 1. Respondent Burden & Cost Estimates – Research Involving
Intentional Exposure of Human Subjects

Activities	Average Burden Hours Per Response	Total Per Response

	Mgmt.

$96/hr	Tech.

$63/hr	Cler.

$32/hr	Hours	Cost ($)

Rule Familiarization

And Training	2	2	0	4	318

Prepare and Submit  Protocol for IRB and EPA Review	0	15	2	17	1,009

Prepare and Submit Ethics Information of Completed Human Studies to EPA
0	8	1	9	536

Store, File and Maintain Information	0	0	2	2	64

Total per response	2	25	5	32	1,927

	Annual Burden:	32 hours per study * 33 studies submitted per year =
1,056 hours

	Annual Costs:		$1,927 per study * 33 studies submitted per year =
$63,591

Table 2. Respondent Burden & Cost Estimates – All Other Submitted
Research with Human Subjects

Activities	Average Burden Hours Per Response	Total Per Response

	Mgmt.

$96/hr	Tech.

$63/hr	Cler.

$32/hr	Hours	Cost ($)

Rule Familiarization

And Training	1	1	0	2	159

Prepare and Submit Ethics Information of Completed Human Studies to EPA
0	8	1	9	536

Store, File and Maintain Information	0	0	1	1	32

Total per response	1	9	2	12	727

	Annual Burden:	12 hours per study * 29 studies submitted per year = 348
hours

	Annual Costs:		$727 per study * 29 studies submitted per year = $21,083

6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The estimated annual cost for all respondents is
$84,674.  Respondent labor rates are estimated to be $96, $63, and $32
per hour, respectively, for managerial, technical and clerical labor.
These labor rates were derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 May 2004 National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates for NAICS code 325300.  These labor rates
are fully loaded and include benefits and overhead costs, using a
methodology developed by OPP’s Biological and Economic Analysis
Division (see Attachment E).

6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 	The estimated Agency annual cost is $1,040,219.
EPA activities include: communicating with respondents, reviewing the
ethical aspects of submitted study protocols and completed study
reports, documenting decisions, and information management activities to
record, file, and track the submissions.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Agency
labor rates are $115, $83, and $59 per hour for management (GS-15, step
4), technical (GS-13, step 4), and clerical (GS-7, step 4) staff,
respectively.  These rates are fully loaded based on Office of Personnel
Management salary tables for federal employees for 2005 and include
locality pay for the Washington, DC-Baltimore area.  The details of the
calculations are identified in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. Agency Burden & Cost Estimates – Review of Research Involving
Intentional Exposure of Human Subjects

Activities 	Average Burden Hours Per Study	Total Per Study

	Mgmt. $115/hr 	Tech. $83/hr 	Cler. $59/hr 	Hours 	Cost ($)

Rule Familiarization And Training 	2 	2 	0 	4 	396

Primary Review Scientific and Ethical Aspects of a Protocol	1 	50 	0 	51
	4,265

Primary Review Ethical Aspects of a Completed Study Report	1 	20 	0 	21
1,775

Secondary Review of scientific and ethical aspects of protocol, and
review of ethical aspects of the completed study

$11,472*

Record and Report Information 	0 	0 	2 	2 	118

Store, File and Maintain Information	0	0	2	2	118

Total per study	4 	72 	4 	80 	$18,144

* Cost of 15 experts earning about $400/day conducting secondary review.

	Annual Burden:	80 hours/study * 33 studies = 2,640 hours

	Annual Costs:		$18,144/study * 33 studies = $598,752

Table 4. Agency Burden & Cost Estimates – Review of All Other
Submitted Research with Human Subjects

Activities 	Average Burden Hours Per Study	Total Per Study

	Mgmt. $115/hr 	Tech. $83/hr 	Cler. $59/hr 	Hours 	Cost ($)

Rule Familiarization And Training 	1 	1 	0 	2 	198

Primary Review Ethical Aspects of a Completed Study Report 	1 	40 	0 	41
	3,435

Secondary Review of scientific and ethical aspects of protocol, and
review of ethical aspects of the completed study

$11,472*

Record and Report Information 	0 	0 	1 	1 	59

Store, File and Maintain Information 	0 	0 	1 	1 	59

Total per study	2 	41 	2 	45 	$15,223

* Cost of 15 experts earning about $400/day conducting secondary review.

	Annual Burden:	45 hours/study * 29 studies = 1,305 hours

	Annual Costs:		$15,223/study * 29 studies = $441,467

6(d)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

		  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The total estimate represents the information
collection activities expected to occur annually over the next three
years.  Table 5 provides the total estimated annual burden and costs for
respondents, as well as the total estimated annual burden and costs for
the Agency:

Table 5.  Total   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Annual Bottom Line Burden and
Costs / Master Table

Collection Activity	Annual Burden Hours	Annual Costs

Annual Respondent Burden and Costs

Research Involving Intentional Exposure of Human Subjects (Table 1)
1,056	$63,591

All Other Submitted Research with Human Subjects (Table 2)	348	$21,083

Respondent Total	1,404	$84,674

Annual Agency Burden

Research Involving Intentional Exposure of Human Subjects (Table 3)
2,640	$598,752

All Other Submitted Research with Human Subjects (Table 4)	1,305
$441,467

Agency Total	3,945	$1,040,219

6(e)	Reasons for Change in Burden

		There is no change to the annual respondent burden estimate.

6(f)		Burden Statement

The total estimated annual paperwork burden to comply with this
information collection activity is 1,404  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  hours.
The average burden per activity is estimated to be 32 hours per response
for research involving intentional exposure of human subjects, and 12
hours per response for all other submitted research with human subjects.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, “burden” means the total
time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal
agency.  The agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control number for this
information collection appears at the beginning and end of this
document. In addition OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations, after
initial display in the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 (see
Attachment F).

The Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0414, which is available for online viewing at
HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov , or in
person viewing at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA.
This docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.  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-2008-0414 and
OMB Control No. 2070-0169, 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 ICR under docket identification number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0414.  These attachments are available for online
viewing at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov_"
www.regulations.gov  or otherwise accessed as described in section 6(f)
of the supporting statement, and as noted below.

Attachment A:	FIFRA Sections 3(c)(5), 3(g), 4(g)(2), and 25

Attachment B:	FFDCA Sections 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 408(e)(1)(C)

Attachment C:	Final Rule; Protections for Test Subjects in Human
Research

Attachment D:	Placeholder for:  “Record of EPA Consultations With
Respondents Regarding the ICR Renewal”  [Attachment to be added to
revised, final  supporting statement to be released with the 2nd FR
Notice for this ICR renewal.]

Attachment E:	OPP Standard ICR Wages (Draft)

Attachment F:	Display Related to OMB Control #2070-0169 -Listings of
Related Regulations in 40 CFR 9.1

 Defined at FIFRA section 2(bb) as “. . . (1) any unreasonable risk to
man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and
environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide, or (2) a
human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide
in or on any food inconsistent with the standard under section 408 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a) . . . .”

 Source: US EPA (2005). “Human Study Submission to the Office of
Pesticide Programs by Year.”  Office of Pesticide Programs.

 Bureau of Labor Statistics. “May 2004 National Industry-Specific
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates: NAICS 325300 - Pesticide,
Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing.” Accessed
at   HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_325300.htm"
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_325300.htm .

May 13, 2008

  FILENAME  2195ss02 .doc

                    Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  12


[Federal Register: February 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 6498-6499]
[DOCID:fr04fe08-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Filing

January 28, 2008.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bangor Hydro-Electric Company...........  ER99-1522-004
Emera Energy Services, Inc..............  ER02-723-003
Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary No. 1, Inc.  ER04-359-002
Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary No. 2, Inc.  ER06-796-002
Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 1    ER07-553-001
 LLC.
Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 2    ER07-554-001
 LLC.
Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 3    ER07-555-001
 LLC.
Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 4    ER07-556-001
 LLC.
Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 5    ER07-557-001
 LLC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that on January 17, 2008, the above-referenced
proceedings, Emera Entities, submitted for filing, an Updated Market
Power Analysis and revision to each of the market-based rate tariffs of
their January 14, 2008 filing.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as

appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or
before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest
must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant and all the parties
in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 14, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-1927 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 78)]
[Notices]
[Page 21007-21008]
[DOCID:fr24ap06-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

April 17, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-1047-001.
    Applicants: Mirant Las Vegas, LLC.
    Description: Mirant's letter to the Commission concerning its
compliance filing submitted July 9, 2003.
    Filed Date: March 27, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060327-5032
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 24, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1497-002.
    Applicants: Dearborn Industrial Generation, LLC.
    Description: Dearborn Industrial Generation, LLC submits an Erratum
to its February 21, 2006, Late Filed Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: April 7, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060411-0028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-580-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: The Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc. submits an amended coversheet to its First Revised Network
Integration Service Agreement filed February 22, 2006.
    Filed Date: April 11, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060417-0182.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 24, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-650-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits a substitute
interconnection service agreement with Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power
Plant, Inc and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company.
    Filed Date: April 11, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060414-0117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 2, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-679-001.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: LG&E Energy submits a revised executed letter
agreement with East Kentucky Power Cooperative which will be designated
as Original Sheets 17 and 18 in 1st Revised Rate Schedule 25.
    Filed Date: April 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060414-0120.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-746-001.
    Applicants: Equilon Enterprises LLC.
    Description: Equilon Enterprises, LLC dba Shell Oil Products U.S.
submits an amendment to its March 16, 2006 filing, correcting
typographical errors to its proposed tariff.
    Filed Date: April 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060414-0116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-747-001.
    Applicants: Equilon Enterprises LLC.
    Description: Equilon Enterprises, LLC dba Shell Oil Products U.S.
submits an amendment to its March 16, 2006 filing, correcting
typographical errors to its proposed tariff.
    Filed Date: April 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060414-0114.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006.
    Docket Numbers: ER06-748-001.
    Applicants: Shell Chemical LP.
    Description: Shell Chemical LP submits an amendment to its March
16, 2006 filing.
    Filed Date: April 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060414-0122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-763-001.
    Applicants: Motiva Enterprises LLC.
    Description: Motiva Enterprises, LLC submits an amendment to its
March 16, 2006 proposed market-based rate tariff filing.
    Filed Date: April 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060414-0115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-770-001.
    Applicants: PPM Energy, Inc.
    Description: PPM Energy, Inc submits corrections to their proposed
amended, respective, market-based rate schedules filed on March 20,
2006.
    Filed Date: April 11, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060414-0118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-841-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services Inc, agent and on behalf of the
Entergy Operating Companies submits amendments to the Entergy System
Agreement.
    Filed Date: April 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060414-0314.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-842-000.
    Applicants: Palomar Energy, LLC.
    Description: Palomar Energy LLC submits a notice of termination of
its FERC Electric Rate Schedule 1.
    Filed Date: April 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060414-0308.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-844-000.
    Applicants: LSF Limited.
    Description: LSF Limited submits its Petition of Initial Rate
Schedule, Waivers and Blanket Authority under ER06-844.
    Filed Date: April 11, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060417-0186.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 2, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-845-000.
    Applicants: Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Company.
    Description: Northwestern Wisconsin Electric Co submits a proposed
rate change to its original FERC Rate Schedule No. 2, effective May 1,
2006.
    Filed Date: April 11, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060417-0187.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 2, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-846-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services Inc on behalf of Public Service
Co of Colorado submits an amended and restated version of its October
28, 1992 Contract for Transmission Service w/ Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Association Inc, effective April 12, 2006.
    Filed Date: April 11, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060417-0188.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 2, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER96-795-013.
    Applicants: Gateway Energy Marketing.
    Description: Gateway Energy Marketing submits its amended and
updated market power analysis and revised tariff sheets pursuant to the
Commission's May 31, 2005 order.
    Filed Date: April 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060414-0306.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER98-4333-002.
    Applicants: Primary Power Marketing, L.L.C.
    Description: Primary Power Marketing LLC submits a revised updated
power market analysis out-of time, pursuant to the Commission's May 31,
2005 order.
    Filed Date: April 10, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060411-0147.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 1, 2006.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-6052 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P