                                  MEMORANDUM

Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

TO:			Lisa Biddle, EPA
FROM:		John Sunda, Tetra Tech
DATE: 		December 18, 2012 (updated May 13, 2014)

SUBJECT: 	Velocity Cap Performance Data
This memo provides a summary of available design and performance data concerning known existing velocity cap installations in the US and worldwide. As discussed below, existing velocity caps combine the advantageous characteristics of an offshore location and a well-performing technology; this combination is sufficiently protective of impingeable organisms to be deemed equivalent to meeting the impingement mortality (IM) requirements for the Existing Facility rule.

Data Sources

The data was obtained from a review of available documents including previous Technical Development Documents, survey data, EPRI's 2007 compendium, other technology documents, site visit reports, and information from various Tetra Tech support documents for 316(b) implementation. A complete list of known velocity cap installations and summary data (including the specific sources for performance data) are presented in Attachment A.

Technology Performance

The overall performance of existing offshore intakes with velocity caps with respect to impingement reduction is the result of the combination of two components; the intake location and the velocity cap.

Intake Location

Intakes may be located offshore for several reasons including: 1) to take advantage of a cooler source of water; 2) to prevent recirculation of the heated discharge; 3) to take advantage of lower density of biological organisms, and/or 4) limitations regarding the availability of a suitable shoreline location.  Often, a combination of these factors is considered when selecting the location of a submerged intake. As discussed in Section 6.18.4 of the proposed rule Technical Development Document, locating submerged intakes in the deeper regions of larger waterbodies (particularly outside the littoral zone) has the potential to reduce impingement and entrainment (I&E), due to the lower densities of aquatic organisms as compared to a shoreline-based intake.  In Entrainment of Fish Larvae and Eggs on the Great Lakes, with Special Reference to the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Southeastern Lake Michigan (1976), researchers noted that larval abundance is greatest within the area from the 12.2-m (40-ft) contour to shore in Lake Michigan and that the abundance of larvae tends to decrease as one proceeds deeper and farther offshore. This finding led to the suggestion of locating CWISs in deep waters. For 316(b) Phase I, EPA considered relocating intakes 125 meters (410 feet) outside of the littoral zone to be a good engineering practice aimed at reduced impingement and entrainment. The Office of Naval Research states that the littoral zone in ocean environments extends from the shore to 600 feet (ft.) out in the water (ONR 2013). In addition, installing the intake to depths where there is a lower concentration of living organisms (i.e., at least 20 meters) is also expected to decrease environmental impacts associated with intake operations. The reduction in I&E is highly site-specific; the data in Attachment A suggests that, by itself, while often effective in reducing I&E, simply being located offshore does not sufficiently reduce I&E to merit any designation of compliance on a national scale.

Velocity Caps

Intakes at a submerged offshore location can utilize various inlet designs including open pipe, perforated pipe, cribs, wedgewire screens, velocity caps, etc. Of these, only velocity caps and wedgewire screens are designed to reduce impingement.  As discussed in Section 6.13 of the proposed rule Technical Development Document, wedgewire screens can be very effective in reducing impingement.  Nearly all of the velocity caps identified for this memo were located in the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean or one of the Great Lakes and were located between 800 ft. and 7,000 ft. offshore. As above, the data in Attachment A suggests that, by itself, while often effective in reducing I&E, simply utilizing a velocity cap does not sufficiently reduce I&E to merit any designation of compliance on a national scale.

Analysis of Data

Depending on the design and location, the combination of submerged offshore location with a velocity cap can potentially serve as an effective impingement reduction technology when compared to shoreline intakes without impingement reduction technologies. This analysis focuses on submerged intakes with velocity caps.  Other types of intakes are not included, except as they provide baseline data regarding the effect of the velocity cap alone.

The available impingement reduction performance data includes estimates of reductions based on three components/combinations: 1) location alone; 2) velocity cap alone; and 3) a combination of both location and velocity cap. Table 1 presents a summary of impingement reduction data for each. Note that this data typically refers to a percent reduction in the number of impinged fish or biomass and does not necessarily reflect survival in cases where fish impinged on shore-based screens are returned to the source water. There was a very limited amount of data available due to the small number of intakes with the velocity cap technology and performance data. As a result, EPA included all available data in the summary data shown in Table 1 regardless of whether the performance metric is based on number of fish or biomass and in a few instances the basis of the metric was unclear. In Table 1, the few data points for "Location" (two) and "Combination" (one) are based on number of fish data only. Biomass data was available only for the "Velocity Cap" technology group and there was only one study that was clearly based on number of fish and that study reported the highest reduction (97%), The other six studies (four biomass and two unclear) were also included because these studies present a much wider range of performance (50% to 94.5%) than the single study based on number of fish.

                                    Table 1
          Summary of Velocity Cap Impingement Percent Reduction Data
                               Performance Type
                                    Average
                                    Median
                                    Minimum
                                    Maximum
                                     Count
                                   Location
                                      66%
                                      66%
                                      60%
                                      73%
                                       2
                                 Velocity Cap
                                      78%
                                      82%
                                      50%
                                      97%
                                       7
                                  Combination
                                      76%
                                      76%
                                      76%
                                      76%
                                       1
   Note: See Attachment A for a full list of the data sources, all of which are included in EPA's record for the rule. The following performance data presented in the attachment are not included in Table 1:
   * Data for the San Onofre intake is an estimate of the survival of fish returned by the fish elevator system and does not reflect velocity cap performance.
   * Data for Seabrook where it is unclear how values were calculated for the site visit report and where flow reduction was considered.
   * Data for Edgewater unit 5 is for a velocity cap with 3/8 inch break away screens. These screens break away when they become plugged and it was not clear whether these screens were in-place during sampling.

Estimates of impingement reduction associated with location alone were identified for only two locations.  Impingement reductions associated with location alone are difficult to establish because they require either the presence of both a shoreline intake and a submerged offshore intake without a velocity cap at the same facility or the collection of impingeable fish densities data at separate locations. Such data was available for two intakes. One was for intakes located 850 ft. offshore in 22 ft. deep water in Lake Ontario and the other was located 1,200 ft. offshore in the Atlantic Ocean in 24 ft. deep water. Two estimates are provided for the second location. The average of these two is used in the summary data. In both instances, the impingement reduction estimates are developed by comparing fish density data from gill net sampling conducted close to shore and close to the submerged intake. These limited data suggest that location alone can account for 60% to 73% reduction in impingement. However, it is not clear how this data relates to other waterbodies. These data suggest that impingement reductions associated with a submerged offshore location alone may not be sufficient to meet impingement standards.

Estimates of the performance of the velocity cap alone involve comparing the performance of separate intakes located in the same general area or comparing the performance of the same intake with and without the velocity cap. Seven sets of impingement performance data for the velocity cap alone were available. For three of the intakes located in the Pacific Ocean in California, performance was evaluated by reversing the flow between the intake and the heated water discharge pipes, which are also located submerged far offshore and are open pipes (i.e., have no screening technology). For two intakes, data were collected before and after velocity caps were installed or replaced. For two intakes, data were collected for separate intakes located in the same general area. The summary data in Table 1 indicate that velocity caps alone can reduce impingement by 50% to 97% with an average of 78% and median of 82%. This data suggests that in more than half of the velocity caps evaluated the velocity caps alone may provide sufficient impingement reduction to meet the impingement performance standard; however, for some intakes, the velocity cap alone may not be sufficient.

Theoretically, the reductions for the combination of the location and velocity cap could be calculated by simply summing the reductions.  This is a valid approach for data from the same facility since the starting point for data on a "velocity cap alone" is based on the fish available at the offshore location. However, the combination of data from different facility locations has drawbacks, especially since the "location alone" reductions are very site-specific. Regardless, based on the available data, the worst-case combination of the minimum "location alone" reduction of 60% and the "velocity cap alone" reduction of 50% results in an estimated combined reduction of 80%. An actual estimate of the combined performance of velocity cap and location was also available for the intake at Seabrook. Here, the estimated impingement reduction was 76% and was calculated by comparing performance with a shoreline intake at a similar facility located 65 miles away. While there is some uncertainty regarding the validity of the estimate since it is from two facilities so far apart, the estimate suggests that the technology performance is compliant with the impingement standard. The reduction of 76% is also consistent with the estimated combined reduction of 80% derived by combining the minimum location and velocity cap only reduction.

Conclusion

The impingement reduction performance of intakes submerged far offshore with velocity caps is dependent on site-specific conditions. The available data suggests that locating an intake far offshore alone may not result in compliance with the impingement performance standard. The available data also suggests that velocity caps alone may result in compliance but not in all cases. However, the data strongly supports an assumption that existing intakes with the combination of an intake located far offshore (e.g., at a minimum distance of 800 feet from the shoreline) and the use of a velocity cap will result in performance comparable to, and in some cases better than, the impingement performance standard.

References

ONR - Office of Naval Research. Ocean Regions: Littoral Zone  -  Characteristics.
Webpage accessed on April 19, 2013 at: http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/ocean/regions/littoralzone1.htm

                                 Attachment A
          Summary of Velocity Cap Installations and Performance Data

                                     Owner
                                 Facility Name
                                   Location
                                   Waterbody
                                     Depth
                               Distance Offshore
                                 Velocity Data
                               Performance Data
                            % Impingement Reduction
                         Technology Aspect Evaluated
                              Basis of Comparison
                                    Metric
                                     Notes
                            Performance Data Source
NRG Oswego Harbor Power, LLC
Oswego Harbor Units 5 & 6
Oswego, NY
Lake Ontario
Unit 5  -  22 ft; Unit 6  -  22 ft
Unit 5 850 ft; Unit 6 950 ft
Approach velocity 1.0 fps at max flow
Offshore fish density near intake was 60% lower than shoreline fish density based on gill net sampling (1.57 fish/sq ft net near shore and 0.63 fish/sq ft net offshore).
60%
Location
Gill net sampling near shore versus near intake.
Ambient fish sampling; number fish/sq ft net.
Data used in Table 1. Offshore net size was twice nearshore so fish/sq ft metric was used. Unit 5 & Unit 6 each have similar offshore intakes with velocity caps. Unit 6 has an onshore diversion/bypass system - comparative impingement data for diversion system is available.
Total fish/species collected by gill nets near-shore and adjacent to Oswego Steam Station offshore intake (DCN 10-6511D)
Southern California Edison Co
San Onofre Nuclear Units 2 & 3
San Clemente, CA
Pacific Ocean
32 ft
3,200 ft
1.5 fps
Data cited for impingement reduction is based on four other southern California facilities. Value cited in 2008 Comprehensive Demonstration study (CDS) was 88.2%

Velocity Cap
Value reported was from four other Southern California plants (El Segundo, Huntington Beach. Scattergood, Ormond Beach).

No useful data.
Due to design of discharge diffuser system evaluation of velocity cap not possible. Value reported was from other plants included in this table.
Site Visit Report for San Onofre (SONGS) (DCN 10-6548)

Effectiveness of fish elevator and return is 72% for a total combined estimated reduction of 97%.
72%
Fish Return System Survival
Entrapped fish survival versus 100% mortality.
Impingement mortality of entrapped fish.
Data not used. This value represents fish return efficacy only and not performance of velocity cap. Separate data is available for fish and invertebrates; performance cited is for fish only.
San Onofre (SONGS) Comprehensive Demonstration Study (DCN10-6548C)
Alliant Energy
Edgewater Unit 5
Sheboygan, WI
Lake Michigan
Depth below surface 10 ft
1,500 ft
Cap has 3/8 in grills with through-screen velocity of 0.4 fps
2007 IMEC Study reports IM for two intakes of similar distance offshore and similar design flow but Units 3&4 intake does not have a velocity cap. Estimated annual IM for Unit 5 was <2% of value for Units 3&4.
98%
Velocity Cap with inlet screen
Impingement for two similar intakes with and without Velocity Cap.
Estimated Annual Impingement for each intake.
Data not used. Could not determine if reduction was due to velocity cap or screens. Velocity Cap has 3/8 in mesh inlet screens that may or may not have been intact.
Section 316(b) Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study for the Edgewater Generating Station (DCN 11-5402)
NRG Energy
El Segundo Units 3 & 4
El Segundo, CA
Santa Monica Bay
29 ft deep; 15 ft below MLLW
2,600 ft
2.4 fps at cap
94.5% IM reduction in initial 1958 study of before and after velocity cap installation.
94.5%
Velocity Cap
Before and after installation of velocity cap on submerged intake in 1958.
Biomass: focused on impingement of commercially and recreationally important species and excluded forage and non-use species.
Data used in Table 1.
Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Velocity Cap Effectiveness Study (DCN 12-6809)
AES
Redondo Beach Units 5-8
Redondo Beach, CA
Units 1-6 King Harbor; Units 7-8 Pacific Ocean
Units 1-6 30 ft deep 20 ft top to surface; Units 7&8 45 ft deep 30 ft top to surface
Units 5&6 1,000 ft; Units 7&8 950 ft; Both approx. 3,000 ft from facility

No detailed performance data identified
n/a
We Energies
Presque Isle
Marquette, MI
Lake Superior
27 ft deep 8 ft top to surface
900 ft

No detailed performance data identified
n/a
Florida Power & Light
Seabrook
Seabrook, NH
Atlantic Ocean
Water is 60 ft deep; 18 ft from bottom, 42 ft from surface
7,000 ft
DIF velocity is 0.5 fps at face
Seabrook age 1 equivalent average annual impingement loss was 68% lower than at Pilgrim (calculated by EPA in Phase II Case Study).
68%
Combination
Impingement for Seabrook Velocity Cap compared to Pilgrim Shoreline Intake located about 65 miles away.
Age 1 equivalent losses due to impingement - it is not clear whether the difference in intake flow Seabrook (593 MGD) and Pilgrim (448 MGD) was accounted for.
Data not used. Differences in calculating annual impingement for each location may have affected calculated reduction. Pilgrim used design flow - Seabrook used average flow also Seabrook did not sample at night - suggest rely on 2006-2008 data reported by facility.
Case Study Analysis for  the Proposed Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule (DCN 4-0003)

83% (Next Era 2008) based on comparable data from nearby Pilgrim Plant. 2006 PIC reports a 76% reduction based on  number fish/MG.
76%
Combination
Impingement for Seabrook Velocity Cap compared to Pilgrim Shoreline Intake located about 65 miles away.
Number fish impinged /MG
Data used in Table 1. 76% value is from 2006 PIC Basis of 83% value could not be confirmed (it is possible that this includes flow reduction since it is similar to 81% value reported in 2006 PIC). Only 76% value is used
Off-shore, Mid Depth Velocity Caps as Best Technology Available for Impingement Control (DCN 11-6501L)

2006 PIC reports 81% reduction (from baseline) when recirculation flow averaging 47 MGD is factored in.
81%
Combination plus flow reduction
Impingement for Seabrook velocity cap compared to Pilgrim shoreline intake located about 65 miles away plus flow reduction.
Number fish impinged /MG.
Data not used. Since submerged offshore intake withdraws cooler water plant is able to recirculate an average of 47 mgd -81% value includes consideration of flow reduction when compared to average intake pump flow. Does not reflect velocity cap performance alone.
Seabrook Nuclear Power Station Proposal for Information Collection (DCN10-6514D)
Florida Power & Light
St Lucie Nuclear 1&2
Hutchinson Island, FL
Atlantic Ocean
Water is 24 ft deep; 7 ft from bottom and 5 ft from intake  top to surface at low tide
1,200 ft

Emergency shoreline intake is on Indian River estuary. Gill net sampling near ocean shore shows impingeable density of 2.5 fish/100 m3 dropping to 0.8 fish/100 m3 beyond the caps (68% reduction).
68%
Location
Gill net sampling near shore versus beyond the intake.
Number Fish impinged /100 m3.
Data used in Table 1 as average of the two location performance studies
Site Visit Report for St. Lucie (DCN 10-6515)

First year (2006) result of recent study shows impingement reduction of 71.6% for fish, 98.5% for shell fish and 77.1% overall comparing estuary to ocean.
77%
Location
No details provided
Fish and shell fish combined.
Data used in Table 1 as average of the two location performance studies. Partial results of 2006 study. Few details provided.
Site Visit Report for St. Lucie (DCN 10-6515)

Average of two studies identified
73%
Location

Data used in Table 1. Average of two above studies including both fish & shellfish in second study.
Site Visit Report for St. Lucie (DCN 10-6515)
AES
Huntington Beach Units 1-4
Huntington Beach, CA
Pacific Ocean
18 ft from surface and 5 ft above riser
1,500 ft
2.8 fps at cap
82% overall reduction in impingement during 1978-79 study in which intake and discharge were switched (see TDD).
82%
Velocity Cap
Capped versus un-capped offshore intake by reversing intake and discharge.
Biomass of impinged fish excluding silversides.
Data used in Table 1. Results are conservative (effectiveness otherwise greater) as silversides, which were only present during reverse operations, were not included in impingement reduction calculations.
Off-shore, Mid Depth Velocity Caps as Best Technology Available for Impingement Control (DCN 11-6501L)
City of Los Angeles
Scattergood Units 1-3
Los Angeles, CA
Santa Monica Bay
Water is 29 ft deep, 13 ft from bottom
1,600 ft
1.5 fps at velocity cap opening
83% reduction in impingement during early 1970s study in which damaged cap was left off for a period.
83%
Velocity Cap
Capped versus un-capped offshore intake (damaged cap removed temporarily).
Biomass
Data used in Table 1. Comparisons between periods were confounded by variations in plant operations and cooling water flows due to power demand and outages.
Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Velocity Cap Effectiveness Study (DCN 12-6809)

95/97% IM reduction based on biomass metric/abundance in a 2006 study where intake and discharge were reversed.
97%
Velocity Cap
Capped versus un-capped offshore intake - reversed intake and discharge flow direction.
Number of impinged fish
Data used in Table 1. No significant differences in fish densities were detected between the intake and discharge structures from the hydroacoustic data, indicating that differences in impingement between normal and reverse flow regimes were attributable to the presence or absence of the velocity cap and not the fish densities in the vicinity of the two structures.
Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Velocity Cap Effectiveness Study (DCN 12-6809)
Reliant
Ormond Beach
Oxnard, CA
Pacific Ocean
35 ft
1,950 ft

Overall reduction in entrapment of 61% at night and 87% during the day (Next Era 2011).
74%
Velocity Cap
Capped versus un-capped offshore intake by reversing intake and discharge.
Impinged fish excluding mackerel. Likely reported as biomass - Scattergood report summary does not specify biomass but data is from report of a 4 plant study and biomass is specified for other plants.
Data used in Table 1. Averaged night and day values but would be better if this was a weighted average. Mackerel were removed from analysis because of unusually high relative abundance of mackerel schools in the study area.
Off-shore, Mid Depth Velocity Caps as Best Technology Available for Impingement Control (DCN 11-6501L)
Constellation
Nine Mile Point
Scriba, NY
Lake Ontario
6 ft from bottom; 14 ft from surface
Unit 1 850 ft; Unit 2 1,000 ft
Unit 1 - 2 fps; Unit 2 - 0.5 fps
Site visit Report refers to gill net sampling being conducted near shore and near intake but data was not available at time of visit.

No detailed performance data identified
n/a
AES
Kintigh (Somerset)
Somerset, NY
Lake Ontario
Depth below surface 16 ft; Minimum 6 ft above bottom
621 m
0.5 fps (0.15 m/sec)

No detailed performance data identified
n/a
Constellation
Ginna
Ontario, NY
Lake Ontario
11 ft from bottom 15 ft below surface
3,100 ft
0.6 fps

No useful data. Gill net sampling was performed near shore and near intake but data was only compared to impingement data and not between net locations.
Comprehensive Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Report for RE Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (DCN 12-6810)
EDF Energy
Sizewell Power Station (Intake B)
England

Intake A 300 m; Intake B 600 m

Two intakes with and without caps. Impingement at intake B is about 50% below intake A
50%
Velocity Cap

Unclear if data is number of fish or biomass
Data used in Table 1.
Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule (DCN 10-0004)

Dungeness Power Station (Intake B)
England

Two intakes with and without caps. Impingement at intake B is about 62% below intake A
62%
Velocity Cap

Unclear if data is number of fish or biomass
Data used in Table 1.
Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule (DCN 10-0004)
Ontario Power
Nanticoke Thermal Generating Station
Ontario, Canada
Lake Erie
West intake in 12 m deep water
West Intake 475 m; East Intake 525 m

No data. Mentioned in Phase II TDD
Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Rule (DCN 10-0004)


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27077-27081]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10181]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0636; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-037-AD;
Amendment 39-18154; AD 2015-09-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, and B4-605R airplanes; Model A300 F4-
605R airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-
204 and -304 airplanes; powered by General Electric (GE) Model CF6-80C2
series engines. This AD was prompted by reports of two single-engine
flameout events during inclement weather. This AD requires installing a
shunt of the rotary selector (introducing an auto-relight function);
and, for certain airplanes, a wiring modification to a certain circuit
breaker panel. We are issuing this AD to prevent a long engine restart
sequence after a non-selection of continuous relight by the crew and a
flameout event of both engines, which could result in reduced
controllability of the airplane, especially at low altitude.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 16, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of June 16,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2012-0636; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS,
Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac
Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue

SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2012-0636.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to
amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus
Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, and B4-605R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R
airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-204
and -304 airplanes; powered by GE Model CF6-80C2 series engines. The
SNPRM published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2014 (79 FR 12424).
We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2012 (77 FR 36211).
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0156, dated July 3, 2014 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition on Airbus Model A300 B4-
601, B4-603, and B4-605R airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R airplanes; Model
A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-204 and -304
airplanes; powered by GE Model CF6-80C2 series engines. The MCAI
states:

    Two single flame-out events, attributed to inclement weather,
occurred on Airbus Wide Body (WB) aeroplanes powered with GE CF6-
80C2 engines.
    In the original design of Airbus WB aeroplanes, no auto-relight
function is embodied. This means that, in case where the flight crew
does not select continuous relight and a flame-out event occurs, a
long engine restart sequence is necessary.
    This condition, if not corrected (if both engines have flamed
out simultaneously), could possibly result in significantly reduced
control of the aeroplane, especially at low altitude.
    To address this potentially unsafe condition, Airbus designed a
modification by introducing auto-relight function for aeroplanes
powered by GE CF6-80C2 engines and EASA issued AD 2011-0113 to
require installation of that auto-relight function to increase
restart capability without flight crew action.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, erroneous instructions have
been identified in various revisions of related Airbus Service
Bulletins (SB) A310-74-2003, SB A300-74-6003 and SB A300-74-9001,
which meant that some of the instructions could not be accomplished
and resulted in additional work for aeroplanes already modified.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2011-0113, which is superseded, allows
additional compliance time and requires the modification of the
aeroplanes in accordance with the instructions of the latest
applicable Airbus SB revision.
    For aeroplanes that have already been partially modified by an
earlier (incorrect) issue of an SB, as applicable, this [EASA] AD
requires additional work.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2012-0636-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We have considered the comments received. The following
presents the comments received on the SNPRM (79 FR 12424, March 5,
2014) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Withdraw the SNPRM (79 FR 12424, March 5, 2014) Based on the
Rarity of Flameout Events

    FedEx stated that data presented by GE showed that since January
2008, a total of seven engine flameouts attributed to inclement weather
have been reported across the entire global population of all GE Model
CF6-80C2 and CF6-80El series engines. FedEx pointed out that this
corresponds to around 30 million flight hours and over 7 million flight
departures. FedEx stated that the last event affecting an Airbus
airplane was reported in 2006 and involved a power management
controlled (PMC) engine. FedEx asserted that there has never been an
inclement-weather-related engine flameout on a full authority digital
engine control (FADEC) CF6-80C2-powered Airbus airplane reported to GE.
FedEx stated that, in the text of the SNPRM (79 FR 12424, March 5,
2014), the FAA cites the occurrence of two single-engine flameout
events. FedEx stated that, while it cannot be certain which events the
FAA is referring to, it can confidently assert that those events did
not occur on a FedEx-operated airplane. FedEx remarked that, if an
event has occurred within the last eight years and involved a FADEC-
controlled engine, GE is unaware of it. FedEx asked that the FAA
consider, based on this experience, the extreme unlikelihood of such a
rare event occurring on a GE-powered Airbus airplane simultaneously
with the non-selection of continuous relight by well-trained crew
members.
    From these statements, we infer that FedEx is requesting that we
withdraw the SNPRM (79 FR 12424, March 5, 2014) based on the rarity of
engine flameout events. We disagree with this request. EASA's
determination for corrective action in the MCAI is based on a risk
assessment of the worldwide fleet, and not limited to the experience of
the commenter's operations. While these events might not have happened
on the commenter's airplanes, inclement weather is likely to occur
during any flight, and at any altitude. Both the PMC-controlled and
FADEC-controlled engines remain susceptible to flameout during
inclement weather without corrective actions to address the unsafe
condition. While we frequently utilize flightcrew procedures as interim
actions to address an unsafe condition, when available we consider a
design solution to mitigate the unsafe condition to be more effective
than relying on flightcrew procedures alone. We have determined that it
is necessary to proceed with issuing this AD to adequately address the
identified unsafe condition. Affected operators, however, may request
approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC), as specified in
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD (designated as paragraph (i)(1) of the
SNPRM (79 FR 12424, March 5, 2014), by submitting data substantiating
that the AMOC would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not
changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Withdraw the SNPRM (79 FR 12424, March 5, 2014) Based on
Unreasonable Risk Factor

    FedEx stated that one of the primary justifications the FAA is
using to establish the need for the SNPRM (79 FR 12424, March 5, 2014)
is the concern that a long engine restart sequence could result in
reduced controllability of the airplane ``especially at low altitude.''
FedEx agreed that an inability to achieve timely relight at low
altitude would present a greater risk of an unsafe condition occurring
and would perhaps provide ample justification for the subject
modification. However, FedEx asserted that all data provided by GE
indicate that this phenomenon does not occur at low altitudes. FedEx
also stated that analysis of the primary root cause for the engine
flameouts suggests that the flight envelope of concern is between
approximately 10,000 feet above sea level (ASL) and 35,000 feet ASL
during idle descent. FedEx

remarked that the average altitude at which these events have
historically occurred is 22,000 feet ASL, with the lowest recorded
altitude for a multi-engine event being 17,500 feet ASL. FedEx stated
that in every recorded event, the flameout engines were restarted and
continued to operate normally. FedEx concluded that, based on all the
empirical data collected to date regarding the altitude at which these
events occur, the momentary delay in restart time that is intended to
be corrected by the modification does not seem to be significant enough
to qualify as a reasonable risk factor.
    From these statements, we infer that FedEx is requesting that we
withdraw the SNPRM (79 FR 12424, March 5, 2014) based on data showing
that the events do not indicate a reasonable risk factor. We disagree
with the request. Any delay in the ability to restart engines could
result in an unsafe condition regardless of the altitude where the
flameout occurs. Inclement weather may exist below 10,000 feet ASL and
the possibility of terrain could also reduce altitude available to
allow an engine restart. As we stated previously, we consider a design
solution to be a more effective mitigating action to address an unsafe
condition rather than relying on flightcrew procedures alone and the
past experience of flightcrews having difficulty restarting engines
following flameout. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Reduce the Proposed Applicability

    FedEx requested that the FAA consider reducing the applicability
stated in the SNPRM (79 FR 12424, March 5, 2014) to include only the
(relatively) higher-risk PMC-powered airplanes. FedEx stated that a
factor specific to its operation addresses a point raised by the FAA,
which is the small size of its non-FADEC fleet of Airbus airplanes.
FedEx highlighted that data suggest that, since the implementation of
the FADEC software, improvements of the rate of flameout events on all
FADEC-controlled engines has dropped significantly and is well below
corresponding rates on PMC-controlled Model CF6-80C2 series engines.
FedEx stated that there are no recorded instances of a dual-engine
flameout in inclement weather on any FADEC-controlled Model CF6-80C2
series engine installed on Airbus airplanes. FedEx also stated that it
operates a much larger GE-powered Airbus fleet with FADEC-controlled
engines than with PMC-controlled engines. FedEx agreed with the FAA
statement that ``not all affected airplanes have FADEC-controlled
engines installed,'' and that FedEx's exposure in this area is very
limited.
    We disagree with the commenter's request to reduce the
applicability of this AD. The identified unsafe condition addressed in
this AD applies to both types of GE Model CF6-80C2 series engines. The
comparatively better in-flight shutdown rate of FADEC-controlled
engines to PMC-controlled engines is inconsequential to the
vulnerability in both engine designs due to flameout from icing
conditions. Icing conditions are anticipated to occur, and no
mitigating actions have been offered to address icing vulnerability in
both engine designs. As we stated previously, a design solution is more
effective than reliance on flightcrew procedures alone. We have not
changed this AD in this regard.

Actions Since SNPRM (79 FR 12424, March 5, 2014) was Issued

    Since the SNPRM (79 FR 12424, March 5, 2014) was issued, EASA has
issued AD 2014-0156, dated July 3, 2014, which supersedes EASA AD 2011-
0113, dated June 17, 2011. EASA AD 2014-0156 adds revised service
information (Airbus Service Bulletin A300-74-6003, Revision 06, dated
January 27, 2014, and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-74-2003, Revision
06, dated January 27, 2014). The revised service information includes
actions for previously modified airplanes. We have changed paragraph
(g) of this AD to reference the revised service information. We also
added a new paragraph (h) to this AD to specify actions for previously
modified airplanes. We have re-designated subsequent paragraphs
accordingly.
    The revised service information also reduces a certain compliance
time to 12 months. However, for that action, this AD retains the
compliance time proposed in the SNPRM: Within 2,200 flight hours or 30
months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. We
have determined that this compliance time adequately addresses the
identified unsafe condition. We have determined that the compliance
time, as proposed, represents the maximum interval of time allowable
for the affected airplanes to continue to safely operate before the
modification is done.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
SNPRM (79 FR 12424, March 5, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the SNPRM (79 FR 12424, March 5, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-74-6003, Revision 06, dated
January 27, 2014, and Service Bulletin A310-74-2003, Revision 06, dated
January 27, 2014. The service information describes installing a shunt
of the rotary selector; and, for certain airplanes, a wiring
modification to a certain circuit breaker panel. This service
information is reasonably available at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0636. Or see ADDRESSES
for other ways to access this service information.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 47 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost            Parts cost      Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification.....................  Up to 98 work-hours   Up to $18,417......          $26,747        $1,257,109
                                    x $85 per hour =
                                    $8,330.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 the 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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2012-0636; 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 Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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 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 (AD):

2015-09-08 Airbus: Amendment 39-18154. Docket No. FAA-2012-0636;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-037-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective June 16, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, and B4-605R
airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant
F airplanes; and Model A310-204 and -304 airplanes; certificated in
any category; all serial numbers, powered by General Electric (GE)
Model CF6-80C2 series engines.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 74, Ignition.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of two single-engine flameout
events during inclement weather. We are issuing this AD to prevent a
long engine restart sequence after a non-selection of continuous
relight by the crew and a flameout event of both engines, which
could result in reduced controllability of the airplane, especially
at low altitude.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

    Within 6,000 flight hours or 30 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later: Modify the airplane by
installing a shunt of the rotary selector (introducing an auto-
relight function), in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-74-6003, Revision 06,
dated January 27, 2014 (for Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, and B4-605R
airplanes; Model A300 F4-605R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R
Variant F airplanes); or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-74-2003,
Revision 06, dated January 27, 2014 (for Model A310-204 and -304
airplanes).

(h) Actions for Previously Modified Airplanes

    For airplanes which have already been modified in accordance
with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD before the
effective date of this AD: Within 2,200 flight hours or 30 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later,
accomplish the work tasks, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of the service information specified in Table 1 to this
paragraph of this AD.

             Table 1 to Paragraph (h) of This AD--Work Tasks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Accomplish the
                                    Previously     identified work tasks
          For Model--            modified using--    in accordance with
                                                   the instructions of--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A300 B4-601, B4-603, and B4-    Airbus Service     Work Tasks 831-802001
 605R airplanes, Model A300 F4-  Bulletin A300-74-  and 831-803001 using
 605R airplanes, and Model       6003, dated July   Airbus Service
 A300 C4-605R Variant F          2, 2010.           Bulletin A300-74-
 airplanes.                                         6003, Revision 06,
                                                    dated January 27,
                                                    2014.
A300 B4-601, B4-603, and B4-    Airbus Service     Work Tasks 831-802001
 605R airplanes, Model A300 F4-  Bulletin A300-74-  and 831-803001 using
 605R airplanes, and Model       6003, Revision     Airbus Service
 A300 C4-605R Variant F          01, dated April    Bulletin A300-74-
 airplanes.                      1, 2011.           6003, Revision 06,
                                                    dated January 27,
                                                    2014.
A300 B4-601, B4-603, and B4-    Airbus Service     Work Tasks 831-802001
 605R airplanes, Model A300 F4-  Bulletin A300-74-  and 831-803001 using
 605R airplanes, and Model       6003, Revision     Airbus Service
 A300 C4-605R Variant F          02, dated          Bulletin A300-74-
 airplanes.                      February 9, 2012.  6003, Revision 06,
                                                    dated January 27,
                                                    2014.
A300 B4-601, B4-603, and B4-    Airbus Service     Work Task 831-803001
 605R airplanes, Model A300 F4-  Bulletin A300-74-  using Airbus Service
 605R airplanes, and Model       6003, Revision     Bulletin A300-74-
 A300 C4-605R Variant F          03, dated May      6003, Revision 06,
 airplanes.                      10, 2012.          dated January 27,
                                                    2014.

A310-204 and -304 airplanes...  Airbus Service     Work Tasks 831-802001
                                 Bulletin A310-74-  and 831-803001 using
                                 2003, dated July   Airbus Service
                                 2, 2010.           Bulletin A310-74-
                                                    2003, Revision 06,
                                                    dated January 27,
                                                    2014.
A310-204 and -304 airplanes...  Airbus Service     Work Tasks 831-802001
                                 Bulletin A310-74-  and 831-803001 using
                                 2003, Revision     Airbus Service
                                 01, dated April    Bulletin A310-74-
                                 1, 2011.           2003, Revision 06,
                                                    dated January 27,
                                                    2014.
A310-204 and -304 airplanes...  Airbus Service     Work Tasks 831-802001
                                 Bulletin A310-74-  and 831-803001 using
                                 2003, Revision     Airbus Service
                                 02, dated          Bulletin A310-74-
                                 February 9, 2012.  2003, Revision 06,
                                                    dated January 27,
                                                    2014.
A310-204 and -304 airplanes...  Airbus Service     Work Task 831-803001
                                 Bulletin A310-74-  using Airbus Service
                                 2003, Revision     Bulletin A310-74
                                 03, dated May      2003, Revision 06,
                                 10, 2012.          dated January 27,
                                                    2014.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the applicable service information
specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD, and
provided that the additional work in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-
74-6003, Revision 06, dated January 27, 2014; or Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-74-2003, Revision 06, dated January 27, 2014; is done,
as required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (i) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, and B4-605R airplanes, Model
A300 F4-605R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes:
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-74-6003, Revision 04, dated
January 9, 2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (ii) For Model A310-204 and -304 airplanes: Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A310-74-2003, Revision 04, dated January 9, 2013,
which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the applicable service information
specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, and B4-605R airplanes, Model
A300 F4-605R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes:
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-74-6003, Revision 05, dated May 23,
2013, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (ii) For Model A310-204 and -304 airplanes: Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-74-2003, Revision 05, dated May 23, 2013, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0156, dated July 3, 2014,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-
2012-0636-0002.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference may be viewed at the addresses specified
in paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.

(l) 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 A300-74-6003, Revision 06, dated
January 27, 2014.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-74-2003, Revision 06, dated
January 27, 2014.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 10, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-10181 Filed 5-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                EPA ICR No. 1710.08; OMB Control No. 2070-0151

                                 ATTACHMENT 2

Disclosure of Known Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards Upon Sale or Lease of Residential Property

                             40 CFR 745, Subpart F

                      TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT

            CHAPTER I--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (CONTINUED)

PART 745--LEAD-BASED PAINT POISONING PREVENTION IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES

Subpart F--Disclosure of Known Lead-Based Paint and/or Lead-Based Paint Hazards Upon Sale or Lease of Residential Property

Sec. 745.100  Purpose.

    This subpart implements the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 4852d, which impose certain requirements on the sale or lease of target housing. Under this subpart, a seller or lessor of target housing shall disclose to the purchaser or lessee the presence of any known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards; provide available records and reports; provide the purchaser or lessee with a lead hazard information pamphlet; give purchasers a 10-day opportunity to conduct a risk assessment or inspection; and attach specific disclosure and warning language to the sales or leasing contract before the purchaser or lessee is obligated under a contract to purchase or lease target housing.

Sec. 745.101  Scope and applicability.

    This subpart applies to all transactions to sell or lease target housing, including subleases, with the exception of the following:
    (a) Sales of target housing at foreclosure.
    (b) Leases of target housing that have been found to be lead-based paint free by an inspector certified under the Federal certification program or under a federally accredited State or tribal certification program. Until a Federal certification program or federally accredited State certification program is in place within the State, inspectors shall be considered qualified to conduct an inspection for this purpose if they have received certification under any existing State or tribal inspector certification program. The lessor has the option of using the results of additional test(s) by a certified inspector to confirm or refute a prior finding.
    (c) Short-term leases of 100 days or less, where no lease renewal or extension can occur.
    (d) Renewals of existing leases in target housing in which the lessor has previously disclosed all information required under Sec. 745.107 and where no new information described in Sec. 745.107 has come into the possession of the lessor. For the purposes of this paragraph, renewal shall include both renegotiation of existing lease terms and/or ratification of a new lease.

Sec. 745.102  Effective dates.

    The requirements in this subpart take effect in the following manner:

    (a) For owners of more than four residential dwellings, the requirements shall take effect on September 6, 1996.
    (b) For owners of one to four residential dwellings, the requirements shall take effect on December 6, 1996.

Sec. 745.103  Definitions.

    The following definitions apply to this subpart.
    The Act means the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. 4852d.
    Agent means any party who enters into a contract with a seller or lessor, including any party who enters into a contract with a representative of the seller or lessor, for the purpose of selling or leasing target housing. This term does not apply to purchasers or any purchaser's representative who receives all compensation from the purchaser.
    Available means in the possession of or reasonably obtainable by the seller or lessor at the time of the disclosure.
    Common area means a portion of a building generally accessible to all residents/users including, but not limited to, hallways, stairways, laundry and recreational rooms, playgrounds, community centers, and boundary fences.
    Contract for the purchase and sale of residential real property means any contract or agreement in which one party agrees to purchase an interest in real property on which there is situated one or more residential dwellings used or occupied, or intended to be used or occupied, in whole or in part, as the home or residence of one or more persons.
    EPA means the Environmental Protection Agency.
    Evaluation means a risk assessment and/or inspection.
    Foreclosure means any of the various methods, statutory or otherwise, known in different jurisdictions, of enforcing payment of a debt, by the taking and selling of real property.
    Housing for the elderly means retirement communities or similar types of housing reserved for households composed of one or more persons 62 years of age or more at the time of initial occupancy.
    HUD means the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
    Inspection means:
    (1) A surface-by-surface investigation to determine the presence of lead-based paint as provided in section 302(c) of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning and Prevention Act [42 U.S.C. 4822], and
    (2) The provision of a report explaining the results of the investigation.
    Lead-based paint means paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 milligram per square centimeter or 0.5 percent by weight.
    Lead-based paint free housing means target housing that has been found to be free of paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 milligram per square centimeter or 0.5 percent by weight.

    Lead-based paint hazard means any condition that causes exposure to lead from lead-contaminated dust, lead-contaminated soil, or lead-contaminated paint that is deteriorated or present in accessible surfaces, friction surfaces, or impact surfaces that would result in adverse human health effects as established by the appropriate Federal agency.
    Lessee means any entity that enters into an agreement to lease, rent, or sublease target housing, including but not limited to individuals, partnerships, corporations, trusts, government agencies,
housing agencies, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations.
    Lessor means any entity that offers target housing for lease, rent, or sublease, including but not limited to individuals, partnerships, corporations, trusts, government agencies, housing agencies, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations.
    Owner means any entity that has legal title to target housing, including but not limited to individuals, partnerships, corporations, trusts, government agencies, housing agencies, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations, except where a mortgagee holds legal title to property serving as collateral for a mortgage loan, in which case the owner would be the mortgagor.
    Purchaser means an entity that enters into an agreement to purchase an interest in target housing, including but not limited to individuals, partnerships, corporations, trusts, government agencies, housing agencies, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations.
    Reduction means measures designed to reduce or eliminate human exposure to lead-based paint hazards through methods including interim controls and abatement.
    Residential dwelling means:
    (1) A single-family dwelling, including attached structures such as porches and stoops; or
    (2) A single-family dwelling unit in a structure that contains more than one separate residential dwelling unit, and in which each such unit is used or occupied, or intended to be used or occupied, in whole or in part, as the residence of one or more persons.
    Risk assessment means an on-site investigation to determine and report the existence, nature, severity, and location of lead-based paint hazards in residential dwellings, including:
    (1) Information gathering regarding the age and history of the housing and occupancy by children under age 6;
    (2) Visual inspection;
    (3) Limited wipe sampling or other environmental sampling techniques;
    (4) Other activity as may be appropriate; and
    (5) Provision of a report explaining the results of the investigation.
    Secretary means the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
    Seller means any entity that transfers legal title to target housing, in whole or in part, in return for consideration, including but not limited to individuals, partnerships, corporations, trusts, government agencies, housing agencies, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations. The term ``seller'' also includes:
    (1) An entity that transfers shares in a cooperatively owned project, in return for consideration; and
    (2) An entity that transfers its interest in a leasehold, in jurisdictions or circumstances where it is legally permissible to separate the fee title from the title to the improvement, in return for
consideration.
    Target housing means any housing constructed prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling.
    TSCA means the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2601.

    0-bedroom dwelling means any residential dwelling in which the living area is not separated from the sleeping area. The term includes efficiencies, studio apartments, dormitory housing, military barracks, and rentals of individual rooms in residential dwellings.

Sec. 745.107  Disclosure requirements for sellers and lessors.

    (a) The following activities shall be completed before the purchaser or lessee is obligated under any contract to purchase or lease target housing that is not otherwise an exempt transaction pursuant to Sec. 745.101. Nothing in this section implies a positive obligation on the seller or lessor to conduct any evaluation or reduction activities.
    (1) The seller or lessor shall provide the purchaser or lessee with an EPA-approved lead hazard information pamphlet. Such pamphlets include the EPA document entitled Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home (EPA 747-K-94-001) or an equivalent pamphlet that has been approved for use in that State by EPA.
    (2) The seller or lessor shall disclose to the purchaser or lessee the presence of any known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the target housing being sold or leased. The seller or lessor shall also disclose any additional information available concerning the known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, such as the basis for the determination that lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards exist, the location of the lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, and the condition of the painted surfaces.
    (3) The seller or lessor shall disclose to each agent the presence of any known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the target housing being sold or leased and the existence of any available records or reports pertaining to lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards. The seller or lessor shall also disclose any additional information available concerning the known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, such as the basis for the determination that lead-
based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards exist, the location of the lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, and the condition of the painted surfaces.
    (4) The seller or lessor shall provide the purchaser or lessee with any records or reports available to the seller or lessor pertaining to lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the target housing being sold or leased. This requirement includes records or reports regarding common areas. This requirement also includes records or reports regarding other residential dwellings in multifamily target housing, provided that such information is part of an evaluation or
reduction of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the target housing as a whole.
    (b) If any of the disclosure activities identified in paragraph (a) of this section occurs after the purchaser or lessee has provided an offer to purchase or lease the housing, the seller or lessor shall complete the required disclosure activities prior to accepting the purchaser's or lessee's offer and allow the purchaser or lessee an opportunity to review the information and possibly amend the offer.

Sec. 745.110  Opportunity to conduct an evaluation.

    (a) Before a purchaser is obligated under any contract to purchase target housing, the seller shall permit the purchaser a 10-day period (unless the parties mutually agree, in writing, upon a different period of time) to conduct a risk assessment or inspection for the presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards.
    (b) Not withstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a purchaser may waive the opportunity to conduct the risk assessment or inspection by so indicating in writing.

Sec. 745.113  Certification and acknowledgment of disclosure.

    (a) Seller requirements. Each contract to sell target housing shall include an attachment containing the following elements, in the language of the contract (e.g., English, Spanish):
    (1) A Lead Warning Statement consisting of the following language:
    Every purchaser of any interest in residential real property on which a residential dwelling was built prior to 1978 is notified that such property may present exposure to lead from lead-based paint that may place young children at risk of developing lead poisoning. Lead poisoning in young children may produce permanent neurological damage, including learning disabilities, reduced intelligence quotient, behavioral problems, and impaired memory. Lead poisoning also poses a
particular risk to pregnant women. The seller of any interest in residential real property is required to provide the buyer with any information on lead-based paint hazards from risk assessments or
inspections in the seller's possession and notify the buyer of any known lead-based paint hazards. A risk assessment or inspection for possible lead-based paint hazards is recommended prior to purchase.

    (2) A statement by the seller disclosing the presence of known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the target housing being sold or indicating no knowledge of the presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards. The seller shall also provide any
additional information available concerning the known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, such as the basis for the determination that lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards exist, the location of the lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, and
the condition of the painted surfaces.
    (3) A list of any records or reports available to the seller pertaining to lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the housing that have been provided to the purchaser. If no such records or reports are available, the seller shall so indicate.
    (4) A statement by the purchaser affirming receipt of the information set out in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section and the lead hazard information pamphlet required under 15 U.S.C. 2696.
    (5) A statement by the purchaser that he/she has either:
    (i) Received the opportunity to conduct the risk assessment or inspection required by Sec. 745.110(a); or
    (ii) Waived the opportunity.
    (6) When one or more agents are involved in the transaction to sell target housing on behalf of the seller, a statement that:
    (i) The agent has informed the seller of the seller's obligations under 42 U.S.C. 4852d; and
    (ii) The agent is aware of his/her duty to ensure compliance with the requirements of this subpart.

    (7) The signatures of the sellers, agents, and purchasers certifying to the accuracy of their statements to the best of their knowledge, along with the dates of signature.
    (b) Lessor requirements. Each contract to lease target housing shall include, as an attachment or within the contract, the following elements, in the language of the contract (e.g., English, Spanish):
    (1) A Lead Warning Statement with the following language:

    Housing built before 1978 may contain lead-based paint. Lead from paint, paint chips, and dust can pose health hazards if not managed properly. Lead exposure is especially harmful to young children and pregnant women. Before renting pre-1978 housing, lessors must disclose the presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the dwelling. Lessees must also receive a federally approved pamphlet on lead poisoning prevention.

    (2) A statement by the lessor disclosing the presence of known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the target housing being leased or indicating no knowledge of the presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards. The lessor shall also disclose any additional information available concerning the known lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, such as the basis for the determination that lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards exist, the location of the lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards, and the condition of the painted surfaces.
    (3) A list of any records or reports available to the lessor pertaining to lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards in the housing that have been provided to the lessee. If no such records or reports are available, the lessor shall so indicate.
    (4) A statement by the lessee affirming receipt of the information set out in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section and the lead hazard information pamphlet required under 15 U.S.C. 2696.
    (5) When one or more agents are involved in the transaction to lease target housing on behalf of the lessor, a statement that:
    (i) The agent has informed the lessor of the lessor as obligations under 42 U.S.C. 4852d; and
    (ii) The agent is aware of his/her duty to ensure compliance with the requirements of this subpart.
    (6) The signatures of the lessors, agents, and lessees, certifying to the accuracy of their statements, to the best of their knowledge, along with the dates of signature.
    (c) Retention of Certification and Acknowledgment Information.
    (1) The seller, and any agent, shall retain a copy of the completed attachment required under paragraph (a) of this section for no less than 3 years from the completion date of the sale. The lessor, and any agent, shall retain a copy of the completed attachment or lease contract containing the information required under paragraph (b) of this section for no less than 3 years from the commencement of the leasing period.
    (2) This recordkeeping requirement is not intended to place any limitations on civil suits under the Act, or to otherwise affect a lessee's or purchaser's rights under the civil penalty provisions of 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3).
    (d) The seller, lessor, or agent shall not be responsible for the failure of a purchaser's or lessee's legal representative (where such representative receives all compensation from the purchaser or lessee) to transmit disclosure materials to the purchaser or lessee, provided that all required parties have completed and signed the necessary certification and acknowledgment language required under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.

Sec. 745.115  Agent responsibilities.

    (a) Each agent shall ensure compliance with all requirements of this subpart. To ensure compliance, the agent shall:
    (1) Inform the seller or lessor of his/her obligations under Secs. 745.107, 745.110, and 745.113.
    (2) Ensure that the seller or lessor has performed all activities required under Secs. 745.107, 745.110, and 745.113, or personally ensure compliance with the requirements of Secs. 745.107, 745.110, and 745.113.
    (b) If the agent has complied with paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the agent shall not be liable for the failure to disclose to a purchaser or lessee the presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards known by a seller or lessor but not disclosed to the agent.

Sec. 745.118  Enforcement.

    (a) Any person who knowingly fails to comply with any provision of this subpart shall be subject to civil monetary penalties in accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 3545 and 24 CFR part 30.    (b) The Secretary is authorized to take such action as may be necessary to enjoin any violation of this subpart in the appropriate Federal district court.
    (c) Any person who knowingly violates the provisions of this subpart shall be jointly and severally liable to the purchaser or lessee in an amount equal to 3 times the amount of damages incurred by such individual.
    (d) In any civil action brought for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3), the appropriate court may award court costs to the party commencing such action, together with reasonable attorney fees and any expert witness fees, if that party prevails.
    (e) Failure or refusal to comply with Sec. 745.107 (disclosure requirements for sellers and lessors), Sec. 745.110 (opportunity to conduct an evaluation), Sec. 745.113 (certification and acknowledgment of disclosure), or Sec. 745.115 (agent responsibilities) is a violation of 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(5) and of TSCA section 409 (15 U.S.C. 2689).
    (f) Violators may be subject to civil and criminal sanctions pursuant to TSCA section 16 (15 U.S.C. 2615) for each violation. For purposes of enforcing this subpart, the penalty for each violation applicable under 15 U.S.C. 2615 shall not be more than $11,000 for all violations occurring after July 28, 1997; all violations occurring on or prior to that date are subject to a penalty not more than $10,000.

[61 FR 9085, Mar. 6, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 35041, June 27, 1997]

Sec. 745.119  Impact on State and local requirements.

    Nothing in this subpart shall relieve a seller, lessor, or agent from any responsibility for compliance with State or local laws, ordinances, codes, or regulations governing notice or disclosure of known lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards. Neither HUD nor EPA assumes any responsibility for ensuring compliance with such State or local requirements.