Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under The Paperwork Reduction Act 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection Title: Asbestos Containing Materials in Schools Rule and Revised Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan Rule EPA ICR No. 1365.07 OMB Control No. 2070 0091 1( b) Short Characterization This ICR addresses reporting and recordkeeping requirements found in the Asbestos Containing Materials in Schools Rule (" AHERA Rule") and the Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan ( MAP) Rule.

AHERA Rule: Under Section 203 of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act ( AHERA, 15 U. S. C. 2641 2656) ( see Attachment A), EPA was required to finalize the Asbestos Containing Materials in Schools Rule. This rule required Local Education Agencies ( LEAs) to conduct inspections, develop management plans, and design or conduct response actions. Records must be maintained by all LEAs on inspections and response action activity, and current management plans must be provided upon request to EPA and State reviewers for examination.

MAP: Additionally, Section 206 of AHERA ( see Attachment B) required that EPA issue a Model Accreditation Plan ( MAP) for persons who inspect for asbestos, develop management plans, and design or conduct response actions. States are required to adopt an accreditation program at least as stringent as the EPA model. In 1990, EPA was required to make certain changes in its original Model Accreditation Plan. Accreditation of laboratories that analyze asbestos bulk samples and asbestos air samples is also required by AHERA. The National Institute of Standards and Technology ( NIST) was required to establish the bulk sampling accreditation program, and the air sampling program.

This information collection activity will assure that LEAs continue to inspect for asbestos and update management plans with accredited personnel to protect all school building occupants from exposure to asbestos. This collection will also assure that persons who inspect for asbestos, develop management plans, and design or conduct response actions are properly accredited, and that states will adopt appropriate accreditation programs. 2 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection AHERA Rule and MAP: The reporting and recordkeeping requirements covered by this ICR are required by the Asbestos Containing Materials in Schools Rule ( 40 CFR 763, Subpart E) and the Model Accreditation Plan ( 40 CFR 763, Subpart E, Appendix C); see Attachments C and D, respectively.

2( b) Use/ Users of the Data AHERA Rule: The activities pertaining to the use of this information collection activity help assure that LEAs continue to inspect for asbestos and update their management plans using accredited personnel. This is intended to ensure the protection of all school building occupants from exposure to asbestos fibers. All public and private elementary and secondary schools ( unless exempt under provision of the rule) were required to conduct inspections for asbestos containing building materials ( ACBM) and develop management plans that describe necessary actions to be undertaken. Reinspections by accredited persons must take place every three years unless all ACBM has been removed. Records retention as part of an updated asbestos management plan is necessary in order to document specific response action activities and periodic surveillance/ 3 year reinspection reports, and for an LEA to demonstrate compliance with the regulations. Beneficiaries of the collection activities include the LEA's asbestos program manager and staff, accredited professionals who may be called upon to perform response actions at a school, and Federal and State enforcement agencies.

MAP: This collection will enable EPA, as well as State regulators, to determine initial compliance and to monitor continued compliance with the revised MAP standards. Lacking both application submissions and other recordkeeping requirements, regulators would have no meaningful way of measuring the implementation of the MAP's statutory mandates. Other beneficiaries of the collection activities include 1) individuals who may desire to obtain asbestos training meeting at least prescribed minimum quality standards for accreditation and subsequent employment purposes; 2) LEAs and other building owners and managers seeking to procure the services of qualified and accredited asbestos consultants and contractors; and 3) enforcement agencies at the Federal and State level.

3 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non Duplication AHERA Rule: EPA has tried to identify alternate sources of the information requested be maintained to implement and enforce this recordkeeping, and was not successful. This activity does not duplicate information already required to be reported by another agency or EPA program office. MAP: All of the training and accreditation information collected pursuant to this ICR is specific to the MAP and does not duplicate any other collection. There is no other model accreditation plan for States other than the MAP, and there is no procedure for the accreditation of asbestos training programs under ASHARA other than what is specifically provided for in the MAP.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB Prior to submission to OMB, this ICR will be made available to the public for comment through a Federal Register 3 notice. The public will have 60 days to provide comments. Any comments received will be given consideration when completing the supporting statement that is submitted to OMB.

3( c) Consultations In addition to the required public notice and comment period regarding the Agency's proposal to renew this ICR as described above, the Agency often uses its Forum on State and Tribal Toxics Action ( FOSTTA) to communicate with state and tribal toxics environmental managers on a variety of toxics related program and enforcement issues. In previous years, the Agency has used the FOSTTA to discuss asbestos related issues such as implementation of the MAP rule. The FOSTTA remains a viable forum to consult and discuss issues related to these rules with state and tribal program contacts.

AHERA Rule: The 1987 Asbestos Containing Materials in Schools Rule was developed through the regulatory negotiation process. Participants included representatives of national educational organizations, labor unions, asbestos product manufacturers, the environmental community, asbestos abatement contractor groups, professional associations of architects, consulting engineers, industrial hygienists, and the EPA.

In December and January 2004, EPA consulted with the Agency regional asbestos coordinators and State regulatory agencies to determine if any additional reporting requirements were imposed on charter schools under AHERA. At this time, insufficient information is available to demonstrate that any additional reporting burden presently exists.

MAP: Consultations occurred with various respondents since development work on the MAP Rule revision began several years ago. Exploratory meetings were held with labor unions ( May 1991) and States ( June 1991) to learn of their interests and concerns. EPA published its proposed changes to the MAP in the Federal Register on May 13, 1992, and formally invited public comment. A public hearing was held June 8, 1992. Commenters who specifically reacted to EPA's proposals regarding recordkeeping requirements were unanimously supportive. An additional hearing, with the cooperation of the National Conference on State Legislatures ( NCSL), occurred on June 9, 1992. Collection activities were discussed with State participants at that time. They continued to express support for EPA's MAP proposals.

EPA consulted extensively with labor unions, the States, and other interested parties during the development of the 1994 Interim Final MAP. And for the past four years, EPA has met annually with the States to discuss, among other things, implementation of the MAP. In general, States are supportive of the regulation, including the reporting and recordkeeping provisions.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection AHERA Rule: If information were collected less frequently, it would be difficult to determine whether an LEA properly inspected for asbestos containing materials and developed an appropriate management plan, and kept these documents up to date including ongoing activities.

MAP: The revised MAP has no routine or repetitive reporting requirements. Training course self certifications, training course approval applications and State Program approval applications are one time submissions. Once approved they do not expire. No less frequent collection schedule is feasible. Recordkeeping requirements are tied directly to training courses and the issuance of accreditation certificates to students successfully completing those courses and passing the requisite exams. If/ when training providers are inactive and not offering courses, no new record generation is required of them. 4 3( e) General Guidelines Except as described in this section, the collection activities in this ICR adhere to the guidelines stated in the Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB's implementing regulations, and applicable OMB and EPA guidance.

AHERA Rule: The rule requires that the asbestos management plans be maintained as a living document, necessary for as long as asbestos containing building materials are present in the school building. When all asbestos materials have been removed from a homogeneous area, records pertaining to that homogeneous area must be retained for three years after the next reinspection date. As a result, such records may need to be maintained beyond the three year record retention period recommended in 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2)( iv). EPA believes, however, that these retention requirements are necessary to satisfy the statutory mandates in AHERA, which specifically mandates the development and maintenance of asbestos management plans. In addition to ensuring that a management plan is available for public inspection as required by AHERA, maintaining a current management plan is necessary and critical for ensuring the proper protection of human health, safety, and the environment as required by AHERA. Providing up to date information about the location and status of asbestoscontaining building materials that remain present in the school building is also essential for ensuring that the material does not subsequently become unintentionally disturbed or damaged such that it may pose an unreasonable risk to school employees, children and other building occupants or users. In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2), the retention period beyond the recommended three year period is necessary and appropriate. 5 In approving the ICR in 1998, OMB stated the following: " This ICR is approved for 3 years. As requested in previous terms of clearance EPA will report on amendments to the School Rule as they relate to record retention periods and reinspection periods." The previous terms of clearance referenced were from 1995, which stated, " This ICR is approved for three years as requested. EPA has done a good job updating labor rates for school employees. EPA shall report on the progress of the Region VII lead amendments to the Schools Rule as it relates to record retention periods  beyond 3 years and reinspection periods  3 years. EPA should continue to separate its MAP burden estimates for the schools estimates."

As reflected in the 1995 statement, EPA had initiated an Agency workgroup in 1994 to evaluate the AHERA Rule for potential amendments related to enforcement, and this effort was subsequently expanded to include the consideration of potential amendments to the record retention and reinspection periods as OMB requested. This workgroup effort did not result in any proposed revisions to the AHERA Rule and has since been abandoned.

The Agency has concluded that the reinspection interval is necessary to satisfy the statutory mandates in AHERA, which specifically mandates the periodic surveillance and reinspection of asbestos containing materials, and that the current interval is appropriate and necessary for ensuring that the asbestos containing material does not subsequently become disturbed or damaged such that it is likely to become a potential hazard to school employees, children and other building occupants or users. The existing reinspection period is consistent with the provisions in 5 CFR 1320.5( d)( 2).

MAP: There are no exceptions to note.

3( f) Confidentiality This information collection does not include questions of a confidential nature.

3( g) Sensitive Questions This information collection does not include questions of a sensitive nature.

4 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ SIC and NAICS Codes AHERA Rule and MAP: There are three types of respondents for this information collection request. Local Education Agencies ( LEAs) and States are involved in recordkeeping and reporting activities associated with the Schools Rule, while training providers and States are involved in recordkeeping and reporting activities related to the MAP Rule. The respondent activities are different for each respondent type and are discussed in turn. The respondents to this information collection activity are elementary and secondary school districts ( SIC code 8211, NAICS code 61111), and all states ( SIC code 9411, NAICS code 92311). Additionally, under ASHARA, the Model Accreditation Plan ( MAP) affects training providers ( SIC code 8299, NAICS code 61143), and State Asbestos Accreditation Programs ( SIC code 9431, NAICS code 92312). These respondents are included because they are the providers and guarantors of accreditation, respectively.

4( b) Information Requested 6 ( i) Data Items AHERA Rule: There are no specific data collection instruments used to collect information for this activity. The AHERA Rule originally included a reporting requirement; i. e., management plans were required to be submitted to States for review. This requirement was met by all respondents in the first year of the rule. Thus the AHERA portion of this ICR no longer has an active reporting requirement. The rule continues to require recordkeeping.

MAP: Training providers seeking reapproval for their existing training courses based upon the revised MAP standards, or initial approval for new training programs based upon the increased MAP standards, were required to report the following data items:

 a self certification letter for upgraded approval pursuant to Part IV. 2 of the MAP; or  an application for a new training course approval pursuant to Part III. a of the MAP.

When a training provider offers approved training programs for accreditation purposes, certain records must be maintained for a three year period in accordance with the MAP Part I. 6. e. g.,

 copies of all instructional materials used;  copies of all instructor resumes and approvals;  copies of examinations and test scores; and  records relating to accreditation certificates.

A State seeking reapproval of its existing accreditation program based upon the new MAP standards, or initial approval of its State accreditation program based on the new MAP standards, must report the following data item:

 an application for EPA approval pursuant to Part II of the MAP.

There are no recordkeeping requirements in the MAP that relate to State programs.

( ii) Respondent Activities 7 MAP: Training and Accreditation Under AHERA, LEAs shall use trained, accredited persons to perform asbestos related tasks as defined by the revised MAP. Specifically, the MAP shall be used as a tool to accredit persons who:  conduct inspections or reinspections for asbestos containing material ( ACM);  prepare and/ or update management plans for elementary and secondary schools; and  design or carry out response actions with respect to ACM in those schools.

ASHARA extended that requirement to similar activities in public and commercial buildings as well, with the exception of the preparation of asbestos management plans.

Respondents who are training entities will need to perform certain collection activities:

 read the regulation;  make any required changes to training programs;  prepare and submit a self certification package to EPA;  retain records/ materials costs ( usual business practice);  provide reasonable access to records to EPA and/ or the State, as requested.

Waiver for State Programs The AHERA Rule provides a procedure to allow States to receive a waiver from some or all of the requirements of the rule if the State has established and is implementing, or intends to implement, a program of asbestos inspection and management at least as stringent as the requirements of the rule. The rule requires specific information to be included in the waiver request submitted to EPA. Nine States have currently been granted this waiver under the AHERA Rule.

Respondents who are State accreditation programs will need to perform the following collection activities:

 read the regulation;  compare State program authority and the minimum requirements of the regulation;  develop State legislative analysis and adopt new legislation;  develop State regulatory analysis and promulgate a new State regulation;  prepare and submit to EPA an application for program approval; and  implement a State accreditation program that is not less stringent than the regulation.

As of January of 2004, 38 States are operating state accreditation programs under the MAP. 8 AHERA Rule:

Local Education Agencies: Local education agency ( i. e., school or school district) reporting and recordkeeping under the Schools Rule may be divided into two main categories: those associated with the management plan, and those associated with operations and maintenance ( O& M) activities. Most of the LEA recordkeeping burden involves the development and implementation of the management plan.

The management plan burden varies by school type as well as by the type of ACM found in a school. The management plan recordkeeping and reporting burden items include:

 Development and submission of the management plan; and  Implementation of the management plan, including:  Time spent by the program manager to do additional activity planning, create and gather new information, prepare written activity reports, and record and review that information;  Time spent by custodians and clerical personnel to gather, record, process and store asbestos related information; and  Annual notification of parents and other interested parties of the presence of ACM in a school, as well as the availability of the management plan for public review.

The development and submission of the management plan was a one time activity that occurred for most schools during the first year after the AHERA regulations went into affect. This activity is assumed to be complete for all schools with ACM, and is therefore no longer included in burden estimates. The recordkeeping activities associated with the management plan implementation, however, are on going and are therefore included in burden estimates.

Recordkeeping Requirements: The recordkeeping burden associated with the development of an O& M activity plan was largely completed in the first year of AHERA Rule implementation. On an ongoing basis, however ( AHERA regulations also require LEAs to keep known or assumed ACBM under periodic surveillance), the O& M plan may require updating.

The original inspection report and any reinspection reports must be maintained in the management plan. Management planner recommendations and response actions with their air sampling clearance records are also to be kept. Records required by the rule also include those pertaining to fiber release episodes, periodic surveillance, training received by workers performing operation and maintenance activities, and cleaning activities that are part of an operations and maintenance program. The rule also requires LEAs to collect and retain various records that are not part of the information included in the management plan.

The rule requires LEAs to have accredited inspectors conduct reinspections at least once every three years after the management plan is in effect. Results of this reinspection shall be recorded in the school's management plan, along with any necessary changes in response actions recommended or required. The rule directs the LEA to select and implement in a timely manner appropriate response actions for ACBM that are assessed by the accredited inspector and management planner. The rule identifies five major response actions  operations and maintenance ( O& M), repair, encapsulation, enclosure, and removal  and describes appropriate conditions under which they may be selected by the LEA. The rule also identifies the steps that shall be taken to properly conduct and complete the response actions. 9 After performing a thorough visual inspection of the area in which the response action was conducted, air testing is performed to determine whether a response action has been properly completed. The rule as it is in effect at this time ( 2004) requires the use of transmission electron microscopy ( TEM) for all removal, enclosure, encapsulation, or repair response actions involving more than 260 linear feet or more than 160 square feet of ACBM. The use of phase contrast microscopy ( PCM) is allowed by the rule for final air sampling where the amounts of ACBM are less than the limits above and greater than for small projects of short duration.

Response actions that fail to meet prescribed air sampling standards by the stipulated sampling methods shall have the areas re cleaned and re sampled before being released for reoccupancy. Records of response actions and subsequent air sampling clearance records must be maintained by the LEA.

The rule requires each LEA to maintain a copy of the management plan( s) in its administrative office, and each school is required to maintain a copy of its specific management plan in its administrative office. These plans are to be made available for inspection by the public without cost or restriction. LEAs must notify parent, teacher, and employee organizations of the availability of the management plans upon submission of the management plan to the State and at least once each school year.

States: States are involved in both the Schools Rule and the MAP Rule. In the first year of the Schools Rule, State governments were required to establish teams to review and approve management plans submitted by schools. This activity, however, is assumed to have been completed, and is therefore no longer included in burden estimates.

5 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities AHERA Rule and MAP include the following:

 Distribute guidance to LEAs, State designees, and others on interpretation of AHERA;  Collect and review course upgrade self certification certifications from training providers;  Provide written notification of training course self certifications to EPA Regions and State programs;  Audit training provider courses and records for compliance monitoring purposes;  Review State program applications packages for approval/ reapproval as they are received;  Maintain and revise master data base of approved training providers as required to be used as a resource for the public;  Revise model criteria as appropriate and develop new curricula for new training disciplines as required;  Provide technical assistance to LEAs and public on implementation and compliance with AHERA.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management AHERA Rule: No specific collection methodologies or management techniques are required. 10 MAP: The rule provides explicit instruction to training providers with preexisting approvals who wish to upgrade and continue offering asbestos training courses under the revised MAP standards. Providers were to submit a one time self certification in the form of a detailed letter to EPA describing changes made to their courses for the purpose of bringing them into compliance with the new MAP. This was required to be done within six months of the revised MAP taking effect. Only one letter was required from each training entity. EPA then compiled a listing of all self certifications received by the deadline and entered them into the existing data base of approved training providers. After distribution to EPA Regions and State Program offices, compliance and program audits may be carried out. New training providers are to follow the same procedure.

The MAP Rule also prescribes the method by which States are to make application to EPA for accreditation program approval under the revised MAP. States wishing to obtain EPA program approval must make a one time application to the appropriate EPA Regional Office, demonstrating how the State's program is no less stringent than the MAP.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The impact of the AHERA Rule and the MAP will primarily affect small asbestos abatement contracting firms or accredited consultants, and training providers that qualify for " small business" status. Small business training providers have a one time only application process for training course approval that allows for flexibility in the way information is prepared and presented. A small business abatement contractor is required to keep and maintain records on the accreditation status of supervisors and abatement workers. Accreditation records are also kept and maintained by consultants, such as inspectors, management planners, and project designers. An advantage accruing from having those records is that of obtaining and retaining eligibility to qualify for work in asbestos control and abatement in schools and public and commercial buildings. With regard to worker protection, AHERA and the MAP impose no additional requirements beyond those that already exist in the OSHA asbestos standard or the EPA Worker Protection Rule.

5( d) Collection Schedule Not applicable for AHERA Rule.

MAP: EPA's receipt of a complete self certification submission from a provider constituted immediate reapproval of the training courses. Where State Legislatures convened in January 1994, a 180 day deadline was triggered for applying to EPA for new program approval, if needed. States not applying for new program approval by the end of the 180 day deadline forfeited their previous Program approval, and they must then reapply in order to re establish their State Accreditation Programs.

EPA approved State Programs may continue to receive new training course applications indefinitely into the future. EPA may continue to receive State Program applications from unapproved States until all States, territories, and similar entities have ultimately obtained approval.

6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 11 The original ICR for the Asbestos Containing Materials in Schools Rule (" Schools Rule") based its burden estimates on a 30 year projection to reflect the estimated remaining life span of school buildings with Asbestos Containing Materials ( ACM). The previous ICR renewal, approved in 2001, updated values from the original ICR. This ICR renewal further updates values where noted in the sections below. Burden estimates based on the Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan ( MAP) Rule were also included in the last ICR. Those values are also updated.

There are three types of respondents for this ICR: Local Education Agencies ( LEAs) involved in recordkeeping and reporting activities associated with the Schools Rule, and training providers and States involved in recordkeeping and reporting activities related to the MAP Rule. The respondent activities are different for each type of respondent and are discussed in turn in the following section.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden Local Education Agencies Local education agency ( i. e., school or school district) reporting and recordkeeping activities under the Schools Rule may be divided into two main categories: those associated with the management plan and those associated with operations and maintenance ( O& M) activities. Schools with friable ACM incur burden for the management plan and O& M activities, while schools with nonfriable ACM incur burden only for the management plan.

The management plan burden varies by school type as well as by the type of ACM found in a school. Appendix G of the Final Schools Rule Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act Regulatory Impact Analysis ( EPA, 1987a) contains time and cost estimates for management and O& M plan development and implementation for schools with friable ACM or nonfriable ACM. Those activities incurring burden that were not completed during the initial 10 years of implementation are shown in Worksheet 1.

Worksheet 1 indicates that the annual estimated recordkeeping burden for schools with friable ACM is approximately 35 hours for public primary schools and private schools, and 58 hours for public secondary schools. For schools with nonfriable ACM only, the annual estimated recordkeeping burden is 15 hours for public primary schools and private schools and 28 hours for public secondary schools. 12 Worksheet 1: Annual Respondent Burden per Local Education Agency ( Hours)

Burden Hour Elements School Type Public Primary or Private Public Secondary Schools With Friable Asbestos Containing Materials Implement Management Plan Asbestos program manager  Activity planning, create and gather information, prepare activity reports, record and review information 10 15 Custodial  Gather, record, process and store information 4 8 Clerical  Gather, record, process and store information 16 30 Total Management Plan 30 53 Implement Operations and Maintenance ( O& M) Plan Asbestos program manager  Activity planning, create and gather information, prepare activity reports, record and review information 2 2 Custodial  Gather, record, process and store information 1 1 Clerical  Gather, record, process and store information 2 2 Total O& M Plan 5 5 Total recordkeeping burden per school w/ Friable ACM 35 58 Schools With Nonfriable Asbestos Containing Materials Only Implement Management Plan Asbestos program manager  Activity planning, create and gather information, prepare activity reports, record and review information 5 8 Custodial  Gather, record, process and store information 4 8 Clerical  Gather, record, process and store information 6 12 Total recordkeeping burden per school w/ Nonfriable ACM 15 28 States States are involved in both the Schools Rule and the MAP Rule. State activities related to the Schools Rule were completed during the first 10 years of program implementation. The MAP Rule went into effect in 1994, at which time States were to apply to EPA for new program approval. For the purposes of this analysis, all states are assumed to have completed accreditation program approval during previous ICR periods. Therefore, there is no burden for initial State activities included in this ICR.

For all States with EPA approved accreditation programs, an on going burden associated with the MAP Rule is the implementation of State accreditation programs. Annual burden estimates from the MAP Rule are given in Worksheet 2 ( EPA, 1993). These estimates assume that all States have approved accreditation programs. In cases where a State does not have an approved program, the burden would be shifted to EPA. This assumption provides the most conservative estimates of State burdens.

Worksheet 2: Annual Respondent Burden per State or Territory ( Hours)

Burden Hour Elements Labor Category Total Hours Management Technical Clerical 13 Annual Activities 1. Implement a State accreditation program that is not less stringent than the regulation 8 23 109 140 Total annual activities 8 23 109 140 Training Providers Training providers were required to recertify under the revised MAP. Providing access to records is expected to take 5.5 hours per year per training provider, as indicated in Worksheet 3, while the retention of the records is considered customary and usual business practice. Therefore, no additional burden is associated with this task.

Worksheet 3: Annual Respondent Burden per Training Provider ( Hours)

Burden Hour Elements Labor Category Freq/ Year Total Hours Clerical Annual Activities 1. Retain records 0 N/ A 0 2. Provide reasonable access to records to EPA or State 0.5 11 5.5 Total annual activities 0.5 11 5.5 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs The cost estimates addressed in this section are based on the burden estimates discussed above and additional nonwage costs discussed below. Wage rates ( including benefits) have been increased from the values in the AHERA RIA ( EPA, 1987a), the Supplemental ICR for the Asbestos Containing Materials in Schools Rule ( EPA, 1993), and the previous three ICRs ( EPA, 1994, 1997, 2001) to reflect 2003 levels. Methods for updating hourly wage rates to 2003 levels are discussed for each respondent category.

Local Education Agencies The cost to LEAs from the implementation of the Schools Rule include the wages associated with the burden estimates in Section 6( a). Wage rates were updated to 2003 using mean hourly wage rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, the Employment Cost Index for wages and salaries, and the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, as follows: 14 ° The estimated 2002 school asbestos program manager, custodian, and clerical staff hourly wages were $ 21.15, $ 12.01, and $ 12.99, based on the mean hourly wages for Occupational Health and Safety Specialists and Technicians, Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations, Office and Administrative Support Occupations, respectively. These wage rates are specific to Elementary and Secondary Schools ( NAICS 611100) and are based on data from both public and private schools ( BLS, 2002).

C According to the Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries rose by 3.1 percent during the period of June 2002 to September 2003 for these workers, and wages and salaries were inflated by this amount ( BLS, 2003a).

C According to the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, wages and salaries accounted for 69.7 percent of total compensation for school employees as of September 2003. Based on this information, a loading factor of 1.435 ( or, 1/ 0.697) was applied to the mean hourly wage rate to estimate total hourly compensation for school employees ( BLS, 2003b).

C The updated estimated 2003 total hourly compensation for school asbestos program manager, custodian, and clerical staff are $ 31.29, $ 17.77, and $ 19.22, respectively.

These values were used in Worksheet 4 to calculate current recordkeeping and reporting costs to schools with friable and/ or nonfriable ACM, as shown below. In addition, schools are required to provide annual notification to parents and other interested parties of the presence of ACM, as well as the availability of the management plan for public review. The AHERA RIA estimated the annual notification cost to be $ 56 per school ( EPA, 1987a). Previous ICRs have updated this cost using the implicit price deflator for the Gross Domestic Product ( GDP). Using this same approach, this cost was updated to $ 81 in 2003 dollars.

Worksheet 4 indicates that the annual reporting costs for schools range from $ 423 for public primary schools or private schools with only nonfriable ACM, to $ 1,388 for public secondary schools with friable ACM. 15 Worksheet 4: Annual Cost per Local Education Agency ( 2003 $)

Activities School Type Total Hourly Compensation Public Primary and Private Public Secondary Schools With Friable Asbestos Containing Materials Implement Management Plan Asbestos program manager  Activity planning, create and gather information, prepare activity reports, record and review information $ 31.29 $ 313 $ 469 Custodial  Gather, record, process and store information $ 17.77 $ 71 $ 142 Clerical  Gather, record, process and store information $ 19.22 $ 308 $ 577 Total Management Plan $ 692 $ 1,188 Implement Operations and Maintenance ( O& M) Plan Asbestos program manager  Activity planning, create and gather information, prepare activity reports, record and review information $ 31.29 $ 63 $ 63 Custodial  Gather, record, process and store information $ 17.77 $ 18 $ 18 Clerical  Gather, record, process and store information $ 19.22 $ 38 $ 38 Total O& M Plan $ 119 $ 119 Estimated Cost per School $ 892 $ 1,388 Schools With Nonfriable Asbestos Containing Materials Only Implement Management Plan Asbestos program manager  Activity planning, create and gather information, prepare activity reports, record and review information $ 31.29 $ 156 $ 250 Custodial  Gather, record, process and store information $ 17.77 $ 71 $ 142 Clerical  Gather, record, process and store information $ 19.22 $ 115 $ 231 Estimated Cost per School $ 423 $ 704 Cost per school includes $ 81 for Notification Costs.

States As discussed in Section 6( a), States have no further costs associated with the Schools Rule. Under the MAP Rule, State accreditation programs are required to at least meet the standards of the revised MAP. The burden estimates associated with the MAP Rule are given in Section 6( a). No additional costs for materials were given in the Supplemental ICR for the Asbestos Containing Materials in Schools Rule ( ICR # 1365) ( EPA, 1993). Worksheet 5 shows the estimated annual cost of State compliance with the MAP Rule, which is $ 3,531.

Wage rates were updated to 2003 using mean hourly wage rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, the Employment Cost Index for wages and salaries, and the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, as follows: 16 ° The estimated 2002 state managerial, technical, and clerical staff hourly wages were $ 31.12, $ 22.26, and $ 14.92, based on the mean hourly wages for Management Occupations, Environmental Scientists and Specialists, Including Health, Office and Administrative Support Occupations, respectively. These wage rates are specific to State Government ( NAICS 999200) ( BLS, 2002).

C According to the Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries rose by 3.1 percent during the period of June 2002 to September 2003 for these workers, and wages and salaries were inflated by this amount ( BLS, 2003a).

C According to the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, wages and salaries accounted for 69.7 percent of total compensation for state employees as of September 2003. Based on this information, a loading factor of 1.435 ( or, 1/ 0.697) was applied to the mean hourly wage rate to estimate total hourly compensation for school employees ( BLS, 2003b).

C The updated estimated 2003 total hourly compensation for state managerial, technical, and clerical staff are $ 46.04, $ 32.93, and $ 22.07, respectively.

Worksheet 5 shows the estimated annual cost of State compliance with the MAP Rule, which is $ 3,531 per state.

Worksheet 5: Annual Cost per State/ Territory ( 2003 $)

Labor Categories Activities Management Technical Clerical Total $ 46.04 per hour $ 32.93 per hour $ 22.07 per hour Implement a State accreditation program that is not less stringent than the regulation $ 368 $ 757 $ 2,406 Estimated Cost per State/ Territory $ 368 $ 757 $ 2,406 $ 3,531 Training Providers The reporting and recordkeeping burden under the MAP Rule for asbestos training providers is described in Section 6( a). Providing access to records is expected to take 5.5 hours per year per training provider, and to be done by clerical staff. Wage rates were updated to 2003 using mean hourly wage rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, the Employment Cost Index for wages and salaries, and the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, as follows:

° The estimated 2002 training provider clerical staff hourly wage was $ 13.43 based on the mean hourly wage for Administrative Support Occupations. This wage rates is specific to Business Schools and Computer and Management Training ( NAICS 611400) ( BLS, 2002).

C According to the Employment Cost Index, wages and salaries rose by 3.3 percent during the period of June 2002 to September 2003 for these workers, and wages and salaries were inflated by this amount ( BLS, 2003a). 17 C According to the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, wages and salaries accounted for 73.5 percent of total compensation for employees of service producing private industry as of September 2003. Based on this information, a loading factor of 1.361 ( or, 1/ 0.735) was applied to the mean hourly wage rate to estimate total hourly compensation for training provider staff ( BLS, 2003b).

C The updated estimated 2003 total hourly compensation for training provider clerical staff is $ 18.88.

In addition, training providers are expected to incur materials costs associated with the annual recordkeeping requirements of the MAP Rule. These were estimated to be $ 436 in the MAP Rule ( EPA, 1993). Previous ICRs have updated this cost using the implicit price deflator for the Gross Domestic Product ( GDP). Using this same approach, this cost was updated to $ 544 per training provider in 2003 dollars.

Worksheet 6 shows the estimated annual cost of training provider compliance with the MAP Rule, which is $ 648 per training provider.

Worksheet 6: Annual Cost per Training Provider ( 2003 $)

Labor Category Freq/ Year Total Clerical $ 18.88 per hour Activities 1. Retain records N/ A N/ A $ 544 2. Provide reasonable access to records to EPA or State $ 9.44 11 $ 104 Estimated Cost per Provider $ 9.44 11 $ 648 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden And Cost Agency burden and cost estimates are presented in Worksheets 7 and 8. 18 EPA Burden The EPA activities associated with the Schools Rule are related to implementation of the rule's provisions. In the AHERA RIA ( EPA, 1987a), EPA estimated that the Federal implementation of the Schools Rule would require the services of eight full time equivalent ( FTEs) employees in the first year, four FTEs in years two to four, and two FTEs in subsequent years. Because the rule is now past the initial four year period, the remaining EPA burden from implementing the Schools Rule is two FTEs annually. This represents an annual burden of 4,160 hours.

In addition, an estimated 220 hours per year of management and technical labor are required to respond to questions about the MAP Rule. The annual burden from both rules combined is estimated to be 4,380 hours in subsequent years.

The EPA regional burden associated with auditing training provider courses and records is expected to be approximately 144 hours per year per regional office.

Worksheet 7: Annual Agency Burden Estimates for EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices ( Hours)

Activity Labor Category Freq/ Year Total Management Technical EPA Headquarters 1. Perform recordkeeping tasks under the Schools Rule 0 4,160 N/ A 4,160 2. Answer respondent questions about the MAP Rule 20 200 N/ A 220 Total HQ 20 4,360 4,380 EPA Regional Offices 1. Audit training provider courses and records for compliance monitoring purposes 0 8 18 144 Total per Region 0 8 18 144 EPA Costs Consistent with previous ICRs, technical tasks are expected to be completed by staff at the GS 13 level and management tasks at the GS 15 level. The 2003 GS 13 level, step 5 hourly compensation was $ 60 for technical staff, while the 2003 GS 15 level, step 5 hourly compensation was $ 83.41 for managerial staff ( OPM, 2003). These hourly rates include the standard 60 percent loading factor for EPA personnel.

Estimates incorporating these hourly compensation rates and the burden hour estimates from the previous section are shown in Worksheet 8. Total annual costs for EPA Headquarters are estimated at $ 263,268. Total annual costs for EPA Regional Offices are estimated at $ 8,640 per region. 19 Worksheet 8: Annual Agency Cost Estimates for EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices ( 2003 $)

Activity Labor Category Freq/ Year Total Management Technical $ 83.41 per hour $ 60.00 per hour EPA Headquarters 1. Perform recordkeeping tasks under the Schools Rule $ 0 $ 249,600 N/ A $ 249,600 2. Answer respondent questions about the MAP Rule $ 1,668 $ 12,000 N/ A $ 13,668 Total HQ $ 1,668 $ 261,600 $ 263,268 EPA Regional Offices 1. Audit training provider courses and records for compliance monitoring purposes $ 0 $ 480 $ 18 $ 8,640 Total per Region $ 0 $ 480 $ 18 $ 8,640 6( d) Bottom Line Burden Hours And Costs Table 4 and Appendix G of the AHERA RIA ( EPA, 1987a), and Figure Two, Addendum to ICR # 2070 0091 Asbestos in Schools Rule ( EPA, 1987b) estimate the change in number of schools with friable and nonfriable ACM over the implementation period of the rule. The intent of the Schools Rule is that all schools with ACM have a management plan, and that schools with friable ACM also have an O& M plan. The number of school respondents in this ICR renewal is based on the average number of affected schools of each type for years 17 through 19 of program implementation, which is an extension of the method used in previous ICRs.

As in previous ICRs, the total number of training providers is estimated using the latest National Directory of AHERA Accredited Courses. According to the 2003 edition, there are currently 769 accredited training providers. This is a slight increase from the last ICR, in which there were 724 accredited training providers listed. Based on the unit burden estimates from Section 6( a) and the unit cost estimates from Section 6( b), estimated annual recordkeeping burden for all training providers is 4,230 hours and the estimated annual cost is $ 498,312.

In previous ICRs, the total number of states was 50. To reflect more accurately the requirements of the MAP rule, the District of Columbia and the US territories have been added to the tally, bringing the total to 56. Based on the unit burden estimates from Section 6( a) and the unit cost estimates from Section 6( b), estimated annual recordkeeping burden for all states and territories is 7,840 hours and the estimated annual cost is $ 197,736.

Based on these estimates of numbers of respondents and estimates of unit cost and burden, the total respondent and EPA tallies are shown in the following tables. 20 ( i) The respondent tally Average Annual Respondent Aggregation Table Number of Entities Unit Burden Total Burden Unit Cost Total Cost Local Education Agencies Schools with Friable ACM Public Primary 6,568 35 229,880 $ 892 $ 5,859,255 Public Secondary 3,872 58 224,576 $ 1,388 $ 5,374,689 Private 3,312 35 115,920 $ 892 $ 2,954,606 Schools with Nonfriable ACM Public Primary 44,524 15 667,860 $ 423 $ 18,837,711 Public Secondary 26,246 28 734,888 $ 704 $ 18,479,577 Private 22,453 15 336,795 $ 423 $ 9,499,666 Subtotal 106,975 2,309,919 $ 61,005,504 Training Providers 769 5.5 4,230 $ 648 $ 498,312 States/ Territories 56 140 7,840 $ 3,531 $ 197,736 TOTAL 107,800 2,321,989 $ 61,701,552 ( ii) The Agency tally Average Annual Agency Aggregation Table Number of Entities Unit Burden Total Burden Unit Cost Total Cost Headquarters 1 4,380 4,380 $ 263,268 $ 263,268 Regions 10 144 1,440 $ 8,640 $ 86,400 TOTAL 5,820 $ 349,668 6( e) Reasons For Change in Burden The total burden estimate for respondents has increased since the most recently approved renewal of this ICR because of adjustments for each respondent type. The total estimated annual burden for this information collection currently amounts to 2,321,989 hours per year. This compares with an average annual burden of 2,212,151 hours in the most recently approved clearance of this information collection.

Changes in Respondent Burden Burden Hour Estimates Reason for Change Respondent Type Previous Current Difference Local Education Agencies 2,201,169 2,309,919 108,750 Adjustment Training Providers 3,982 4,230 248 Adjustment States/ Territories 7,000 7,840 840 Adjustment Total 2,212,151 2,321,989 109,838 Most of the increase is attributable to a change in the method of calculating total annual burden for LEAs. In previous ICRs, total burden was estimated for the remainder of the 30 year implementation period, then averaged over each 21 of the remaining years to estimate annual burden. Because burden is expected to decline over time as schools exit the respondent universe, this method produced lower annual burden estimates for the earlier years in the period ( i. e., those covered by the ICR renewal). For this ICR renewal, the average number of schools in the three years of the renewal period ( years 17 19 of the implementation period) are used with the unit burden estimates to derive an annual burden estimate. This is a more transparent method since it relies on simple multiplication of the estimated number of respondents by the unit burden associated with each.

There is also some increase attributable to using slightly higher numbers of respondents for training providers and states/ territories.

6( f) Burden Statement The annual public burden for this collection of information, which is approved under OMB Control No. 2070 0091, is estimated to be 21.6 hours per response for schools, 140 hours per response for states, and 5.5 hours per response for training providers. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, " burden" means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For this collection it includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An 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 above. In addition, the OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( Mail Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, D. C. 20460. Include the OMB control number identified above in any correspondence. Do not submit the completed form or requested information to this address. The actual information or form should be submitted in accordance with the instructions accompanying the form, or as specified in the corresponding regulations. 22 References Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2002. Occupational Employment Statistics: 2002 National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Web site http:// www. bls. gov/ oes/ 2002/ oessrci. htm Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2003a. Employment Cost Index, Historical Listing ( 1987 = 100). October 30. Web site http:// www. bls. gov/ web/ echistry. pdf Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2003b. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation   September 2003. November 25. Web site http:// www. bls. gov/ news. release/ pdf/ ecec. pdf Office of Personnel Management. 2003. Salary Table 2003 DCB. Web Site http:// www. opm. gov/ oca/ 03tables/ html/ dcb_ h. asp U. S. EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, Economics and Technology Division. 1987a. Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act Regulatory Impact Analysis. September.

U. S. EPA, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1987b. Addendum to ICR # 2070 0091 Asbestos In Schools Rule. October.

U. S. EPA. 1991. ICR Renewal for the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act ( AHERA), Title II of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA)  Asbestos Containing Materials in Schools Rule. OMB No. 2070 0091. EPA ICR # 1365.

U. S. EPA. 1993. Supplemental ICR for the Asbestos Containing Materials in Schools Rule. OMB No. 2070 0091. EPA ICR # 1365.

U. S. EPA. 1994. Renewal ICR for the Asbestos Containing Materials in Schools Rule. OMB No, 2070 0091. EPA ICR # 1365.

U. S. EPA. 1997. Renewal ICR for the Asbestos Containing Materials in Schools Rule. OMB No, 2070 0091. EPA ICR # 1365.

U. S. EPA. 2001. Renewal ICR for the Asbestos Containing Materials in Schools Rule. OMB No, 2070 0091. EPA ICR # 1365.

U. S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 2003. National Directory of AHERA Accredited Courses. November, Web site http:// www. epa. gov/ asbestos/ ndaac. html ATTACHMENTS: ( Note: Electronic copies of Attachments A through E are available as part of the electronic file for this supporting statement.) 23 Attachment A Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, Section 203 Attachment B Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, Section 206 Attachment C Asbestos Containing Materials in Schools Rule ( 40 CFR 763, Subpart E) Attachment D Model Accreditation Plan ( 40 CFR 763, Subpart E, Appendix C) Attachment E  Worksheet A 1: Estimation of Change in Number of Schools with Friable and Nonfriable ACM over Next 20 Years; and  Worksheet A 2: Per School Annual Cost Estimates Combined with Estimated Change in Number of Schools with Friable and Nonfriable ACM over Next 20 Years as Reported in Worksheet A 1


DRAFT AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

February 25 – 27, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0835

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Associated with the Data Required to Register
Plant-Incorporated Protectants.

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

1:30 P.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures – Joseph
Bailey, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and
Policy, EPA

1:40 P.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members – Steven
Heeringa, Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Chair

1:50 P.M.	Welcome – Office of Science Coordination and Policy

1:50 P.M.	Welcome and Opening Remarks – Office of Pesticide Programs,
EPA

2:00 P.M.	Overview of bioinformatics assessment of novel proteins and
gene/protein nomenclature issues - John Kough, Ph.D., Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

2:30 P.M.	Overview of issues associated with soil microbial community
effects - Zig Vaituzis, Ph.D., Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

2:45 P.M.	Overview of issues associated with synergistic effects of
multiple PIPs in a plant - Annabel Waggoner, Biopesticides and Pollution
Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

3:00 P.M.	Break

3:15 P.M.	Overview of issues associated with environmental assessment of
gene flow - Chris Wozniak, Ph.D., Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention
Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA

3:45 P.M.	Public Comment

5:00 P.M.      ADJOURN

DRAFT AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

February 25 – 27, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0835

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Associated with the Data Required to Register
Plant-Incorporated Protectants.

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Thursday, February 26, 2009

8:30 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures

Joseph Bailey, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy, EPA

8:35 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members

	Steven Heeringa, Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Chair

8:45 A.M.      Charge to Panel

10:00 A.M.	BREAK

10:15 A.M. 	Charge to Panel - continuation

12:00 P.M.	LUNCH

1:15 P.M.	Charge to Panel - continuation

3:15 P.M.	Break

3:30 P.M.	Charge to Panel - continuation

5:00 P.M.	Adjourn

DRAFT AGENDA

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

February 25 – 27, 2009

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0835

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

Scientific Issues Associated with the Data Required to Register
Plant-Incorporated Protectants.

Please note that all times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

Friday, February 27, 2009

8:30 A.M.	Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures

Joseph Bailey, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science
Coordination and Policy, EPA

8:35 A.M. 	Introduction and Identification of Panel Members

	Steven Heeringa, Ph.D., Scientific Advisory Panel Chair

8:45 A.M. 	Charge to Panel – continuation

10:00 A.M.	Break

10:15 A.M.	Charge to Panel – continuation

12:00 P.M.	Adjourn

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register: February 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 31)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7568-7570]
[DOCID:fr18fe09-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0134; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-162-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB
340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new Airworthiness Directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Two cases of main hydraulic accumulator failure have been
reported, one of which was caused by corrosion. Investigation has
shown that a severe failure can occur to any of the four hydraulic
accumulators which are installed in the hydraulic compartment.
Either one of the two end parts on the accumulator may depart from
the pressure vessel due to corrosion. This condition, if not
corrected, is likely to degrade the functionality of the hydraulic
system, possibly resulting in degradation or total loss of control
of the landing gear, flap actuation and brakes. A severe failure
during flight may even result in debris penetrating and exiting the
fuselage outer skin. When such a failure occurs while the aircraft
is on the ground, as in the two reported cases, this may cause
severe damage to the fuselage and result in injuries to persons
nearby.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Saab Aircraft AB, SAAB Aerosystems, SE-581 88, Link[ouml]ping, Sweden;
telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.saabgroup.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the

regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800)
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0134;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-162-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2008-0146, dated August 1, 2008 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Two cases of main hydraulic accumulator failure have been
reported, one of which was caused by corrosion. Investigation has
shown that a severe failure can occur to any of the four hydraulic
accumulators which are installed in the hydraulic compartment.
Either one of the two end parts on the accumulator may depart from
the pressure vessel due to corrosion. This condition, if not
corrected, is likely to degrade the functionality of the hydraulic
system, possibly resulting in degradation or total loss of control
of the landing gear, flap actuation and brakes. A severe failure
during flight may even result in debris penetrating and exiting the
fuselage outer skin. When such a failure occurs while the aircraft
is on the ground, as in the two reported cases, this may cause
severe damage to the fuselage and result in injuries to persons
nearby.
    To address and correct the unsafe condition, a modified
hydraulic accumulator has been developed, which is sealed between
the barrel and the screw cap and between the screw cap and the end
cap.
    For the reasons described above, this EASA AD requires the
replacement of the affected hydraulic accumulators P/N (part number)
08 8423 001 1 and P/N 08 8423 030 1, as identified in Saab SB 340-
29-023, with a modified hydraulic accumulator.

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

Relevant Service Information

    Saab has issued Service Bulletin 340-29-023, dated June 10, 2008.
The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect 141 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
would take 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost $3,582 per product. Where the
service information lists required parts costs that are covered under
warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs.
As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some
parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $595,302, or $4,222 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator,

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems: Docket No. FAA-2009-0134; Directorate
Identifier 2008-NM-162-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by March 20, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems Model SAAB 340A
(SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category; on which hydraulic accumulators with
part number (P/N) 08 8423 001 1 or P/N 08 8423 030 1 are installed,
except accumulators with serial numbers listed in paragraph 3.B. of
Saab Service Bulletin 340-29-023, dated June 10, 2008.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29:
Hydraulic power.

Reason

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

    Two cases of main hydraulic accumulator failure have been
reported, one of which was caused by corrosion. Investigation has
shown that a severe failure can occur to any of the four hydraulic
accumulators which are installed in the hydraulic compartment.
Either one of the two end parts on the accumulator may depart from
the pressure vessel due to corrosion. This condition, if not
corrected, is likely to degrade the functionality of the hydraulic
system, possibly resulting in degradation or total loss of control
of the landing gear, flap actuation and brakes. A severe failure
during flight may even result in debris penetrating and exiting the
fuselage outer skin. When such a failure occurs while the aircraft
is on the ground, as in the two reported cases, this may cause
severe damage to the fuselage and result in injuries to persons
nearby.
    To address and correct the unsafe condition, a modified
hydraulic accumulator has been developed, which is sealed between
the barrel and the screw cap and between the screw cap and the end
cap.
    For the reasons described above, [the MCAI] requires the
replacement of the affected hydraulic accumulators P/N (part number)
08 8423 001 1 and P/N 08 8423 030 1, as identified in Saab SB 340-
29-023, with a modified hydraulic accumulator.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, replace the accumulator at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD
in accordance with the instructions of Saab Service Bulletin 340-29-
023, dated June 10, 2008.
    (1) For airplanes on which the manufacturing date of the
hydraulic accumulator is June 2000 or earlier: Replace the
accumulator with a new or modified accumulator within 24 months
after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For airplanes on which the manufacturing date of the
accumulator is July 2000 or later: Replace the accumulator with a
new or modified accumulator within 10 years after the manufacturing
date or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.
    (3) As of 24 months after the effective date of this AD, no
person may install a hydraulic accumulator, P/N 08 8423 001 1 or P/N
08 8423 030 1 on any airplane, except accumulators with serial
numbers listed in paragraph 3.B. of Saab Service Bulletin 340-29-
023, dated June 10, 2008.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. Send information to ATTN: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any
approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your
principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics
inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector,
your local Flight Standards District Office.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2008-0146, dated August 1, 2008, and Saab Service Bulletin
340-29-023, dated June 10, 2008, for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 30, 2009.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-3398 Filed 2-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 110 (Friday, June 9, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26745]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12012]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0497]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(AIWW), Wrightsville Beach, NC and Northeast Cape Fear River,
Wilmington, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedules that govern the S.R. 74 (Wrightsville Beach) Bridge
across the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), mile 283.1, at
Wrightsville Beach, NC, and the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge across the
Northeast Cape Fear River, mile 1.0, at Wilmington, NC. The deviation
is necessary to accommodate the free movement of pedestrians and
vehicles during the 2017 PPD IRONMAN North Carolina
``Beach2Battleship'' Triathlon. This deviation allows these bridges to
remain in their closed-to-navigation position.

DATES: The deviation is effective from 6:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on October
21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0497], is
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Mickey Sanders, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone 757-398-
6587, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The event director, PPD Ironman North
Carolina, with approval from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, who owns and operates the S.R. 74 (Wrightsville Beach)
and the Isabel S. Holmes Bridges has requested a temporary deviation
from the current operating regulations to accommodate the free movement
of pedestrians and vehicles during the 2017 PPD IRONMAN North Carolina
``Beach2Battleship'' Triathlon. The bridges are double bascule bridges
and have vertical clearances in the closed position of 20 feet and 40
feet, respectively, above mean high water.
    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.821(a)(4)
and 33 CFR 117.829(a), respectively. Under this temporary deviation,
the S.R. 74 (Wrightsville Beach) Bridge will be maintained in the
closed-to-navigation position from 6:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. on October 21,
2017, and the Isabel S. Holmes Bridge will be maintained in the closed-
to-navigation position from 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on October 21, 2017.
The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway is used by a variety of vessels
including, small commercial fishing vessels and recreational vessels.
The Northeast Cape Fear River is used by a variety of vessels
including, small commercial fishing vessels, recreational vessels, and
tug and barge traffic. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the
nature and volume of vessel traffic on the waterway in publishing this
temporary deviation.
    Vessels able to pass through these bridges in their closed
positions may do so at anytime. These bridges will be able to open for
emergencies and there are no immediate alternative routes for vessels
unable to pass through the bridges in their closed positions. The Coast
Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedules for
these bridges so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), these drawbridges must return
to their regular operating schedules immediately at the end of the
effective periods of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the
operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 5, 2017.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-12012 Filed 6-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA to 180 days.  It took the FDA many years to write the Proposed Rule, so I think it only reasonable to allow the public more time to comment.   I have read the Proposed Rule and would like more time to research the issues in order to comment.

I believe that e-cigarettes is a positive alternative to combustible cigarettes and wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 205 (Thursday, October 23, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63299-63300]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25241]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0698; Special Conditions No. 25-567-SC]

Special Conditions: Bombardier Aerospace, Models BD-500-1A10 and
BD-500-1A11 Series Airplanes; Airplane Electronic System Security
Protection From Unauthorized External Access

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; corrections.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects two errors that appeared in Docket No.
FAA-2014-0698, Special Conditions No. 25-567-SC, which was published in
the Federal Register on September 12, 2014 (79 FR 54574). There is an
error in the header information and in one instance of one of the
airplane model numbers in the publication.

DATES: The effective date of this correction is October 23, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flight
Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111,Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 12, 2014, the Federal Register
published document designated as ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0698, Notice No.
25-567-SC,'' (79 FR 54574). The document issued special conditions
pertaining to network security in the digital systems architecture,
access from external sources, on the BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series
airplanes.
    As published, the document contained two errors:

    1. In the header of the document, ``Notice No.'' should have been
``Special Conditions No.''
    2. In one instance, one of the airplane model numbers was published
as ``BD-500-1A1'' instead of ``BD-500-1A11.''

Correction

    In Final special conditions document (FR Doc. 2014-21789) published
on September 12, 2014 (79 FR 54574), make the following corrections:
    1. On page 54574, second column in the header information, correct
``Notice No.'' to read ``Special Conditions No.''
    2. On page 54575, third column, last line in the introductory text
in the section titled, ``The Special Conditions,'' correct ``BD-500-
1A1'' to read ``BD-500-1A11.''

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 16, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-25241 Filed 10-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P