[Federal Register: April 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 18952-18953]
[DOCID:fr13ap10-113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0042; Notice 1]

Graco Children's Products Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Graco Children's Products Inc. (Graco), has determined that certain
warning labels attached to detachable accessory pillows that it sold
with certain MyRide\TM\ 65 line car seats produced between April, 2009,
and October, 2009, failed to meet the flammability requirements of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 213.\1\ Graco
estimates that about 90,000 car seats may be affected. Graco has filed
an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573 Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Graco describes the noncompliance as one with FMVSS No. 302.
However, FMVSS No. 302 does not in itself apply to motor vehicle
equipment. Paragraph S4 of FMVSS No. 302 is invoked by reference in
FMVSS No. 213, therefore, this noncompliance is a noncompliance with
FMVSS No. 213 not FMVSS No. 302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Graco has petitioned for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of Graco's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are all models of MyRide\TM\ 65 convertible car seats
manufactured between April, 2009, and October, 2009, in the Company's
Mexico facility. The Company estimates that approximately 90,000 car
seats may be affected, and of this total, 50,000 are potentially in use
by its customers (consumers) and 40,000 are currently with
retailers.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Graco's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR part 556,
requests an agency decision to exempt Graco as manufacturer from the
notification and recall responsibilities of 49 CFR part 573 for all
90,000 of the affected child seats. However, the agency cannot
relieve Graco's distributors of the prohibitions on the sale, offer
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant child seats under their
control after Graco recognized that the subject noncompliance
existed. Those child seats must be brought into conformance,
exported, or destroyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Graco describes the MyRide\TM\ 65 car seat as being manufactured
with a detachable accessory pillow, and this pillow includes a warning
label (the ``pillow label'') regarding appropriate use of the pillow
for children of a certain age range. The pillow label warns consumers
not to use the pillow when the MyRide\TM\ 65 seat is being used by
children weighing more than 40 lbs (18.1 kg). The pillow, which is
removable, is attached to the MyRide\TM\ 65 seat by a hook and loop
fastener material, one side of which is sewn onto a ``tail'' of the
pillow and the other onto the top of the seat above the child's head.
    Paragraph S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213 requires in pertinent part:

    S5.7 Flammability. Each material used in a child restraint
system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302
(571.302). In the case of a built-in child restraint system, the
requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302 shall be met in both the ``in-
use'' and ``stowed'' positions.

    Based on its internal investigation, Graco believes that the
noncompliance is that a pillow label sewn onto the detachable head
pillow of certain MyRide\TM\ 65 car seats does not comply with
paragraph S5.7 of FMVSS No. 213. After discovering that a recent lot of
pillow labels delivered in late October 2009 to the Company's Mexico
facility had not been properly treated for flame resistance, Graco's
plant management began an investigation. They immediately started
reviewing all pillow label lots previously delivered to its Mexico
facility since April 2009, the production start date for the MyRide\TM\
line car seats, to determine the extent of the noncompliance among its
lots of pillow labels.
    Graco found that its noncompliant pillow labels were manufactured
by a sub-supplier to Graco's normal pillow label supplier. Graco has
determined that the sub-supplier did not follow Graco's production
specifications, and as a result, failed to meet the requirements of
FMVSS No. 213. Graco also concluded that the sub-supplier was solely
responsible for providing the noncompliant pillow labels.
    Graco also found that all other labels and materials for its
MyRide\TM\ 65 car seats were provided by Graco's regular supplier
itself and not the sub-supplier. In addition to its investigation, the
Company's plant management also examined and verified through
laboratory testing, that all other material components used in the
MyRide\TM\ 65 car seats comply with the standards of FMVSS No. 213.
Graco added that new plant management at its Mexico plant has
implemented more robust quality controls to prevent such problems from
happening in the future and that Graco has received no complaints,
reports or any other information about adverse impacts from this
noncompliance from consumers or any other outside source.
    Since the discovery of the noncompliance, Graco indicated that it
has taken steps to ensure that every MyRide\TM\ 65 seat subsequently
released for shipment has been manufactured with labels compliant with
all applicable safety standards, including FMVSS No. 213. In addition,
Graco stopped all shipments of the MyRide\TM\ 65 car seats in its
possession when the noncompliance was discovered and replaced the
detachable accessory pillows with pillows manufactured with a pillow
label compliant with the FMVSS No. 213 prior to delivery.
    Graco believes that the noncompliance of the pillow label to meet
the requirements of FMVSS No. 213 is inconsequential to overall motor
vehicle safety for the following reasons:

    When reviewing the accessory pillow at issue, including its
size, location, function and overall design, the risk of injury
resulting from the noncompliant Label on the detachable accessory
pillow is inconsequential to the overall safety of the MyRide seat.
Specifically, the Label is a physically small component of the child
restraint system located in an area not likely to be exposed to open
flame. In fact, the potential for the Label serving as an ignition
point for a larger conflagration is near zero. This circumstance,
along with the compliant status of all other fabric and label
components of the MyRide seat, render the Label's noncompliance
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    As noted above, the Label is a rectangular shaped tag measuring
approximately 3 inches by 1\1/4\ inches. The area of the Label is
insignificant with respect to the over two yards of fabric that is
used to make the pad and the ``soft goods'' for the MyRide seat.
Proportionally, the percentage of material is less than \1/100\% of
the total surface area of the seat. Moreover, all other fabric,
including other warning labels for the MyRide seat, are flame
resistant. The small size of affected material renders the
likelihood of ignition of this one Label highly untenable.
    In addition * * * the Label is also located in an area that
makes it highly unlikely to be exposed to an open flame without the
passenger compartment of the car being already engulfed in flame * *
* When put in its proper place * * * the Label is surrounded by
flame resistant material and in a location interior to the overall
seat design * * *''
    Moreover * * * the owner's manual and instructions for the
MyRide seat express state that the pillow is not to be used with any
child over 18.1 kg (40 lbs) placed into the MyRide seat.
Accordingly, a significant number of MyRide seats are not used with

the pillow, thereby further reducing an already low risk of
flammability.

* * * the MyRide * * * child restraint is not designed to be easily
removed from a motor vehicle once installed * * * the MyRide seat is
tethered into the seat or is installed for use with the motor
vehicle's type II lap and shoulder belt. Therefore, the only risk of
exposure to an ignition source would be while installed in a motor
vehicle where pinpoint open flame in the upper portion of the child
restraint system on one particular side is highly unlikely.
    Graco has considered the potential for variety of potential
ignition sources that may be exposed to the tag. The Company
believes that the likelihood of the Label coming accidentally in
contact with any type of ignition device is extremely low. Graco's
analysis also included potential ignition from cigarettes or other
smoking materials * * *

    Graco also mentioned that real world reports support the Company's
belief that the noncompliant pillow labels are not a risk to safety.
Graco said it has received no reports or complaints of a fire involving
the MyRide\TM\ 65 seat or any of its components. Graco added, ``The
insignificant opportunity of a fire hazard to a child from ignition of
this small tag, located in the interior portion of the child seat
contained inside a motor vehicle supports Graco's assertion regarding
the inconsequential nature of this noncompliance.''
    In summation Graco restated its belief that based on the size of
the pillow label, its location, compliance of all other labels and
fabric with FMVSS No. 213, and the nearly impossible opportunities for
direct ignition of the pillow label only, that the described
noncompliance of the pillow label to meet the requirements of FMVSS No.
213 is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Thus, Graco requests
that NHTSA grant its petition to exempt it from providing notification
of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: May 10, 2010.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: April 7, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010-8310 Filed 4-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: April 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 17978-17979]
[DOCID:fr10ap07-129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55569; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-031]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Remove References to Intermarket Trading System (``ITS'') Plan

April 2, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 27, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared substantially by the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Phlx Rules 452 and 607 and the
XLE Fee Schedule to remove references to the Intermarket Trading System
(``ITS'') Plan and to delete Phlx Rules 2000-2002, which implemented
the ITS Plan trading rules on the Exchange.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at Phlx, the
Commission's Public Reference Room and http://www.phlx.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections
A, B, and C below, of the

most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to conform the
Exchange's rules to the recent elimination of the ITS Plan.\3\ Phlx
Rules 2000-2002 were adopted to implement the ITS Plan on the Exchange.
Those rules contain the trade-through and locked/crossed market rules
that governed trading in certain securities pursuant to the ITS Plan.
Those rules are now obsolete with the elimination of the ITS Plan.
Trade-through and locked/crossed market rules are now mandated by
Regulation NMS \4\ and codified in Phlx Rules 185 and 186. In addition,
references to the ITS Plan are being removed from Phlx Rules 452 and
607 and the XLE Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55397 (March 5,
2007), 72 FR 11066 (March 12, 2007)(File No. 4-208).
    \4\ 17 CFR 242.610-611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it
has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\ As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
under the Act,\9\ the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of the filing of the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\10\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Phlx has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay and render the proposed
rule change operative immediately. The Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Commission has eliminated the
ITS Plan, which makes the various Phlx rules that refer to and
implement the trading rules of the ITS Plan obsolete. For the reasons
stated above, the Commission therefore designates the proposal to
become operative upon filing with the Commission.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ For purposes of waiving the operative date of this proposal
only, the Commission has considered the impact of the proposed rule
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-Phlx-2007-31 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2007-31. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Phlx. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2007-31 and should be submitted on or before May 1,
2007.

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant
to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6670 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: November 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 66566-66568]
[DOCID:fr15no06-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 27550; 812-13145]

Old Mutual Advisor Funds II, et al.; Notice of Application

November 8, 2006.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 15(a) of
the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, as well as certain disclosure
requirements.

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

    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order that would
permit them to enter into and materially amend sub-advisory agreements
without shareholder approval and would grant relief from certain
disclosure requirements.
    Applicants: Old Mutual Advisor Funds II (``OMAF II'') on behalf of
Old Mutual Cash Reserves Fund, Old Mutual Columbus Circle Technology
and Communications Fund, Old Mutual Growth Fund, Old Mutual Large Cap
Growth Concentrated Fund, Old Mutual Large Cap Growth Fund, Old Mutual
Select Growth Fund, Old Mutual Small Cap Fund and Old Mutual Strategic
Small Company Fund (together, the ``OMAF II Funds''), Old Mutual
Insurance Series Fund (``OMISF'', and each of OMAF II and OMISF, a
``Trust'') on behalf of Old Mutual Columbus Circle Technology and
Communications Portfolio, Old Mutual Growth II Portfolio, Old Mutual
Large Cap Growth Concentrated Portfolio, Old Mutual Large Cap Growth
Portfolio and Old Mutual Small Cap Portfolio (together, the ``OMISF
Funds'', and together with the OMAF II Funds, the ``Funds''), and Old
Mutual Capital, Inc. (``Old Mutual Capital'').
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on January 3, 2005, and
amended on June 27, 2005, August 18, 2005, June 21, 2006, and November
3, 2006.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on December 4, 2006, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on the applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers,
a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of
the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to
the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants, Andra C. Ozols, Old
Mutual Capital, 4643 South Ulster Street, Suite 600, Denver, Colorado
80237.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura J. Riegel, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6873, or Nadya B. Roytblat, Assistant Director, at (202) 551-
6821 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the

application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
Commission's Public Reference Desk, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC
20549-0102 (tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicants' Representations

    1. Each Trust is organized as a Delaware statutory trust and is
registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company.
Each Fund has its own investment objective, policies, and restrictions.
Old Mutual Capital is registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act'') and serves as
investment adviser to the Funds.\1\ Each Trust, on behalf of its Funds,
has entered into separate investment management agreements with Old
Mutual Capital (each a ``Management Agreement'' and collectively, the
``Management Agreements''). The Management Agreements have been
approved by the respective Trust's board of trustees (each, a
``Board''), including a majority of the trustees who are not
``interested persons,'' as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of
the respective Trust or of Old Mutual Capital (``Independent
Trustees''), as well as by each applicable Fund's shareholders.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants also request relief with respect to future series
of the Trusts and any other existing or future registered open-end
management investment company or series thereof that: (a) Is advised
by Old Mutual Capital or any entity controlling, controlled by, or
under common control with Old Mutual Capital; (b) uses the multi-
manager structure described in the application; and (c) complies
with the terms and conditions of the application (included in the
term ``Funds''). The Trusts are the only existing registered open-
end management investment companies that currently intend to rely on
the requested order. If the name of any Fund contains the name of a
Sub-Adviser (as defined below), the name of Old Mutual Capital or
the name of the entity controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with Old Mutual Capital that serves as the primary
investment adviser to the Fund will precede the name of the Sub-
Adviser.
    \2\ The term ``shareholders'' includes variable life insurance
policy and variable annuity contract owners that are unitholders of
any separate account for which an OMISF Fund serves as a funding
medium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Under the terms of the Management Agreements, Old Mutual Capital
has primary responsibility for management of the Funds, subject to
Board oversight. The Management Agreements also provide that Old Mutual
Capital may select and contract with one or more investment advisers
(``Sub-Advisers'') to exercise day-to-day investment discretion over
all or a portion of the assets of the Funds (each such agreement, a
``Sub-Advisory Agreement'' and collectively, the ``Sub-Advisory
Agreements''). Old Mutual Capital monitors and evaluates the Sub-
Advisers and recommends to the Board their hiring, termination, and
replacement. All Sub-Advisory Agreements have been approved by the
respective Trust's Board, including a majority of the Independent
Trustees. Each Sub-Adviser is, and any future Sub-Adviser will be, an
investment adviser that is registered under the Advisers Act. Old
Mutual Capital compensates or will compensate each Sub-Adviser out of
the management fees it receives from each Fund under the respective
Management Agreement.
    3. Applicants request relief to permit Old Mutual Capital, subject
to Board approval, to enter into and materially amend Sub-Advisory
Agreements without shareholder approval. The requested relief will not
extend to any Sub-Adviser that is an affiliated person, as defined in
section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of a Fund or of Old Mutual Capital, other
than by reason of serving as a Sub-Adviser to one or more Funds
(``Affiliated Sub-Adviser'').\3\
    4. Applicants also request an exemption from the various disclosure
provisions described below that may require the Funds to disclose fees
paid by Old Mutual Capital to the Sub-Advisers. An exemption is
requested to permit a Fund to disclose (as both a dollar amount and as
a percentage of its net assets): (a) The aggregate fees paid to Old
Mutual Capital and any Affiliated Sub-Advisers, and (b) the aggregate
fees paid to Sub-Advisers other than Affiliated Sub-Advisers
(collectively, ``Aggregate Fee Disclosure''). If a Fund employs an
Affiliated Sub-Adviser, the Fund will provide separate disclosure of
any fees paid to the Affiliated Sub-Adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Currently, two OMAF II Funds and one OMISF Fund each employ
an Affiliated Sub-Adviser.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is
unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered
investment company except under a written contract that has been
approved by the vote of a majority of the company's outstanding voting
securities. Rule 18f-2 under the Act provides that each series or class
of stock in a series company affected by a matter must approve such
matter if the Act requires shareholder approval.
    2. Form N-1A is the registration statement used by open-end
investment companies. Item 14(a)(3) of Form N-1A requires disclosure of
the method and amount of the investment adviser's compensation.
    3. Rule 20a-1 under the Act requires proxies solicited with respect
to an investment company to comply with Schedule 14A under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''). Items 22(c)(1)(ii),
22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A, taken together,
require a proxy statement for a shareholder meeting at which the
advisory contract will be voted upon to include the ``rate of
compensation of the investment adviser,'' the ``aggregate amount of the
investment adviser's fees,'' a description of the ``terms of the
contract to be acted upon,'' and, if a change in the advisory fee is
proposed, the existing and proposed fees and the difference between the
two fees.
    4. Form N-SAR is the semi-annual report filed with the Commission
by registered investment companies. Item 48 of Form N-SAR requires
investment companies to disclose the rate schedule for fees paid to
their investment advisers, including the sub-advisers.
    5. Regulation S-X sets forth the requirements for financial
statements required to be included as part of investment company
registration statements and shareholder reports filed with the
Commission. Sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X require
that investment companies include in their financial statements
information about investment advisory fees.
    6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security, or transaction or any class or classes of
persons, securities, or transactions from any provisions of the Act, or
from any rule thereunder, if such exemption is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors
and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the
Act. Applicants state that the requested relief meets this standard for
the reasons discussed below.
    7. Applicants assert that by investing in a Fund, shareholders, in
effect, will hire Old Mutual Capital to manage the Fund's assets by
using its investment adviser selection and monitoring process.
Applicants assert that investors will purchase Fund shares to gain
access to Old Mutual Capital's expertise in these areas. Applicants
believe that permitting Old Mutual Capital to hire Sub-Advisers without
incurring the unnecessary delay and expense of obtaining shareholder
approval of each Sub-Advisory Agreement is appropriate in the interests
of the Funds' shareholders and will allow each Fund to potentially
operate more efficiently. Applicants note that the Management
Agreements will remain subject to the

shareholder approval requirements of section 15(a) and rule 18f-2.
    8. Applicants assert that many Sub-Advisers charge their customers
for advisory services according to a ``posted'' rate schedule.
Applicants state that while Sub-Advisers are willing to negotiate fees
that are lower than those posted on the schedule, they are reluctant to
do so where the fees are disclosed to other prospective and existing
customers. Applicants submit that the requested relief will encourage
potential Sub-Advisers to negotiate lower subadvisory fees with Old
Mutual Capital, the benefits of which may be passed on to the Funds'
shareholders.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following conditions:
    1. Before a Fund may rely on the requested order, the operation of
the Fund in the manner described in the application will be approved by
a majority of the Fund's outstanding voting securities, as defined in
the Act, or, in the case of a Fund whose public shareholders purchase
shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure
contemplated by condition 2 below, by the initial shareholder(s) before
offering shares of that Fund to the public.
    2. The prospectus for each Fund will disclose the existence,
substance and effect of any order granted pursuant to the application.
In addition, each Fund will hold itself out to the public as employing
the manager of managers structure described in the application. The
prospectus will prominently disclose that Old Mutual Capital has
ultimate responsibility, subject to oversight by the Board, to oversee
the Sub-Advisers and recommend their hire, termination and replacement.
    3. At all times, at least a majority of the Board will be
Independent Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional
Independent Trustees, will be at the discretion of the then-existing
Independent Trustees.
    4. Old Mutual Capital will not enter into a Sub-Advisory Agreement
with any Affiliated Sub-Adviser, without such agreement, including
compensation to be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders
of the applicable Fund.
    5. When a Sub-Adviser change is proposed for a Fund with an
Affiliated Sub-Adviser, the Board, including a majority of the
Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the
Board minutes, that such change is in the best interests of the Fund
and its shareholders and does not involve a conflict of interest from
which Old Mutual Capital or the Affiliated Sub-Adviser derives an
inappropriate advantage.
    6. Within 90 days of the hiring of any new Sub-Adviser, Old Mutual
Capital will furnish the shareholders of the affected Fund all
information about the new Sub-Adviser that would be contained in a
proxy statement, except as modified by the order to permit Aggregate
Fee Disclosure. This information will include Aggregate Fee Disclosure
and any change in such disclosure caused by the addition of the new
Sub-Adviser. To meet this condition, Old Mutual Capital will provide
shareholders of the affected Fund with an information statement meeting
the requirements of Regulation 14C, Schedule 14C, and Item 22 of
Schedule 14A under the Exchange Act, except as modified by the order to
permit Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
    7. Old Mutual Capital will provide general management services to
each Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general
management and investment of the Fund's assets, and, subject to review
and approval by the Board, will: (a) Set the Fund's overall investment
strategies; (b) evaluate, select, and recommend Sub-Advisers to manage
all or a part of the Fund's assets; (c) when appropriate, allocate and
reallocate the Fund's assets among multiple Sub-Advisers; (d) monitor
and evaluate the performance of the Sub-Advisers; and (e) implement
procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the Sub-Advisers comply
with the Fund's investment objective, policies and restrictions.
    8. No trustee or officer of a Fund or director or officer of Old
Mutual Capital will own directly or indirectly (other than through a
pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by such person) any
interest in a Sub-Adviser, except for: (a) Ownership of interests in
Old Mutual Capital or any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is
under common control with Old Mutual Capital; or (b) ownership of less
than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of
a publicly traded company that is either a Sub-Adviser or an entity
that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a Sub-
Adviser.
    9. Independent legal counsel, as defined in rule 0-1(a)(6) under
the Act, will be engaged to represent the Independent Trustees. The
selection of such counsel will be within the discretion of the then-
existing Independent Trustees.
    10. Old Mutual Capital will provide the Board, no less frequently
than quarterly, with information about the profitability of Old Mutual
Capital on a per-Fund basis. The information will reflect the impact on
profitability of the hiring or termination of any Sub-Adviser during
the applicable quarter.
    11. Whenever a Sub-Adviser is hired or terminated, Old Mutual
Capital will provide the Board with information showing the expected
impact on Old Mutual Capital's profitability.
    12. Each Fund will disclose in its registration statement the
Aggregate Fee Disclosure.
    13. The requested order will expire on the effective date of rule
15a-5 under the Act, if adopted.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-19238 Filed 11-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 198)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63045-63048]
[DOCID:fr14oc10-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0642; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-332-AD;
Amendment 39-16470; AD 2010-21-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED Model
BAe 146 and Avro 146-RJ Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This 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:

    * * * [F]uel leaks and failed fasteners [have been reported] in
the region of the rear spar root joint attachment fitting at wing
rib 2. * * *
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is stress corrosion failures in the region of the
rear spar root joint attachment fitting at wing rib 2, which could lead
to reduced structural integrity of the wing, and consequent reduced
controllability of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to require
actions to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 18, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 18,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1175; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2010 (75 FR
38058). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    British Aerospace originally issued Service Bulletin (SB) 57-033
in 1989 to detect fuel leaks and failed fasteners in the region of
the rear spar root joint attachment fitting at wing rib 2.
Accomplishment of this SB was mandated by the [Civil Aviation
Authority] CAA United Kingdom AD 044-09-89. Revisions 1 through 7 of
this SB were introduced to inspect pre mod HCM01447A standard
installations for fuel leaks and loose or broken bolts. Modification
HCM01447A

introduced tension bolts in the attachment fitting instead of the
previous Hi-Lok bolts.
    Revision 8 of the SB introduced inspection instructions for post
modification HCM01447A installations because fuel tank leaks and
failed fasteners have subsequently been found on aircraft post
modification HCM01447A. Inspections of the post-mod HCM01447A
standard are required to maintain the structural integrity of the
wing. BAE Systems has now published SB 57-033 Revision 9 that
specifies additional, calendar-time based, inspection criteria to
control the stress corrosion failures of the pre and post
modification HCM01447A installations.
    EASA AD 2007-0270 supersedes CAA UK AD 044-09-89 and requires
the accomplishment of inspections and corrective actions, as
necessary, in accordance with BAE Systems SB 57-033 Revision 9.
    This [EASA] AD [2007-0270 R1] is revised to clarify that the
calendar compliance times are to be counted from the effective date,
not from the SB issue date.

The unsafe condition is stress corrosion failures in the region of the
rear spar root joint attachment fitting at wing rib 2, which could lead
to reduced structural integrity of the wing, and consequent reduced
controllability of the airplane. Required actions include a general
inspection to identify the type of bolt and nut at each location,
external inspections of the bolt installation of the fuel tanks,
related investigative actions, and corrective actions, as applicable.
    The general inspection includes identifying the type of bolt and
nut at each location.
    External inspections of the bolt installation include:
     Visually inspecting for proper nut installation, nut
seating, and fuel seepage.
     Checking for gaps between the fitting and wing structure.
     Checking the nuts with a suitable torque spanner to the
specifications in the torque figures shown in Table 2. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October 10,
2006, if Hi-Loks are installed, and
     Doing either an ultrasonic inspection for damaged bolts or
torque check of the tension bolts.
    Related investigative actions include:
     Inspecting the condition of the sealant at and around all
rear spar root joint attachment bolts.
     Checking the bolt for damage or evidence of the nut being
tightened to the end of the thread.
     Examining the wear pattern on the seating surfaces of the
bolt and nut to determine if the bolt and nut have been evenly seated
on the structure.
     Visually inspecting the bolt hole and surrounding area for
damage, and
     Confirming that the hole edge radius on the forward face
of the rear spar complies with the specifications in Table 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October 10,
2006.
    Corrective actions include either replacing the bolt, or repairing
the defect in accordance with approved repair data from BAE Systems.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Explanation of Change to Applicability

    We have revised the applicability of the existing AD to identify
model designations as published in the most recent type certificate
data sheet for the affected models.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

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 required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 1 product of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD to the U.S. operators to be $255.

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 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); 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 AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 AD:

2010-21-10 BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED: Amendment 39-16470.
Docket No. FAA-2010-0642; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-332-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
18, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all BAE Systems (OPERATIONS) LIMITED
Model BAe 146-100A, -200A, and -300A airplanes, and Model Avro 146-
RJ70A, 146-RJ85A, and 146-RJ100A airplanes, certificated in any
category.

Subject

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

Reason

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

    * * * [F]uel leaks and failed fasteners [have been reported] in
the region of the rear spar root joint attachment fitting at wing
rib 2. * * *
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is stress corrosion failures in the region of
the rear spar root joint attachment fitting at wing rib 2, which
could lead to reduced structural integrity of the wing, and
consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) At the applicable time in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this
AD, do a general visual inspection to identify the type of bolt and
nut at each location, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October 10, 2006.
    (1) For airplanes on which neither Modification HCM01447A nor
repair information leaflet (RIL) HC536H9156 (at any location) has
been done as of the effective date of this AD, the compliance time
for the inspection is at the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, or
within 2 years after the last inspection done in accordance with BAE
SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033,
whichever occurs later, without exceeding 4,000 flight cycles after
the last inspection.
    (ii) Within 250 flight cycles or 3 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes on which either Modification HCM01447A or RIL
HC536H9156 (at any location) has been done as of the effective date
of this AD, the compliance time for the inspection is at the latest
of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i), (g)(2)(ii), and
(g)(2)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 4,000 total flight cycles.
    (ii) Within 4,000 flight cycles after all bolts are inspected
and replaced in accordance with BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033.
    (iii) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (h) At the applicable time in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this
AD, do detailed inspections of the bolt installation for proper nut
installation, nut seating, and fuel seepage; a detailed inspection
for gaps between the fitting and wing structure; if Hi-Loks are
installed, measure the torque of the nuts to determine the
specifications in the torque figures shown in Table 2. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October
10, 2006; and either an ultrasonic inspection for damaged bolts or a
torque measurement of the tension bolts to determine the
specifications in the torque figures shown in Table 3 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED
Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October
10, 2006. Do all actions in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED Inspection Service
Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October 10, 2006.
    (i) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this
AD, any defect (e.g., evidence of fuel seepage, damaged bolts or low
bolt torque, loose or rotating nuts, suspect integrity of the bolt/
nut assembly, or gaps between the fitting and wing structure) is
found, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraphs
(i)(1), (i)(2), (i)(3), (i)(4), and (i)(5) of this AD, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS)
LIMITED Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated
October 10, 2006.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection of the sealant for cracks at and
around all rear spar root joint attachment bolts.
    (2) Do a detailed inspection of the bolt for damage or evidence
of the nut being tightened to the end of the thread.
    (3) Do a detailed inspection of the wear pattern on the seating
surfaces of the bolt and nut to determine if the bolt and nut have
been evenly seated on the structure.
    (4) Do a detailed inspection of the bolt hole and surrounding
area for damage.
    (5) Do a detailed inspection to determine that the hole edge
radius on the forward face of the rear spar meets the dimensions
specified in Table 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE
SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033,
Revision 9, dated October 10, 2006.
    (j) If during any inspection required by paragraph (h) or (i) of
this AD, any defects (e.g., evidence of fuel seepage, damaged bolts
or low bolt torque, loose or rotating nuts, suspect integrity of the
bolt/nut assembly, gaps between the fitting and wing structure,
cracked sealant, bolt damage or evidence of the nut being tightened
to the end of the thread, uneven seating of the bolt and nut, bolt
hole and surrounding area damage, or hole edge radius out of
dimensions specified in Table 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED Inspection Service Bulletin
ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October 10, 2006), is found, before
further flight, do all applicable correction actions, which include
either replacing the bolt or repairing the defect, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS)
LIMITED Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated
October 10, 2006.
    (k) Repeat the inspections in paragraph (h) of this AD
thereafter, at the applicable time specified in Table 1 of this AD,
for each individual location.

            Table 1--Compliance Times for Repeat Inspections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         If the location has--             Then repeat the inspection--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Hi-Lok bolt..........................  Within 4,000 flight cycles or
                                          24 months, whichever occurs
                                          earlier, after doing the last
                                          inspection.
A tension bolt that was not replaced     Within 8,000 flight cycles or
 during the inspections in paragraphs     48 months, whichever occurs
 (h) and (i) of this AD and no defects    earlier, after doing the last
 were found.                              inspection.

A tension bolt that was replaced as      Within 4,000 flight cycles or
 required by paragraph (j) of this AD.    24 months, whichever occurs
                                          earlier after doing the
                                          replacement.
A tension bolt that was not replaced     Within 4,000 flight cycles or
 and any defects were repaired as         24 months, whichever occurs
 required by paragraph (j) of this AD.    earlier after doing the repair
                                          specified in paragraph (j) of
                                          this AD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: Although BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED Service
Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October 10, 2006, allows
additional time to rectify the defect for the corrective action
depending on the condition, this AD requires rectifying the defect
before further flight.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (l) 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. Send information to ATTN: Todd
Thompson, 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.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (m) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2007-0270 R1, dated November 7, 2007; and BAE SYSTEMS
(OPERATIONS) LIMITED Inspection Service Bulletin ISB.57-033,
Revision 9, dated October 10, 2006; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (n) You must use BAE SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED Inspection
Service Bulletin ISB.57-033, Revision 9, dated October 10, 2006; to
do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE
SYSTEMS (OPERATIONS) LIMITED, Customer Information Department,
Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United
Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.baesystems.com/
Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm.
    (3) You may review copies of the 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>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the 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/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 29, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-25469 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


The State of New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection

Proposed Revisions to the Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
Program for the State of New Jersey

Proposed I/M Program Modeling and Revised Performance Standard Modeling

SIP Revision

Appendix I

 History of New Jersey’s I/M SIP

AugustApril, 2009

History of New Jersey’s I/M SIP  tc  \l 1 "II.	History of New Jersey's
I/M SIP"

	A.	Basic I/M SIP

In 1974, New Jersey, under commitments made in its basic I/M SIP,
implemented its basic I/M program.  At that time, the State’s basic
I/M SIP consisted of an annual inspection program whereby all
gasoline-fueled motor vehicles, unless specifically exempt through law
or regulation, were subject to an idle exhaust emission test.  Although
several subsequent revisions were made to the State’s basic I/M SIP,
the core program remained unchanged.  Major changes in the State’s
basic I/M program over time included: 1) the addition of a visual
inspection for the presence of a catalytic converter, 2) the addition of
an inlet restrictor test to determine whether a vehicle’s fuel inlet
was sufficiently narrow as to preclude use of a leaded gasoline nozzle,
thereby preventing the use of leaded fuel, and 3) modification of the
program network design to allow for private inspection facilities
(PIFs).  This third major change expanded the inspection facility
network to include non-state-operated inspection facilities that could
do both inspections and repairs.  Although these private facilities were
originally only allowed to perform re-inspections, their
responsibilities were later augmented to include initial inspections as
well.

	B.	Enhanced I/M SIP   tc "	B.	Enhanced I/M SIP  " \l 2

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require the implementation of
enhanced I/M programs for areas meeting one or more of the following
criteria:

Designated as a serious, severe or extreme ozone non-attainment area
with urbanized populations of 200,000 or more ;

Designated as a carbon monoxide non-attainment area that exceeded a 12.7
ppm design value with urbanized populations of 200,000 or more; or,

Part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area with a population of 100,000 or
more in the northeast Ozone Transport Region (OTR) .

New Jersey met all three of these criteria for required implementation
of an enhanced I/M program.  As part of this requirement, Congress
established performance specifications that were further elucidated by
the USEPA.  Specifically, the USEPA’s promulgated rules and
established guidance, including a performance standard and program
administration features, for the implementation of enhanced I/M
programs.  The USEPA’s final rule on Inspection/Maintenance Program
Requirements was promulgated on November 5, 1992.  Subsequently, on June
29, 1995, New Jersey submitted a SIP to the USEPA that described its
enhanced I/M program design.  This SIP described an inspection program
whereby all 1968 and newer gasoline-fueled motor vehicles, unless
specifically exempt through law or regulation, would be subject to a
steady-state dynamometer-based exhaust emission test known as the
ASM5015.  In addition, all 1975 and newer vehicles would receive
evaporative pressure and purge tests designed to detect any malfunctions
with the vehicle’s evaporative emission control system.  All pre-1968
vehicles would continue to be subject to the idle exhaust emission test.
 New Jersey’s enhanced I/M SIP also accounted for a hybrid (i.e., both
centralized, test-only and decentralized, test-and-repair facilities)
inspection network, similar to the one established for New Jersey’s
basic I/M program.  This SIP stated that once the enhanced I/M program
was fully implemented, all subject motor vehicles would be inspected at
least once every two years (i.e., biennially).

	C.	Enhanced I/M SIP Revision - March 27, 1996   tc "	C.	Enhanced I/M
SIP RevisionC.	Enhanced I/M SIP Revision - March 27, 1996  " \l 2

On March 27, 1996, New Jersey submitted a revision to its June 29, 1995
enhanced I/M SIP, modifying its enhanced I/M program design to take
advantage of the additional flexibility afforded states by Congress in
designing their enhanced I/M programs.  Specifically, the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995, P.L. 104-59 [S.440], (NHSDA)
prohibited the USEPA from automatically discounting decentralized
program formats by 50 percent, as had previously been prescribed in the
USEPA’s final rule on I/M program requirements.  Rather, the NHSDA
allowed states to claim any reasonable amount of credit for their
decentralized programs that they deemed appropriate, so long as 18
months from the approval of their enhanced I/M SIP the state could show
six months of full implementation enhanced I/M program data
substantiating their credit claim.  Consistent therewith, as part of its
March 27, 1996 enhanced I/M SIP revision, New Jersey claimed 80 percent
credit for the decentralized portion of its enhanced I/M program.  Refer
to Section F. for more information on New Jersey’s analyses to
substantiate its 80 percent credit claim.

In addition to taking advantage of the flexibility afforded by the
NHSDA, the March 27, 1996 enhanced I/M SIP revision modified the model
year coverage of the ASM5015 exhaust emission test and evaporative
system pressure and purge tests to the following: all 1981 and newer
light-duty vehicles, other than low annual mileage and full-time
four-wheel drive vehicles, would be subject to the steady-state
dynamometer-based ASM5015 exhaust emission test, as well as evaporative
system pressure and purge tests.  Vehicles 1980 and older would continue
to be subject to the basic idle exhaust emission test, as well as a
gasoline cap pressure test for those vehicles with sealed gas cap
systems.

Finally, as part of this March 27, 1996 revision to the State’s
enhanced I/M SIP, the test frequency of the State’s current inspection
process was slightly modified in connection with an enhanced
demonstration phase.  During this demonstration phase, vehicles that
successfully passed a voluntary enhanced exhaust emission test would
receive an inspection sticker valid for two years.

On May 14, 1997, the USEPA granted conditional interim approval to New
Jersey’s enhanced I/M SIP.  This conditional interim SIP approval,
which became effective on June 13, 1997, addressed both the State’s
original June 29, 1995 enhanced I/M SIP submittal and its subsequent
March 27, 1996 SIP revision.  New Jersey subsequently satisfied the
conditions of this approval by rectifying the two major deficiencies in
its enhanced I/M SIP identified by the USEPA (New Jersey cured the first
major enhanced I/M SIP deficiency by providing final and complete test
equipment specifications, test procedures and emission standards to the
USEPA by January 31, 1997; and cured the second major enhanced I/M SIP
deficiency by providing enhanced I/M performance standard modeling to
the USEPA by February 1, 1998).  In addition, on December 14, 1998, New
Jersey cured the eight (8) de minimis deficiencies identified by the
USEPA, even though the satisfaction of those de minimis deficiencies had
no effect on the USEPA’s interim approval.

	D.	Enhanced I/M SIP Revision - June 5, 1998  tc "	D.	Enhanced I/M SIP
Revision - June 5, 1998 " \l 2 D.	Enhanced I/M SIP Revision - June 5,
1998

On June 5, 1998, New Jersey submitted a revision to its I/M SIP,
clarifying the testing frequency during the transition between the basic
I/M program and the full implementation of the enhanced I/M program.
Although the previous SIP revisions clearly define the testing frequency
of both New Jersey’s basic and enhanced I/M programs, they did not
definitively specify the testing frequency during the transition period
between the two programs.

As part of the June 5, 1998 SIP revision, the State determined that
during the transition period, the basic I/M program would continue to
operate, but on a biennial, rather than annual, test frequency.  This
was done to accommodate the decreased availability of centralized
inspection lanes while they were being retrofitted for enhanced testing.
 To make this modification to the basic I/M program’s test frequency,
this SIP revision quantified the emission reduction losses anticipated
from this modification and provided an equivalency demonstration showing
the State’s plan to offset those losses in emission reduction benefit.
 Specifically, to compensate for the loss in VOC emission reduction
benefit from modifying the basic I/M program’s test frequency, New
Jersey: 1) began administering fuel cap pressure tests as part of its
basic I/M program in its centralized inspection facilities, and 2) began
fuel cap/evaporative emission control system visual inspections as part
of its basic I/M program in its decentralized inspection facilities.
The loss in carbon monoxide emission reduction benefit from modifying
the basic I/M program’s test frequency was offset by taking credit for
emission reduction benefits gained through vehicle fleet turnover which
had not already been claimed by the State in its carbon monoxide SIP.
Vehicle fleet turnover results when newer vehicles with more advanced
emission controls replace older, less advanced vehicles within the State
vehicle population.  The State submitted modeling analyses showing that
both of the above strategies more than compensated for the loss in VOC
and carbon monoxide emission reduction benefits from modifying the basic
I/M program’s test frequency.  The USEPA approved the State’s June
5, 1998 revision to its enhanced I/M SIP on August 26, 1998.

E.	Proposed Enhanced I/M SIP Revision - June 9, 2001  tc "	E.	Proposed
Enhanced I/M SIP Revision - June 9, 2001   " \l 2

On June 9, 2001, the State proposed to revise its enhanced I/M SIP to
include amendments to the NJMVC’s rules governing the implementation
and operation of the State’s I/M program.  The proposed rulemaking
made the following changes to the NJMVC’s I/M regulations that could
impact the air quality benefits associated with the enhanced I/M
program, and therefore impact the SIP:

Provide that if leasing companies and out-of-state new motor vehicle
dealerships inspect a new motor vehicle’s safety and emission control
devices to insure that they conform to the specifications established by
the manufacturer and contained in the pre-delivery checklist, those
facilities could issue a temporary inspection decal.  This decal allows
the motorist to present the vehicle at the exit end of any CIF and be
issued a two-year inspection decal.  This regulatory change gives these
leasing companies and out-of-state new motor vehicle dealerships
equivalent privileges to those previously given to in-state new motor
vehicle dealerships;

Exempt gasoline-fueled school buses which are subject to inspection by
the NJMVC’s School Bus Inspection Unit from the inspection
requirements of the enhanced I/M program;

Allow any motor vehicle that passes an on-road inspection within the
two-month period prior to its regularly scheduled biennial inspection to
use the on-road inspection result in lieu of the complete biennial
inspection, so long as the tests performed on-road are the same tests
that would be performed on the vehicle as part of the biennial
inspection process;

Exempt from dynamometer testing any motor vehicle “ with a chassis
height that has been modified so as to make its operation on a
dynamometer either impractical or hazardous, as will be determined in
the discretion of the Director [of the NJMVC]”; and,

Change the minimum cost expenditure value needed for the issuance of a
cost waiver from $200 to $450 as of January 1, 2002.

A hearing on this proposed SIP revision, as well as the NJMVC’s
proposed rulemaking, was held on July 9, 2001.  The NJMVC subsequently
adopted its regulations on October 15, 2001.

	F.	Enhanced I/M SIP Revision - August 31, 2001  tc "	F.	Enhanced I/M
SIP Revision - August 31, 2001 " \l 2

On December 13, 2000, in compliance with its NHSDA credit claim, New
Jersey submitted to the USEPA a qualitative analysis of four months of
data showing the effectiveness of the decentralized portion of its
enhanced I/M program relative to its centralized test-only network.
Subsequently, on May 4, 2001, New Jersey proposed its final report for
NHSDA compliance, which evaluated six full months of program
implementation data (the period from July 1, 2000 through December 31,
2000) using various analysis methodologies.  On August 31, 2001, the
State of New Jersey submitted to the USEPA a revision to its enhanced
I/M SIP that included:

1)	The State’s final submittal for compliance with the National
Highway Systems Designation Act (NHSDA); and,

A revision to New Jersey’s enhanced I/M performance standard modeling.

The first part of this SIP revision included New Jersey’s final NHSDA
report.  This report was designed to support the claim New Jersey made
in its March 27, 1996 enhanced I/M SIP revision that its decentralized
network (the private inspection facilities, or PIFs) is at least 80
percent as effective as its centralized network (the centralized
inspection facilities, or CIFs).  The NHSDA report showed that both New
Jersey’s centralized test-only and decentralized test-and-repair
program networks are effectively identifying vehicles with unacceptably
high levels of emissions, and that the State-registered Emission Repair
Facilities (ERFs) are significantly reducing vehicle emissions through
effective repairs.  Specifically, the NHSDA analyses show overall
emission reductions of 55 percent for hydrocarbons (HC), 58 percent for
nitrogen oxide (NO) and 84 percent for carbon monoxide from the vehicles
repaired and successfully passing re-inspections following initial
inspection failures.  These analyses show relatively uniform emission
reductions attributable to both network types of New Jersey’s enhanced
I/M program, indicating that the emission reductions attributable to the
PIFs are at least 80 percent of those attributed to the CIF network.  In
fact, the analyses show that the State was conservative in this original
credit estimation.

The second part of the August 20, 2001 enhanced I/M SIP revision
addressed the State’s performance standard modeling for its enhanced
I/M program.  The State originally submitted its performance standard
modeling to the USEPA on January 30, 1998, to satisfy a condition of the
USEPA’s conditional interim approval of New Jersey’s enhanced I/M
program SIP.  At that time, the State had not yet implemented its
enhanced I/M program, requiring the NJDEP to make certain assumptions
about the program, such as the expected date for the implementation of
final standards.  After the State successfully implemented its enhanced
I/M program, the USEPA requested that the State update its performance
standard modeling to more accurately reflect the program as implemented.
The August 20, 2001 revised performance standard modeling demonstrated
that for an evaluation year of 2002, the State exceeded the applicable
enhanced performance standard.

On September 11, 2001, the USEPA proposed to: 1) approve New Jersey’s
August 20, 2001 SIP revision; and, 2) give final approval to New
Jersey’s overall enhanced I/M SIP.  Prior to this, the State’s
enhanced I/M SIP had interim approval from the USEPA.  On January 22,
2002, the USEPA finalized its approval of New Jersey’s August 20, 2001
SIP revision and gave final approval to New Jersey’s overall enhanced
I/M SIP.

G.	Proposed Enhanced I/M SIP Revision - December 31, 2001  tc "G.
Proposed Enhanced I/M SIP Revision - December 31, 2001 " \l 2

On December 31, 2001, the State of New Jersey submitted a proposed
revision to its enhanced I/M SIP to the USEPA.  This proposed revision
included the following:

A formal request to defer of the mandatory implementation date for
inclusion of On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) inspections into the State’s
I/M program from January 1, 2002 to January 1, 2003;

A formal request that the State be allowed to phase-in the mandatory OBD
inspection portion of its I/M program;

Submittal, for inclusion as part of the overall enhanced I/M SIP, of
those proposed amendments to the Department of Environmental
Protection’s (NJDEP) rules which establish the necessary test
procedures and standards for implementation of an enhanced I/M program
for gasoline-fueled motor vehicles in New Jersey; and,

Submittal, for inclusion as part of the overall enhanced I/M SIP, of
those emission-related portions of the NJMVC-proposed amendments to its
rules governing school bus inspections in New Jersey.

The proposed NJDEP regulatory amendments were attached as Appendix I to
the December 31, 2001 proposed SIP submittal and proposed the following
major modifications to N.J.A.C. 7:27-15 (Control and Prohibition of Air
Pollution from Gasoline-Fueled Motor Vehicles) and N.J.A.C. 7:27B-5 (Air
Test Method 5: Testing Procedures for Gasoline-Fueled Motor Vehicles):

Modify the framework, procedures and testing schedule by which 1996 and
newer model year vehicles will be subject to OBD inspections;

Extend the end date for the current initial ASM5015 standards for all
1981 and newer light duty gasoline vehicles (LDGVs), light duty gasoline
trucks 1 and 2 (LDGT1s and LDGT2s) from December 31, 2001 to December
31, 2002;

Replace the final standards for the ASM5015 exhaust emission test for
all model year 1994 and newer Tier I light-duty gasoline-fueled trucks 1
and 2 (LDGT1 and LDGT2s), currently scheduled for implementation on
January 1, 2002, with new "interim" standards that will go into effect
on January 1, 2003;

Replace the final standards for the ASM5015 exhaust emission test for
all pre-1996 non-Tier I LDGT1s and LDGT2s, and for all 1981 and newer
light-duty gasoline-fueled vehicles (LDGVs) with the current initial
ASM5015 standards for those vehicles, and change the implementation date
from January 1, 2002 to January 1, 2003;

Remove all references to the evaporative pressure and purge tests, and;

Change the test procedure requirements for those gasoline-fueled motor
vehicles registered as school buses by the NJMVC, and subject to
inspection by the NJMVC's School Bus Inspection Unit.

A hearing on the proposed SIP revision, as well as both NJDEP and
NJMVC’s proposed rulemakings, was held on February 25, 2002.  The
State received significant comments on two aspects of its January 22,
2002 proposal; the implementation plan for integrating mandatory OBD
inspections, and the implementation of interim standards for the ASM5015
exhaust emissions test to replace the current final standards.

In addition to considering the comments, the NJDEP also took into
account other factors with regard to OBD implementation, such as the
determination that implementation of the USEPA's original OBD inspection
component design without "second chance" testing would impose less of a
burden on the State than implementation of a "phase-in" OBD inspection
program that still required the motor vehicle to be repaired to pass an
OBD inspection on re-inspection.  After evaluating all of these issues,
the State determined not to adopt the proposed OBD implementation plan
or the interim standards for ASM5015 exhaust emission test.  Although
the State considered adopting the remaining changes proposed in its
January 22, 2002 proposal, it determined that it would be clearer to the
public if the NJDEP developed a new proposal that included the State's
revised OBD implementation plan, and provided for continuation of the
initial ASM standards without the implementation of final standards.  As
such, the NJDEP determined not to adopt its January 22, 2002 rule
proposal and, on April 22, 2002, the NJDEP submitted a SIP revision that
took the following action with regard to the State’s enhanced I/M
program:

Withdrew the State’s request to phase-in OBD inspections into New
Jersey’s enhanced I/M program;

Withdrew the State’s submittal of the January 22, 2002 NJDEP rule
proposal, and;

Submitted a final SIP revision requesting a deferral of the mandatory
implementation date for inclusion of OBD inspections into the State I/M
program from January 1, 2002 to January 1, 2003.  This request included
a commitment to modify the rule date for OBD inspection.

In the letter transmitting this SIP revision to the USEPA, the State
indicated that, should the NJMVC act to adopt its latest school bus rule
proposal, the NJDEP would then submit to the USEPA for their review and
approval, a final SIP revision that includes that adoption, as well as
the NJMVC’s previous rule adoption which removed from the I/M program
those gasoline-fueled vehicles registered as school buses, and thus
subject to inspection by the NJMVC’s school bus inspection unit, from
the enhanced I/M program requirements.  This second rule adoption was
submitted to the USEPA as a proposed SIP revision on June 9, 2001 and
the adoption appeared in the October 15, 2001 edition of the New Jersey
Register.

	H.	Proposed Enhanced I/M SIP Revision - April 24, 2002 tc "H.	Proposed
Enhanced I/M SIP Revision - April 24, 2002 " \l 2

On April 24, 2002, the NJDEP submitted a revision to its enhanced I/M
SIP that consisted of proposed amendments to the NJDEP rules governing
the implementation of the enhanced I/M program in New Jersey.
Specifically, the NJDEP's rule proposal  made the following major
changes to the State’s enhanced I/M program:

Modified the framework, procedures and testing schedule by which model
year 1996 and newer vehicles would be subject to on-board diagnostic
(OBD) inspections.  The proposed program modifications included changing
the start date for mandatory OBD inspections (pass/fail determinations)
from January 1, 2001, to June 1, 2003.  The proposal set forth the
testing protocols for OBD inspections on 1996 and newer vehicles;

Eliminated the end date for the use of the “initial” emission
standards for the ASM5015 exhaust emission test.  This would allow for
the continued use of these initial standards;

Removed the "final" emission standards for the ASM5015 exhaust emission
test;

Removed all references to the evaporative pressure and purge tests while
retaining the evaporative fuel cap (or gas cap) leak test; and;

Exempted from dynamometer testing those pre-1996 light-duty vehicles
that are registered as school buses and that are under the jurisdiction
of the NJMVC’s School Bus Inspection Unit.  1996 and newer light-duty
vehicles registered as school buses would receive an OBD inspection.

A hearing on the NJDEP's new proposal, and the associated proposed SIP
revision, was held on June 24, 2002 and the comment period ended on July
30, 2002.  On December 15, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 69640), the USEPA proposed
approval of this revision to New Jersey's enhanced I/M SIP.  USEPA gave
final approval of this revision on May 21, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 29234).

Revised Performance Standard Modeling SIP Revision  - November 27, 2002

On November 27, 2002, the NJDEP submitted a revision to New Jersey’s
enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program State Implementation
Plan (SIP) which contained a revision to New Jersey’s enhanced I/M
performance standard modeling.  The primary reason for this revised
performance standard modeling was to satisfy the USEPA's requirements
for securing their approval for the State to extend the new vehicle
emission inspection exemption from one inspection cycle (i.e., 2 years)
to two inspection cycles (i.e., 4 years).  Governor James E. McGreevey
enacted this new car emission inspection exemption on July 1, 2002,
however, implementation of this exemption was contingent on USEPA
approval.

In addition to the extension to the new car emission inspection
exemption, New Jersey proposed several modifications to its enhanced I/M
program design since the State's previous performance standard submittal
on August 20, 2001.  These proposed changes would impact the
effectiveness of the overall I/M program.  Specifically, the NJDEP
proposed the following changes to its enhanced I/M regulations in the
May 20, 2002 New Jersey Register (N.J.R.):

Modified the framework, procedures and testing schedule by which model
year 1996 and newer vehicles would be subject to on-board diagnostic
(OBD) inspections.  The proposed program modifications included changing
the start date for mandatory OBD inspections (pass/fail determinations)
from January 1, 2001, to June 1, 2003 and set forth the testing
protocols for OBD inspections on 1996 and newer vehicles;

Eliminated the end date for the use of the “initial” emission
standards for the ASM5015 exhaust emission test to allow for the
continued use of these initial standards;

Removed the "final" emission standards for the ASM5015 exhaust emission
test;

Removed all references to the evaporative pressure and purge tests while
retaining the evaporative fuel cap (or gas cap) leak test; and,

Exempted from dynamometer testing those pre-1996 light-duty vehicles
that are registered as school buses and that are under the jurisdiction
of the NJDMV’s School Bus Inspection Unit.  1996 and newer light-duty
vehicles registered as school buses would receive an OBD inspection.

The NJDEP's November 27, 2002 revision revised the State's enhanced I/M
performance standard modeling to account for the four-year new car
exemption, as well as the NJDEP's May 20, 2002 proposed rule changes.
This revision showed that for the evaluation years 2002, 2005 and 2007,
the State's I/M program meets the low enhanced performance standard.  On
November 5, 2002 (67 Fed. Reg. 67345), the USEPA proposed approval of
this revision to New Jersey's enhanced I/M SIP.  The USEPA gave this
revision final approval on February 18, 2003 (68 Fed. Reg. 7704).

   42 U.S.C.A. §7511a (c)(3).

   42 U.S.C.A. §7512a(a)(6).

   42 U.S.C.A. §7511c(b)(1)(A).

.§51, 57 Fed. Reg. 52987 (November 5, 1992).

   40 C.F.R. §51.353, 57 Fed. Reg. 52990 (November 5, 1992).

  40 C.F.R.  52, 62 Fed. Reg. 26401 (May 14, 1997).

  These documents were submitted as an attachment to a letter dated
January 31, 1997 from Commissioner Robert C. Shinn, Jr., New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, to Jeanne M. Fox, Regional
Administrator, USEPA, Region II.

  This modeling and its supporting documentation were submitted as an
attachment to a letter dated January 30, 1998 from Commissioner Robert
C. Shinn, Jr., New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to
William J. Muszynski, P.E., Deputy Regional Administrator, USEPA, Region
II.

   The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Inspection and
Maintenance (I/M) Program for the State of New Jersey, December 14,
1998.

  61 Fed. Reg. 56172, (October 31, 1996).

  The New Jersey State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the
Attainment and Maintenance of the Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air
Quality Standard, November 17, 1994.  The State, on July 10, 1997,
proposed a revision to this SIP.  A hearing on this proposal took place
on August 11, 1997 and the comment period closed on August 20, 1997.
This SIP revision was submitted to the USEPA on August 7, 1998.  To
date, the USEPA has taken no action on New Jersey’s submittal.

   63 Fed. Reg. 45402 (August 26, 1998).

  33  N.J.R. 1894(a) (June 4, 2001).

  33 N.J.R. 3651(b) (October 15, 2001).

 The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Report
on the

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program for the State of New Jersey,
National Highway Systems Designation Act (NHSDA) Submittal, December 13,
2000.

  Although this document was submitted to the USEPA on August 31, 2001,
the date on the SIP submittal document is August 20, 2001.

  40 C.F.R.  52, 62 Fed. Reg. 26401 (May 14, 1997).

  67 Fed. Reg. 2811 (January 22, 2002).

  Submitted December 31, 2001 under cover letter from then NJDEP
Commissioner Robert C. Shinn, Jr. to Jane M. Kenny, Regional
Administrator, USEPA Region II.

  Please note that the NJDMV’s school bus rule proposal was forwarded
to the USEPA under separate cover from the original proposed SIP
revision.  Specifically, this proposal was forwarded on March 26, 2001
from Chris Salmi, Manager of the Bureau of Air Quality Planning in the
NJDEP to Raymond Werner, Chief of the Air Programs Branch, USEPA -
Region II.

  To determine whether a vehicle is classified as a LDGV, LDGT1, LDGT2
or HDGV please refer to the definition section of the NJDEP’s rules at
N.J.A.C. 7:27-15.1.

  The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program for the State of New
Jersey, Request to Defer the Integration of On-Board Diagnostic (OBD)
Inspections into the State’s I/M Program, SIP Revision, April 22,
2002.

옍#

옍#

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

@

@

@

F

@

옍#

&

@

F

@

옍#

옍#

옍#

&

옍#

@

@

@

᠀옍#

@

옍#

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

옍#

옍#

옍#

옍#

옍#

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

옍#

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

hí

옍#

I/M program, once they are made available.

 PAGE   13

 PAGE  11