[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33185-33189]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14045]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0479; Product Identifier 2019-NM-020-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2009-09-02, which applies to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400
series airplanes. AD 2009-09-02 requires repetitive inspections for
damage of certain main landing gear (MLG) forward stabilizer brace
assemblies, repetitive inspections for cracking of both MLG forward
stabilizer braces, liquid penetrant inspections for cracking, and
corrective actions if necessary. Since the FAA issued AD 2009-09-02,
the FAA has determined that the installation of an elbow restrictor is
necessary to address the unsafe condition which would extend the
repetitive inspection interval. This proposed AD would retain the
existing actions and also require installation of an elbow restrictor.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 26,
2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For Bombardier service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet http://www.bombardier.com. For Goodrich service information identified in this
NPRM, contact Collins Aerospace, 1400 South Service Road West,
Oakville, Ontario L6L 5Y7, Canada; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0479; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0479;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-020-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. The
FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend this proposed AD based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact the agency receives about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2009-09-02, Amendment 39-15888 (74 FR 18121,
April 21, 2009) (``AD 2009-09-02''), for certain Bombardier Model DHC-
8-400 series airplanes. AD 2009-09-02 requires inspections for damage
(including excessive wear, corrosion, foreign object damage, and
cracking) of certain MLG forward stabilizer brace assemblies and
applicable corrective actions; and repetitive inspections for cracking
of both MLG forward stabilizer braces, applicable liquid penetrant
inspections for cracking, and corrective actions if necessary. AD 2009-
09-02 resulted from reports of failures of the aft hinge of the MLG
forward stabilizer brace due to fatigue cracks. The FAA issued AD 2009-
09-02 to address failure of the stabilizer brace, which could result in
the collapse of the MLG.

Actions Since AD 2009-09-02 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2009-09-02, the FAA has determined that the
installation of an elbow restrictor is necessary to address the unsafe
condition which would extend the repetitive inspection interval.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2009-11R2, dated May
31, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI
states:

    Several reports have been received on failures of the aft hinge
of the main landing gear (MLG) forward stabilizer brace. Laboratory
examinations have found that the fatigue cracks were initiated from
the dowel pin hole at the aft hinge lug of the MLG forward
stabilizer brace where the stop bracket is attached. Failure of the
stabilizer brace could result in the collapse of the main landing
gear.
    The initial issue of this [Canadian] AD mandated initial
inspections, repetitive inspections and rectification, as required,
of the MLG forward stabilizer brace.
    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD mandated installation of an
Elbow Restrictor (P/N 46610-1) to the MLG Down-lock Actuators as
terminating action to the repeat inspections in Part I. The repeat
inspections in Part IV are required for all Forward Stabilizer Brace
Assemblies (P/N 46401-7) after Installation of the Elbow Restrictor
(P/N 46610-1).
    Revision 2 of this [Canadian] AD, in Part III, gives credit for
the accomplishment of earlier revisions of Bombardier Service
Bulletin SB 84-32-69 and clarifies, in Part IV, when the initial and
repeat inspections are required following the installation of the
elbow restrictor (P/N 46610-1) in Part III of this [Canadian] AD.

    Required actions include repetitive inspections for damage of
certain MLG forward stabilizer brace assemblies, repetitive inspections
for cracking of both MLG forward stabilizer braces, applicable liquid
penetrant inspections for cracking, applicable corrective actions
including repair or replacement if necessary, rework of the MLG forward
stabilizer brace, and installation of an elbow restrictor. You may
examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0479.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-32-69, Revision C, dated
January 20, 2011. This service information describes procedures for
installing an elbow restrictor with part number (P/N) 46610-1.
    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-32-76, Revision B, dated
August 1, 2018. This service information describes procedures for
replacing the standard elbow fitting at the retract port of the lock
actuator with a new custom elbow fitting.
    Bombardier has also issued Q400 All Operator Message 338, dated
February 23, 2009, which the Director of the Federal Register approved
for incorporation by reference as of May 6, 2009 (74 FR 18121, April
21, 2009).
    Bombardier has issued Repair Drawing 8/4-32-099, Issue 4, dated
September 4, 2018. This service information describes procedures for a
nondestructive inspection for damage (including excessive wear,
corrosion, foreign object damage, and cracking) of the MLG forward
stabilizer brace assembly, P/N 46401-7.
    Goodrich has issued Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision H,
dated August 29, 2018. This service information describes procedures
for a nondestructive inspection for damage of the MLG forward
stabilizer brace assembly, P/N 46401-7, and applicable corrective
actions.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2009-09-02.
This proposed AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 54 airplanes of
U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2009-09-02...  8 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $680         $36,720
                                         hour = $680.
New proposed actions..................  19 work-hours x $85 per           10,867          12,482         674,028
                                         hour = $1,615.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the
agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified
in this proposed AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty
coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included
all known costs in the cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2009-09-02, Amendment 39-15888 (74 FR 18121, April 21, 2009), and
adding the following new AD:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2019-0479; Product Identifier 2019-
NM-020-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by August 26, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2009-09-02, Amendment 39-15888 (74 FR 18121,
April 21, 2009) (``AD 2009-09-02'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400, -401, and
-402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001,
4003, and subsequent, equipped with main landing gear (MLG) forward
stabilizer brace part number (P/N) 46401-7.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Main landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the aft hinge of
the MLG forward stabilizer brace due to fatigue cracks. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address failure of the stabilizer brace, which
could result in the collapse of the MLG.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspection and Corrective Actions, With Revised Service
Information and Removed Reporting Requirement

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD
2009-09-02, with new service information and removed reporting
requirement. Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i),
(g)(1)(ii), (g)(1)(iii), or (g)(1)(iv) of this AD: Perform non-
destructive inspections for damage of the MLG forward stabilizer
brace assemblies P/N 46401-7, in accordance with Bombardier Repair
Drawing 8/4-32-099, Issue 1, dated March 10, 2009, and Goodrich
Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision B, dated March 10, 2009;
or Bombardier Repair Drawing 8/4-32-099, Issue 4, dated September 4,
2018, and Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision H,
dated August 29, 2018. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 2,000 flight cycles. As of the effective date of this
AD, use Bombardier Repair Drawing 8/4-32-099, Issue 4, dated
September 4, 2018, and Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09,
Revision H, dated August 29, 2018, for the actions required by this
paragraph.
    (i) For airplanes with MLG forward stabilizer braces that have
accumulated 12,000 or more total flight cycles as of May 6, 2009
(the effective date of AD 2009-09-02): Inspect within 50 flight
cycles after May 6, 2009.
    (ii) For airplanes with MLG forward stabilizer braces that have
accumulated 9,000 or more total flight cycles but fewer than 12,000
total flight cycles as of May 6, 2009 (the effective date of AD
2009-09-02): Inspect before the accumulation of 12,050 total flight
cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after May 6, 2009, whichever
occurs earlier.
    (iii) For airplanes with MLG forward stabilizer braces that have
accumulated 4,500 or more total flight cycles but fewer than 9,000
total flight cycles as of May 6, 2009 (the effective date of AD
2009-09-02): Inspect before the accumulation of 9,500 total flight

cycles, or within 1,500 flight cycles after May 6, 2009, whichever
occurs earlier.
    (iv) For airplanes with MLG forward stabilizer braces that have
accumulated fewer than 4,500 total flight cycles as of May 6, 2009
(the effective date of AD 2009-09-02): Inspect before the
accumulation of 6,000 total flight cycles.
    (2) If any damage is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, do all
applicable corrective actions in accordance with Goodrich Service
Concession Request 026-09, Revision B, dated March 10, 2009; or
Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision H, dated August
29, 2018; except as provided by paragraphs (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5),
and (g)(6) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, use
Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision H, dated August
29, 2018, for the actions required by this paragraph.
    (3) For airplanes on which step 24. of Goodrich Service
Concession Request 026-09, Revision B, dated March 10, 2009, has
been done: Within 1,200 flight cycles after May 6, 2009 (the
effective date of AD 2009-09-02), rework the MLG forward stabilizer
brace, and except for airplanes on which the rework has been done,
within 600 flight cycles after May 6, 2009, do a detailed visual
inspection for damage of the stabilizer brace apex lugs, in
accordance with Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision
B, dated March 10, 2009; or Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-
09, Revision H, dated August 29, 2018. If any damage is found,
repair before further flight in accordance with Section C of
Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision B, dated March
10, 2009; or Section C of Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-
09, Revision H, dated August 29, 2018. As of the effective date of
this AD, use Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision H,
dated August 29, 2018, for the actions required by this paragraph.
    (4) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(4)(i),
(g)(4)(ii), or (g)(4)(iii) of this AD, replace the forward
stabilizer brace assembly, in accordance with Goodrich Service
Concession Request 026-09, Revision B, dated March 10, 2009; or
Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision H, dated August
29, 2018. As of the effective date of this AD, use Goodrich Service
Concession Request 026-09, Revision H, dated August 29, 2018, for
the actions required by this paragraph.
    (i) For airplanes on which cracking is found during any
inspection required by this AD, and the cracking exceeds the limit
specified in paragraph (g)(4)(i)(A) or (g)(4)(i)(B) of this AD, as
applicable: Replace the assembly before further flight.
    (A) For cracking found before the effective date of this AD: The
limit specified in Section C of Goodrich Service Concession Request
026-09, Revision B, dated March 10, 2009.
    (B) For cracking found on or after the effective date of this
AD: The limit specified in Section C or Section D of Goodrich
Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision H, dated August 29,
2018.
    (ii) For airplanes on which any cracking is found after the
rework specified in Section C of Goodrich Service Concession Request
026-09, Revision B, dated March 10, 2009; or specified in Section C
or Section D of Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision
H, dated August 29, 2018: Replace the assembly before further
flight.
    (iii) For airplanes on which no cracking is found after the
rework specified in Section C of Goodrich Service Concession Request
026-09, Revision B, dated March 10, 2009; or specified in Section C
or Section D of Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision
H, dated August 29, 2018: Replace the assembly within 2,700 flight
cycles after doing the rework.
    (5) If foreign object damage is found during any inspection
required by this AD, or if damage is found to a forward stabilizer
brace lug or stop bracket retention hole apex bushing, before
further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.
    (6) If any crack is found during the visual inspection under 10X
magnification, repair before further flight, in accordance with
Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision B, dated March
10, 2009; or Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision H,
dated August 29, 2018. As of the effective date of this AD, use
Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision H, dated August
29, 2018, for the actions required by this paragraph.
    (7) Before the accumulation of 6,000 total flight cycles on the
MLG forward stabilizer braces, or within 600 flight hours after May
6, 2009 (the effective date of AD 2009-09-02), whichever occurs
later: Do a detailed visual inspection for cracking of both MLG
forward stabilizer braces and do all applicable liquid penetrant
inspections for cracking, in accordance with Bombardier Q400 All
Operator Message 338, dated February 23, 2009. Repeat the inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours. If any
cracking is found during any inspection required by this paragraph,
repair before further flight in accordance with Bombardier Repair
Drawing 8/4-32-099, Issue 1, dated March 10, 2009, and Goodrich
Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision B, dated March 10, 2009;
or Bombardier Repair Drawing 8/4-32-099, Issue 4, dated September 4,
2018, and Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision H,
dated August 29, 2018. As of the effective date of this AD, use
Bombardier Repair Drawing 8/4-32-099, Issue 4, dated September 4,
2018, and Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision H,
dated August 29, 2018, to repair cracking found during any
inspection required by this paragraph.

(h) New Requirement of This AD: Installation of Elbow Restrictor

    Within 2,000 flight hours or 12 months, whichever occurs first,
from the effective date of this AD: Install an elbow restrictor, P/N
46610-1, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-69, Revision C, dated January 20,
2011.

(i) Terminating Actions

    (1) Installation of an elbow restrictor as required by paragraph
(h) of this AD terminates the repetitive inspection requirements of
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(7) of this AD.
    (2) Installation of an elbow restrictor as required by paragraph
(h) of this AD terminates the replacement of the forward stabilizer
brace assembly requirement of paragraph (g)(4)(iii) of this AD.

(j) New Requirement of This AD: Revised Repetitive Inspections of the
MLG Forward Stabilizer Brace

    (1) Within 2,000 flight cycles after the installation specified
in paragraph (h) of this AD, or within 12 months after the effective
date, whichever occurs later, do the non-destructive inspection, in
accordance with Bombardier Repair Drawing 8/4-32-099, Issue 4, dated
September 4, 2018, and Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09,
Revision H, dated August 29, 2018. Thereafter, repeat the non-
destructive inspection at the times specified in paragraph (j)(2) of
this AD.
    (2) Repeat the non-destructive inspection required in paragraph
(j)(1) of this AD at the applicable intervals specified in
paragraphs (j)(2)(i), (j)(2)(ii), and (j)(2)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) For forward stabilizer braces, P/N 46401-7, that have not
had any required rework done, as specified in Goodrich Service
Concession Request 026-09, Section C or D, and have had Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-32-69 or Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-76
incorporated: Do the non-destructive inspection at intervals not to
exceed 6,000 flight cycles.
    (ii) For forward stabilizer braces, P/N 46401-7, that have been
reworked in accordance with Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-
09, Section D, and have had Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-69 or
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-76 incorporated: Do the non-
destructive inspection at intervals not to exceed 6,000 flight
cycles.
    (iii) For forward stabilizer braces, P/N 46401-7, that have been
reworked in accordance with Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-
09, Section C, and have had Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-69 or
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-76 incorporated: Do the non-
destructive inspection at intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight
cycles.

(k) Acceptable Method of Compliance for Paragraph (h) of This AD

    Replacing the standard elbow fitting at the retract port of the
lock actuator with a new custom elbow fitting in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-76,
Revision B, dated August 1, 2018, is an acceptable method of
compliance for the installation required by paragraph (h) of this
AD.

(l) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the service information in paragraph
(l)(1)(i), (l)(1)(ii), or (l)(1)(iii) of this AD.

    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-69, dated June 30, 2009.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-69, Revision A, dated
August 19, 2009.
    (iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-69, Revision B, dated
September 17, 2009.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the service information in paragraph
(l)(2)(i), (l)(2)(ii), or (l)(2)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) Bombardier Repair Drawing 8/4-32-099, Issue 1, dated March
10, 2009, and Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision
B, dated March 10, 2009.
    (ii) Bombardier Repair Drawing 8/4-32-099, Issue 2, dated April
20, 2009, and Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09, Revision
C, dated April 17, 2009.
    (iii) Bombardier Repair Drawing 8/4-32-099, Issue 3, dated
December 3, 2009, and Goodrich Service Concession Request 026-09,
Revision D, dated November 27, 2009.
    (3) This paragraph provides credit for actions performed using
the method of compliance specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, if
those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD
using the service information in paragraph (l)(3)(i) or (l)(3)(ii)
of this AD.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-76, dated May 20, 2010.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-76, Revision A, dated
June 19, 2014.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch. AMOCs approved previously in
accordance with AD 2009-09-02 are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding requirements in paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by
the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2009-11R2, dated May 31, 2018, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2019-0479.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
http://www.bombardier.com. For Goodrich service information
identified in this NPRM, contact Collins Aerospace, 1400 South
Service Road West, Oakville, Ontario L6L 5Y7, Canada; telephone:
905-827-7777. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 26, 2019.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-14045 Filed 7-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 67)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17705-17712]
[DOCID:fr07ap06-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0095; FRL-8054-3]
RIN 2060-AM21

Amendments to Vehicle Inspection Maintenance Program Requirements
to Address the 8-Hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today's action revises the Motor Vehicle Inspection/
Maintenance (I/M) regulation to update submission and implementation
deadlines and other timing-related requirements to more appropriately
reflect the implementation schedule for meeting the 8-hour National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. This action is directed
specifically at those areas that will be newly required to implement I/
M as a result of being designated and classified under the 8-hour ozone
standard; the conditions under which an existing I/M program under the
1-hour ozone standard must continue operation under the 8-hour standard
are addressed through application of the Clean Air Act's anti-
backsliding provisions.

DATES: This rule is effective May 8, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. OAR-2004-0095. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov
 Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the EPA Public Reading Room,

Room B102, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Sosnowski, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs
Division, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105. Telephone (734)
214-4823.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Contents
II. Summary of Action
III. Authority
IV. Public Participation
    A. Amendments to the I/M Performance Standards
    B. Amendments to Program Evaluation Requirements
    C. Amendments to Update SIP Submission Deadlines
V. Discussion of Major Issues
    A. Impact on Existing I/M Programs
    B. Impact on Future I/M Programs
VI. Economic Costs and Benefits
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirement
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act
    K. Petitions for Judicial Review

II. Summary of Action

    When the I/M rule was first published in November 1992, some of the
deadlines were expressed relatively (e.g., ``within X years of Y * *
*'')

while others were set as explicit dates (e.g., ``no later than November
15, 1993 * * *''). Several of those explicit deadlines have since
passed or otherwise been rendered irrelevant due to actions such as the
revocation of the 1-hour ozone standard (the majority of deadlines
contained in the original 1992 I/M rule were linked to the 1-hour
standard and its associated milestones for attainment and interim
progress). Today's action finalizes the revisions to the I/M rule that
were proposed January 6, 2005 (70 FR 1314). These revisions are aimed
at such timing-related references as submission dates, start dates,
evaluation dates, and other milestones and/or deadlines and are being
made to make the I/M rule relevant for those areas that will be newly
required to begin I/M programs as a result of being designated and
classified under the 8-hour ozone standard.
    This action does not revise or establish new requirements for
existing I/M programs that were established in response to the 1-hour
ozone standard. In general, if an existing I/M area was not able to
redesignate to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard prior to
revocation of that standard (and is also designated as non-attainment
for the 8-hour standard, regardless of classification or subpart) then
that area is required to continue implementing an I/M program until it
has attained the 8-hour ozone standard under EPA's anti-backsliding
regulations promulgated to facilitate transition from planning for the
1-hour to the 8-hour ozone standard. Readers interested in learning
more about how the Clean Air Act's (Act or CAA) anti-backsliding
provisions apply to I/M under the 8-hour standard should consult 40 CFR
51.905 (``Transition from the 1-hour NAAQS to the 8-hour NAAQS and
anti-backsliding'') as well as the May 12, 2004 memorandum concerning
exceptions to the general anti-backsliding policy for certain
maintenance areas signed by Tom Helms and Leila Cook entitled ``1-Hour
Ozone Maintenance Plans Containing Basic I/M Programs,'' a copy of
which is contained in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Upon becoming effective, today's action will: (1) Revise Sec. Sec.
51.351 and 51.352 (the basic and enhanced I/M performance standards) to
update the start date and model year coverage associated with specific
elements of the basic and enhanced I/M performance standards as well as
to set the benchmark comparison date(s) for performance standard
modeling purposes that better reflects milestones associated with the
8-hour ozone standard; (2) revise Sec.  51.353 (network type and
program evaluation) to make the deadline for beginning the first round
of program evaluation testing (which is currently listed as ``no later
than November 30, 1998'') a relative deadline keyed to the date of
program start up; (3) amend Sec.  51.360 (waivers and compliance via
diagnostic inspection) so that the deadline for establishing full
waiver limits for those basic I/M programs choosing to allow waivers
(currently, ``no later than January 1, 1998'') becomes ``January 1,
1998, or coincident with program start up, whichever is later''; (4)
update Sec.  51.372 (state implementation plan submissions) to set the
I/M SIP submission deadline for areas newly required to adopt I/M
programs under the 8-hour ozone standard as 1 year after the effective
date of today's action or 1 year after the effective date of
designation and classification under the 8-hour standard (whichever is
later); (5) update Sec.  51.373 (implementation deadlines) to establish
the implementation deadline for new I/M programs required under the 8-
hour standard as 4 years after the effective date of designation and
classification under the 8-hour ozone standard; and (6) revise Sec.
51.373 (implementation deadlines) to clarify that the deadline for
beginning OBD testing for areas newly required to implement I/M as a
result of being designated and classified under the 8-hour ozone
standard is ``coincident with program start up.''

III. Authority

    Authority for the rule changes being made as a result of today's
action is granted to EPA by sections 182, 184, 187, and 118 of the
Clean Air Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.).

IV. Public Participation

    Written comments on the January 6, 2005 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) were received from three sources prior to the close
of the public comment period on February 7, 2005. The commenters
included two state environmental agencies and one I/M testing
contractor. Several of the comments received fell well outside the
scope of the January 6, 2005 proposal and often requested additional
flexibility for existing I/M programs which EPA does not have the legal
authority to grant under the Clean Air Act as it is currently written.
These comments, while noted, will not be addressed in today's action.
No comments were received on the proposed amendments to the basic I/M
waiver requirements or implementation deadlines, and these amendments
will therefore be finalized as proposed. (For more information on these
amendments, please see the January 6, 2005 proposal, section IV(C),
``Amendments to the Basic I/M Waiver Requirements,'' and section IV(E),
``Amendments to Update Implementation Deadlines.'') The remaining
comments are summarized and responded to below, under the proposed
revision(s) to which they apply.

A. Amendments to the I/M Performance Standards

1. Summary of Proposal
    EPA proposed to revise the basic I/M performance standard for areas
newly required to implement a basic I/M program as a result of being
designated and classified under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS as follows: (1)
Start date: Four years after the effective date of designation and
classification under the 8-hour ozone standard; \1\ (2) emission test
types: Model Year (MY) 1968-2000--idle, MY 2001 and newer--onboard
diagnostic (OBD) check; (3) evaluation date: six years after the
effective date of designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone
standard rounded to the nearest July. All other basic I/M performance
design elements remain the same as previously promulgated for 1-hour
ozone non-attainment areas (see 40 CFR 51.352). For areas newly
required to implement an enhanced I/M program as a result of being
designated and classified under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA proposed
establishing an 8-hour ozone enhanced I/M performance standard which
assumes the same program design elements as the current low enhanced I/
M performance standard defined at 40 CFR 51.351(g) but with the
following exceptions: (1) Start date: four years after the effective
date of designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard;
(2) emission test types: MY 1968-2000--idle, MY 2001 and newer--onboard
diagnostic (OBD) check; (3) evaluation dates: six years after the
effective date of designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone
standard rounded to the nearest July and the applicable attainment date
(as defined under 40 CFR 51.903), also rounded to the nearest July.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For those 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas required to
implement I/M for the first time as a result of being designated and
classified on April 30, 2004 (with an effective date of June 15,
2004) this translates into a start date of no later than June 15,
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Per the proposal, a state's program would be considered in
compliance with the relevant 8-hour ozone I/M performance standard if
it can

demonstrate through modeling that the proposed program will achieve the
same (or better) percent reduction in HC (and, for enhanced programs,
NOX) as achieved by the performance standard model program
based upon an evaluation date set to the six year anniversary of the
effective date of the area's designation and classification under the
8-hour ozone standard, rounded to the nearest July. Areas required to
implement enhanced I/M as a result of being designated and classified
under the 8-hour ozone standard also must demonstrate through modeling
that the same (or better) percent reduction as achieved under the six-
year anniversary milestone above is still being achieved as of the
first July following the area's applicable attainment date under the 8-
hour ozone standard. The intent of these proposed amendments was to tie
the performance standard deadlines to the date of an area's designation
and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard and to provide areas
newly required to implement I/M under that standard a level of
flexibility comparable to that currently available to areas required to
do I/M under the 1-hour ozone standard.
2. Summary of Comments
    Both state commenters supported those elements of the proposal
aimed at providing I/M areas flexibility to adopt I/M programs that
rely primarily or wholly upon OBD-only testing of the OBD-equipped in-
use fleet. One I/M contractor objected to the proposed revisions to the
I/M rule's performance standard requirements. In their comments, the
contractor claimed that EPA's proposed revisions would essentially
eliminate the difference between basic and enhanced I/M. According to
this commenter, as a result of EPA's proposal, the primary difference
between the basic and enhanced performance standards would be that the
basic performance standard would actually be more rigorous with regard
to compliance and waiver rates--a difference which seemingly
contradicts the clear meaning of the words ``basic'' and ``enhanced,''
and runs contrary to Congressional intent. According to this commenter,
the enhanced performance standard (as proposed) would include only two
enhancements relative to the basic performance standard: (1) The
inclusion of on-road testing, as required by the CAA, and (2) the
inclusion of visual inspections that are largely redundant for OBD-
equipped vehicles. According to this commenter, the CAA requires all I/
M programs (and, by implication, all I/M performance standards) to
include OBD testing of OBD-equipped vehicles from MY 1996 and newer.
Therefore, EPA's proposal to limit OBD testing coverage in the basic
and enhanced performance standards to MY 2001 and newer vehicles is in
direct contradiction of the clear language of the Act. The commenter
concluded that EPA's proposed changes would artificially and
unreasonably lower existing I/M performance standards.
3. Response to Comments
    EPA does not agree with the characterization that it's proposal
essentially eliminates the difference between basic and enhanced I/M.
Omitted from the differences cited in the comments provided is perhaps
the most significant statutory difference between basic and enhanced I/
M: The fact that enhanced I/M programs are required to include the
testing of light-duty trucks while basic I/M programs are not. This is
an important difference, especially in light of the significant growth
in the light-duty truck and Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) markets since
passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. It is because of this
difference that the proposed enhanced I/M performance standard for 8-
hour ozone non-attainment areas is and will continue to be
significantly more stringent than the proposed basic I/M performance
standard, even as the inclusion of OBD testing narrows the previous gap
between I/M tailpipe test types.
    EPA also does not agree with the claim that the CAA requires all I/
M programs (and, by implication, all I/M performance standards) to
include OBD testing of MY 1996 and newer, OBD-equipped vehicles. While
the CAA does require all I/M programs to include OBD testing and the
repair of vehicles that fail the OBD test, it does not specify model
year coverage, nor does it suggest that I/M programs test all such
vehicles without exception. Further, the statute does not explicitly
require the inclusion of OBD testing as part of the performance
standards. In fact, to require such comprehensive testing coverage in
the performance standards would effectively bar states from exempting
the newest such vehicles from testing, even though the statistical
likelihood that such vehicles will fail the test and require repair is
exceedingly small. Such a requirement would also all but eliminate the
states' ability to otherwise tailor I/M programs to meet local needs.
Lastly, suggesting that the CAA requires EPA to adopt the most rigorous
performance standards possible ignores the Act's mandate that states be
allowed flexibility in designing their I/M programs and also
contradicts a DC Circuit Court's ruling in which the court found ``* *
* it clear that the statute does not mandate that the EPA set the most
stringent possible annual performance standard. With its repeated
emphasis on state flexibility, echoed in the legislative history, see
S. Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 39, reprinted in 1990
U.S.C.C.A.N. 3425, the statute appears to place a premium on state
ability to shuffle aspects of the program to meet the EPA's
requirements and individual state needs * * *. Implicitly, at least,
Congress thus appears to have contemplated considerable EPA discretion
in standard-setting'' (Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA,
92-1535--DC Cir. 1994).
    Given EPA's conclusion that the only objections raised with regard
to this portion of EPA's proposal were inaccurate in both their
substance and conclusions, today's action finalizes the January 6, 2005
I/M performance standard revisions as proposed.

B. Amendments to Program Evaluation Requirements

1. Summary of Proposal
    Section 182(c)(3)(C) of the 1990 CAA requires that each state
subject to enhanced I/M shall ``biennially prepare a report to the
Administrator which assesses the emission reductions achieved by the
program required under this paragraph based upon data collected during
the inspection and repair of vehicles. The methods used to assess the
emission reductions shall be those established by the Administrator.''
Section 51.353 of EPA's current I/M rule (network type and program
evaluation) provides additional detail on how this requirement is to be
met, including minimum sampling requirements and specific deadlines by
which program evaluation testing must begin. Currently, Sec.
51.353(c)(4) of the I/M rule specifies that the first round of program
evaluation testing is to begin ``no later than November 30, 1998,''
which EPA proposed to change to ``no later than 1 year after program
start-up.''
2. Summary of Comments
    Although EPA did not receive comment on the specific amendment
proposed for this section of the I/M rule, one commenter did comment on
program evaluation in general, requesting that EPA provide ``* * *
[c]larification of program evaluation and program evaluation sampling
requirements, particularly as applied to programs utilizing test
procedures

specified in applicable performance standards (i.e. IM240 and/or OBD).
Illinois is currently collecting mass emissions data (full-term IM240)
on 0.1% of 1981 and newer vehicles, including 1996 and newer vehicles
subject to OBD. This evaluation testing (particularly on OBD-equipped
vehicles) has proven to be somewhat controversial and unpopular with
vehicle owners.''
3. Response to Comments
    Given that the comment in question does not address the proposal
under consideration, today's action will finalize the amendment as
proposed. Concerning the request for additional guidance and
clarification with regard to the program evaluation requirements in
general--and with regard to OBD-equipped vehicles in particular--EPA
will take this request into consideration in its development of future
I/M guidance.

C. Amendments to Update SIP Submission Deadlines

1. Summary of Proposal
    EPA proposed to update Sec.  51.372 (State Implementation Plan
submissions) to clarify that areas newly required to implement I/M as a
result of being designated and classified under the 8-hour ozone
standard are required to submit their I/M SIPs, whether basic or
enhanced, within 1 year after the effective date of today's action,
i.e., May 8, 2007. For areas newly designated as non-attainment under
the 8-hour ozone standard after the effective date of today's action,
EPA proposed that those areas submit their I/M SIPs within 1 year of
the effective date of their designation and classification.
2. Summary of Comments
    One state commenter objected to the proposed SIP submission
deadlines, maintaining that EPA's publication schedule and the State's
own administrative procedures requirements will make it all but
impossible to promulgate the necessary regulations before the summer of
2007.
3. Response to Comments
    Based upon its experience with the submission of I/M SIPs in
response to the 1990 Act's requirements for 1-hour I/M programs, EPA
considers the proposed 1 year timeframe a reasonable amount of time in
which to develop and submit an I/M SIP, given the states' need to
secure legal authority, develop implementing regulations, provide
notice-and-comment opportunity, etc. As noted by EPA both in it's
general preamble published after the 1990 amendments to the Act and in
the 1992 I/M rules (57 FR 13498, 13517 and 57 FR 52950, 52970,
respectively) EPA has long believed that one year is an appropriate
time period for states to obtain necessary legislative authority to
adopt and submit an I/M program. EPA will therefore finalize this
section of the January 6, 2005 notice as proposed.

V. Discussion of Major Issues

A. Impact on Existing I/M Programs

    Today's action does not change the requirements that currently
apply to existing I/M programs adopted as a result of an area being
classified under the 1-hour ozone standard. Readers interested in
learning the conditions under which an existing 1-hour I/M program must
continue operation under the 8-hour standard should consult 40 CFR
51.905 (``Transition from the 1-hour NAAQS to the 8-hour NAAQS and
anti-backsliding'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Additional guidance on anti-backsliding under the 8-hour
standard and how it applies to certain basic I/M programs can be
found in the May 12, 2004 memo signed by Tom Helms, Ozone Policy and
Strategies Group, and Leila Cook, State Measures and Conformity
Group, entitled ``1-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plans Containing Basic I/
M Programs,'' a copy of which is contained in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Impact on Future I/M Programs

    Today's action is intended specifically for those areas which
currently do not perform I/M testing, but will be required to do so as
a result of being designated and classified under the 8-hour ozone
standard. Upon becoming effective, these amendments will allow future
I/M program areas the flexibility necessary to design from the ground
up reasonable, cost effective, motorist-friendly I/M programs that take
full advantage of advances in vehicle and vehicle-testing technology,
as well as fleet turnover.

VI. Economic Costs and Benefits

    Today's action provides areas new to I/M under the 8-hour ozone
standard the ability to adopt more cost effective and efficient
programs than would otherwise be the case. This action will therefore
lessen rather than increase the potential economic burden on states of
implementing such programs. Furthermore, this rule does not affect
existing state programs meeting the previously applicable requirements.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines significant ``regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or otherwise adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof;
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this final rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
within the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this
action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions
or recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
because it does not change the pre-existing information collection
requirements for I/M programs. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR part 51, subpart S) under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0252, EPA ICR number 1613.02.
A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be
obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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. This 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 numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an Agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures
Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a
small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards. (See 13 CFR 121.); (2) a
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule
will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action will
impact States, not small entities. Furthermore, the action will lessen
rather than increase the potential economic burden on the States of
implementing such programs. In addition, States are under no
obligation, legal or otherwise, to modify existing plans meeting the
previously applicable requirements as a result of today's action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this action itself does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. The primary purpose of this action is
to amend the existing Federal I/M regulations to provide flexibility in
how the regulations cover areas newly designated non-attainment under
the 8-hour ozone ambient air quality standards. Clean Air Act sections
182(b)(4) and 182(c)(3) require the applicability of I/M to such areas.
Thus, although this action explains how I/M should be conducted, it
merely implements already established law that imposes I/M requirements
and does not itself impose requirements that may result in expenditures
of $100 million or more in any year. The intention of this action is to
improve the I/M regulation by implementing the rule in a more
practicable manner and/or to clarify I/M requirements that already
exist. None of these amendments impose any additional burdens beyond
that already imposed by applicable federal law; thus, today's action is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA and
EPA has not prepared a statement with respect to budgetary impacts.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects 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.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The Clean Air Act requires I/M
to apply in certain non-attainment areas as a matter of law, and this
action merely provides areas newly designated as non-attainment under
the 8-hour ozone standard additional flexibility with regard to meeting
their existing statutory obligations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does
not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175: ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications.'' The phrase ``policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''

    Today's amendments to the I/M rule do not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Specifically,
today's action incorporates into the I/M rule flexible provisions
addressing newly designated 8-hour ozone non-attainment areas subject
to I/M requirements under the Act, and these provisions do not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 are not
applicable to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    Today's action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
is not economically significant within the meaning of Executive Order
12866 and does not involve the consideration of relative environmental
health or safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Action
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355; May 22, 2001) because it will not
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. Further, we have determined that this action is not likely
to have any significant adverse effects on energy supply.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in
its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    Today's action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the
use of voluntary consensus standards does not apply to this action.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit this final rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on
May 8, 2006.

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 6, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such a rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceeding to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the
Administrative Procedures Act.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Transportation.

    Dated: March 31, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I, title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

0
2. Section 51.351 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding a new
paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec.  51.351  Enhanced I/M performance standard.

* * * * *
    (c) On-board diagnostics (OBD). For those areas required to
implement an enhanced I/M program prior to the effective date of
designation and classifications under the 8-hour ozone standard, the
performance standard shall include inspection of all model year 1996
and later light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks equipped with
certified on-board diagnostic systems, and repair of malfunctions or
system deterioration identified by or affecting OBD systems as
specified in Sec.  51.357, and assuming a start date of 2002 for such
testing. For areas required to implement enhanced I/M as a result of
designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard, the
performance standard defined in paragraph (i) of this section shall
include inspection of all model year 2001 and later light-duty vehicles
and light-duty trucks equipped with certified on-board diagnostic
systems, and repair of malfunctions or system deterioration identified
by or affecting OBD systems as specified in Sec.  51.357, and assuming
a start date of 4 years after the effective date of designation and
classification under the 8-hour ozone standard.
* * * * *
    (i) Enhanced performance standard for areas designated and
classified under the 8-hour ozone standard. Areas required to implement
an enhanced I/M program as a result of being designated and classified
under the 8-hour ozone standard, must meet or exceed the HC and
NOX emission reductions achieved by the model program
defined as follows:
    (1) Network type. Centralized testing.
    (2) Start date. 4 years after the effective date of designation and
classification under the 8-hour ozone standard.
    (3) Test frequency. Annual testing.

    (4) Model year coverage. Testing of 1968 and newer vehicles.
    (5) Vehicle type coverage. Light duty vehicles, and light duty
trucks, rated up to 8,500 pounds GVWR.
    (6) Emission test type. Idle testing (as described in appendix B of
this subpart) for 1968-2000 vehicles; onboard diagnostic checks on 2001
and newer vehicles.
    (7) Emission standards. Those specified in 40 CFR part 85, subpart
W.
    (8) Emission control device inspections. Visual inspection of the
positive crankcase ventilation valve on all 1968 through 1971 model
year vehicles, inclusive, and of the exhaust gas recirculation valve on
all 1972 and newer model year vehicles.
    (9) Evaporative system function checks. None, with the exception of
those performed by the OBD system on vehicles so-equipped and only for
model year 2001 and newer vehicles.
    (10) Stringency. A 20% emission test failure rate among pre-1981
model year vehicles.
    (11) Waiver rate. A 3% waiver rate, as a percentage of failed
vehicles.
    (12) Compliance rate. A 96% compliance rate.
    (13) Evaluation date. Enhanced I/M program areas subject to the
provisions of this paragraph (i) shall be shown to obtain the same or
lower emission levels for HC and NOX as the model program
described in this paragraph assuming an evaluation date set 6 years
after the effective date of designation and classification under the 8-
hour ozone standard (rounded to the nearest July) to within +/-0.02
gpm. Subject programs shall demonstrate through modeling the ability to
maintain this percent level of emission reduction (or better) through
their applicable attainment date for the 8-hour ozone standard, also
rounded to the nearest July.
0
3. Section 51.352 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding a new
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  51.352  Basic I/M performance standard.

* * * * *
    (c) On-board diagnostics (OBD). For those areas required to
implement a basic I/M program prior to the effective date of
designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard, the
performance standard shall include inspection of all model year 1996
and later light-duty vehicles equipped with certified on-board
diagnostic systems, and repair of malfunctions or system deterioration
identified by or affecting OBD systems as specified in Sec.  51.357,
and assuming a start date of 2002 for such testing. For areas required
to implement basic I/M as a result of designation and classification
under the 8-hour ozone standard, the performance standard defined in
paragraph (e) of this section shall include inspection of all model
year 2001 and later light-duty vehicles equipped with certified on-
board diagnostic systems, and repair of malfunctions or system
deterioration identified by or affecting OBD systems as specified in
Sec.  51.357, and assuming a start date of 4 years after the effective
date of designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard.
* * * * *
    (e) Basic performance standard for areas designated non-attainment
for the 8-hour ozone standard. Areas required to implement a basic I/M
program as a result of being designated and classified under the 8-hour
ozone standard, must meet or exceed the emission reductions achieved by
the model program defined for the applicable ozone precursor(s):
    (1) Network type. Centralized testing.
    (2) Start date. 4 years after the effective date of designation and
classification under the 8-hour ozone standard.
    (3) Test frequency. Annual testing.
    (4) Model year coverage. Testing of 1968 and newer vehicles.
    (5) Vehicle type coverage. Light duty vehicles.
    (6) Emission test type. Idle testing (as described in appendix B of
this subpart) for 1968-2000 vehicles; onboard diagnostic checks on 2001
and newer vehicles.
    (7) Emission standards. Those specified in 40 CFR part 85, subpart
W.
    (8) Emission control device inspections. None.
    (9) Evaporative system function checks. None, with the exception of
those performed by the OBD system on vehicles so-equipped and only for
model year 2001 and newer vehicles.
    (10) Stringency. A 20% emission test failure rate among pre-1981
model year vehicles.
    (11) Waiver rate. A 0% waiver rate, as a percentage of failed
vehicles.
    (12) Compliance rate. A 100% compliance rate.
    (13) Evaluation date. Basic I/M program areas subject to the
provisions of this paragraph (e) shall be shown to obtain the same or
lower emission levels as the model program described in this paragraph
by an evaluation date set 6 years after the effective date of
designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard (rounded
to the nearest July) for the applicable ozone precursor(s).
0
4. Section 51.353 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(4) to read as
follows:

Sec.  51.353  Network type and program evaluation.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) The program evaluation test data shall be submitted to EPA and
shall be capable of providing accurate information about the overall
effectiveness of an I/M program, such evaluation to begin no later than
1 year after program start-up.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 51.360 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(6) to read as
follows:

Sec.  51.360  Waivers and compliance via diagnostic inspection.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (6) In basic programs, a minimum of $75 for pre-81 vehicles and
$200 for 1981 and newer vehicles shall be spent in order to qualify for
a waiver. These model year cutoffs and the associated dollar limits
shall be in full effect by January 1, 1998, or coincident with program
start-up, whichever is later. Prior to January 1, 1998, States may
adopt any minimum expenditure commensurate with the waiver rate
committed to for the purposes of modeling compliance with the basic I/M
performance standard.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 51.372 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs
(b)(1) and (b)(3) and by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  51.372  State implementation plan submissions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) [Reserved]
    (2) A SIP revision required as a result of designation for a
National Ambient Air Quality Standard in place prior to implementation
of the 8-hour ozone standard and including all necessary legal
authority and the items specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8)
of this section, shall be submitted no later than November 15, 1993.
For non-attainment areas designated and classified under the 8-hour
ozone standard, a SIP revision including all necessary legal authority
and the items specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(8) of this
section, shall be submitted by May 8, 2007 or 1 year after the
effective date of designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard, whichever is later.
    (3) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
7. Section 51.373 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (d), by
removing and reserving paragraph (e),

and by adding a new paragraph (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  51.373  Implementation deadlines.

* * * * *
    (b) For areas newly required to implement basic I/M as a result of
designation under the 8-hour ozone standard, the required program shall
be fully implemented no later than 4 years after the effective date of
designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard.
* * * * *
    (d) For areas newly required to implement enhanced I/M as a result
of designation under the 8-hour ozone standard, the required program
shall be fully implemented no later than 4 years after the effective
date of designation and classification under the 8-hour ozone standard.
    (e) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (h) For areas newly required to implement either a basic or
enhanced I/M program as a result of being designated and classified
under the 8-hour ozone standard, such programs shall begin OBD testing
on subject OBD-equipped vehicles coincident with program start-up.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-3317 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 15 (Thursday, January 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 3826]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0403]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Protection of Human Subjects:
Informed Consent; Institutional Review Boards

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Protection of Human Subjects:
Informed Consent; Institutional Review Boards'' has been approved by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville,
MD 20850<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 30, 2013, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Protection of Human
Subjects: Informed Consent; Institutional Review Boards'' to OMB for
review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 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.
OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB
control number 0910-0755. The approval expires on December 31, 2016. A
copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is
available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: January 17, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-01310 Filed 1-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49804-49805]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20415]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 22d-1; SEC File No. 270-275; OMB Control No. 3235-0310.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget requests for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 22d-1 (17 CFR 270.22d-1) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (the ``Act'') (15 U.S.C. 80a et seq.) provides registered
investment companies that issue redeemable securities (``funds'') an
exemption from section 22(d) of the Investment Company Act (15 U.S.C.
80a-22(d)) to the extent necessary to permit scheduled variations in or
elimination of the sales load on fund securities for particular classes
of investors or transactions, provided certain conditions are met. The
rule imposes an annual burden per series of a fund of approximately 15
minutes, so that the total annual burden for the approximately 4,862
series of funds that might rely on the rule is estimated to be 1215.5
hours.
    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study.
    Responses will not be kept confidential. 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 control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, http://www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for
the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New
Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20503, or by sending an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB
within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: August 8, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20415 Filed 8-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

05/29/2008 03:44 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Brian Heninger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charles Fulcher/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman, <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject

reformatted Pb RIA Chapters for OMB

Heidi, I think we uncovered the problem.   It was one of those classic cases where when you look at the screen the tables appeared fine.   However, the formatting for the tables was not maintained when the document was printed.   Kathy has fixed this problem, the offending tables from the last version should now both view and print the same.   Let me know if this does not address the problem you raised.

I think this version is ready (just need to clean up the highlighted language once you have reviewed it) to be finalized.    Pending hearing from Bob and Art on their conversations about the C-R function issue and its presentation in the proposal RIA, we are proceeding to work on the final RIA.   In a few weeks we will get back to you with the design of the final (addressing the points raised during your review of the proposal RIA as well as things we plan to improve as well) RIA.

Talk to you soon.

Ron Evans

Leader, Air Benefit & Cost Group

HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA

Mail Drop C-439-02

919-541-5488

919-541-0839 fax

----- Forwarded by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US on 05/29/2008 03:28 PM -----

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

05/29/2008 03:20 PM

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

RE: Pb RIA Chapters for OMB

Here's the chapters with the table in front looking prettier, for Heidi.

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US

05/29/2008 11:14 AM

To

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

RE: Pb RIA Chapters for OMB

I think I see what is wonky when you print.  It is simple.  We can chat whenever.

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

05/29/2008 09:02 AM

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Brian Heninger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charles Fulcher/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Pb RIA Chapters for OMB

Ron, I just checked the files we sent her and the formatting looks fine to me, but we can always resend to her if she wants.

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 05/29/2008 08:40 AM

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Charles Fulcher/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Brian Heninger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Charles Fulcher/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Pb RIA Chapters for OMB

Hi Ron, Hope you had a good weekend

When I opened the files last week, the formatting was wonky and I

assumed these were still being edited --

I'll call

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 4:41 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: Pb RIA Chapters for OMB

Heidi,

Have you had the opportunity to review these yet?   I know we are still

awaiting word on the C-R question but are we good on the front piece?

Ron

             Kathy

             Kaufman/RTP/USEP

             A/US                                                    To

                                      "King, Heidi R."

             05/19/2008 11:51<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

             AM                                                      cc

                                      Brian Heninger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Darryl

                                      Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron

                                      Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina

                                      Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom

                                      Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia

                                      Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

                                      Charles Fulcher/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

                                                                Subject

                                      Re: Pb RIA Chapters for OMB

                                      (Document link: Ron Evans - New)

Heidi -- here's the chapters of the RIA with the new frontpiece

(chapters 1, 5, 6, 7, and the Exec Summary), as well as the new chapter

4 with added tables.  I just sent it through Eileen Pritchard in OPEI,

but in the interest of time am also forwarding courtesy copies directly

to you.

Thanks.

-- Kathy

[attachment "Pb RIA Exec Summ Draft 5-19-08.doc" deleted by Ron

Evans/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Pb RIA Chapter 1 draft 5-19-08.doc"

deleted by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Pb RIA Chapter 4 Draft

5-19-08.doc" deleted by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Pb RIA

Chapter 5 Draft 5-19-08.doc" deleted by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US]

[attachment "Pb RIA Chapter 6 Draft 5-19-08.doc" deleted by Ron

Evans/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "Pb RIA Chapter 7 Draft 5-19-08.doc"

deleted by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US]

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>