To: John Schakenbach/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Date: 08/10/2010 06:00AM

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: Request for Cost Information

John/Gail,

These numbers look about right to me. The rates are billing rates. Most people

will only count internal rates i.e. no profitand minimal overhead. So that

would reduce the costs to the company by about 40%.

Puerto rico is cooler than Raleigh high of 82 today. So keep cool.

Mike

Quoting<EMAIL_ADDRESS> > Roger that.  Thanks

>

> John Schakenbach

> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

> Clean Air Markets Division

><EMAIL_ADDRESS> > Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

> Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

>

>

> -----"Gail Westlin"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote: -----

>

> To: John Schakenbach/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

> From: "Gail Westlin"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> > Date: 08/09/2010 11:25AM

> cc: "Michael Hartman"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Peter Westlin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

> Subject: Re: Request for Cost Information

>

> John:  Mike is going to be out of the office until the middle of September.

> I'll take a stab at part of this.  Mike can probably do a better job than I

> can, but we'll see what I can provide.  I'll put my responses in

> red. Gail----- Original Message ----- From: <EMAIL_ADDRESS> > To: Gail Westlin Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 09:11Subject: Re: Request for

> Cost Information

> Mike and Gail, Thank for taking the time to do this.  The time estimates you

> provided for various activities to implement ASTM D 7036 are helpful.

> However, it would really help if you could provide approximate actual costs

> for your company to do the activities identified in each paragraph of

> your response below. Thanks again for your efforts on this.

> John Schakenbach

> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

> Clean Air Markets Division

><EMAIL_ADDRESS> > Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

> Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

>

> -----"Gail Westlin"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote: -----

>

> To: John Schakenbach/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

> From: "Gail Westlin"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> > Date: 08/09/2010 08:34AM

> cc: Peter Westlin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

> Subject: Re: Request for Cost Information

>

> John: You have asked me for a cost estimate to implement the ASTM D-7036-04

> Quality Standard.  I will give it my best try and answer your points as you

> have stated them. (1)  The cost to develop and to implement the quality

> manual.  This, like most things in the standard, depends on the size of the

> business and the degree to which the company would like the comply.  The

> standard gives an outline of a quality manual in the appendix.  Several small

> businesses in SES collaborated to prepare a QA Manual for use by the

> participating businesses.  Each section of the QA manual took from 4-8 hours

> to write and review.  Walt Smith (who reviews the manuals for STACs) states

> that a person needs to answers ~300 questions to develop a good QA manual. In

> both cases, 1-2 weeks of work would be needed by a knowledgeable person -

> almost everything in a quality manual is already require by the methods as

> are the audits.  The main element of ASTM D-7036-04 that is not necessarily

> in the method is the documentation of the requirements.  Most of what a

> quality manual requires should be done now and there should be no additional

> hiring needed.  If it takes 8 hours to write the manual, I'll use Mike's rate

> of $103 per hour ($824) and my rate of $61 per hour ($488) to come up with

> a $1,312 total.  As for the part where Walt Smith states that a person needs

> to answer ~ 300 questions and Mike speculates that 1-2 weeks of work would be

> needed, if you say 2 weeks (80 hours) at $103 per hour, then that would be

> $8,240.00 just for Mike's time.   (2) and (3)  Application Fees.  I am not

> sure for accreditation as I plan to self-accredit ($0 fee), but the tests for

> QSTI are $155 per test for a non-SES member, $140 per test for a SES member.

> If a person takes more than one test during the same examination session, the

> additional group tests are $84 each.  Additional charges that may be incurred

> would be if a proctor and location is used other than a smoke school site

> (i.e., a Sylvan learning school, local community college, etc.) and those

> fees would vary depending on location.  Note:  Only the team

> leader/senior-responsible person need be a QSTI. The test is good for 5

> years.   I do not know what fees STAC charge for accreditation.  Sorry. As

> for the fees for taking the QSTI/QSTO exams, the cost for one test for a

> non-SES member is $155, for a member is $140.  If more than one test is taken

> during the same examination session, the additional tests are $84.00 each.

>  As for the proctor fees, I was unable to get an average from ETA (Eastern

> Technical Associates).  This is the response I received from the coordinator

> there:   "I've got proctors that charge $20 per hour, and I've got them that

> charge $75 per hour, per person (which is highway robbery!...but they are the

> only ones local).  Some of them charge by the test...again as low as $20 per

> test up to $50 per test. I've tried to kind of make a standard for when they

> don't have a set price already of $50/hour for 1-5 people, $75/hour for 6-10

> people, and then $100/hour for more than that..." I hope this will give you

> an idea of the additional fees when someone opts for a proctor rather than

> taking the exam during a smoke school session.  Sometimes companies will

> combine their resources and send their employees to utilize one proctor at

> one time. There are no fees to pursue the qualification approval process

> through SES.  SES membership approved and developed the SES QSTI program as a

> voluntary program for our members to demonstrate knowledge and experience

> with test procedures.  Once the exam(s) are passed, the individual has the

> option to submit an application that is reviewed by the SES QSTI/QSTO Review

> Committee and if approved, will receive a Qualified Source Testing Individual

> (Or Qualified Source Testing Observer) Certificate showing they have met the

> requirements of the SES QSTI/QSTO program.   Some people will have to travel

> to take the test and they can best estimate the costs.  Depending on how many

> tests are being taken, it will take one to two days to take the test(s).  The

> length of each test if 1-1/2 hours.  Therefore, the travel costs of ~ $200 -

> $800, depending on mode of travel, should be sufficient.  In my opinion,

> reading the methods are the best prep courses.  This should be normal for a

> stack tester.  While there are people who offer courses to help prepare for

> the exam(s), this cost is optional. The intent of ASTM D-7036-04 was that the

> individual's experience and knowledge of the methods should come from actual

> test experience, not classes.  People usually try to arrange testing close to

> their offices, so travel by car is the most common mode of travel.  The

> $200-$800 range Mike stated is probably a reasonable range.  This range

> includes if they are traveling to take the exam at a smoke school or if they

> are traveling to a proctored exam (I believe).  I don't think this $200-$800

> includes the travel hours and the hours involved in taking the exam, just the

> costs of travel itself (mileage, per diem, etc.) (4)  Test plans are

> required.  However, they can be as short as the test protocols required by

> most States are the test protocol in the ERT (electronic reporting tool).

> These can be filled out in one-two hours.  This is another case of most

> companies already using test plans so that the client and the tester, as well

> as the State/Federal agencies are in agreement as to the plan and its

> execution.  If you expect 2 hours to do a test plan, again taking Mike's

> hourly rate and my hourly rate, that would be a total cost of ~$328.00.

> However, if you are using the ERT, the time may be a little longer depending

> on the parameters required, but should be no more than about 3 hours to set

> up the initial test plan portion. (5) We already store the proposals, test

> plans, reporting and billing both in hard copy and electronically.  The

> additional costs for the QA, training records and other items in ASTM

> D-7036-04 are minimal (~10-20% increase) in storage costs.  In dollar

> amounts, I am guessing that might be $10-20 per month. I hope this helps.

> These are only my estimates and for the most part, these are part of good

> working practices for stack samplers. The QA manual is obviously the most

> expensive and time-consuming; however, once implemented, the cost savings and

> test efficiency are a by-product of a good quality system. Let me know if you

> need more information. Michael HartmanAir-Tech Environmental,

> LLC919-544-6338919-270-1810 mobile  ----- Original Message ----- From:

><EMAIL_ADDRESS>To<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:

><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 09:10Subject: Request

> for Cost Information

> Mike, I'm writing the response to comments document for the AETB and PGVP

> proposed rule.  There are a number of comments related to cost.  It would

> help me a lot if you could provide a cost estimate for each of the following,

> which is a direct quote from a commenter: "(1) the cost of staff time to

> develop and implement the quality manual required by the ASTM practice,

> including document control procedures, hiring of additional personnel,

> performance of annual audits, and documentation of corrective action; (2)

> application fees and the cost of preparing applications for accreditation

> and/or QI qualification; (3) the cost of QI exams, including tuition for

> preparatory courses, exam fees, and travel expenses; (4) any new costs

> associated with preparation of test plans and reports to comply with the

> specific criteria in the practice; and (5) cost of required records storage

> and backup. While the costs may turn out to be reasonable and EPA may be of

> the view that AETBs already should be operating in a manner consistent with

> the ASTM practice, that view is not a justification for excluding those costs

> from the ICR."

> Thanks

> John Schakenbach

> U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

> Clean Air Markets Division

><EMAIL_ADDRESS> > Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

> Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

>

>

>

>


[Federal Register: March 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 50)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13501-13503]
[DOCID:fr13mr08-21]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0271; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-267-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -
145EP Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

    Embraer has issued the Service Bulletin (SB) No. 145-00-0032 to
provide instructions to modify the EMB-145 ( ) aircraft and allow
operation with an increased Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW).
Reassessment of the Damage Tolerance Analysis during development of
the SB resulted in changes to the Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALI) for those modified aircraft to include new tasks and to revise
some existing ones and its respective intervals.
    Failure to inspect some structural components, according to the
new tasks and intervals for those modified aircraft, could prevent a
timely detection of fatigue cracking. Undetected fatigue cracking in
these components could adversely affect the structural integrity of
these airplanes.
* * * * *
The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1405; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0271;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-267-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC),
which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian
Airworthiness Directive 2007-07-01, effective August 21, 2007 (referred
to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    Embraer has issued the Service Bulletin (SB) No. 145-00-0032 to
provide instructions to modify the EMB-145 ( ) aircraft and allow
operation with an increased Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW).
Reassessment of the Damage Tolerance Analysis during development of
the SB resulted in changes to the Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALI) for those modified aircraft to include new tasks and to revise
some existing ones and its respective intervals.
    Failure to inspect some structural components, according to the
new tasks and intervals for those modified aircraft, could prevent a
timely detection of fatigue cracking. Undetected fatigue cracking in
these components could adversely affect the structural integrity of
these airplanes.
* * * * *
The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section
Structural Inspection Requirements and Corrosion Prevention and Control
Program Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
incorporate new structural inspection requirements. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    EMBRAER has issued Temporary Revision (TR) 10-5, dated May 23,
2007, to the EMBRAER EMB145 Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Report MRB-
145/1150. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would

affect about 572 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it
would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $45,760, or $80 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A. (Embraer): Docket No. FAA-
2008-0271; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-267-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 14, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to EMBRAER Model EMB-145, -145ER, -145MR, -
145LR, -145XR, -145MP, and -145EP airplanes, certificated in any
category, which have incorporated EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145-00-
0032.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53:
Fuselage.

Reason

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

    Embraer has issued the Service Bulletin (SB) No. 145-00-0032 to
provide instructions to modify the EMB-145 ( ) aircraft and allow
operation with an increased Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW).
Reassessment of the Damage Tolerance Analysis during development of
the SB resulted in changes to the Airworthiness Limitation Items
(ALI) for those modified aircraft to include new tasks and to revise
some existing ones and its respective intervals.
    Failure to inspect some structural components, according to the
new tasks and intervals for those modified aircraft, could prevent a
timely detection of fatigue cracking. Undetected fatigue cracking in
these components could adversely affect the structural integrity of
these airplanes.
* * * * *
The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section Structural Inspection Requirements and Corrosion Prevention
and Control Program Section of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness to incorporate new structural inspection requirements.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise
the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Structural Inspection
Requirements and Corrosion Prevention and Control Program Section of
the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the
tasks specified in Appendix 2, Airworthiness Limitation
Requirements, Section 4--Structural Inspection Requirements, and
Section 5--Corrosion Prevention and Control Program, identified in
Temporary Revision (TR) 10-5, dated May 23, 2007, to the EMBRAER EMB
145 Maintenance Review Board (MRB) Report MRB-145/1150.

    Note 2: The actions required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD may
be done by inserting a copy of TR 10-5 into the sections. When this
TR has been included in general revisions of the MRB report, the
general revisions may be inserted in the MRB report, provided the
relevant information in the general revision is identical to that in
TR 10-5.

    (2) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD, no alternative inspections or inspection
intervals may be used, except as provided by paragraph (g)(1) of
this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 3: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, 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:
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, 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 appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de
Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil Airworthiness Directive 2007-07-01,
effective August 21, 2007, and EMBRAER TR 10-5, dated May 23, 2007,
to the EMBRAER EMB145 MRB Report MRB-145/1150, for related
information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-4995 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P