[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 78 (Monday, April 26, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21965-21967]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08569]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 78 / Monday, April 26, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0335; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01665-R]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH MBB-BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117
A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, and MBB-BK 117 C-1
helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of sudden severe
vibrations and a cracked open blade trailing edge caused by a loosened
lead inner weight. This proposed AD would require inspections to
determine if any bolted main rotor blades are installed, and
replacement of the affected main rotor blades. 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 June 10,
2021.

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 https://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 between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; phone: 972-
641-0000 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0335; 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
Luftfahrt-Bundesamt AD, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3218; 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 ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0335; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-01665-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives which
is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public
docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    Luftfahrt-Bundesamt, which is the aviation authority for Germany,
has issued German AD D-2005-115, effective March 15, 2005, to correct
an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Deutschland (now Airbus Helicopters
Deutschland GmbH) Model MBB-BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4,
MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK 117 B-2, and MBB-BK 117 C-1 helicopters.
Luftfahrt-Bundesamt advises that during the flight of a BK117 severe
vibrations suddenly occurred, stemming from a cracked open blade
trailing edge, which was traced to a loosened lead inner weight bolt.
Additional inspection revealed extreme cavities of the lead weight
resulting from the bolting process, which was performed as a repair for
main rotor blades with bulging in the area of the lead inner weights.
This condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of control of
the helicopter.
    Accordingly, the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt AD requires an inspection and
log card review to determine if any bolted main

rotor blades are installed, and replacement of the affected main rotor
blades.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with Germany (now a member of the
European Union), Luftfahrt-Bundesamt, its technical representative, has
notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA
is proposing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information
and determining that the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type
design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. ASB-MBB-
BK117-10-125 dated February 14, 2005. This service information
specifies procedures for an inspection (for cracking of the paint) and
log card review (for a certain entry or equivalent) to determine if any
bolted main rotor blades (i.e., main rotor blades with bolted lead
inner weights) are installed, and replacement of the affected main
rotor blades.
    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.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 44 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at
$85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the
following costs to comply with this proposed AD.

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255...........................              $0             $255          $11,220
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition replacements that would be required based on the results of
any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
helicopters that might need these on-condition replacements:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost                 Parts cost       Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 20 work-hours x $85 per     Up to $23,100 per   Up to $24,800 per
 hour = $1,700 per blade (up to    blade (up to 4      blade (up to 4
 4 blades).                        blades).            blades).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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, I certify this proposed regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2021-0335;
Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01665-R.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by June 10, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH MBB-
BK 117 A-1, MBB-BK 117 A-3, MBB-BK 117 A-4, MBB-BK 117 B-1, MBB-BK
117 B-2, and MBB-BK 117 C-1 helicopters, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6210, Main Rotor
Blades.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of sudden severe vibrations and
a cracked open blade trailing edge caused by a loosened lead inner
weight. The FAA is issuing this AD to address bolted lead inner
weights of the main rotor blade, which could loosen and cause
cracking of the open blade trailing edge. The unsafe condition, if
not addressed, could result in loss of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, review the
log card (or equivalent record) and visually inspect each main rotor
blade to determine if any bolted main rotor blades (i.e., main rotor
blade with bolted lead inner weight) are installed in accordance
with paragraphs 2.A.1., 2.B.1., 2.B.2., and 2.B.3. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin
ASB-MBB-BK117-10-125, dated February 14, 2005. If during the review,
the total hours time-in-service (TIS) cannot be positively
determined, this AD requires treating that part as having
accumulated more than 3,000 total hours TIS. If any bolted main
rotor blade (i.e., main rotor blade with bolted lead inner weight)
is installed, replace the main rotor blade in accordance with
paragraph 2.B.4. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Eurocopter
Alert Service Bulletin ASB-MBB-BK117-10-125, dated February 14,
2005, as follows:
    (1) For a bolted main rotor blade that has accumulated less than
2,300 total hours TIS on the blade since bolting of the lead inner
weight as of the effective date of this AD: Before accumulating
2,500 total hours TIS on the blade since bolting of the lead inner
weights.
    (2) For a bolted main rotor blade that has accumulated 2,300
total hours TIS up to 3,000 total hours TIS inclusive, on the blade
since bolting of the lead inner weight as of the effective date of
this AD: Within 200 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) For a bolted main rotor blade that has accumulated more than
3,000 total hours TIS on the blade since bolting of the lead inner
weight as of the effective date of this AD: Within 50 hours TIS
after the effective date of this AD.

(h) Contacting the Manufacturer To Determine TIS

    Where Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin ASB-MBB-BK117-10-125,
dated February 14, 2005, specifies to send a form to the
manufacturer to determine TIS since bolting, this AD does not
include that requirement.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation 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 the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen
Arrigotti, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198;
phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Office
of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) The subject of this AD is addressed in Luftfahrt-Bundesamt
German AD D-2005-115, effective March 15, 2005. You may view the
Luftfahrt-Bundesamt German AD on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

    Issued on April 16, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-08569 Filed 4-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17215-17218]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05354]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0430; FRL-10784-01-OAR]

Notice of Proposed Radon Credentialing Criteria

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor
Air.

ACTION: Notice of availability; opening of a 60-day public comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeks input on
criteria to help align and ensure consistency across radon service
provider credentialing programs operated by certification bodies and
states. The criteria reflect stakeholder feedback received in response
to a 2017 Federal Register Notice on the same subject and consideration
of conformity assessment practices in place across the federal
government. The EPA is soliciting comment on these criteria. The
comments will inform development of the final version of the criteria.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on or before May 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0430 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0430 in the subject line of the message.
     U.S. Postal Service Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA Docket Center, Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.,
Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0430. Comments received may be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katrin Kral, Indoor Environments
Division, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air 6609T, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
202-343-9454; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Submit your comments, identified by Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0430, at https://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or the other methods identified in the ADDRESSES
section. The

KEY QUESTIONS section includes specific areas on which the EPA is
seeking comment.
    Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the
docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the notice by docket number, subject heading,
Federal Register date, and page number.
     Provide a brief description of yourself and your role or
organization before addressing the questions.
     Identify the question(s) you are responding to from the
KEY QUESTIONS section by question number when submitting your comments.
You do not need to address every question.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow it to be
reproduced.
     Illustrate your concerns with specific examples and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    Public Information Session. The EPA will also host a public
information session during the comment period. Additional details about
timing and the registration process for the information session webinar
will be shared on the EPA's radon website at https://www.epa.gov/radon/epas-draft-criteria-radon-credentialing-organizations. The information
session will cover the EPA's role in overseeing the quality of radon
service providers as well as conformity assessment and application of
voluntary consensus standards within federal programs, including the
proposed criteria. Participants will have an opportunity to ask
clarifying questions via the webinar chat function. The EPA will not
accept comments on the criteria during the information session.

I. Background

    Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United
States and responsible for an estimated 21,000 deaths each year. One in
15 U.S. homes is estimated to have elevated radon levels. Radon-induced
lung cancer is highly preventable and may be addressed by testing and
mitigating homes when necessary. Professionals who provide radon
testing and mitigation services play a key role in public health
protection efforts. Because of the substantial risk resulting from
exposure to radon, a naturally occurring radioactive gas, it is
critical for radon service providers to possess the necessary skills to
provide quality services, ensure consumer protection, and protect
public health.
    Since 1988, the EPA has administered a non-regulatory program under
the Indoor Radon Abatement Act of 1988 (IRAA) \1\ to reduce exposure to
indoor radon by promoting awareness, testing, installation of radon
mitigation systems in existing homes, and the use of radon-resistant
new construction techniques in new buildings. The EPA works with state
and tribal programs, industry, and the public to reduce human exposure
to radon, thereby reducing deaths due to lung cancer. Essential to this
mission is access to quality service providers who possess the skills
required to measure indoor radon levels and conduct mitigation when
necessary. Historically, the EPA has played a key role in establishing
a standard of quality for radon service providers, including
development and maintenance of a provider credentialing program (or
provider proficiency program) and a one-time evaluation of two
certification bodies in 2001, the National Radon Proficiency Program
(NRPP) and the National Radon Safety Board (NRSB). Since then, the EPA
has maintained oversight of radon credentialing systems, provided an
associated national radon reference, and supported the development of
and access to radon measurement and mitigation standards of practice.
Taken together, these activities align with the EPA's authority to
operate a proficiency program designed to rate the effectiveness of
radon measurement and mitigation service providers and radon
measurement devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 100-551, Title III--Indoor Radon Abatement,
enacted October 28, 1988 (also known as the Indoor Radon Abatement
Act of 1988 or ``IRAA'') (15 U.S.C. 2661, et seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An August 2017 Federal Register Notice \2\ outlined proposed non-
regulatory criteria aimed at establishing consistency across radon
credentialing programs. These criteria included a third-party process
for accrediting radon professional credentialing organizations to an
international standard for certification bodies (International
Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical
Commission; ISO/IEC 17024:2012). The Agency requested comment on the
proposed approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA. ``Notice of Intent to Establish Voluntary Criteria for
Radon Credentialing Organizations; Notice of Availability; Opening
of a 60-Day Public Comment Period.'' Federal Register (82 FR 39993,
August 23, 2017) (FRL-9966-07-OAR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Radon Credentialing Criteria document \3\,which is the
subject of this notice and is included in the docket, reflects
stakeholder feedback received through the 2017 Federal Register Notice.
The criteria outlined in this document remain grounded in third-party
accreditation to ISO/IEC 17024:2012,\4\ and are intended to support
establishment and maintenance of a base level of organizational and
program-specific competencies as well as maintain flexibility for
state-run programs. The Proposed Radon Credentialing Criteria document
contains four sections: I--Executive Summary; II--Discussion of
Stakeholder Input on 2017 Federal Register Notice and EPA Responses;
III--Evaluation Framework; IV--Implementation Approach. The EPA is
particularly interested in feedback on Sections III and IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA. ``Proposed Radon Credentialing Criteria.'' U.S. EPA,
Washington DC, EPA 402/D-22/001, December 2022. Available in the
Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0430.
    \4\ ISO, IEC. Conformity Assessment--General Requirements for
Bodies Operating Certification of Persons. ISO/IEC 17024:2012(E). 2
ed. July 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Evaluation Framework is grounded in conformity assessment
practices designed to promote consistency across credentialing programs
operated by certification bodies and states. This is accomplished
through specifications for the maintenance of credentialing programs
and radon measurement and mitigation service provider job categories,
including identification of radon service provider competencies and
assessment methods. Service providers who achieve

and maintain credentials from certification bodies and/or state-run
programs that meet the Evaluation Framework specifications will have
demonstrated and be required to maintain comparable knowledge, skills,
and abilities to perform radon services.
    The Implementation Approach will facilitate identification of
qualified radon service providers meeting a standardized set of
specifications outlined within the Evaluation Framework. The
Implementation Approach outlines the EPA's planned activities to
facilitate adoption of the Evaluation Framework specifications:
     Develop and maintain a process by which credentialing
organizations (certification bodies and state-run programs) can
annually attest that they meet the Evaluation Framework specifications.
     Maintain a public list of credentialing organizations and
accreditation bodies that meet the framework (see TSCA Sec.  305(a)).
     Establish conditions for the State and Tribal Indoor Radon
Grants (SIRG) program. It is important to note that IRAA does not
provide the EPA with authority to require actions on the part of state
or tribal governments. Nonetheless, the EPA may set conditions for
receiving funding as part of the SIRG Program, which is authorized
under IRAA, that are consistent with the purpose of the Act.
    Taken together, the Evaluation Framework and Implementation
Approach will help standardize program-specific competencies for
credentialing radon service providers and facilitate access to and
identification of a skilled and qualified workforce demonstrating a
consistent set of competencies to perform radon testing and mitigation.

II. Request for Comments

    Comments will inform development of a final version of the Radon
Credentialing Criteria to help align and ensure consistency across
credentialing programs operated by certification bodies and states.
Widespread adherence to the Evaluation Framework as reinforced by the
Implementation Approach will support standardization of quality among
radon service provider credentials and credentialing organizations,
help maximize the utility of the SIRG program by providing assistance
to states in a manner that will facilitate access to--and
identification of--radon service providers credentialed by
organizations meeting a consistent set of specifications, and support
streamlined approaches to addressing provider credentials within radon
testing/mitigation polices. This in turn may lead to increased consumer
confidence in, and demand for, radon service providers, as well as
expanded markets for radon service providers.
    As mentioned previously, the EPA is particularly interested in
feedback on Sections III (Evaluation Framework) and IV (Implementation
Approach) of the Proposed Radon Credentialing Criteria document, which
is available in the docket. The KEY QUESTIONS section contains specific
information requests on these two sections (III and IV).
    The Agency is seeking comment from stakeholders working to reduce
exposure to indoor radon. This includes stakeholders involved with
promoting and/or conducting testing and installation of radon
mitigation systems, such as:

 Organizations credentialing radon service providers and other
building construction and/or maintenance related providers
 Radon service providers
 Organizations who provide third-party accreditation to the
ISO/IEC 17024:2012
 Organizations representing state health and environmental
programs, green building initiatives, and the radon services industry
 State radon programs
 Federal agencies who own, influence, or control housing

III. Key Questions

    These questions pertain to Sections III and IV of the Proposed
Radon Credentialing Criteria document. In addition to responding to
specific requests for comments below, commenters are welcome to share
any overarching feedback.
    Key Questions 1-4. These questions address the Evaluation Framework
which outlines a set of specifications in three areas (Accreditation,
Examination, and Maintenance) that will help promote consistency across
credentialing programs operated by certification bodies and states.
Service providers who achieve and maintain credentials from
certification bodies and/or state-run programs that meet the Evaluation
Framework will have demonstrated and be required to maintain comparable
knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform radon services.
    1. Do you have any general feedback on the Evaluation Framework
(Accreditation, Examination and Maintenance)?
    2. What features of the Evaluation Framework may positively and/or
negatively impact a state's ability to make any necessary modifications
within their organizational structures to ensure adherence of the
state-run program to the Evaluation Framework specifications?
    3. Will creation of certifications and examinations for the
measurement and mitigation service provider categories be sufficient
for state-run programs seeking to meet the Evaluation Framework?
    4. Should independent certification bodies that meet the Evaluation
Framework be required to create certifications and examinations for two
job categories (measurement and mitigation) and two job sub-types
distinguishing roles for an entry-level technician position and a more
senior/supervisory specialist position?
    Key Questions 5-6. These questions cover the Examination component
of the Evaluation Framework which includes specifications and standards
that pertain to determining service provider mastery of competencies
necessary to perform a specific job. Specifications for state-run
programs that embed third-party examinations within their credentialing
programs are also included.
    5. Is the proposed stakeholder representation on the expert panel
adequate? Stakeholders identified to serve on a panel responsible for
developing a job task analysis are considered essential to ensure
appropriate representation of the entire population of stakeholders
that contribute to, and/or participate in, the credentialing of radon
service providers. Additional stakeholder groups (e.g., home
inspectors, builders) may be included as part of an expert panel at the
certification body's discretion.
    6. Should radon service providers be required to complete a device
performance test as a requirement to receiving a credential for radon
measurement service provider job categories?
    These performance tests are designed to evaluate a provider's
proficiency using an analytical device. This type of performance test
would be incorporated into the Evaluation Framework as part of the
``Examination'' component. Credentialing organizations would be
required to verify and validate how the performance test accurately and
reliably assesses the task(s) identified in the job task analysis, as
well as how it aligns with the applicable American National Standard
which specifies minimum performance criteria and testing procedures for
instruments and/or systems designed to quantify the concentration of
radon-222 gas in air (MS-PC, Performance Specifications for
Instrumentation Systems Designed to Measure Radon Gas in Air).
    Key Question 7. This question covers the Maintenance component of
the

Evaluation Framework which includes specifications that help ensure
continued adherence by certification bodies to third-party
accreditation requirements and consistency across credentialing program
requirements. The specifications addressing credentialing program
requirements will help assure that radon service providers are equipped
with knowledge, skills and competencies necessary to maintain
credentials issued by certification bodies and state-run programs. This
element also includes a specification for credentialing organizations
to verify the use of approved devices and maintenance of a Quality
Assurance Plan in accordance with the most current American National
Standards.
    7. How frequently should providers be required to verify use of
approved testing devices (when applicable) and maintenance of a Quality
Assurance Plan?
    Key Questions 8-15. These questions address the Implementation
Approach which outlines the EPA's planned activities to facilitate
adoption of the Evaluation Framework and outlines elements for three
time periods (while the Evaluation Framework is being finalized, once
the Evaluation Framework is finalized and during the 3-year phase-in
period, after the 3-year phase-in period):
     Annual Attestation Process: Develop and maintain a process
by which credentialing organizations (certification bodies and state-
run programs) can annually attest they meet the Evaluation Framework
specifications.
     Public List: Maintain a public list of credentialing
organizations and accreditation bodies that meet the Evaluation
Framework (see TSCA Sec.  305(a)).
     Conditions for the EPA's SIRG Program.
    8. Do you have any general feedback on the Implementation Approach?
    9. Will a 3-year phase-in period will be sufficient for
certification bodies to prepare for and achieve third-party
accreditation and meet the Evaluation Framework and for state-run
programs to meet the Evaluation Framework?
    10. Do you have feedback on the size and impact of the costs
associated with third-party accreditation to ISO/IEC 17024:2012?
    11. Do you have feedback regarding the proposed annual attestation
process?
    12. What reporting mechanisms should the EPA consider for state-run
programs to provide annual progress updates and attestations once the
Evaluation Framework has been met?
    13. Do you have feedback regarding the proposal for the EPA to
maintain a public list?
    14. Should the EPA identify on its website the credentialing
organizations that have declared their intent, but do not yet meet, the
Evaluation Framework? In this case credentialing organizations that do
not meet all the requirements at the end of the 3-year phase-in period
would be removed from the website until such time as they can
demonstrate their ability to meet all the requirements of the
Evaluation Framework.
    15. Do you have feedback regarding the proposal to establish
conditions for the SIRG program?

Jonathan D. Edwards,
Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
[FR Doc. 2023-05354 Filed 3-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P