controllable'' criterion of the Exceptional Events Rule, we deem this
criterion to have been satisfied.
iii. Was an Event Caused by Human Activity That is Unlikely to Recur at
a Particular Location
    In this case, the event was paving of parking lots in the vicinity
of the PM-10 monitor, and is a construction activity that is not
expected to recur at that location.
iv. Determined by EPA To Be an Exceptional Event
    Finally, EPA must determine through the process established in the
Exceptional Events Rule whether an exceptional event occurred. The
Exceptional Events Rule has both procedural requirements and technical
criteria that we are assisting the SRREPA in meeting. We believe that
by the initial flagging of the data, and through the vehicle of this
proposed rulemaking we will demonstrate that the procedural
requirements and technical criteria of the rule will have been met.
b. Is there a clear causal connection between the exceedances and the
claimed exceptional event?
    Under 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iii)(B), a clear causal relationship must
be established between the measured exceedance and the claimed
exceptional event. The information compiled by EPA shows a clear causal
connection between the exceedances and the construction activity at the
nearby parking lots. The SRREPA environmental technician observed the
conditions at the time the monitor was operating and noted on the
sample tracking forms, which are completed with each sampling run, that
there was construction nearby. Copies of these tracking forms are
included in the documentation for this rulemaking.
    The SRREPA measures wind speed and wind direction at the SRR
monitoring site. These meteorological data indicate that on the three
days that exceeded the NAAQS, winds were predominantly from the
northwest to northeast. This would indicate that any dust-producing
activity north and northeast of the monitor would result in high
concentrations of geologic dust being blown towards the monitor.
    The meteorological data lend support to the environmental
technician's account of the events of that day. EPA also discussed
these events with the SRR construction superintendent, who agreed with
the environmental technician's account of the construction activity. A
private consultant working for the SRREPA also stated that he had
witnessed major earth-disturbing activities on these days.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Site Visit Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the meteorological data, eyewitness accounts, and an on-
site inspection of the monitoring site location and its proximity to
the parking lots, we believe that there was a clear causal connection
between the construction activity and the recorded PM-10 exceedances.
c. Can it be demonstrated that the event is associated with a measured
concentration in excess of normal historical fluctuations including
background?
    For EPA to concur with the SRREPA's claim that an exceptional event
caused an exceedance, one of requirements is to show that the event is
associated with concentrations that are beyond the normal historical
fluctuations. See 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iii)(C).
    Of the 44 samples collected by the SRREPA, nearly 80% of the
samples (35 days) were less than 100 [mu]g/m3. After
completion of the paving projects in mid-November, 2006, average PM-10
concentrations dropped by more than 50%, from an average of 97 [mu]g/
m\3\ to an average of 45 [mu]g/m3.\96\ This would indicate
that the construction activity had an obvious effect on the
concentrations recorded by the SRR monitor and that the data collected
during this construction period, including the exceedances recorded in
September and October, 2006, were not representative of typical post-
construction PM-10 concentrations at the location of the monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Santa Rosa Rancheria PM-10 24 hour average concentrations,
Excel spreadsheet, Bob Pallarino.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Can it be demonstrated that there would have been no exceedance
``but for'' the event?
    To qualify as an exceptional event, there must be an analysis which
demonstrates that there would have been no exceedance ``but for'' the
event. 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iii)(D). Such analyses do not require a
precise estimate of the estimated air quality impact from the event. 72
FR at 13570.
    To meet this requirement, EPA believes the SRREPA environmental
technician, consultant and the SRR construction superintendent have
clearly indicated that the exceedances occurred on days where nearby
construction was also occurring. As EPA has shown, the proximity of the
monitor to the construction activity and the concomitant infeasibility
of control measures to prevent the exceedances also demonstrate that
there would have been no exceedances but for the construction activity.
Given these factors and the fact that the average PM-10 concentrations
dropped by more than 50% after the completion of the paving projects,
we believe the weight of evidence shows that the exceedances would not
have occurred but for the construction activity.

3. Mitigation Requirements
    Under 40 CFR 51.930, a state or tribe requesting to exclude air
quality data due to exceptional events must take appropriate and
reasonable actions, including public notification, public education and
implementation of measures, to protect public health from exceedances
or violations of the NAAQS. In the case of the SRR, EPA recognizes that
tribes may implement only portions of air quality programs and not be
in a position to address each of the procedures and requirements
associated with excluding or discounting data. In the preamble to the
Exceptional Events Rule, EPA cites an example of tribes that ``* * *
may operate a monitoring network for purposes of gathering and
identifying appropriate data, but may not implement relevant programs
for the purpose of mitigating the effects of exceptional events. * *
*'' 72 FR at 13563. That is the case with the SRR. Under these
circumstances, as indicated in the preamble to the Exceptional Events
Rule, EPA intends to work with the SRR on the implementation of the
Rule.

Conclusion

    EPA believes that the construction activities at the SRR on
September 14, 2006, September 20, 2006 and October 26, 2006 were
exceptional events as defined under 40 CFR 50.1(j). EPA believes that
there is sufficient weight of evidence to conclude that the
construction activities caused the exceedances on the exceedance days,
and that the exceedances would not have occurred but for the
construction activity. The proximity of the construction activities to
the monitor and the wind direction recorded at the monitor support this
conclusion. Because EPA believes that the provisions of the Exceptional
Events Rule have been satisfied, EPA is proposing to concur with the
SRR Tribe's flags indicating that these exceedances were due to
exceptional events, and to exclude the data from consideration in
determining whether the SJV has attained the PM-10 standard.
    In proposing to concur with the SRR Tribe's flags that construction
activity at SRR constituted exceptional events, EPA is addressing only
the particular facts and circumstances presented by the SRR monitoring
operation. In general, fugitive dust control measures employed during
construction activities are helpful in reducing ambient PM-10
concentrations and avoiding exceedances of the NAAQS. However, in the
specific circumstances of the SRR during the days when exceedances were
recorded, we are not able to conclude that the event was reasonably
controllable due to the very close proximity of the monitor to the
construction activity, and the other factors discussed above. Given
this singular constellation of factors, EPA is proposing to concur with
the Tribe's flagging of the exceedances on September 14, September 20
and October 26, 2006 as caused by exceptional events.

VII. Summary of Exceedances From 2004 Through 2006

    The table below provides a summary of exceedances relevant to
today's proposed rule that were recorded at monitors located within the
boundaries of the SJV. The table indicates, whether in determining
attainment, EPA has excluded or proposes to exclude the exceedance,
based on a finding that it was due to an exceptional event. The 24-hour
standard is attained when the expected number of days per year with
levels above 150 [mu]g/m\3\ (averaged over a three-year period) is less
than or equal to one. 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. As shown in the
table, all of the monitoring locations are meeting the PM-10 standard.

                                                 Table Summarizing PM-10 24-Hour Exceedances in the SJV
                                                                [From 2004 through 2006]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Recorded (observed)            Number of estimated exceedances           Average number
                                                              exceedances 2004--2006  -------------------------------------------------     of annual
              Monitor                  Operating schedule   --------------------------    Included in attn.      Reason for excluding      exceedances
                                                                 Date         Conc              deter.                exceedance           2004--2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corcoran Manual FRM................  1 in 3 day............       9/3/04          217  No.....................  Exceptional Event.....              0
                                                                 9/22/06          215  No.....................  Exceptional Event.....  ................
Corcoran TEOM......................  Continuous............      9/22/06          261  No.....................  Exceptional Event.....              0
                                                                10/25/06          304  No.....................  Exceptional Event.....  ................
                                                                 12/8/06          162  No.....................  Exceptional Event.....  ................
Bakersfield Golden Manual FRM......  1 in 6 day............      9/22/06          157  No.....................  Exceptional Event.....              0
Bakersfield Golden BAM.............  Continuous............     11/22/05          156  Yes....................  N/A...................              0.67
                                                                11/23/05          180  Yes....................  N/A...................  ................
Bakersfield Golden TEOM............  Continuous............      9/22/06          157  No.....................  Exceptional Event.....              0
                                                                10/25/06          193  No.....................  Exceptional Event.....  ................
                                                                 12/8/06          213  No.....................  Exceptional Event.....  ................
Tracy BAM..........................  Continuous............      9/22/06          161  Yes....................  N/A...................              0.33
Oildale Manual FRM.................  1 in 6 day............      9/22/06          162  No.....................  Exceptional Event.....              0
Santa Rosa Rancheria Manual FRM....  1 in 6 day............      9/14/06          190  No.....................  Exceptional Event.....              0
                                                                 9/20/06          158  No.....................  Exceptional Event.....  ................
                                                                10/26/06          157  No.....................  Exceptional Event.....  ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
EPA Air Quality System Database.
E-mail from Steven Shaw, SJVAPCD to Bob Pallarino, EPA Region 9, April 20, 2006.
E-mail from Steve Shaw, SJVAPCD to Bob Pallarino, EPA Region 9, October 12, 2006.

VIII. Petitions for Reconsideration and Withdrawal

A. Winds and Wildfires on September 22 and October 25, 2006

    Earthjustice filed its 2006 Petition for Reconsideration (PFR)
before the State provided its exceptional event documentation for the
September 22, 2006 exceedances to the public or EPA. At that time CARB
and the District had simply informed EPA that, based on preliminary
analysis, they believed that these exceedances were due to high wind
and wildfire natural events. Similarly, when Earthjustice filed its
2007 Petition for Withdrawal (PFW) and the accompanying Jan Null
declaration, the State had not yet submitted the complete documentation
for the September and October 2006 exceedances on which EPA is basing
this proposed rule. Therefore Earthjustice's conclusion in the
petitions that the September 22, 2006 and October 25, 2006 exceedances
do not qualify as natural events does not address the technical
analysis of the winds and wildfires as ultimately submitted by the
State and which EPA has evaluated in section V. above. To the extent
that Earthjustice's assessments in the petitions of the nature and
effect of the winds and wildfires are currently relevant, we believe
our evaluation in section V. addresses the significant points raised in
them.
    In addition, since EPA, as stated in section V. above, agrees with
the petitioners that regional transport from north of the SJV and the
northern SJV and wildfires were not the cause of the exceedances on
September 22 and October 25, it is unnecessary for EPA to further
address the arguments raised by petitioners with respect to these
theories.

B. Notice/Comment on September 22 and October 25, 2006 Exceedances

    The gravamen of the 2006 petition, which is reiterated in the
Petition for Withdrawal, is Earthjustice's claim that EPA did not
provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the September 22,
2006 exceedances and thus should not have finalized the attainment
determination for the SJV. PFR at 2-4. Petitioners also complained that
EPA did not require adequate documentation that these exceedances were
caused by exceptional events. PFR at 3-4.
    Contrary to Earthjustice's assertions, EPA did not abuse its
discretion in addressing the September 22, 2006 exceedances in its
October 2006 determination of attainment. EPA noted at the time that
the exceedances were based on preliminary data only: ``Because these
data, which were collected using manual reference method samplers, are
preliminary and have not been quality assured, and because EPA believes
that they may qualify as caused by natural events, and thus be excluded
from consideration in an attainment determination, EPA is proceeding to
finalize its determination that the area is in attainment.'' 71 FR
63642. Thus the data had not been quality assured, and in addition EPA
was on notice that CARB and the District intended to flag the data as
due to exceptional events and to request EPA's concurrence on excluding
the data from consideration in an attainment determination.
    EPA went on to note that ``[i]f, after the data is quality assured,
and after further evaluating CARB's request with respect to these data,
EPA determines that the data do not qualify for exclusion under EPA's
natural events policy, and EPA further believes that if included that
they would establish that the area is in violation of the NAAQS, EPA
will proceed with appropriate rulemaking action to withdraw its
determination of attainment.'' Id. It was thus clear that EPA's
determination was subject to revision based on subsequent quality
assurance and evaluation of the data, and EPA outlined its projected
procedure for dealing with the data once they were quality assured and
EPA had an opportunity to evaluate the documentation of the potential
exceptional events.
    In this proposed rule, EPA is following through with this
procedure, and is now providing for full notice and an opportunity for
comment, in the context of a rulemaking, on whether those exceedances
qualify as caused by exceptional events. EPA is also providing notice
and opportunity for comment on additional claims that exceedances were
caused by exceptional events on October 25, 2006, and December 8, 2006,
and at the Santa Rosa Rancheria on September 14 and 20 and October 26,
2006.
    Contrary to Earthjustice's contention in its Petition for
Reconsideration and Petition for Withdrawal, EPA did not reverse the
burden of proof required to establish an exceptional event, or relieve
the State from the obligation to document its claims. PFR at 4; PFW at
17. In the final determination, it is clear that EPA did not
conclusively concur in excluding the data without requiring appropriate
documentation and a showing from the State. Rather, EPA deferred its
determination on the impact of the preliminary data until the data
could be quality assured and the State would have an opportunity to
meet its burden of showing that an exceedance qualified as caused by an
exceptional event.
    Finally EPA notes that Earthjustice alleges in its 2007 petition
that the Agency ignored in its final attainment determination the
October 25, 2006 exceedances as well as the September 22, 2006
exceedances. PFW at 2. This is not the case. The exceedances in October
occurred eight days after EPA promulgated its final determination of
attainment, on October 17, 2006. (The notice was published on October
30, but the determination had been signed and disseminated to the
public on October 17). Thus, EPA had no information on these
exceedances at the time of its final action.

C. Wind Conditions in the Valley

    With respect to the existence of high winds in the Valley
generally, Earthjustice, in both petitions, characterizes statements in
the 2003 PM-10 Plan for the area as concluding that wind erosion is not
a significant contributing factor in dust emissions and as suggesting
that winds with enough velocity to cause erosion disperse PM-10
concentrations and/or transport PM-10 out of the Valley. PFR at 4; PFW
at 8. Earthjustice in its 2007 petition also cites a letter from the
District to EPA which states that ``there is no evidence of any
significant linkage between high winds and PM-10 federal exceedance
events [in the Valley].'' Id. at 8-9.
    Earthjustice has taken the statements in the 2003 Plan to attain
the PM-10 standard out of context. Chapter 2 of the Plan, quoted by
Earthjustice, is a 12-page general overview of the San Joaquin Valley
Air Basin, the purpose of which is to describe normal or typical
meteorological conditions. It is not intended to nor does it address
unusual winds such as those under consideration here that may occur in
the Valley. Nevertheless, the District did determine that windblown
dust is not a significant problem in the SJV for the purposes of
attaining the PM-10 standard. For example, the Plan states that
``[w]ind related PM-10 events are rare but possible when conditions are
right'' and that ``PM-10 readings in the SJVAB are most severe during
the fall and winter periods when wind speed and direction are not
conducive to interregional transport.'' 2003 PM-10 Plan, ES-10, 2-6.
The District also states that ``winds are effective in dispersing PM-10
concentrations and/or transporting PM-10 out of the Valley'' in
explaining why the spring and

summer months, which are the windier months of the year in the SJV, do
not yield higher PM-10 levels.
    However, the fact that PM-10 pollution from windblown dust is not
generally a significant enough problem in the SJV that it needs to be
controlled for the purposes of attaining the PM-10 standard, does not
mean that windblown dust cannot cause an exceedance of the standard. In
addition, even if windblown dust were a significant problem, there
could be individual situations where particular conditions make it
unreasonable to expect the District and State to be able to control
sources in those circumstances. For such situations, EPA has issued the
Exceptional Events Rule, and previously its policies, which as
discussed above allows exceedances caused by exceptional events to be
excluded from regulatory considerations as appropriate if certain
conditions are met. Since there are many variables that can cause
exceptional event exceedances, EPA believes the analyses for such
events should be reviewed on a case by case basis. 72 FR 13560. For
example, not all high wind days will lead to exceedances and not all
exceedances monitored when high winds are recorded are necessarily due
to those high winds. For the exceedances discussed in today's proposal,
however, EPA believes the State has made an adequate demonstration that
they were caused by exceptional events and have met all of the
Exceptional Events Rule requirements, and thus the data for these
particular events should be excluded from regulatory consideration.
    Earthjustice also cites a letter from the District to EPA
responding to a letter from Charles Swanson to EPA commenting on the
2003 PM-10 Plan. April 15, 2004 letter from James Sweet, SJVAPCD, to
Doris Lo, EPA (Sweet letter). Mr. Swanson disputes the following
passage from Table G-15 in Appendix G entitled ``BACM Comparative
Analysis for `On-Field Activities''' concerning the BACM justification
discussion associated with the ``Other'' category of the District's
proposed Agricultural Conservation Management Practices:

    The SJV does not have a windblown dust problem to anywhere near
the extent of the other nonattainment areas. The SJV has some of the
lowest average wind speeds in the country. No wind related
exceedances have been recorded in the basin during the last three
years. Wind speeds are highest during the spring when PM-10 levels
are at their lowest. The majority of the fugitive dust emissions are
generated from earth disturbing activities. Certain soil types and
crops are more prone to windblown dust problems. The ``Other''
category will give the farmers with the potential to experience wind
blown dust emissions the flexibility to address this issue with a
CMP.

    March 18, 2004 letter from Charles Swanson to Doris Lo, EPA
(Swanson letter) at 1.
    In responding to Mr. Swanson, the District stated in its April 15,
2004 letter that ``[t]he statements in the Plan provide a general
characterization of the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) and, as with all
generalizations, are not without exception.'' Sweet letter at 1.
Furthermore, while, as Earthjustice points out, the District did also
state that an analysis of all wind events since 1990 did not establish
a linkage to PM-10 exceedances, the District also enumerated technical
limitations that bear directly on this conclusion. For example, the
data used did not report wind gusts and the 1 in 6 day sampling for PM-
10 will not capture all wind events. Sweet letter at 7-8. Therefore,
Earthjustice's attempts to characterize the statements in the Sweet
letter regarding windblown dust as absolute is not warranted. Finally,
the District also asserts that:

    Evaluation of past events indicates that often the area with the
highest PM-10 levels is not where the wind is highest, but rather
where the wind begins to slow. To understand the dynamics of this
pattern we need only review the mechanisms for entrainment and
deposition. When the wind slows, it can no longer keep the larger
PM-10 particles aloft and they settle toward the surface. The
settling of particulates aloft * * * results in an increased
concentration in the deposition area.

    Sweet letter at 2. This scenario is precisely what occurred on
September 22 and October 25, 2006 as discussed in section V. above.

D. EPA's Natural Events Policy

1. BACM Implementation
    In both petitions Earthjustice asserts that EPA's 1996 Natural
Events Policy requires that the State demonstrate that BACM were in
place and that all sources were in compliance in order for EPA to
concur on a high wind natural event request. PFR at 5; PFW at 9.
Earthjustice contends that the State cannot demonstrate that
agricultural sources were in compliance at the time of the wind event
since it is not clear if any compliance inspections had been conducted.
    As discussed in sections IV. and V., EPA is evaluating the State's
exceptional event documentation under EPA's Exceptional Event Rule and
not under its pre-existing policies. The Rule does not require either a
showing that BACM was in place at the time of the event or proof that
sources were in compliance. Rather, in the preamble to the Rule EPA
states that the State must take reasonable and appropriate measures
under these circumstances. 72 FR at 13576-13577. That said, EPA has
approved the District's BACM demonstration for all significant sources
of PM-10 in the Valley, including agricultural sources, as meeting CAA
section 189(b)(1)(B). 69 FR at 30035; 71 FR 7683. Moreover the State's
documentation for the September 22 and October 25, 2006 events includes
information on compliance inspections throughout the SJV. See section
V. above.
2. District's Natural Events Action Plan
    In its 2007 petition Earthjustice claims that for the September 22,
2006 exceedances the District failed to meet the requirements of its
Natural Events Action Plan for ``[a]cceptable documentation for
establishing an extraordinary natural event * * * .'' Specifically,
Earthjustice contends that acceptable documentation for establishing
``an extraordinary natural event'' includes issuance by the national
Weather Service of a high wind or blowing dust advisory, the occurrence
of strong winds aloft and surface wind maps showing potential for high
winds to occur at the site. According to Earthjustice no adequate
documentation of these factors was offered. PFW at 11.
    Earthjustice's statements regarding the requirements for
documentation under the District's ``Natural Events Action Plan for
High Wind Events in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin,'' February 16,
2006 (NEAP) appear in the portion of its 2007 petition that addresses
the causal relationship between high winds and the September 22, 2006
exceedances. Id. Section 3 of the NEAP concerns the documentation of
high wind events and lists specific sources of documentation suggested
by EPA: Filter analysis, meteorological data, modeling and receptor
analysis, videos and/or photographs, maps, news accounts and BACM \97\
requirements. Section 6 of the NEAP concerns meteorological forecasting
criteria. This section states that if certain enumerated criteria are
met, the District, in consultation with CARB, will declare a NEAP
episode. The items that Earthjustice contends are required to document
an exceptional event are among these criteria. Thus Earthjustice has
confused forecasting an exceptional event with the documentation of it.
EPA believes that

the State has adequately documented the September 22, 2006 exceedances
as being caused by all exceptional events as discussed above in section
V.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ As noted above, BACM implementation is not required under
EPA's exceptional events rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally we note again that EPA is proceeding in this rulemaking
under its Exceptional Events Rule rather than the 1996 policy it
replaces. In the preamble to the Rule, EPA explained that ``following
the promulgation of this rule, States will no longer be required to
keep NEAPs in place that were not approved as a part of a SIP for an
area.'' 72 FR at 13576.

E. Harvest Activities

    Earthjustice asserts in its 2006 petition that September is the
peak harvest season for cotton and almonds and that EPA should
investigate the contribution of these activities to the September 22
exceedances. PFR at 6. In the 2007 petition Earthjustice states that
the end of October is generally when two of the dustiest crop harvests,
cotton and almonds, take place and that these activities caused the
October 25 exceedances. PRW at 13-14. EPA discusses the effect of
anthropogenic sources on the 2006 exceedances in section V. above.

F. Exceedances at Corcoran and Stockton in 2004, Bakersfield in 2005
and the Santa Rosa Rancheria in 2006

    The 2007 petition raises issues regarding several exceedances that
have already been addressed by the October 2006 attainment
determination. These exceedances occurred on September 3, 2004 at
Corcoran and Stockton and on November 22-23, 2005 at Bakersfield. EPA's
position on these exceedances is found in the final rule at 71 FR at
63658-63661.
    Regarding the September 3, 2004 exceedance, Earthjustice states
that EPA must now evaluate whether the Agency can concur on the State's
request to flag the exceedance as a high wind event and cannot continue
to rely on the argument that it is irrelevant because ``even if EPA had
not concurred with the exclusion of this data, the Corcoran site would
still attain the 24-hour NAAQS * * *.'' Earthjustice takes this
position because it believes there are now other exceedances at
Corcoran that cannot be excluded and that the September 3, 2004
exceedance will thus be important in determining the SJV's PM-10
attainment status. PFW at 9.
    EPA disagrees with Earthjustice's contention that there are now
other exceedances that cannot be excluded. As discussed above, EPA
believes the exceedances on September 22, October 25 and December 8,
2006 are all due to exceptional events and is proposing to concur with
the State's request to flag these data as caused by high wind events.
Thus our conclusion that the September 3, 2004 exceedance is not
significant for the attainment determination is still valid.
    Regarding the November 2005 exceedances at Bakersfield, EPA stated
in its determination of attainment that ``[e]ven if the Bakersfield-
Golden State Highway BAM and TEOM data are considered together (and
even if they were quality-assured data not subject to natural events),
the exceedances recorded at these monitors would not show that the area
is in violation of the standard.'' 71 FR at 63659. As discussed above,
EPA believes that the exceedances at Bakersfield in 2006 were due to
exceptional events and is proposing to concur with the State's request
to flag these data. Thus we still believe that the 2005 Bakersfield-
Golden exceedances, when considered for purposes of our 2006 attainment
determination, would not contribute to or constitute a violation.
    In the 2007 petition Earthjustice also raises questions about
exceedances recorded at the Santa Rosa Rancheria on September 14, 20
and October 26, 2006. PFW at 15-16. EPA addresses these exceedances in
section VI. above.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action merely proposes a determination based on air quality data and
does not impose any additional requirements. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this proposed rule does not impose any additional enforceable duty, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 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.'' Several Indian tribes have
reservations located within the boundaries of the SJV. EPA is aware of
only one tribe in the SJV that operates a PM-10 monitor, the Santa Rosa
Rancheria. EPA has consulted with representatives of the Santa Rosa
Rancheria Tribe on the data recorded by their monitor, and the flagging
of the data, and will continue to work with the Tribe, as provided for
in Executive Order 13175. Accordingly, EPA has addressed Executive
Order 13175 to the extent that it applies to this action. This proposed
action also does not have Federalism implications because it does 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This proposed action merely makes a determination based on air quality
data and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the CAA. Executive Order 12898
establishes a Federal policy for incorporating environmental justice
into Federal agency actions by directing agencies to identify and
address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority and low-income populations. Today's action
involves proposed determinations based on air quality considerations
and proposes to affirm that the San Joaquin area has attained the PM-10
NAAQS. It will not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on
any communities in the area, including minority and low-income
communities.
    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant. The requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: August 15, 2007.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. E7-16693 Filed 8-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32058-32061]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13335]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-1426; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-200-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 97-20-07,
for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series
airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively
called Model A300-600 series airplanes). AD 97-20-07 requires
repetitive inspections to detect fatigue cracking in the left and right
wings in the area where the top skin attaches to the center spar, and
repair or modification of this area if necessary. Since we issued AD
97-20-07, we have determined that the inspection compliance time and
repetitive inspection interval must be reduced to allow timely
detection of cracking in the left and right wings in the area where the
top skin attaches to the center spar. This proposed AD would reduce the
inspection compliance time and repetitive inspection intervals. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct this cracking, which could
reduce the residual strength of the top skin of the wings, and
consequently affect the structural integrity of the airframe.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 20, 2015.

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 W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

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-2015-
1426; or in person at the Docket Management Facility 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: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-1426;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-200-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

    On September 17, 1997, we issued AD 97-20-07, Amendment 39-10145
(62 FR 50251, September 25, 1997). AD 97-20-07 requires actions
intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
Since we issued AD 97-20-07, we have determined that the inspection
compliance time and repetitive inspection interval must be reduced to
allow timely detection of cracking in the left and right wings in the
area where the top skin attaches to the center spar.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0221, dated September 19, 2013 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-
605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series
airplanes). The MCAI states:

    During fatigue tests conducted in the early 1990's, cracks were
found on the top skin of the wing at the centre spar joint between
ribs 1 and 7.
    Consequently, Airbus developed production mod. 10089 and issued
Service Bulletin (SB) A300-57-6041, involving installation of a
reinforcing plate on the affected area. Despite this improvement,
subsequent cases of cracks were reported by operators.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could adversely
affect the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued SB
A300-57-6044 and DGAC [Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de
l'Aviation Civile] France issued AD 95-086-180 (later revised twice)
to require repetitive inspections of the affected area and,
depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective
action(s).
    Since [DGAC] AD 1995-086-180(B)R2 [which corresponds to FAA AD
97-20-07, Amendment 39-10145 (62 FR 50251, September 25, 1997)] was
issued, a fleet survey and updated Fatigue and Damage Tolerance
Analyses were performed in order to substantiate the second A300-600
Extended Service Goal (ESG2) exercise. The results of these analyses
have shown that the inspection thresholds and intervals must be
reduced to allow timely detection of these cracks and accomplishment
of an applicable corrective action.
    Prompted by these findings, Airbus issued SB A300-57-6044
Revision 04 [dated August 19, 2011].
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of DGAC France AD 1995-086-180(B)R2, which is
superseded, but requires the repetitive inspections to be
accomplished at reduced thresholds and intervals and, depending on
findings, corrective actions.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2015-1426.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04,
including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. The service information
describes procedures for inspections to detect fatigue cracking in the
left and right wings in the area where the top skin attaches to the
center spar, and repair or modification of this area. The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. 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 of this NPRM.

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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 47 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 97-20-07, Amendment 39-10145
(62 FR 50251, September 25, 1997), and retained in this proposed AD
take about 3 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85
per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the
actions that were required by AD 97-20-07 is $255 per product.
    We also estimate that it would take about 5 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $19,975, or $425
per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. 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)
97-20-07, Amendment 39-10145 (62 FR 50251, September 25, 1997), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-1426; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-
200-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 20, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 97-20-07, Amendment 39-10145 (62 FR 50251,
September 25, 1997).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers except those on which Airbus
Modification 10160 has been done in production.
    (1) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622
airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
    (3) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
    (4) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the inspection
compliance time and repetitive inspection interval must be reduced
to allow timely detection of cracking in the left and right wings in
the area where the top skin attaches to the center spar. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct this cracking, which could
reduce the residual strength of the top skin of the wings, and
consequently affect the structural integrity of the airframe.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions With Revised
Service information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD
97-20-07, Amendment 39-10145 (62 FR 50251, September 25, 1997), with
revised service information. For airplanes on which Airbus
Modification 10089 has not been installed: Prior to the accumulation
of 18,000 total landings, or within 1,500 landings after October 30,
1997 (the effective date of AD 97-20-07), whichever occurs later,
conduct either a detailed visual inspection or a high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) inspection to detect fatigue cracking in the left and
right wings in the area where the top skin attaches to the center
spar between ribs 1 and 7, in accordance with Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 02, dated September 6, 1995,
including Appendix 1; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044,
Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. As of the
effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-
6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011.
Accomplishment of the inspection required by paragraph (i) of this
AD terminates the inspection requirements of this paragraph.

    (1) If no cracking is detected, conduct repetitive inspections
thereafter at the following intervals:
    (i) If the immediately preceding inspection was conducted using
detailed visual techniques, conduct the next inspection within 5,000
landings.
    (ii) If the immediately preceding inspection was conducted using
HFEC techniques, conduct the next inspection within 9,500 landings.
    (2) If any cracking is detected or suspected during any detailed
visual inspection required by paragraph (g), (g)(1), or (g)(3)(i) of
this AD, prior to further flight, confirm this finding and the
length of this cracking by conducting an HFEC inspection, in
accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 02,
dated September 6, 1995, including Appendix 01; or Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated
August 19, 2011. As of the effective date of this AD, use only
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including
Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. If no cracking is confirmed
during the HFEC inspection, accomplish the repetitive inspection
required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD at the time specified in
that paragraph.
    (3) If any cracking is detected or confirmed during any HFEC
inspection required by paragraph (g), (g)(1), or (g)(2) of this AD:
    (i) If the cracking is 75 millimeters (mm) or less per rib bay,
prior to further flight, repair in accordance with Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 02, dated September 6, 1995,
including Appendix 01; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044,
Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. As of the
effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-
6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011.
Thereafter, conduct repetitive detailed visual inspections of the
repaired area at intervals not to exceed 50 landings, in accordance
with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 02, dated
September 6, 1995, including Appendix 01; or Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19,
2011. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated
August 19, 2011.
    (ii) If the cracking exceeds 75 mm per rib bay, prior to further
flight, install Airbus Modification 10089, in accordance with Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 02, dated September 6, 1995,
including Appendix 01; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044,
Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. As of the
effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-
6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011.
Thereafter, conduct a low frequency eddy current inspection in
accordance with the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-57-6044, Revision 02, dated September 6, 1995, including
Appendix 01 references Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6041,
Revision 04, dated November 16, 1995, as an additional source of
guidance for installing Airbus Modification 10089.

(h) Retained Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions for Certain
Airplanes with Revised Service Information and Repair Instructions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD
97-20-07, Amendment 39-10145 (62 FR 50251, September 25, 1997), with
revised service information and repair instructions. For airplanes
on which Airbus Modification 10089 has been installed: Prior to the
accumulation of 22,000 total landings after this modification has
been installed, or within 1,500 landings after October 30, 1997 (the
effective date of AD 97-20-07), whichever occurs later, conduct a
low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspection to detect fatigue
cracking in the inboard and rear edges of the top skin reinforcing
plates, in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044,
Revision 02, dated September 6, 1995, including Appendix 01; or
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including
Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. As of the effective date of this
AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04,
including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. Accomplishment of the
inspection required by paragraph (k) of this AD terminates the
inspection requirements of this paragraph.
    (1) If no cracking is detected, repeat this inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 11,000 landings.
    (2) If any cracking is detected, prior to further flight, repair
in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Standardization
Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. As of the
effective date of this AD, repair using a method approved by the
Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or
Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Thereafter, repeat
this inspection at intervals not to exceed 11,000 landings.

(i) New Requirement of This AD: Initial Inspections

    For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 10089 has not been
installed: At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and
(i)(2) of this AD, do either a detailed visual inspection or an HFEC
inspection to detect fatigue cracking in the left and right wings in
the area where the top skin attaches to the center spar between ribs
1 and 7, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including
Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011. Accomplishment of the inspection
required by this paragraph terminates the inspection requirements of
paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes whose flight time average is equal to or more
than 1.5 hours, at the later of the times specified in paragraphs
(i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 14,000 total flight cycles or
30,300 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 1,500 flight cycles or 3,200 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes whose flight time average is less than 1.5
hours, at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i)
and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 15,100 total flight cycles or
22,700 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 1,600 flight cycles or 2,500 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(j) New Requirement of This AD: Repetitive Inspections

    Repeat the inspections specified in paragraph (i) of this AD
thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraphs (j)(1)
and (j)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes whose flight time average is equal to or more
than 1.5 hours, at the applicable interval specified in paragraphs
(j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For a detailed inspection, at intervals not to exceed 3,900
flight cycles or 8,400 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) For an HFEC inspection, at intervals not to exceed 7,400
flight cycles or 16,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes whose flight time average is less than 1.5
hours at the applicable interval specified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i)
and (j)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For a detailed inspection, at intervals not to exceed 4,200
flight cycles or 6,300 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) For an HFEC inspection, at intervals not to exceed 8,000
flight cycles or 11,900 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(k) New Requirement of This AD: Initial Inspection for Certain
Airplanes

    For airplanes on which Airbus Modification 10089 has been
installed: At the applicable time specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and
(k)(2) of this AD, do an LFEC inspection to detect fatigue cracking
in the inboard and rear edges of the top skin reinforcing plates, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated
August 19, 2011. Accomplishment of the inspection required by this
paragraph terminates the inspection requirements of paragraph (h) of
this AD.
    (1) For airplanes whose flight time average is equal to or more
than 1.5 hours, at the later of the times specified in paragraphs
(k)(1)(i) and (k)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 17,000 total flight cycles or
37,100 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 1,500 flight cycles or 3,200 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes whose flight time average is less than 1.5
hours, at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (k)(2)(i)
and (k)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 18,500 total flight cycles or
27,800 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (ii) Within 1,600 flight cycles or 2,500 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

(l) New Requirement of This AD: Repetitive Inspections for Certain
Airplanes

    Repeat the inspection specified in paragraph (k) of this AD
thereafter at the applicable interval specified in paragraphs (l)(1)
and (l)(2) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes whose flight time average is equal to or more
than 1.5 hours, at intervals not to exceed 8,500 flight cycles or
18,500 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes whose flight time average is less than 1.5
hours, at intervals not to exceed 9,200 flight cycles or 13,700
flight hours, whichever occurs first.

(m) New Requirement of This AD: Corrective Actions

    (1) If any cracking is detected or suspected during any detailed
visual inspection required by paragraph (i) or (j) of this AD:
Before further flight, confirm this finding and the length of this
cracking by conducting an HFEC inspection, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044,
Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011, except as
specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. If no cracking is confirmed
during the HFEC inspection, accomplish the applicable repetitive
inspections required by paragraphs (j) and (l) of this AD at the
applicable time specified in those paragraphs.
    (2) If any cracking is found during any HFEC inspection required
by paragraph (i), (j), (k) or (l) of this AD: Before further flight,
do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (m)(2)(i) and
(m)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) If the cracking is 75 mm or less per each rib bay: Before
further flight, repair the cracking, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044,
Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011, except as
specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. Do repetitive detailed visual
inspections of the repaired area thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 50 flight cycles or 110 flight hours, whichever occurs first,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated
August 19, 2011. Within 250 flight cycles or 550 flight hours,
whichever occurs first after doing the temporary repair, do a
permanent repair of the repaired area, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044,
Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011.
    (ii) If the cracking exceeds 75 mm per any rib bay: Before
further flight, install Airbus Modification 10089, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including Appendix 01, dated August 19,
2011. Do an LFEC inspection thereafter at the intervals specified in
paragraph (l) of this AD.
    (3) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
this AD at fastener holes 1A, 1, or 2: Before further flight, repair
the cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04, including
Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011.

(n) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraphs (i) through (l) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 03, dated April 7, 1999, including
Appendix 01, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(o) Exception to Service Information Specification

    Although Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6044, Revision 04,
including Appendix 01, dated August 19, 2011, specifies to submit
information to Airbus, this AD does not require that submission.

(p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    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. 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, 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, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature.

(q) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0221, dated September 19,
2013, 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-2015-1426.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 19, 2015.
Dionne Palmero,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2015-13335 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Analysis for Part 55 Update for Alaska-

Finding of No SISNOSE Because No Adverse Impact- This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. It is not anticipated that small business entities will be owners or operators of sources of air pollution on the Outer Continental Shelf within 25 miles of the seaward boundary of the state of Alaska.  Additionally, this rule merely updates the Alaska regulations that are incorporated by reference into 40 C.F.R. Part 55 to reflect the current requirements of Alaska's air regulatory program that are potentially applicable to OCS sources. An older set of regulatory requirements, many of which are unchanged in this action, are already applicable to OCS sources. Finally, pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 328(a), EPA does not have discretion to alter the regulations that are proposed for incorporation by reference in this action.