RULE 803.	PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION             (Adopted 4/17/1997 and repealed 8/25/2016)

Repealed by the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Board on August 25, 2016.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5311-5313]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01088]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0099; Notice 1]

Tesla, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) has determined that certain Model Year
(MY) 2012-2020 Tesla motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays.
Tesla filed a noncompliance report dated September 24, 2020. Tesla
subsequently petitioned NHTSA on September 25, 2020, and later provided
supplemental information on October 23, 2020, for a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety. This notice announces receipt of Tesla's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before February 18, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the 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 comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Tesla has determined that certain MY 2012-2020 Tesla Model S, Tesla
Model X, Tesla Model 3, and Tesla Model Y motor vehicles do not fully
comply with the requirements of paragraph S5.2.1 (Table 1) of FMVSS No.
101, Controls and Displays (49 CFR 571.101). Tesla filed a
noncompliance report dated September 24, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Tesla subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on September 25, 2020 for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR
556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance. Tesla also
provided supplemental information related to the petition on October
23, 2020.
    This notice of receipt of Tesla's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Motor Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 612,065 MY 2012-2020 Tesla Model S, Tesla Model X,
Tesla Model 3, and Tesla Model Y motor vehicles, manufactured between
December 1, 2011, and August 31, 2020, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Tesla explains that the noncompliance is that the subject motor
vehicles are equipped with speedometers that can be switched by the
operator to display the vehicle's speed in units of either miles per
hour (MPH) or kilometers-per-hour (km/h) and therefore, do not meet the
requirements set forth in paragraph S5.2.1 and Table 1, Column 3 of
FMVSS No. 101.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S5.2.1 and Table 1, Column 3 of FMVSS No. 101 includes
the requirements relevant to this petition. Each passenger car,
multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, and bus that is fitted with a
control, a telltale, or an indicator listed in Table 1 or Table 2 of
FMVSS No. 101 must meet the requirements for the location,
identification, color, and illumination of that control, telltale, or
indicator. Each control, telltale, and indicator that is listed in
column 1 of Table 1 or Table 2 must be identified by the symbol
specified for it in column 2 or the word or abbreviation specified for
it in column 3 of Table 1 or Table 2. Specifically, the speedometer
must only allow the speed to be displayed in ``MPH, or MPH and km/h.''

V. Summary of Tesla's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Tesla's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
Tesla. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect
the views of the Agency. Tesla describes the subject noncompliance and
contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Tesla offers the following reasoning:
    1. All affected vehicles are originally configured to display speed
in mph and are delivered for first sale in the United States market in
a compliant state. Because distance is most commonly measured in the
United States in Imperial units (including mph), the majority of owners
will continue to operate their vehicle using the factory-configured
unit displayed (i.e., with the speed displayed in mph) and are unlikely
to ever attempt to change to metric units.
    2. Only through driver interaction within the display settings menu
can the unit of measurement be changed from miles to kilometers. This
change must be done intentionally and cannot be accomplished
inadvertently.
    3. When the display is set to kilometers, the indicated vehicle
speed in km/h is 1.6 times greater than the speed in mph. As a result,
if a vehicle operator changes the display to indicate km/h and later
forgets or neglects to change the display back to mph, they (or a
subsequent operator) would be more likely to travel at a slower speed
rather than a faster speed. Moreover, because the operator will be able
to easily recognize that the vehicle is moving at a lower speed than
intended, they will likely adjust their vehicle speed to match road and
traffic conditions.
    4. If the vehicle operator has set the display to kilometers, all
functions relying on, or otherwise tied to, the speed limit (e.g.,
Traffic Aware Cruise Control and Speed Assist) will convert mapped data
from mph to km/h, resulting in the vehicle speed automatically matching
the appropriate speed limit even though the display is km/h.
    5. If the vehicle operator needs to change the display back from
km/h to mph, the method for doing so can be easily located in the
display menu and is not buried in sub-menus.
    6. If the operator nevertheless has difficulty finding the menu to
change the unit setting within the center display, instructions are
available in the Owner's Manual. For example, in the chapter on
Controls in the Model 3 Owner's Manual, there are instructions on how
to navigate the menu and an explanation that within the ``Display''
menu, there is a ``Distance'' toggle that allows operators to ``Choose
to display miles or kilometers for range, speed, energy, trip meters,
map searches, and navigation routes.''
    7. On September 1, 2020, factory firmware release 2<IP_ADDRESS> was
introduced in production, updating the speedometer units to display km/
h and mph when the display distance is set to kilometers. The change
was also included in firmware release 2020.36.11, which began rolling
out to field vehicles on or about September 16, 2020, so all vehicles
accepting the update (and future updates) will receive compliant
speedometer units. Tesla expects a majority of vehicles will have the
update completed within a few weeks and expects nearly all vehicles to
have completed the update within 6 months.
    8. To date, Tesla has not received any reports of loss of control,
collision, injury or fatality, property damage, or fire related to this
issue.
    9. Finally, Tesla notes that NHTSA has recently granted two
petitions for inconsequential treatment involving speedometer unit
display noncompliances, both of which involved a km/h display that did
not also display mph. See, e.g., Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 85 FR
39675 (July 1, 2020); BMW of North America, LLC, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 80 FR 61884 (Oct. 14, 2015).
Because this issue is identical to the noncompliances in those cases,
NHTSA should grant this petition for the same reasons.
    10. In Tesla's supplemental materials they stated that the display
setting has been corrected in production, as of September 1, 2020.
Tesla states that more than 75 percent of the affected U.S. vehicles
have accepted the firmware update released on September 16, 2020.
    Tesla concludes by again contending that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and

30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Tesla no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Tesla
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-01088 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 71721]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25153]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-43-000]

Portal Ridge Solar B, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Portal Ridge Solar B, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 31, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 11, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-25153 Filed 10-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1468-1469]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00418]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2015-68]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; U.S. Coast
Guard Air Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before February 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-6462
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keira Jones<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 7, 2016.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-6462.
    Petitioner: U.S. Coast Guard Air Operations.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 91.155(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: The U.S. Coast Guard Air Operations
seeks relief to operate an aircraft under visual flight rules (VFR)
when the flight visibility is less, or at a distance from clouds that
is less, than that prescribed for the corresponding altitude and class
of airspace. U.S. Coast Guard Air Operations seeks this relief for the
purpose of carrying out the U.S. Coast Guard's statutory
responsibilities for search and rescue missions.

[FR Doc. 2016-00418 Filed 1-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


E [C]/R Incorporated
                  Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

MEMORANDUM

DATE:		February 16, 2011

TO:		Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

FROM:	Tanya Parise, EC/R, Inc.

SUBJECT:	Summary of the February 7, 2011 Meeting with API Regarding Requirements in the RICE NESHAP

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

INTRODUCTION

      A meeting was held between EPA and the American Petroleum Institute (API) to follow-up on earlier meetings and issues related to the current requirements for stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ.  Summaries of the previous meetings between EPA and API are available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0693, 0696, and 0743).

ATTENDEES

Michael Horowitz, EPA
Kyle Jantzen, Exterran
Bob Wayland, EPA
Michael McBride, Van Ness Feldman
Melanie King, EPA (by phone)
Jenny Yang, Marathon
Peter Westlin, EPA (by phone)
Dan Regan, INGAA
Colin Boswell, EPA (by phone)
Jeff Panek, IES (by phone)
Barrett Parker, EPA (by phone)
Jim McCarthy, IES (by phone)
Tanya Parise, EC/R (by phone)
Ellen Collins, Chevron (by phone)
Matt Todd, API
Clay Freeberg, Chevron (by phone)
John Wagner, API
Janet Bounds, Chevron (by phone)
Jeff Adams, BP
Rebecca Rentz, Bracewell & Giuliani (by phone)
Bill Wehrum, Hunton & Williams
Tom Monohan, ExxonMobil (by phone)
Joshua Epel, DCP Midstream

Bill Grygar, Anadarko

SUMMARY OF MEETING

	Prior to the meeting, EPA provided draft regulatory language concerning revisions to the continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) requirements currently in 40 CFR part 63, subpart ZZZZ.  During the meeting, API raised two concerns with the draft CPMS regulatory language.  First, API was concerned with the term "approved" as it appeared in 63.6625(b)(2) of the draft language, which read as follows:

"You must install, operate, and maintain each CPMS in continuous operation according to the procedures in your approved site-specific monitoring plan."

In API's opinion, the term "approved" might be extraneous and could cause confusion, and API therefore recommended that the term not be included in the rule.  Secondly, API recommended that EPA include a brief paragraph in the preamble explaining how the hour averages should be reduced and calculated in order to demonstrate compliance.

	Regarding the current requirements for stationary engines located at area sources, API reiterated from prior meetings that EPA consider providing regulatory alternatives.  EPA asked API to provide specific recommendations for alternative provisions and flexibility for area source engines.  API indicated that it would provide various alternatives for EPA to consider.  EPA and API plan to meet again to discuss the specific suggestions that API will provide for area source engines.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 183 (Monday, September 21, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59217-59220]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20631]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0847; Product Identifier 2018-SW-087-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus 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 Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2,
AS350B3, and AS350D helicopters; Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1,
AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters; and Model EC130 B4 and EC130
T2 helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of a missing
retaining ring of the inner race of the main rotor mast (MRM) upper
bearing. This proposed AD would require a one-time inspection to verify
the presence and correct installation of the MRM upper bearing
retaining rings, a repetitive inspection of the sealant bead on the MRM
for damage, and corrective actions if necessary. 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 November 5,
2020.

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 above 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; telephone
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.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0847; 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 Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI),
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Franke, Aviation Safety
Engineer, International Validation Branch, General Aviation &
Rotorcraft Unit, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0847;
Product Identifier 2018-SW-087-AD'' 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 NPRM 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 FAA 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 Scott Franke, Aviation Safety
Engineer, International Validation Branch, General Aviation &
Rotorcraft Unit, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177;
telephone<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.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation
Safety Agency) (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2018-0206, dated
September 20, 2018 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B, AS350BA,
AS350BB, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, and AS350D helicopters; Model
AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters; and
Model EC130 B4 and EC130 T2 helicopters. Model AS355BB helicopters are
not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type
certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include
those helicopters in the applicability. EASA advises that during a
scheduled inspection on an Airbus Helicopters Model AS350B3 helicopter,
one of the two retaining rings of the inner race of the MRM upper
bearing was found missing. These two retaining rings ensure that the
inner race is correctly positioned with respect to the rollers, and, if
one or both of these retaining rings are missing, it can lead to an
unlimited shift of the inner race and compromise the function of the
MRM upper bearing. This condition, if not detected and corrected, can
lead to damage to the MRM and surrounding elements, possibly resulting
in loss of control of the helicopter.
    Airbus Helicopters developed an inspection to check that the upper
and lower retaining rings of the inner race of the MRM upper bearing
are present and correctly installed. EASA determined that the same
condition may exist or develop on Airbus Helicopters Model AS350
helicopters, Model AS355 helicopters, and Model EC130 helicopters
because they share a similar design and supply chain. Until the check
of the upper and lower bearing retaining rings is accomplished, EASA
specifies that repetitive inspections of the MRM upper bearing sealant
bead (sealant bead) should be accomplished to ensure the MRM remains
serviceable. EASA considers the actions specified in the MCAI an
interim measure pending further investigation results, and notes that
further AD action may follow.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0847.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus Helicopters has issued the following service information.
     Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS350-62.00.42,
Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018.
     Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS355-62.00.37,
Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018.
     Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC130-62A017,
Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018.
    This service information describes procedures for a one-time
inspection to verify presence and correct installation of the MRM upper
bearing retaining rings, a repetitive inspection of the sealant bead on
the MRM for damage, and corrective actions. Damage of the sealant bead
includes flaws, cracks, folds, separation, or absence of the sealant
bead. Corrective actions include repair and replacement. These
documents are distinct since they apply to different helicopter models.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI.''

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    Although the MCAI specifies accomplishing the inspection of the
installation of the MRM upper bearing inner race retaining rings within
660 hours time in service (TIS) or 24 months, whichever occurs first,
the FAA has determined that interval would not address the identified
unsafe condition soon enough to ensure an adequate level of safety for
the affected fleet. In developing an appropriate compliance time for
this AD, the FAA considered the degree of urgency associated with the
subject unsafe condition and the manufacturer's recommendation. In
light of all of these factors, the FAA finds that a compliance time of
within 660 hours TIS or 6 months, whichever occurs first, represents an
appropriate interval of time for affected helicopters to continue to
operate without compromising safety.
    Although paragraph (5) of the MCAI specifies that operators may
contact the manufacturer for instructions if there are signs of
degradation on the MRM inner race, paragraph (i)(3) of this proposed AD
would require operators to repair or replace the MRM if there is any
degradation as indicated by damage to the retaining rings (including
but not limited to cracks, scratches, and gouges), deterioration, or
wear.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 1,212 helicopters
of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Labor cost                   Parts cost         Cost per product         Cost on U.S.  operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 30 work-hours x $85 per hour = Up               $0  Up to $2,550..............  Up to $3,090,600.
 to $2,550.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost                 Parts cost       Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 80 work-hours x $85 per     Up to $33,124.....  Up to $39,924.
 hour = Up to $6,800.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2020-0847; Product Identifier
2018-SW-087-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by November 5, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters, certificated in any
category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD.
    (1) Model AS350B, AS350BA, AS350B1, AS350B2, AS350B3, and AS350D
helicopters.
    (2) Model AS355E, AS355F, AS355F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP
helicopters.
    (3) Model EC130 B4 and EC130 T2 helicopters.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code 6230, Main Rotor
Mast Inner Race Rings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a missing retaining ring of
the inner race of the main rotor mast (MRM) upper bearing. The FAA
is issuing this AD to address this condition, which, if not detected
and corrected, can lead to damage to the MRM and surrounding
elements, possibly resulting in loss of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    (1) For the purposes of this AD, an affected part is any MRM
having part number (P/N) 350A37-1290-XX (where XX can be any
numerical combination) and a serial number as listed in Airbus
Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS350-62.00.42, Revision 0, dated
September 17, 2018; Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS355-
62.00.37, Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018; or Airbus
Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC130-62A017, Revision 0, dated
September 17, 2018, as applicable to your model helicopter, unless
the upper bearing inner race retaining rings are verified to be
installed correctly as specified in the inspection required in
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
    (2) For the purposes of this AD, a Group 1 helicopter is one on
which an affected part is installed.
    (3) For the purposes of this AD, a Group 2 helicopter is one on
which an affected part is not installed.

(h) MRM Upper Sealant Bead Inspection

    (1) For Group 1 helicopters, within the compliance time
specified in Figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD, and, thereafter,
at intervals not to exceed 165 hours time-in-service (TIS): Inspect
the MRM upper bearing sealant bead for damage in accordance with
section 3.B.2.a of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS350-62.00.42, Revision 0, dated
September 17, 2018; Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS355-
62.00.37, Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018; or Airbus
Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin EC130-62A017, Revision 0, dated
September 17, 2018, as applicable to your model helicopter, except
you are not required to discard the plastic clamps (Item vv). For
the purposes of this inspection, damage may be indicated by flaws,
cracks, folds, separation, or absence of the sealant bead.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21SE20.001

    Note 1 to paragraph (h)(1):  Unless specified otherwise, the
hours TIS specified in figure 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD are
those accumulated on the effective date of this AD by the helicopter
since first flight.

    (2) If, during any inspection of the MRM upper bearing sealant
bead as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, there is damage,
before further flight, inspect the installation of the MRM upper
bearing inner race retaining rings for discrepancies in accordance
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

(i) MRM Inner Race Retaining Rings Inspection

    (1) For Group 1 Helicopters: Within 660 hours TIS or 6 months,
whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD: Inspect
the installation of the MRM upper bearing inner race retaining rings
for discrepancies in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of section 3.B.2.b of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin
AS350-62.00.42, Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018; Airbus
Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS355-62.00.37, Revision 0, dated
September 17, 2018; or Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin
EC130-62A017, Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018, as applicable to
your model helicopter, except you are not required to discard the
plastic clamps (Item vv). For the purposes of this inspection,
discrepancies may be indicated by incorrect positioning or missing
rings.
    (2) If, during the inspection by paragraphs (i)(1) of this AD
there are any discrepancies, before further flight, remove the
affected part, inspect the MRM inner race for degradation, and
replace the retaining rings in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of section 3.B.2.c of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service
Bulletin AS350-62.00.42, Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018;
Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin AS355-62.00.37, Revision
0, dated September 17, 2018; or Airbus Helicopters Alert Service
Bulletin EC130-62A017, Revision 0, dated September 17, 2018, as
applicable to you model helicopter, except you are not required to
return parts to Airbus Helicopters. For the purposes of this
inspection, degradation is indicated by damage to the retaining
rings (including but not limited to cracks, scratches, and gouges),
deterioration, or wear.
    (3) If, during the inspection of the MRM inner race, as required
by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, there is any degradation, before
next flight, repair or replace the MRM.

(j) Terminating Action

    Verification on a helicopter of correct installation of the MRM
upper bearing inner race retaining rings, as required by paragraph
(i)(1) of this AD, or corrective action on a helicopter, as
specified in paragraphs (h)(2), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as
applicable, constitute terminating action for the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD for that
helicopter.

(k) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on
any helicopter, an affected part as identified in paragraph (g)(1)
of this AD.

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Scott Franke,
Aviation Safety Engineer, International Validation Branch, General
Aviation & Rotorcraft Unit, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth,
TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, notify your
principal inspector or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of
the local flight standards district office or certificate holding
district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this
AD through an AMOC.

(m) Related Information

    (1) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD
2018-0206, dated September 20, 2018. This EASA AD may be found in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0847.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> 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.

    Issued on September 15, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-20631 Filed 9-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45733-45735]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18625]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0798; FRL-9914-79-OAR]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Mississippi:
New Source Review (NSR)-Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve portions of a revision to the Mississippi State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Mississippi, through the
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), on February 10,
2012. The SIP revision modifies Mississippi's New Source Review (NSR)
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to incorporate by
reference (IBR) certain Federal PSD regulations. EPA is proposing to
approve these portions of Mississippi's SIP revision because the Agency
has preliminarily determined that they are consistent with the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's NSR permitting regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 5, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0798 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0798, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0798.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the
Mississippi SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bradley's telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
III. What is EPA's analysis of Mississippi's SIP revision?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    On February 10, 2012, MDEQ submitted a SIP revision to EPA for
approval into the Mississippi SIP that includes changes to the State's
Air Quality Regulations in Air Pollution Control, Section 5 (APC-S-5)--
Regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air
Quality. These rule changes were provided to comply with Federal NSR
PSD permitting requirements. The February 10, 2012, SIP submission
updates the IBR \1\ date in APC-S-5 to November 4, 2011, for the
Federal PSD permitting regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 and portions of
51.166 to include PSD provisions promulgated in the carbon dioxide
(CO2) Biomass Deferral Rule,\2\ PM10 Surrogate
and Grandfather Policy Repeal,\3\ and Reasonable Possibility Rule.\4\
EPA is not proposing to approve the portion of Mississippi's SIP
submission that IBR the July 20, 2011 CO2 Biomass Deferral
Rule because the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (D.C.

Circuit) issued a decision on July 12, 2013, in Center for Biological
Diversity v. EPA, 722 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013) to vacate the rule.
Today, EPA is proposing to approve only the portions of Mississippi's
February 10, 2012, SIP revision addressing the Reasonable Possibility
Rule and the PM10 Surrogate and Grandfather Policy Repeal
Rule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Throughout this rulemaking the acronym IBR means
``incorporate by reference'' or ``incorporates by reference.''
    \2\ ``Deferral for CO2 Emissions From Bioenergy and
Other Biogenic Sources Under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Programs,'' Final Rule, 76 FR 43490,
(July 20, 2011) (hereinafter referred to as the CO2
Biomass Deferral Rule).
    \3\ Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5);
Final Rule to Repeal Grandfather Provision'' Final Rule, 76 FR
28646, (May 18, 2011) (hereinafter referred to as the
PM10 Surrogate and Grandfather Policy Repeal).
    \4\ ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment
New Source Review: Reasonable Possibility in Recordkeeping'' Final
Rule, 72 FR 72607, (December 21, 2007) (hereinafter referred to as
the Reasonable Possibility Rule).
    \5\ Mississippi's February 10, 2012, SIP submission only
addresses the adoption of the three PSD permitting regulations
discussed above that the State requested for inclusion into the SIP.
Any previous SIP revisions submitted by MDEQ that adopted other PSD
permitting provisions captured in 40 CFR 52.21 as of November 4,
2011, were addressed by EPA in separate actions and are not relevant
to the State's February 10, 2012, submission or to today's proposed
approval into the SIP of the Reasonable Possibility Rule and the
PM10 Surrogate and Grandfather Policy Repeal Rule PSD
permitting provisions discussed in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

    Today's proposed action to revise the Mississippi SIP relates to
PSD provisions promulgated in the PM10 Surrogate and
Grandfather Policy Repeal and the Reasonable Possibility Rule. More
details regarding these rules are found in the respective final
rulemakings and are summarized below.

A. Reasonable Possibility Rule

    On June 24, 2005, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision on the
challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform Rules including reasonable
possibility. New York v. U.S. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005).\6\ For
additional information on the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, see 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002) and http://www.epa.gov/nsr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule
changes to 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 regarding the CAA's PSD and
nonattainment new source review programs. On November 7, 2003 (68 FR
63021), EPA published a notice of final action on the
reconsideration of the December 31, 2002, final rule changes. The
December 31, 2002, and the November 7, 2003, final actions are
collectively referred to as the ``2002 NSR Reform Rules.'' After the
2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective (March 3, 2003),
industry, state, and environmental petitioners challenged numerous
aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of EPA's
1980 NSR Rules, 45 FR 52676 (August 7, 1980). In summary, the D.C.
Circuit vacated portions of the rules pertaining to clean units and
PCPs, remanded a portion of the rules regarding recordkeeping and
the term ``reasonable possibility'' found in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and
40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and 51.166(r)(6), and either upheld or did not
comment on the other provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR
Reform Rules. On June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32526), EPA took final action
to revise the 2002 NSR Reform Rules to remove from Federal law all
provisions pertaining to clean units and the PCPs exemption that
were vacated by the DC Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the D.C. Circuit remanded a portion of the rules
regarding recordkeeping and the term ``reasonable possibility'' found
in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(6) and 51.166(r)(6)
requiring that EPA either provide an acceptable explanation for its
``reasonable possibility'' standard or devise an appropriate
alternative. In response to the court's decision, EPA took final action
on December 21, 2007, to clarify that a ``reasonable possibility''
applies where source emissions equal or exceed 50 percent of the CAA
NSR significance levels for any pollutant. See 72 FR 72607. The
``reasonable possibility'' provision identifies for sources and
reviewing authorities the circumstances under which a major stationary
source undergoing a modification that does not trigger major NSR must
keep records. EPA's December 21, 2007, final rule on the record-keeping
and reporting provisions also explains state obligations with regard to
the reasonable possibility related rule changes.\7\ See 72 FR 72607 at
72613-14. The final rule gave states and local permitting authorities
three years from publication to submit revisions to incorporate the
reasonable possibility provisions or to submit notice to EPA that their
regulations fulfill these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On January 14, 2009, EPA denied a petition by the State of
New Jersey (submitted February 15, 2008) for reconsideration and
stay of the December 21, 2007, final rule for ``reasonable
possibility.'' However, on March 11, 2009, New Jersey reiterated its
request for reconsideration, which EPA granted on April 24, 2009.
EPA has not taken action on the reconsideration; therefore, the
current recordkeeping rules established in the December 21, 2007,
final rule are approvable. See http://www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html#2009 under Denial of Petitions to Reconsider Aspects of
the PM2.5 NSR Requirements and Reasonable Possibility Rule for
additional information on the New Jersey petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MDEQ adopted the NSR Reform rules in the SIP on July 28, 2005,
however, MDEQ did not incorporate the ``reasonable possibility''
provision at that time due to the remand. In its 2005 PSD regulations
at APC-S-5 (2.6), MDEQ excluded the following phrase from its IBR of 40
CFR 52.21: ``in circumstances where there is a reasonable possibility,
within the meaning of paragraph (r)(6)(vi) of 40 CFR 52.21, that a
project that is not a part of a major modification may result in a
significant emissions increase.'' On July 10, 2006, EPA published the
final rulemaking approving Mississippi's SIP revision adopting the NSR
Reform Rule. See 71 FR 38773. In the approval, EPA acknowledged
Mississippi's rule did not contain the reasonable possibility language
that was included in the remand and stated, ``EPA continues to move
forward with its evaluation of the portion of its NSR reform rules that
were remanded by the D.C. Circuit and is preparing to respond to the
D.C. Circuit's remand. EPA's final decision with regard to the remand
may require EPA to take further action on this portion of Mississippi's
rules.''

B. PM10 Surrogate and Grandfather Policy Repeal

    In the NSR PM2.5 Rule,\8\ EPA finalized regulations to
establish the framework for implementing preconstruction permit review
for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment and nonattainment
areas. This rule included a grandfather provision that allowed PSD
applicants that submitted their complete permit application prior to
the July 15, 2008, effective date of the NSR PM2.5 Rule to
continue to rely on the 1997 PM10 Surrogate Policy rather
than amend their application to demonstrate compliance directly with
the new PM2.5 requirements. See 73 FR 28321. On May 12,
2011, Mississippi submitted a SIP revision that excluded the
PM10 surrogate grandfathering provision at 40 CFR
52.21(i)(1)(xi) from the state's PSD regulations. EPA approved portions
of Mississippi's May 12, 2011, SIP revision on September 26, 2012 (77
FR 59095). On May 18, 2011, EPA took final action to repeal the
PM2.5 grandfathering provision at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi).
See 76 FR 28646.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This rulemaking established regulations to implement the NSR
program for the PM2.5 NAAQS on May 16, 2008. See 73 FR
28321. As a result of EPA's final NSR PM2.5 Rule, states
were required to submit SIP revisions to EPA no later than May 16,
2011, to address these requirements for both the PSD and NNSR
programs. On May 12, 2011, Mississippi submitted a SIP revision to
IBR the NSR PM2.5 Rule into the state's SIP at APC-S-5.
EPA approved portions of the NSR PM2.5 rule into the
Mississippi SIP PSD program on September 26, 2012. See 77 FR 59095.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's analysis of Mississippi's SIP revision?

    MDEQ's PSD preconstruction rules are found at Mississippi Rule APC-
S-5-Regulations for Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Air
Quality and apply to major stationary sources or modifications
constructed in areas designated attainment areas or unclassifiable/
attainment areas as required under part C of title I of the CAA with
respect to the NAAQS. MDEQ's February 10, 2012, SIP submittal updates
the IBR date in APC-S-5 to November 4, 2011, for the Federal PSD
permitting regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 to include the Federal PSD
permitting updates promulgated in the CO2 Biomass Deferral
Rule, the Reasonable Possibility Rule, and the PM10
Surrogate and Grandfather Policy Repeal. EPA is proposing to approve
the updates only as they relate to the Reasonable Possibility Rule and
the PM10 Surrogate and Grandfather Policy

Repeal. EPA is not proposing to approve the portion of Mississippi's
February 10, 2012, SIP submission that IBR the CO2 Biomass
Deferral Rule at APC-S-5 as a result of the July 12, 2013, court
decision identified above. EPA may address this portion of
Mississippi's SIP submission in a separate rulemaking.
    Regarding reasonable possibility, the February 10, 2012, SIP
revision removes the reasonable possibility exclusion at APC-S-5(2.6)
and IBR EPA's December 21, 2007, revised definition of reasonable
possibility into its SIP.
    Mississippi's February 10, 2012, SIP revision also adopts the
repeal of the PM2.5 Grandfathering Provision. Mississippi's
February 10, 2012, SIP submittal incorporates into the Mississippi SIP
the version of 40 CFR 52.21 as of November 4, 2011, which includes the
May 18, 2011, repeal of the grandfather provision. Thus, the language
previously approved into Mississippi SIP at APC-S-5(2.7) that excludes
the grandfathering provision is no longer necessary. Mississippi's
February 10, 2012, SIP submittal removes the unnecessary language
pertaining to the grandfather provision from APC-S-5.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve portions of Mississippi's February 10,
2012, SIP submission that update the IBR date in APC-S-5 to November 4,
2011, for the Federal PSD permitting regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 to
include the Reasonable Possibility Rule and the PM10
Surrogate and Grandfather Policy Repeal. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that these portions of the SIP revision are approvable
because they are consistent with section 110 of the CAA and EPA PSD
permitting regulations.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     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);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 F43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 28, 2014.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014-18625 Filed 8-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26692-26694]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11936]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2019-0002]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those
buildings.

DATES: The date of October 18, 2019 has been established for the FIRM
and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov by the date indicated above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations

listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each
community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in
newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that
publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and
Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at https://msc.fema.gov.
    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds
and/or communities listed in the table below.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Hamilton County, Indiana and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1828
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Noblesville....................  Planning Department, 16 South
                                          10th Street, Suite 150,
                                          Noblesville, IN 46060.
Town of Cicero.........................  Utilities Office, 150 West
                                          Jackson Street, Cicero, IN
                                          46034.
Unincorporated Areas of Hamilton County  Hamilton County Planning
                                          Commission, One Hamilton
                                          County Square, Noblesville, IN
                                          46060.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Perry County, Indiana and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1828
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Cannelton......................  City Hall, 610 Washington
                                          Street, Suite 120, Cannelton,
                                          Indiana 47520.
City of Tell City......................  City Hall, 700 Main Street,
                                          Tell City, Indiana 47586.
Unincorporated Areas of Perry County...  Perry County Parks and
                                          Recreation, 65 Park Avenue,
                                          Tell City, Indiana 47586.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Lamar County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1835
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Lamar County...  Lamar County Planning
                                          Department, 144 Shelby
                                          Speights Drive, Purvis, MS
                                          39475.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Marion County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1835
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Columbia.......................  City Hall, 201 2nd Street,
                                          Columbia, MS 39429.
Unincorporated Areas of Marion County..  E911 Dispatch Center, 217 Broad
                                          Street, Columbia, MS 39429.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Walthall County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1835
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Walthall County  Walthall County Courthouse, 200
                                          Ball Avenue, Suite B,
                                          Tylertown, MS 39667.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Lincoln County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1716
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Depoe Bay......................  City Hall, 570 Southeast Shell
                                          Avenue, Depoe Bay, OR 97341.
City of Lincoln City...................  City Hall, 801 Southwest
                                          Highway 101, Lincoln City, OR
                                          97367.
City of Newport........................  City Hall, 169 Southwest Coast
                                          Highway, Newport, OR 97365.
City of Siletz.........................  City Hall, 215 West Buford
                                          Avenue, Siletz, OR 97380.
City of Toledo.........................  City Hall, 206 North Main
                                          Street, Toledo, OR 97391.
City of Waldport.......................  City Hall, 125 Alsea Highway,
                                          Waldport, OR 97394.
City of Yachats........................  City Hall, 441 North Highway
                                          101, Yachats, OR 97498.
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians..  Administration Building, 201
                                          Southeast Swan Avenue, Siletz,
                                          OR 97380.
Unincorporated Areas of Lincoln County.  Lincoln County Planning
                                          Department, 210 Southwest 2nd
                                          Street, Newport, OR 97365.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Marion County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1828
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Salem..........................  555 Liberty Street Southeast,
                                          Room 325, Salem, OR 97301.
City of Turner.........................  7250 3rd Street, Turner, OR
                                          97392.
Unincorporated Areas of Marion County..  3150 Lancaster Drive Northeast,
                                          Salem, OR 97305.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Jasper County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1749
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Hardeeville....................  City Hall, 205 Main Street,
                                          Hardeeville, SC 29927.
Town of Ridgeland......................  Town Hall, 1 Town Square,
                                          Ridgeland, SC 29936.
Unincorporated Areas of Jasper County..  Jasper County Planning and
                                          Building Services, 358 3rd
                                          Avenue, Room 202, Ridgeland,
                                          SC 29936.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Austin County, Texas and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1753
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bellville......................  City Hall, 30 South Holland
                                          Street, Bellville, TX 77418.
City of Industry.......................  City Hall, 725 Main Street,
                                          Industry, TX 78944.
City of Sealy..........................  Planning and Public Works
                                          Building, 405 Main Street,
                                          Sealy, TX 77474.
Town of San Felipe.....................  Town Hall, 927 6th Street, San
                                          Felipe, TX 77473.
Unincorporated Areas of Austin County..  Austin County Courthouse, 1
                                          East Main Street, Bellville,
                                          TX 77418.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-11936 Filed 6-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34831-34833]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14852]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0577; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-042-AD;
Amendment 39-18184; AD 2015-12-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
(Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) (Airbus Helicopters)

July 6, 2015
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus
Helicopters Model EC135P1, EC135T1, EC135P2, EC135T2, EC135P2+,
EC135T2+, and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. This AD requires inspecting
certain washers for movement and making appropriate repairs if the
washers move. This AD was prompted by play found between the Smart
Electro Mechanical Actuator (SEMA) and the control rod during
installation work on a helicopter. The actions of this AD are intended
to prevent loss of concerned control axis and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD is effective July 23, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of July 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information,
the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office,
M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On August 18, 2014, at 79 FR 48707, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters
Model EC135P1, EC135T1, EC135P2, EC135T2, EC135P2+, EC135T2+, and MBB-
BK 117 C-2 helicopters. The NPRM proposed to require inspecting certain
washers for movement in the attachment hardware that connects the SEMA
and the control rod of the longitudinal, lateral, and yaw actuators. If
a washer can be moved, the NPRM proposed replacing the four screws,
installing two additional washers, and torque-tightening the screws.
The proposed requirements were intended to prevent loss of concerned
control axis

and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
    The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2013-0176, dated August 7, 2013,
issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for Eurocopter
Deutschland GmbH Model EC 135 P1 (CDS), EC 135 P1 (CPDS), EC 135 P2+,
EC 135 P2 (CPDS), EC 135 T1 (CDS), EC 135 T1 (CPDS), EC 135 T2+, EC 135
T2 (CPDS), EC 635 P2+, EC 635 T1 (CPDS), EC 635 T2+, and MBB-BK 117 C-2
helicopters. EASA advises that during installation work on a
helicopter, it was discovered that it was not possible to install
attachment hardware on a threaded blind borehole between the SEMA and
the control rod without play. EASA advises that this condition, if not
detected and corrected, could lead to loss of the concerned control
axis, possibly resulting in loss of helicopter control. For these
reasons, EASA AD No. 2013-0176 requires a one-time inspection of the
affected SEMA attachment hardware to detect improper connection and
play and, depending on the findings, replacement of the affected
hardware. After the issuance of EASA AD No. 2013-0176, Eurocopter
Deutschland GmbH changed its name to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland
GmbH.

Comments

    After our NPRM (79 FR 48707, August 18, 2014) was published, we
received comments from one commenter.

Request

    Air Methods stated that the proposed AD requires compliance with
Revision 1 of the service information and requested that previous
compliance with the original service information, Revision 0, be
included as an acceptable method of compliance in the AD.
    We agree. We have added a paragraph to the AD giving credit for
previous compliance with Revision 0 of the service information.

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 our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by EASA, reviewed the relevant information,
considered the comment received, and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these
same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require
adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD applies to Eurocopter Model EC635P2+, EC635T1 and
EC635T2+ helicopters. This AD does not apply to these model helicopters
because they have no FAA type certificate.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Eurocopter reported in Alert Service Bulletins (ASBs) EC135-22A-
015, Revision 1, dated January 28, 2013, and MBB BK117 C-2-22A-009,
Revision 1, dated August 3, 2009, that it was discovered during the
installation work on a helicopter that it was not possible to establish
attachment hardware on a threaded blind borehole between the SEMA and
the control rod without play. The ASBs state that ``unfavourable adding
of the tolerances'' of the individual attachment hardware elements
caused the screw to push against the bottom of the threaded blind
borehole on the SEMA, preventing any clamping force on the screw head.
The ASBs call for inspecting the SEMA attachment hardware connected to
their respective control rods for play and making the proper
adjustments to eliminate any play.
    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
AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 385 helicopters of U.S. Registry
and that labor costs average $85 per work hour. Based on these
estimates, we expect the following costs:
     Inspecting for movement of the washers requires 1.5 work
hours for a labor cost of $128 per helicopter and $49,280 for the U.S.
fleet.
     Replacing the screws and related work requires an
additional 0.5 work-hours for a labor cost of $43. Screws cost $4 each
while washers cost $10 each. We estimate the cost at $79 per repair.

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 helicopters identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866;
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2015-12-09 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) (Airbus Helicopters): Amendment 39-
18184; Docket No. FAA-2014-0577; Directorate Identifier 2013-SW-042-
AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model EC135P1, EC135T1,
EC135P2, EC135T2, EC135P2+, EC135T2+, and MBB-BK 117 C-2
helicopters, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as loose attachment
hardware between the Smart Electro Mechanical Actuator (SEMA) and a
control rod. This condition could result in loss of the control axis
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective July 23, 2015.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 50 hours time in service (TIS), for Model EC135P1,
EC135T1, EC135P2, EC135T2, EC135P2+, and EC135T2+ helicopters, do
the following:
    (i) Using Figure 1 and Figure 2 of Eurocopter Alert Service
Bulletin EC135-22A-015, Revision 1, dated January 28, 2013 (ASB
EC135-22A-015) as reference, inspect the attachment hardware between
the SEMA and the longitudinal actuator control rod to determine
whether any of the washers can be moved.
    (A) If no washer can be moved, no further action is needed.
    (B) If a washer can be moved, replace the four screws and
install two additional washers, part number (P/N) EN2139-05016, to
connect the SEMA with the control rod. Torque-tighten each screw to
5-6 Nm.
    (ii) Using Figure 1 and Figure 2 of ASB EC135-22A-015 as
reference, inspect the attachment hardware between the SEMA and the
lateral actuator control rod to determine whether any of the washers
can be moved.
    (A) If no washer can be moved, no further action is needed.
    (B) If a washer can be moved, replace the four screws and
install two additional washers, P/N EN2139-05016, to connect the
SEMA with the control rod. Torque-tighten each screw to 5-6 Nm.
    (iii) Using Figure 1, Figure 3, and Figure 4 of ASB EC135-22A-
015 as reference, inspect the attachment hardware between the SEMA
and the yaw actuator control rod to determine whether any of the
washers can be moved.
    (A) If no washer can be moved, no further action is needed.
    (B) If a washer can be moved, replace the four screws and
install two additional washers, P/N EN2139-05016, to connect the
SEMA with the control rod. Torque-tighten each screw to 5-6 Nm.
    (2) Within 50 hours TIS, for Model MBB BK117 C-2 helicopters,
using Figure 1 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-
22A-009, Revision 1, dated August 3, 2009, as reference, inspect the
attachment hardware between the Yaw-SEMA and the Yaw-SEMA control
rod to determine whether any of the washers can be moved.
    (i) If no washer can be moved, no further action is needed.
    (ii) If a washer can be moved, replace the four screws and
install two additional washers, P/N EN2139-05016, to connect the
SEMA with the control rod. Torque-tighten each screw to 5-6 Nm and
apply polyurethane lacquer onto the attachment hardware.

(f) Credit for Previous Actions

    If you performed the actions in Eurocopter Alert Service
Bulletin EC135-22A-015, Revision 0, dated May 13, 2018, or
Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-22A-009, Revision 0,
May 13, 2008, before the effective date of this AD, you met the
requirements of this AD.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Wilbanks, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2013-0176, dated August 7, 2013. You may
view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in
Docket No. FAA-2014-0577.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2213, Flight
Controller.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-22A-015, Revision 1,
dated January 28, 2013.
    (ii) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-22A-009,
Revision 1, dated August 3, 2009.
    (3) For Airbus Helicopters service information identified in
this AD, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive,
Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 9, 2015.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-14852 Filed 6-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 20 (Friday, January 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5192-5193]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01824]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty-Third Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 217--Aeronautical
Databases Joint With EUROCAE WG-44--Aeronautical Databases

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

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 217--Aeronautical Databases
Joint with EUROCAE WG-44--Aeronautical Databases.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 217--Aeronautical Databases being
held jointly with EUROCAE WG-44--Aeronautical Databases.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 2-6, 2015 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be hosted by Honeywell, Grand Hotel
Bohemia,

110 00 Praha 1, Kralodvorska 4 Czech Republic.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sophie Bousquet<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
202-330-0663 or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910,
Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at (202)
833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org. Pre-registration for the
meeting is required to access Honeywell's Prague facility. Please send
the following information to Scott Roesch<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
and copy Sophie Bousquet<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by February 13, 2015:
Name, Company, Nationality, Passport Number and Expiration Date.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 217--Aeronautical
Databases held jointly with EUROCAE WG-44--Aeronautical Databases. The
agenda will include the following:

Monday, March 2nd

 Opening Plenary Session
 Co-Chairmen's remarks, introductions and Housekeeping
 Approve minutes from 22nd meeting
 Review and approve meeting agenda for 23rd meeting
 Review of joint WG-1/WG-2 Action Items

Tuesday, March 3rd Through Thursday, March 5th

 Working Group One (WG1)--Rev DO-200A--Stephane Dubet
    [cir] DO-200B (ED-76A) Open Consultation/FRAC resolution
    [cir] Overview of comments received (by FRAC Preparation Team)
 Working Group Two (WG2)--DO-272/DO-276/DO-291--John Kasten
    [cir] Final work on Documents and review before FRAC
    [cir] Schedule for FRAC release and associated actions

Friday Morning, March 6th

 Approval of Rev DO-200A (ED-76) for the PMC/TAC-Council
 Approval of Rev DO-272/DO-276/DO-291 for FRAC--Open
Consultation
 Working arrangements for the remaining work and Review of
action items
 Next meetings, dates and locations
 Any other business and Adjourn

    Pre-registration for the meeting itself is required, if you have
not already done so, please provide your information to Sophie
Bousquet<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Persons wishing to present statements or
obtain information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 27, 2015.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management Analyst, Program Oversight and Administration, ANG-A15,
Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-01824 Filed 1-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P