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

    \79\ ECHO does not include all of EPA's compliance and
enforcement activity because regions are not required to report
``informal actions,'' and it does not consistently capture all state
actions.
    \80\ Enforcement, Court Settlements and Judgments in the
Chemical Manufacturing Industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Risk Management Program under Chemical Accident
Prevention Provisions of Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act Amendments
requires certain facilities to generate Risk Management Plans (RMPs) to
mitigate the effects of a chemical accident and coordinate with local
response personnel. Assuring compliance with this program has been a
priority of EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance since
2017.
    Enforcement cases can include instances in which removal action,
release reduction, or return to compliance include the removal of
contaminated media by the responsible party. Measures to remove
contamination may be required in enforcement orders under the range of
environmental statutes and are negotiated to require activities aligned
with return to compliance.\81\ In this situation, enforcement action
directly reduces risks to human health and the environment. During the
period FY 2012 through FY 2017, 32 settled Chemical Manufacturing
industry enforcement cases have been indicated as those where removal
of contaminated media occurred. They are primarily CERCLA (50%) and
RCRA (34%) cases. Two CWA, two TSCA and one Safe Drinking Water cases
are also included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ These ECHO enforcement removals are separate from the
Superfund removals analyzed elsewhere. ECHO system data includes the
combined value of total enforcement financial penalties,
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs), and associated
compliance activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The substances removed are generally categorized as hydrocarbons,
hazardous chemicals, and metals. These cleanups resulting from Federal
enforcement actions mitigated risks to human health and the environment
by removing soils, groundwater, and sediments contaminated by a variety
of substances, and reduced likelihood of impact to the Fund.
    Settlements and judgments in enforcement cases can result in
financial penalties, supplemental environmental projects (SEPs), and
activities required to return to compliance.\82\ Enforcement
settlements and judgments can ensure that the responsible party
conducts or pays for cleanup, can drive a return to compliance, and
more generally can incentivize compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Compliance actions ordered can include the removal of
contaminated media, installation of new equipment, or implementation
of compliant processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the cleanup site evaluations in Section VII.A,
particular consideration was given to CERCLA and RCRA regulations as
relevant components of the modern regulatory framework that applies to
the Chemical Manufacturing industry. There have been over 1800 CERCLA
and RCRA civil cases in this industry, beginning in 1981. For context,
there are approximately 13,480 establishments currently operating in
the industry. The ten largest CERCLA or RCRA enforcement settlements
and judgments for the Chemical Manufacturing industry each have 2017
inflation-adjusted total values ranging from over $51 million to $1.1
billion.
    Further discussion of the details on the Federal actions for these
and additional criminal cases can be found in the background document,
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.\83\ This document
identifies facilities where noncompliance was identified and was
addressed by means of formal Federal enforcement. The background
document does not include either facilities where noncompliance was
addressed through informal enforcement or facilities where
noncompliance was addressed by a state. In addition, it does not
include facilities where noncompliance was not identified, either
because those facilities were not inspected or because they were
inspected and found in compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Enforcement, Court Settlements and Judgments in the
Chemical Manufacturing Industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The compliance and enforcement actions documented here and in the
background document show that where noncompliance is identified, many
industry responsible parties are conducting or paying for cleanups,
returning to compliance, and improving public health and the
environment. In this industry, the largest CERCLA and RCRA civil and
judicial Federal cases are recently concluded and represent significant
operational compliance requirements and/or financial penalties. Several
major enforcement cases highlighted in the EPA chemical sector
notebooks \84\ evolved into decades of litigation, multiple Federal
enforcement cases, risks to human health and the environment, and NPL
sites. Enforcement actions alone do not completely supplant the need
for Fund-financed response actions either at these highlighted sites or
generally in the Chemical Manufacturing industry (as discussed in
section VIII below). Active enforcement serves as an important
component of the regulatory framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Profile of the Agricultural Chemical, Pesticide, and
Fertilizer Industry, Sep 2000, EPA 310-R-00-003; Profile of the
Organic Chemical Industry, 2nd Edition, Nov 2002, EPA 310-R-02-001;
Profile of the Plastic Resin and Manmade Fiber Industries, Sep 1997,
EPA 310-R-97-006; and Profile of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Industry, Sep 1997, EPA 310-R-97-005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Decision To Not Propose Requirements

    Based on consideration of the analyses described in the previous
sections, as summarized below, EPA has reached a conclusion that the
degree and duration of risk posed by the Chemical Manufacturing
industry does not warrant financial responsibility requirements under
CERCLA Section 108(b) and thus is proposing to not issue such
requirements. The analysis and proposed finding in this proposal are
not applicable to and do not affect, limit, or restrict EPA's authority
(1) to take a response action or enforcement action under CERCLA at any
facility in the Chemical Manufacturing industry, including any
currently operating facilities or those described in this proposal and
in the background documents for this proposal, and (2) to include
requirements for financial responsibility as part of such response
action. The set of facts in the rulemaking record related to the
individual facilities discussed in this proposed rulemaking supports
the Agency's proposal not to issue financial responsibility
requirements under Section 108(b) for this class, but a different set
of facts could demonstrate a need for a CERCLA response action at an
individual site. This proposed rulemaking also does not affect the
Agency's authority under other authorities that may apply to individual
facilities, such as the CAA, the CWA, RCRA, and TSCA.
    EPA believes the evaluation of the Chemical Manufacturing industry
demonstrates significantly reduced risk of a Fund-financed response
action at current operations. The reduction in risks due to the
requirements of existing regulatory programs and voluntary practices
combined with reduced costs to the taxpayer--demonstrated by EPA's

cleanup case analysis, existing financial responsibility requirements,
and enforcement actions--has reduced the need for Federally-financed
response action at facilities in the Chemical Manufacturing industry.
EPA looked at current industry practices, market structure and economic
performance of the industry; analyzed cleanup cases for facilities in
the industry; and evaluated the extent to which the industry and
sources of releases are covered by the modern regulatory framework, the
degree to which taxpayers have been called upon to pay for cleanup, and
EPA enforcement history in the industry.
    As discussed in section VII.A, EPA identified the cleanup cases
that occurred under the modern regulatory framework and also entailed
some Fund expenditure. There were 34 sites that indicated the potential
for a significant impact to the Fund while operating under the modern
regulatory framework. For context, there are approximately 13,480
establishments currently operating in the industry. Thus, this is a
relatively small number of cases in comparison to the size of the
industry. Moreover, EPA estimates the total fund expenditure amount at
the 34 sites (including 30 removal sites and 4 NPL sites) is
approximately $104 million (through 2017).\85\ This amount of
expenditures is only a fraction of just one year's Superfund budgetary
authority. For example, the FY 2018 Superfund budget authority was
$1.057B.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ This expenditure figure reflects only expenditures from the
Hazardous Substances Response Trust Fund (aka Superfund) designated
as non-special account expenditures through 2017. For example, the
projected costs through 2020 for Mississippi Phosphate is $133
million (according to the April 2018 Action Memorandum), compared to
the $8 million expended through 2017. It is anticipated that
significant additional expenditures will occur at some of these
sites. As such, the ultimate taxpayer burden may be significantly
higher.
    \86\ See U.S. EPA. May 2017. Fiscal Year 2018 Budget in Brief.
Accessed April 2019. Available: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-05/documents/fy-2018-budget-in-brief.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The language in Section 108(b) on determining the degree and
duration of risk and on setting the level of financial responsibility
confers a significant amount of discretion on EPA. In the past, some of
the risks associated with spills resulted from, or were exacerbated by
cleanups not being undertaken in a timely fashion. However, under the
modern regulatory framework, requirements such as the Risk Management
Plan under the CAA, the Emergency Action Plan under OSHA, and RCRA
requirements for TSDFs to detect, contain, and clean up any leaks,
including facility-wide corrective action--all help to ensure timely
responses to releases. In addition to the requirements for facilities
to respond to spills in a timely fashion, the public can alert the
Federal government to releases by calling the National Response Center
(NRC), which is a part of the Federally established National Response
System and staffed 24 hours a day by the U.S. Coast Guard. The NRC is
the designated Federal point of contact for reporting all oil,
chemical, radiological, biological and etiological discharges into the
environment, anywhere in the United States and its territories.
    Only 34 sites (discussed in detail in Section VII.A) had
significant releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances
under the modern regulatory framework and required more than minimal
taxpayer-funded cleanups. It is EPA's assessment that the small set of
Federally-funded cleanup cases due to recent contamination, in view of
the size of the industry, does not warrant the imposition of costly
financial responsibility requirements on the entire Chemical
Manufacturing industry under CERCLA Section 108(b).
    EPA acknowledges that regulations do not always prevent releases,
and the risk of a release is lessened but never eliminated by existing
Federal and state environmental regulations. However, EPA believes that
the network of Federal and state regulations applicable to the Chemical
Manufacturing industry creates a comprehensive framework that applies
to prevent releases that could result in a need for future cleanup.
This is reflected in the relatively small Fund burden associated with a
relatively small number of Fund financed cleanups at Chemical
Manufacturing industry sites where pollution occurred under the modern
regulatory framework. Numerous Federal programs have been established
under several environmental statutes since CERCLA was enacted on
December 11, 1980. These include programs under RCRA, which require
proper management and disposal of hazardous wastes; under TSCA, which
regulates the manufacture and sale of chemicals; under FIFRA, which
require the proper handling and use of pesticides; and under both the
CWA and the CAA, which address releases to water and air. In addition
to these Federal programs, some states have stricter or additional
standards beyond Federal requirements.
    In addition to these Federal programs, some states with significant
chemical manufacturing industries have stricter or additional standards
beyond Federal requirements. These Federal and state programs are
discussed in detail in Section VII.B and in the background document,
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Summary Report: Federal and State Environmental Regulations
and Industry Voluntary Programs in Place to Address CERCLA Hazardous
Substances at Chemical Manufacturing Facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, enforcement settlements and judgments that force
return to compliance are important components of the applicable
regulatory structure. EPA's analysis of enforcement history shows that
enforcement of the applicable regulations provides a lever to monitor
compliance, obtain responsible party cleanups, and recover financial
penalties. Federal and state regulatory programs, backed up by
enforcement and complemented by industry voluntary practices, have
improved public health and the environment significantly since CERCLA's
initial adoption nearly 40 years ago. EPA believes that within the
Chemical Manufacturing industry, this framework provides effective
controls which protect public health, welfare, and the environment.
    Examination of market structures for the Chemical Manufacturing
industry further indicates comparatively low likelihood of default on
environmental obligations at the expense of taxpayers and the
government by companies in this industry. This economic performance,
combined with the low impact to the Fund by facilities with releases
that happened under the modern regulatory framework, suggests that the
degree of risk to the Fund by this industry does not rise to a level
that warrants imposing CERCLA Section 108(b) financial responsibility
requirements.
    In summary, EPA has analyzed the need for financial responsibility
based on risk of taxpayer funded cleanups at facilities in the Chemical
Manufacturing Industry operating under modern management practices and
modern environmental regulations, i.e., the type of facilities to which
financial responsibility regulations would apply. That risk is
identified by examining Superfund cleanup cases associated with the
industry, the management of hazardous substances at facilities in the
industry, as well as by examining Federal and state regulatory controls
on that management and Federal and state financial responsibility
requirements.
    Based on that examination, EPA is proposing that, in the context of
CERCLA section 108(b), the degree and duration of risk associated with
the modern production, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal
of hazardous substances by the Chemical Manufacturing Industry does not

present a level of risk of taxpayer funded response actions that
warrant imposition of financial responsibility requirements for this
sector. For these reasons, EPA is proposing today to not issue
financial responsibility requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b) for
this industry.

A. Solicitation of Public Comment on This Proposal

    EPA solicits comments on all aspects of today's proposal. EPA is
specifically interested in receiving comments on several issues and
requests the following information:
     Examples of Chemical Manufacturing industry related
response actions for releases which took place under the modern
regulatory framework, for which potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
did not lead the response at the facility.
     Examples of Chemical Manufacturing industry related
response actions for releases which took place under the modern
regulatory framework, for which PRPs have not taken financial
responsibility for their environmental liabilities.
     Information on state-lead or other Federal agency cleanups
or instances of natural resource damages associated with this industry
that may supplement the information on cleanups gathered and analyzed
for this proposal.
     Information about existing Federal, state, tribal, and
local environmental requirements applicable to the Chemical
Manufacturing industry relevant to the prevention of releases of
hazardous substances that were not evaluated as part of this proposal.
     Information about financial responsibility requirements
applicable to Chemical Manufacturing industry that were not evaluated
as part of this proposal.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, because it may
raise novel legal or policy issues [3(f)(4)]. Any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this rulemaking. EPA did not prepare an economic analysis for the
proposed rule, since this action proposes no regulatory requirements.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive
Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because this proposed rule
would not result in additional cost.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not propose an information collection burden under
the PRA, because this action does not propose any regulatory
requirements.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action does not propose any new requirements for small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, because this action does not propose any regulatory
requirements.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, since this
action proposes no new regulatory requirements.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because this action proposes no regulatory
requirements. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children,
since this action proposes no regulatory requirements.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy, since this action proposes no regulatory
requirements.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order
12898 because it does not establish an environmental health or safety
standard, since this action proposes no regulatory requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 320

    Environmental protection, Financial responsibility, Hazardous
substances, Chemicals.

    Dated: February 10, 2020.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-03401 Filed 2-20-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 38728]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15352]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4121-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Michigan; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Michigan (FEMA-4121-DR), dated June 18, 2013,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 18, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated June 18, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Michigan resulting from flooding during the period of April 16 to
May 14, 2013, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a
major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the State of Michigan.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Mark A. Neveau, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Michigan have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Allegan, Baraga, Barry, Gogebic, Houghton, Ionia, Kent,
Keweenaw, Marquette, Midland, Muskegon, Newaygo, Ontonagon, Osceola,
Ottawa, and Saginaw Counties for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Michigan are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-15352 Filed 6-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: August 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 159)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41805-41807]
[DOCID:fr19au09-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0715; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-211-AD]

RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB-120, -120ER, -120FC, -120QC, and -120RT Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as: It has been found the occurrence of corrosion on the
Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) mounting rods that could cause the APU rod
to break, affecting the APU support structure integrity.
    APU support structure failure could result in undetectable fire in
the tail cone and possible loss of control of the airplane. The
proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 18,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), Technical
Publications Section (PC 060), Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170--Putim-
12227-901 S[atilde]o Jose dos Campos-SP--BRASIL; telephone: +55 12
3927-5852 or +55 12 3309-0732; fax: +55 12 3927-7546; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.flyembraer.com. You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0715;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-211-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The Agencia Nacional De Aviacao Civil--Brazil (ANAC), which is the
airworthiness authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian Airworthiness
Directive 2008-08-01, dated October 21, 2008

(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    It has been found the occurrence of corrosion on the Auxiliary
Power Unit (APU) mounting rods that could cause the APU rod to
break, affecting the APU support structure integrity.

APU support structure failure could result in undetectable fire in the
tail cone and possible loss of control of the airplane. Required
actions include repetitive inspections for corrosion of the APU
auxiliary and center mounting rods and rod ends, and corrective actions
if necessary. Corrective actions include removing corrosion, applying
anticorrosive treatment, and replacing mounting rods. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Embraer has issued Service Bulletin 120-49-0023, Revision 01, dated
June 30, 2008. The actions described in this service information are
intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 90 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $57,600, or $640 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER): Docket No. FAA-
2009-0715; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-211-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by September 18, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to EMBRAER Model EMB-120, -120ER, -120FC, -
120QC, and -120RT airplanes, certified in any category; as
identified in Embraer Service Bulletin 120-49-0023, Revision 01,
dated June 30, 2008.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 49: Airborne
Auxiliary Power.

Reason

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

    It has been found the occurrence of corrosion on the Auxiliary
Power Unit (APU) mounting rods that could cause the APU rod to
break, affecting the APU support structure integrity.

APU support structure failure could result in undetectable fire in
the tail cone and possible loss of control of the airplane. Required
actions include repetitive inspections for corrosion of the APU
auxiliary and center mounting rods and rod ends, and corrective
actions if necessary. Corrective actions include removing corrosion,
applying anticorrosive treatment, and replacing mounting rods.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done do the following actions:
    (1) Within 500 flight hours or two months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do an external detailed
inspection for corrosion of the APU, auxiliary and center mounting
rods, and rod ends. Repeat the inspections thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 1,500 flight hours or 6 months,

whichever occurs first. If any corrosion is found during any
inspection, before further flight, do the actions required by
paragraphs (f)(1)(i), (f)(1)(ii), and (f)(1)(iii) of this AD, as
applicable. Do all actions required by this paragraph in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Embraer Service Bulletin
120-49-0023, Revision 01, dated June 30, 2008.
    (i) If light corrosion (characterized by discoloration or
pitting) is found on a mounting rod, remove the corrosion and apply
an anticorrosive treatment.
    (ii) If moderate corrosion (characterized by surface blistering
or evidence of scaling and flaking), or heavy corrosion
(characterized by severe blistering exfoliation, scaling and
flaking) is found, replace the affected mounting rod with a new
mounting rod having the same part number.
    (iii) If any corrosion is detected on the rod ends, remove the
corrosion and apply an anticorrosive treatment.
    (2) Accomplishing of the inspection and corrective actions
required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD before the effective date of
this AD in accordance with Embraer Service Bulletin 120-49-0023,
dated April 18, 2008, is acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
    (3) Submit a report of the positive findings (including level of
corrosion such as Light, Moderate, or Heavy as identified in Embraer
Corrosion Prevention Manual (CPM) 51-11-01, on the external surface
of the rods as well as the rod ends) of the inspection required by
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD to Mr. Antonio Claret--Customer Support
Group, Embraer Aircraft Holding, Inc, 276 S.W. 34th Street Fort
Lauderdale, FL 33315--USA; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, at the
applicable time specified in paragraph (f)(3)(i) or (f)(3)(ii) of
this AD. The report must include the inspection results, a
description of any discrepancies found, the airplane serial number,
and the number of landings and flight hours on the airplane.
    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was accomplished prior to the effective
date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the
effective date of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows:
    (1) Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2008-08-01, dated October
21, 2008, requires only a one-time inspection with a compliance time
of 1,500 flight hours or 6 months after the effective date of the
Brazilian AD, whichever occurs first. However, we have determined
that, since the exterior surface of the mounting rods is cadmium-
plated and corrosion propagates from inside out, a one-time
inspection may not identify the corroded rods if corrosion did not
become evident through the cadmium-plated exterior surface. This
one-time inspection will not reveal the extent of damage to these
rods on the existing fleet and may require subsequent non-
destructive inspections (NDI) to determine the final action. This AD
instead requires an initial inspection within the next 500 flight
hours or 2 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs first; and repetitive inspections at intervals not to exceed
1,500 flight hours or 6 months, whichever occurs first. This
difference has been coordinated with the Agencia Nacional De Aviacao
Civil--Brazil (ANAC).
    (2) Although Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2008-08-01, dated
October 21, 2008, does not include a reporting requirement, the
service bulletin identified in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD does
specify reporting findings to Embraer. This AD requires that
operators report the results of the inspections to Embraer because
the required inspection report will help determine the extent of the
corrosion in the affected fleet, from which we will determine if
further corrective action is warranted. This difference has been
coordinated with ANAC.
    (3) Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2008-08-01, dated October
21, 2008, allows replacement of the affected APU mounting rods by
``new ones bearing a new P/N [part number] approved by ANAC
[Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil].'' However,
paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this AD requires replacing the affected
mounting rod only with a new mounting rod having the same part
number. Operators may request approval of an alternative method of
compliance in order to install a new part number in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. This
difference has been coordinated with ANAC.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN:
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.
    (4) Special Flight Permits: Special flight permits may be issued
in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the
airplane to a location where the airplane can be modified (if the
operator elects to do so), except if two or more center mounting
rods or rod ends are heavily corroded or broken, a special flight
permit is not permitted.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2008-08-01,
dated October 21, 2008, and Embraer Service Bulletin 120-49-0023,
Revision 01, dated June 30, 2008, for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 7, 2009.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-19851 Filed 8-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P