[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 225 (Friday, November 20, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74299-74302]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25568]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1029; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01126-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2019-21-10, which applies to all Airbus SAS Model A321-111, -112, -131,
-211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2019-21-10 requires a
one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of certain structural
parts of the outer flaps to determine if the incorrect alloy was used,
and replacement if necessary. Since the FAA issued AD 2019-21-10, the
design approval holder (DAH) has issued an updated list of suspected
parts, including those that may have been improperly heat treated, and
the FAA has determined that more airplanes are affected by the unsafe
condition. This proposed AD would continue to require a one-time eddy
current conductivity measurement of certain structural parts of the
outer flaps to determine if the incorrect alloy was used, and
replacement if necessary, and would also require a new one-time eddy
current conductivity measurement of certain other structural parts of
the outer flaps to determine if the parts were properly heat treated,
and replacement if necessary, and would include additional affected
airplanes, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which will be incorporated by reference. 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 January 4,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the material identified in this proposed AD that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR
material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-1029.

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-
1029; 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, 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: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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-2020-1029;
Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01126-T'' 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 the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

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
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically
designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2019-21-10, Amendment 39-19776 (84 FR 63794,
November 19, 2019) (``AD 2019-21-10''), which applies to all Airbus SAS
Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
AD 2019-21-10 requires a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement
of certain structural parts of the outer flaps to determine if the
incorrect alloy was used, and replacement if necessary. The FAA issued
AD 2019-21-10 to address structural parts made of incorrect aluminum
alloy, which could result in reduced structural integrity of

the outer flaps and reduced controllability of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2019-21-10 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2019-21-10, the DAH has issued an updated
list of suspected parts, including those that may have been improperly
heat treated and the FAA determined that more airplanes are affected by
the unsafe condition.
    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0174, dated August 5, 2020
(``EASA AD 2020-0174'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122
airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and
-232 airplanes. EASA AD 2020-0174 supersedes EASA AD 2019-0012 (which
corresponds to FAA AD 2019-21-10). Model A320-215 airplanes are not
certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type
certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those
airplanes in the applicability.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a quality control review, which
determined that the wrong aluminum alloy was used to manufacture
several structural parts and by the issuance of an updated list of
suspected parts, including those that may have been improperly heat
treated. The FAA is proposing this AD to address structural parts that
may not meet the certified life limit, which could result in failure of
the flap trailing edge and reduced controllability of the airplane. See
the MCAI for additional background information.

Explanation of Retained Requirements

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2019-21-10, this proposed AD would retain all of the
requirements of AD 2019-21-10. Those requirements are referenced in
EASA AD 2020-0174, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of
this proposed AD.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0174 describes procedures for a one-time eddy current
conductivity measurement of certain structural parts of the outer flaps
to determine if the incorrect alloy was used, and replacement if
necessary, and a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of
certain other structural parts of the outer flaps to determine if the
parts were properly heat treated, and replacement if necessary. This
material 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 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 the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
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.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2020-0174 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0174
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0174 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only
with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to
``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s)
and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified
in EASA AD 2020-0174 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-
0174 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1029 after the FAA
final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 63 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                     Estimated Costs for Required Actions *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2019-21-10...  6 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $510         $32,130
                                         hour = $510.
New proposed actions..................  5 work-hours x $85 per                 0             425          26,775
                                         hour = $425.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Table does not include estimated costs for reporting.

    The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the proposed reporting requirement in this proposed AD.
The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA
estimates the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S.
operators to be $5,355, or $85 per product.
    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition replacement specified in this proposed
AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty
coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has

included all known costs in the cost estimate.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD
is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has
been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and
includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting
associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the
accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should
be directed to Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal
Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-
1524.

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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2019-21-10, Amendment 39-19776 (84 FR 63794, November 19, 2019), and
adding the following new AD:

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2020-1029; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-
01126-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by January 4, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2019-21-10, Amendment 39-19776 (84 FR 63794,
November 19, 2019) (``AD 2019-21-10'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233
airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a quality control review, which
determined that the wrong aluminum alloy was used to manufacture
several structural parts and by the issuance of an updated list of
suspected parts, including those that may have been improperly heat
treated. The FAA is issuing this AD to address structural parts that
may not meet the certified life limit, which could result in failure
of the flap trailing edge and reduced controllability of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0174, dated August 5, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0174'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0174

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0174 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0174 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where paragraphs (7) and (8) of EASA AD 2020-0174 mandate a
parts installation limitation, this AD requires the following parts
installation limitation: From the effective date of this AD, only
serviceable parts as defined in EASA AD 2020-0174 are allowed to be
installed on any airplane.
    (4) Where any service information referenced in EASA AD 2020-
0174 specifies reporting, this AD requires reporting all inspection
results at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(4)(i) or
(ii) of this AD. If operators have reported findings as part of
obtaining any corrective actions approved by Airbus SAS's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA), operators are not required to
report those findings as specified in this paragraph.
    (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 done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 90 days after the effective date
of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved

by the Manager, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2020-0174 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraphs (h)(4) and (i)(2) of this
AD, RC procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.
    (4) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement: A federal agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1
hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
All responses to this collection of information are mandatory as
required by this AD. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For EASA AD 2020-0174, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may
view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. This material may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1029.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on November 13, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-25568 Filed 11-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION SAN 4675 Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ OAR/ OTAQ/ TRPD 2. OMB control number b. None 2060 0308 a.__ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. New collection b.

Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. x Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes x No 6. Requested expiration date X a. Three years from approval date b. Other Specify:

7. Title: Recordkeeping and Reporting for the Fuel Quality Regulations for Diesel Fuel Sold in 2001 and Later Years; for Tax Exempt ( Dyed) Highway Diesel Fuel; and for Nonroad Locomotive and Marine Diesel Fuel ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) : ICR 1718.06 9. Keywords Fuels and Fuel Additives; Diesel Fuel 10. Abstract The information collection contained in this ICR is necessary to ensure compliance with regulations on highway and nonroad diesel fuel. Refiners, distributors, and fuel additive suppliers will need to comply with information collection requirements. This renewal includes expiring ICRs 1718.03 and 1718.04 as well as corrected amounts under proposed ICR 1718.07.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. x Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. x Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 7,640 b. Total annual responses 444,110 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 80 % c. Total hours requested 312,233 d. Current OMB inventory 72,870 e. Difference 239,363 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change + 272,658 2. Adjustment ( 33,295) 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 4,200 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 4,300 c. Total annualized cost requested 8,500 d. Current OMB inventory 4,800 e. Difference 3,700 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change + 3,650 2. Adjustment + 50 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. x_ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. x Recordkeeping b. x Third party disclosure c. x Reporting 1. x On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. x Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes x No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Anne Pastorkovich Phone: 202 343 9623 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Margo Tsirigotis Oge, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


Response to US EPA's Comments on Veolia's Feedstream Analysis Plan (FAP)
1. Please revise the FAP to include the following statement:  In the event of an inconsistency between the FAP and Condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) of the Title V permit, Condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) of the Title V permit shall govern.
   Veolia Response:  This statement will be added to the Introduction in Section 1.0.

2. The FAP contains several references to Veolia's current waste analysis plan (WAP), but the specific referenced provisions have not been submitted with the FAP.  Therefore, EPA cannot determine whether the FAP, as an independent document from the WAP, contains all the information required by 40 C.F.R. §63.1209(c)(2).  EPA requests that Veolia include in its revised FAP the relevant language from its WAP (rather than just citations to the WAP) that the EPA should review and approve as part of the FAP.  Specifically, please include for EPA review the portions of the following WAP sections that are being incorporated into the FAP:

      * In Section 3.1 of the FAP, Reference sources in Appendix WAP-F of the WAP;
      * In Section 3.3 of the FAP, Reference sources in Appendix WAP-F of the WAP;
      * In Section 5.0 of the FAP, Sampling and Analytical Methodology in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of the WAP; and
      * In Section 5.3 of the FAP, Analytical Methods for Ash and Chlorine in Appendix WAP-A of the WAP.
   Veolia Response:  Veolia will include the portions of the following WAP sections in the FAP:  Appendix WAP-F, sampling and analytical methods in section 2 and 3 of the WAP, and Appendix WAP-A.

3. The September 12, 2019, FAP does not specify the quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures that it uses for sampling and analyses performed by Veolia or that Veolia requires for sampling and analyses performed by others.  EPA regards this omission as a major deficiency in the FAP.  Without adequate QA/QC procedures, EPA cannot determine whether the feedstream data is sufficient to document compliance with the ash, chlorine, low volatile metals (LVM; arsenic, beryllium, and chromium, combined), mercury, and semivolatile metals (SVM; cadmium and lead, combined) feed rate OPLs.  Further, condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) of June 2019 Title V permit states, "Consistent with condition 2.1(D)(4)(b)(i)(D)..., the Permittee must specify in the feedstream analysis plan the quality assurance/quality control procedures and test methods it will use to conduct the sampling and analysis required in this condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)."  Please revise the FAP to include adequate QA/QC procedures for the ash, chlorine, LVM, mercury, and SVM sampling and analysis methods.
   Veolia Response:  The FAP will be modified to include the QA/QC procedures from the WAP, Section 7 and Appendix WAP-A.

4. Section 6.6 of the FAP is missing the following statement of Condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(F)(II) of the June 17, 2019, Title V permit:

For each waste listed in conditions 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(F)(I)(aa) through (ff) [of the June 17, 2019, Title V permit], the Permitee shall review any container labels, material safety data sheets, drum inventories, packing lists, and any other relevant data or information provided by the generator to determine the metals concentrations in these exempted wastes, and shall keep this relevant documentation in the Technical Manager's File or electronic system.  The Permittee shall document the amount of mercury, LVM or SVM present in the waste based on such review.  The Permittee's documentation shall describe the information reviewed and the basis for the determination on the amount of mercury, LVM or SVM present in the waste.
      Please add this statement to your revised FAP.
   Veolia Response:  The "context" of the above statement appears in Section 6.6 (last paragraph on page 15).  However, Veolia will modify this section to include this exact language.

5. The third paragraph of section 1.0 of the FAP starts:  "As required by sections 63.6(e)(v) and 63.6(e)(vi)..." Both citations are missing the paragraph number between the subsection "(e)" and the subparagraph "(v)" and "(vi)".  In response to a November 12, 2019, electronic mail message from Charles Hall, of my staff, to Dave Klarich, of your staff, Mr. Klarich noted that the purpose of this reference is to make the FAP and other documents containing procedures or information referred to in the FAP available for inspection when requested by the Administrator.  With that purpose in mind, EPA recommends the general recordkeeping requirement in 40 C.F.R. § 63.10(b)(1) as a more appropriate reference than the startup, shutdown, and malfunction requirements in 40 C.F.R. § 63.6(e).
   Veolia Response:  The reference to sections 63.6(e)(v) and 63.6(e)(vi) in the third paragraph of Section 1.0 will be changed to refer to the general recordkeeping requirement in 40 C.F.R. § 63.10(b)(1).

6. In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(2)(ii), Section 3.0 of the FAP lists three sources of information that Veolia can use in evaluating the feedstream data.  Specifically, Veolia can use analyses performed by Veolia, analyses performed by others, or manufacturer data or other published information.  We agree that Veolia can use all these methods.  However, please revise the FAP to describe when and how the company will use each source of information.  We agree that Veolia can use all these methods.  However, please revise the FAP to describe when and how the company will use each source of information.  Please also revise Section 3.0 to affirm that the analytical information obtained for MACT metals will, at a minimum, comply with FAP Section 6.0, which is based on condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) of the June 2019 Title V permit.  EPA is concerned that Section 3.0 leaves open the possibility that Veolia will use for compliance analytical information that Veolia did not collect in accordance with FAP Section 6.0.
   Veolia Response:  Veolia hierarchy for sources of information is:  first, using information from analysis performed by Veolia; second, using information obtained from analysis provided by the generator; and, third, using manufacturer data or other published information for wastes that are exempt from sampling or are off-spec products.  In some cases there is a combination of some or all of the following information: analysis from Veolia, analysis from the generator and manufacturer data or other published information.  Veolia uses all the information available to evaluate the feedstream before a decision is made to approve the waste for acceptance.  The FAP will be modified to reflect this review process and this hierarchy.  Section 3.0 will be revised to include the following statement:  "Analytical information obtained for MACT metals will, at a minimum, comply with FAP Section 6.0, which is based on condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) of the June 2019 Title V permit."

7. In the second paragraph of Section 3.1 in the FAP, EPA requests that Veolia clarify that a feedstream is described by a waste profile.  Further, EPA asks Veolia to add "as specified in FAP Section 6.0, Analysis Procedures for MACT Metals, based on condition 2.1 (D)(4)(d)(ii) of the June 2019 Title V permit", to the end of the second sentence of the second paragraph.
   Veolia Response:  The second paragraph of Section 3.1 will be changed to read:  "Typically, the feedstream is described by a waste profile from a generator that has been accepted according to the facility's WAP guidelines.  This waste will have had analytical work performed on a sample for an initial acceptance decision and supplemental analysis as required for subsequent shipments of the waste as specified in FAP Section 6.0, Analysis Procedures for MACT Metals, based on condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) of the June 2019 Title V permit.  This analytical work will include information on the parameters identified in the FAP and can be used to control the incineration of the feedstreams."

8. In the third paragraph of Section 3.1, Veolia states:

Feedstreams that are the result of blending or other on-site processing steps prior to incineration can have parameters determined from the same analytical methods described in the previous paragraph or by statistically arriving at an average value based on a body of previously analyzed samples.
   In order to prevent the blending of two or more feedstreams without properly           determined concentrations of ash, chlorine LVM, mercury, and SVM, EPA requests that Veolia clarify in the FAP that the statistically-derived blend parameter should be based on analytical information from either previously analyzed samples of the same wastes that comprise the blend or of the most recent waste profile concentration as determined in FAP section 6.0.
   Veolia Response:  "The statistically-derived blend parameter should be based on analytical information from either previously analyzed samples of the same wastes that comprise the blend or of the most recent waste profile concentration as determined in FAP Section 6.0" will be added to the third paragraph in Section 3.1 after the above referenced statement in the third paragraph of Section 3.1.
9. In the last sentence of the third paragraph of Section 3.1, Veolia states, "Wastes generated by the facility will have parameters determined from an average value based on a body of previously analyzed samples."  Because this language is not clear, this section must state that these determinations must be made in accordance with Section 6.0 of this FAP which requires specific procedures for sampling and specifies MACT Metal parameters be determined by adding two standard deviations to the arithmetic mean.  Consistent with Section 6.0 of the FAP, Veolia must perform sampling and analysis of each load (i.e., container or batch) of Veolia-generated wastes derived from unique or varying feedstreams (such as incinerator ash or spill-cleanup materials).
   Veolia Response:  Veolia samples site generated waste every 6 months.  Analytical data shows very little variance.  As a result, Veolia always uses the historically most stringent values. Veolia will modify Section 3.1 to reflect the analytical protocol for site-generated waste.

10. Section 3.3 of the FAP discusses manufacturer data or other published information.  EPA requests that Veolia affirm that the analytical information obtained will, at a minimum, comply with FAP Section 6.0, Analysis Procedures for MACT Metals, based on condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) of the June 2019 Title V permit.
   Veolia Response:  The following sentence will be added to the end of Section 3.3:  "The analytical information obtained will, at a minimum, comply with FAP Section 6.0, Analysis Procedures for MACT Metals, based on condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii) of the June 2019 Title V permit."

11. Section 5.1 of the FAP summarizes the sampling methods as required by 40 C.F.R. § 63.1206(c)(2)(v).  Section 5.1 of the FAP refers the reader to Section 4.1.12(2) of the WAP.  However, the September 1994 WAP does not have a Section 4.1.12(2).  On December 12, 2019, Mr. Warchol confirmed that the reference to WAP Section 4.1.12 is incorrect.  Please revise the FAP to remove or correct this reference.
   Veolia Response:  The reference to "Section 4.1.12(2) of the WAP" will be removed from Section 5.1.

12. In the second sentence of Section 5.1 of the FAP, Veolia states, "In some instances, an actual sample will not be required because technical personnel at Veolia will have determined that sufficient documentation already exists that identifies information regarding the parameters described in Section 2.0 of the FAP..."  The referenced sentence is inconsistent with Section 6.0 of the FAP and needs to be removed. The FAP should state that sampling and analysis will be performed for all feedstreams according to Section 6.0 of the FAP.
   Veolia Response:  The above referenced sentenced will be removed and replaced with:  "Sampling and analysis will be performed for all feedstreams according to Section 6.0 of the FAP."

13. Section 5.3 of the FAP addresses the analytical methods as required by 40 C.F.R. §63.1206(c)(2)(iv).  Section 5.3 of the FAP references the ash analytical methods in Appendix A of the WAP.  Appendix A of the WAP lists three methods for ash content: 8-91-69, 3-D482, and D3174.  However, the WAP does not identify the source of each analytical method.  In response to a December 10, 2019, electronic mail message from Charles Hall, of my staff, on December 12, 2019, Dennis Warchol, of your staff, identified the September 1992 Chemical Waste Management (CWM) Analytical Method Manual as the source of Method 8-91-69 and the 1992 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, or more recent edition or update, as the source of method 3-D482.  Further, Mr. Warchol confirmed that D3174 refers to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) method titled "Standard Test Method for Ash in the Analysis Sample of Coal and Coke from Coal."  EPA agrees that the ASTM methods are appropriate for determining the concentration of ash in waste samples.  However, Veolia must submit CWM method 8-91-69 for EPA review and approval, or it must use only the ASTM methods for ash content analysis.  Additionally, please revise the FAP to specify the sources of all analytical methods that Veolia will use.
   Veolia Response:  Veolia will only use the ASTM Method for ash analysis, specifically Method D482-13 and D2974-14.  The CWM Method is not being used and is only incorporated in the WAP as a reference method.  Veolia will modify the FAP to reflect this and also will revise the FAP to specify all sources of the analytical methods that will be used.

14.   Section 5.3 of the FAP references the chlorine analytical methods in Appendix A of the WAP.  Appendix A of Veolia's WAP lists three methods for chlorides:  2-4500Clˉ, 4-300.0, and 325.3.  However, the WAP does not identify the source of each analytical method.  In response to Mr. Hall's December 10, 2019, electronic mail message, Mr. Warchol responded that the 18[th] Edition of the Standard Methods for the Examination of  Water and Wastewater from the American Public Health Association, or more recent edition or update, is the source of method 2-4500Clˉ and the EPA's "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes", EPA-600/4-79-020, is the source of Method number 4-300.0.  On December 12, 2019, Mr. Warchol confirmed that method 325.3 is the method in Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes which is similar if not identical to Method 9252 in SW-846.  EPA agrees that these are appropriate analytical methods to determine the concentration of total chlorine in waste samples.  Please revise the FAP to specify the sources of all analytical methods that Veolia will use.
  Veolia Response:  Veolia will identify the sources of the analytical methods in the revised FAP.

15.   Section 6.0 of the FAP includes sampling and analysis procedures that apply to a specified number of shipments or loads of feedstreams (e.g., the first three shipments, etc.)  To facilitate the calculation of the 3-sample minimum (plus every 10[th] shipment) based upper limit (mean plus two standard deviations), EPA requests that Veolia specify in the FAP in Section 6.0 the start date for collecting analytical information for all feedstreams pursuant to the revised FAP.  Since Veolia's historical analytical information may have not been collected in accordance with the procedures in the revised FAP or permit condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii), this clarification will ensure that all analytical information used to demonstrate compliance going forward is collected according to the sampling and analysis frequency contained in the revised FAP.
  Veolia Response:  Veolia will incorporate into Section 6.0 of the FAP the start date for collecting analytical information for all feedstreams.  Veolia started following all sampling and analysis requirements defined in the Title V Permit on the effective date of the Permit which was July 18, 2019.  In an effort to ensure compliance on the effective date of the permit, more stringent sampling and analysis were continued to ensure compliance with the revised requirements.

16.   In the first sentence of Section 6.2, Veolia states:

Subject to the exemptions to the analysis procedures below, representative sampling shall be conducted using the methods specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 261, Appendix I, of each shipment of waste prior to feeding the waste into any incinerator and shall analyze such sample for MACT metals using appropriate quality assurance and quality control procedures and test methods that are consistent with SW-846.

  Please modify this statement for clarity as follows:

Subject to the exemptions to the analysis procedures below, representative sampling shall be conducted using the methods specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 261, Appendix I, of each shipment of waste prior to feeding the waste into any incinerator.  Such samples shall be analyzed for MACT metals using appropriate quality assurance and quality control procedures and test methods that are consistent with SW-846 and specified in this FAP.

   Veolia Response:  The first sentence of Section 6.2 will be replaced with the suggested revision above.

17. In the second paragraph under Initial Analysis for Non-Suspect Waste in Section 6.2 of       the FAP, Veolia states, in part, "Each feedstream shall be sampled and analyzed by: ...(2) sampling and analyzing at least ten percent of each of the first three or more shipments of each feedstream received at the facility per 24-month period."  EPA recognizes that the Title V permit mistakenly uses the same language in Condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(B)(III)(aa).  As written, this statement requires Veolia to collect and analyze samples from ten percent of three shipments (or 0.3 shipments) and not the intended "sampling at least ten percent of containers of the first three or more shipments."  See similar language in Conditions 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(B)(I)(aa), (II)(aa), (III) (aa) and (V)(bb).  Please revise this sentence accordingly.
   Veolia Response:  The referenced sentence in Section 6.2 of the FAP will be revised to read similarly to the language in Conditions 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(B)(I)(aa), (II)(aa), (III) (aa) and (V)(bb).

18. The discrepancy procedure in the first paragraph under Discrepant Analytical Results in Section 6.2 of the FAP seems to refer exclusively to the initial determination of the profile concentration (only the first three samples) and not any updated calculated value provided for under Subsequent Analysis for Non-Suspect Waste.  Condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(B)(V) in the Title V permit clearly requires Veolia to use the more recent waste profile concentration of the initial and subsequent analysis.  Please revise this paragraph to match Condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(B)(V).
   Veolia Response:  The discrepancy procedure in the first paragraph under Discrepant Analytical Results in Section 6.2 will be revised to match Condition 2.1(D)(4)(d)(ii)(B)(V) of the June, 2019 Title V permit.

19. The three paragraphs of Section 6.3 of the FAP track their counterpart paragraphs in Condition 2.1(D)(4)(ii)(C) of the Title V permit very closely except for the fact that the second sentence of the second paragraph of Section 6.3 does not include the text pertaining to the determination of the LVM, mercury, and SVM concentrations in waste samples.  Please revise this sentence to state:

The calculation must be based on all batched, treated, blended, mixed, or otherwise altered ingredients and the contribution of each ingredient determined according to the Analysis Procedures for MACT Metals in Section 6.0 of the FAP.

   Veolia Response:  This sentence in the FAP will be revised as recommended above.

20. The last paragraph in Section 6.3 of the FAP reads:  "Feedstreams which are exemptions to the analysis procedures above can be batched, treated, blended, mixed, or otherwise altered provided the conditions for wastes exempt from sampling and analysis are followed."  Please revise this statement to read as follows:
      Feedstreams which are exempt from sampling can be batched, treated, blended, mixed, or otherwise altered provided the feedstreams comply with the exemption criteria in Section 6.6.

   Veolia Response:  This sentence in the FAP will be revised as recommended above.
21. The first paragraph of Section 6.6 of the FAP identifies six categories of feedsreams that are exempt from analysis.  The second paragraph addresses data review and recordkeeping tasks, but it does not identify whether Veolia or the waste generator is responsible for these tasks.   EPA requests that Veolia specify the responsible party.  Further, EPA requests that Veolia identify the title for the Veolia staff who performs these tasks.  Please revise Section 6.6 of the FAP to specify the title of the Veolia staff responsible for performing these tasks.
   Veolia Response:  Section 6.6 will be revised to include the responsible party for these tasks.  The responsible party is Veolia's Technical Manager, or his designee(s).


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13488-13490]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5372]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0201; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-47-AD;
Amendment 39-16972; AD 2010-11-09R1]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH (TAE)
Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for
TAE models TAE 125-01 and TAE 125-02-99 reciprocating engines installed
on, but not limited to, Diamond Aircraft Industries Model DA 42
airplanes. That AD currently requires initial and repetitive
replacements of proportional pressure reducing valves (PPRVs) (also
known as propeller control valves). This new AD relaxes the repetitive
replacement interval from a 300-hour interval to a 600-hour interval
for PPRVs, P/N 05-7212-E002801, on TAE 125-02-99 engine. This AD was
prompted by TAE increasing the life of the PPRV, part number (P/N) 05-
7212-E002801, on TAE 125-02-99 engines from 300 to 600 hours. We are
issuing this AD to prevent engine in-flight shutdown, possibly
resulting in reduced control of the aircraft.

DATES: This AD is effective April 11, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of April 11,
2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of July
13, 2010 (75 FR 32253, June 8, 2010).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14 D-09350,
Lichtenstein, Germany; phone: +49-37204-696-0; fax: +49-37204-696-2912;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-
238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
781-238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to revise AD 2010-11-09, Amendment 39-16314 (75 FR 32253, June
8, 2010). That AD applies to the specified products. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on November 22, 2011 (76 FR 72128). That NPRM
proposed to retain all of the requirements of AD 2010-11-09, except the
repetitive replacement interval in paragraph (e)(2). This AD relaxes
the repetitive 300-hour replacement interval to a 600-hour interval.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (76 FR 72128, November 22,
2011).

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects about 300 TAE 125-01 and TAE 125-
02-99 reciprocating engines installed in Diamond Aircraft Industries
Model DA 42 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will
take 0.25 work-hour per engine to replace a PPRV and install a
vibration isolator to the gearbox

assembly. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts
cost about $275 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the
cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $88,875.

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 have determined that 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, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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 removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2010-11-09, Amendment 39-16314 (75 FR 32253, June 8, 2010), and adding
the following new AD:

2010-11-09R1 Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH: Amendment 39-16972;
Docket No. FAA-2009-0201; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-47-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 11, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD revises AD 2010-11-09, Amendment 39-16314 (75 FR 32253,
June 8, 2010).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH (TAE) models
TAE 125-01 and TAE 125-02-99 reciprocating engines designated with
part number (P/N) 05-7200-K000301 or 02-7200-14017R1. The engines
are installed on, but not limited to, Diamond Aircraft Industries
Model DA 42 airplanes.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by engine in-flight shutdown incidents
reported on Diamond Aircraft Industries DA 42 airplanes equipped
with TAE 125 engines. The investigations showed that it was mainly
the result of failure of the proportional pressure reducing valve
(PPRV) (also known as the propeller control valve) due to high
vibrations. Since the release of European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2008-0145, the engine gearbox has been identified as the
primary source of vibrations for the PPRV, and it has also been
determined that failure of the electrical connection to the PPRV
could have contributed to some power loss events or in-flight
shutdowns. We are issuing this AD to prevent engine in-flight
shutdown, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aircraft.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions.

(f) TAE 125-02-99 Reciprocating Engines

(1) Initial PPRV Replacement

    For TAE 125-02-99 reciprocating engines with engine, P/N 05-
7200-K000301, within 55 flight hours after the effective date of
this AD:
    (i) Replace the existing PPRV with PPRV, P/N 05-7212-E002801.
Use paragraphs A. through B. of TAE Service Bulletin (SB) No. TM TAE
125-1007 P1, Revision 3, dated October 17, 2011, or SB No. TM TAE
125-1007 P1, Revision 2, dated April 29, 2009, to do the
replacement.
    (ii) Install a vibration isolator, P/N 05-7212-K022302, to the
gearbox assembly. Use paragraphs 1 through 20 of TAE SB No. TM TAE
125-1009 P1, Revision 3, dated October 14, 2009, to do the
installation.

(2) Repetitive PPRV Replacements

    Thereafter, within every 600 flight hours, replace the PPRV, P/N
05-7212-E002801, with the same P/N PPRV.

(g) TAE 125-01 Reciprocating Engines

(1) Initial PPRV Replacement

    For TAE 125-01 reciprocating engines with engine, P/N 02-7200-
14017R1, within 55 flight hours after the effective date of this AD:
    (i) Replace the existing PPRV with a PPRV, P/N NM-0000-0124501
or P/N 05-7212-K021401. Use paragraph 1 of TAE SB No. TM TAE 125-
0018, Revision 1, dated November 12, 2008, to do the replacement.
    (ii) Inspect the electrical connectors of the PPRV and replace
the connectors if damaged, and install a vibration isolator, P/N 05-
7212-K023801, to the gearbox assembly. Use paragraphs 1 through 27
of TAE SB No. TM TAE 125-0020, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2009,
to do the inspection and installation.

(2) Repetitive PPRV Replacements

    Thereafter, within every 300 flight hours, replace the PPRV with
a PPRV, P/N NM-0000-0124501 or P/N 05-7212-K021401.

(h) FAA Differences

    (1) We have found it necessary to not reference the second
paragraph of the unsafe condition from the MCAI EASA AD 2009-0224.
That sentence stated that the problem has only manifested itself on
those TAE engines installed on Diamond Aircraft Industries DA 42
aircraft. The affected engines which require a PPRV could be used on
other make and model airplanes in the future.
    (2) We also did not reference the February 28, 2010 compliance
date, which is in EASA AD 2009-0193R1, or the January 31, 2010
compliance date which is in EASA AD 2009-0224.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to EASA AD 2009-0224, dated October 20, 2009 (TAE 125-
02-99), and EASA AD 2009-0193R1, dated December 1, 2009 (TAE 125-
01), for related information.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Strom,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for more information about this AD.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14 D-09350,
Lichtenstein, Germany, phone: +49-37204-696-0; fax: +49-37204-696-
2912; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51.
    (2) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
April 11, 2012.
    (i) Thielert Aircraft Engines (TAE) GmbH, TAE Service Bulletin
(SB) No. TM TAE 125-1007 P1, Revision 3, October 17, 2011.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
July 13, 2010 (75 FR 32253, June 8, 2010).
    (i) Thielert Aircraft Engines (TAE) GmbH, TAE SB No. TM TAE 125-
1007 P1, Revision 2, April 29, 2009.
    (ii) Thielert Aircraft Engines (TAE) GmbH, TAE SB No. TM TAE
125-1009 P1, Revision 3, dated October 14, 2009.
    (iii) Thielert Aircraft Engines (TAE) GmbH, TAE SB No. TM TAE
125-0020, including Annexes A and B, Revision 1, dated November 25,
2009.
    (iv) Thielert Aircraft Engines (TAE) GmbH, TAE SB No. TM TAE
125-0018, Revision 1, dated November 12, 2008.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14 D-09350,
Lichtenstein, Germany, phone: +49-37204-696-0; fax: +49-37204-696-
2912; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (6) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive
Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may also review copies of the 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 Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 24, 2012.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-5372 Filed 3-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on September 10, 2004

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-13299

________________________________________________________________________
______________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Request of      ATLAS AIR, INC., (ATLAS)    filed   9/1/04  for:

XX  Activation of Backup Authority and Designation for U.S.-Mexico
All-Cargo Service

Background

By Order 2003-5-23, the Department awarded Express.Net Airlines, LLC
(Express.Net) primary authority and Atlas backup authority to provide
certain U.S.-Mexico all-cargo scheduled service in the 2002 U.S.-Mexico
All-Cargo Exemption Service Case, Docket OST-2002-13299.
Express.Net’s award was subject to the condition that it begin its
proposed service by August 20, 2003.  Once service was implemented, the
route authority was further subject to a 90-day dormancy condition,
whereby the exemption authority for a given route(s) would become
dormant if it were not used for a period of 90 days.

Order 2003-5-23 provided further that Atlas’ backup exemption
authority would not become effective until: (1) Express.Net notifies the
Department that it decided not to inaugurate service or that the subject
Mexico authority is dormant; (2) Atlas notifies the Department that it
is still in a position to implement the services it proposed in the
Proceeding and requests the Department to activate its backup exemption
authority; and (3) the Department takes action to activate the backup
authority.

Dormancy Notices

By letter dated December 31, 2003, Express.Net advised the Department
that its authority to serve the Dayton-El Paso-Chihuahua markets was
dormant and, by letter dated August 30, 2004, Express.Net advised the
Department that its authority to serve the
Dayton-Monterrey-Guadalajara-Mexico City markets also was dormant.

Request for Activation of Backup Authority

By letter dated September 1, 2004, Atlas requested activation of its
backup exemption authority to provide U.S.-Mexico all-cargo service
between: (1) Huntsville, Alabama, on the one hand, and Mexico City and
Guadalajara, Mexico, on the other hand; and (2) Los Angeles, California,
on the one hand, and Mexico City and Guadalajara, Mexico, on the other
hand.  Atlas also requested designation under the U.S.-Mexico aviation
agreement to provide the services proposed.  Atlas states, further, that
it is still in a position to institute service in the U.S.-Mexico
market.  In this regard, Atlas maintains that, as soon as its backup
authority has been activated and Atlas has obtained the requisite
license from the Mexican government, Atlas plans to commence service in
the markets with B747 freighter aircraft.

see next page   -

													2

Applicant rep: Russell E. Pommer<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT analyst:  Linda L.
Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

DISPOSITION

XX Granted Atlas’ request for activation of its backup exemption
authority, subject

       to conditions (see below)

The above action was effective when taken:   September 10, 2004,
through   September 10, 2006.

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

                            Office of International Aviation

XX  Authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement between
the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX  Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

XX  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
___________________

Conditions:  The backup exemption authority activated here for
U.S.-Mexico all-cargo services is subject to the dormancy notice
requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A of Order 88-10-2.

________________________________________________________________________
___________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found Atlas qualified to provide the
services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy, (2) grant of the request was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the request would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced
Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this
Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electric version of this document is available on the World Wide Web
at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

					APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										  05/2004

     Specifically, Express.Net was awarded exemption authority to serve
the Dayton-Monterrey-Guadalajara-Mexico City and Dayton-El
Paso-Chihuahua markets.  Atlas was awarded backup exemption authority to
serve the Huntsville-Mexico City-Guadalajara and Los Angeles-Mexico
City-Guadalajara markets.

   Order 2003-5-23 stated further that, should the backup exemption
authority of Atlas become activated, the authority would remain in
effect for two years, subject to conditions.

   In light of our action here activating Atlas’ backup authority, we
will proceed to designate Atlas under the U.S.-Mexico aviation agreement
to provide the subject all-cargo services.

   See, also, footnotes 17 and 19 in Order 2003-5-23 in the 2002
U.S.-Mexico All-Cargo Exemption Service Case.


Date: December 18, 2003 Subject: Production Based Compliance Options for the Final Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP EPA Contract No. 68 D 1 079; EPA Work Assignment No. 2 12 RTI Project No. 08550.002.012 From: Katie Hanks To: Mary Tom Kissell, ESD/ WCPG ( C439 03) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 I. Introduction National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) were proposed for the plywood and composite wood products ( PCWP) industry on January 9, 2003.1 The proposed NESHAP contained a production based compliance option ( PBCO) ( formerly referred to as production based emission limits). The PBCO was developed for process units that use pollution prevention or are otherwise inherently low emitting. The PBCO consists of separate emission limits for specific process units types. The PBCO limits are in terms of mass per unit production such as pounds per oven dried ton ( lb/ ODT) or pounds per thousand square feet ( lb/ MSF), of " total HAP." " Total HAP" is defined in the PCWP NESHAP as the total emissions of the following six HAP: acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde. The methodology used to develop the proposed PBCO is presented in a separate memorandum. 2 This memorandum discusses the changes made to the PBCO limits in response to the public comments, including changes in how non detect measurements are treated ( discussed in Section II) and changes to the PBCO limits due to revised distinctions among process units ( discussed in Section III). The final PBCO limits are presented in Section IV.

II. Treatment of Non Detect Measurements The commenters stated that most of the PBCO limit could be consumed by using one half of the method detection limit ( MDL) for non detect measurements, as required by the proposed rule. They suggested excluding non detect measurements from the PBCO limit calculation instead of using one half of the MDL. In response to these comments, an analysis was conducted to determine the validity of the commenters' concerns ( see Attachment A). Based on the analysis 2 included in Attachment A, we agree that most of the PBCO limit would be reached by using onehalf of the MDL for non detect measurements. Therefore, we changed the rule: ( 1) to exclude non detect measurements from the PBCO limit calculations when all test runs are non detect, and ( 2) to ensure that the development of the PBCO limits is consistent with excluding non detect measurements by recalculating the limits using zero for non detect measurements when all test runs were non detect.

III. Changes in Process Unit Distinctions 1. Primary and secondary tube dryers In the proposed PCWP NESHAP, single stage and multi stage tube dryers were treated as one process unit, " tube dryers." Commenters requested that stages in multistage tube dryers be considered separate tube dryers so that different compliance options can be used for various dryer stages. Single stage tube dryers include only a primary tube dryer. Multi stage tube drying systems incorporate two stages in series, a primary tube dryer and a secondary tube dryer, which are separated by an emission point ( e. g., a cyclonic collector). Each stage of a multi stage tube dryer functions as an individual dryer, and the existing source MACT floor for both primary tube dryer and secondary tube dryers is the same ( e. g., incineration based control). To allow for more flexibility in application of pollution prevention or controls to the different stages of tube dryers, the final PCWP rule defines the stages of multi stage tube dryers separately in definitions of " primary tube dryer" and " secondary tube dryer." Primary tube dryers include single stage tube dryers and the first stage of multi stage tube dryers. Secondary tube dryers include the second stage of multi stage tube dryers. 3 In the final PCWP rule, both primary and secondary tube dryers are required to apply MACT controls and each will have a separate PBCO limit.

2. Conveyor strand dryers One definition of " strand dryers" was included in the proposed PCWP rule because, at proposal, MACT for both rotary and conveyor strand dryers was the same ( i. e, MACT was represented by incineration based control of 100 percent of the exhaust from both types of dryers). One commenter recommended that conveyor strand dryers be exempt from control requirements in the final rule because they are low emitting dryers. Conveyor strand dryers have three zones, each with its own heat and exhaust flow. Following proposal, the MACT floor for conveyor strand dryers was revised to require control of exhaust from zone 1 for existing dryers and zones 1 and 2 for new dryers. 3 No conveyor strand dryer emissions data are available for all six of the HAP that comprise " total HAP." Therefore, a PBCO limit cannot be developed for conveyor strand dryers.

IV. PBCO Limits for the Final PCWP NESHAP The same approach used to establish the PBCO limits for the proposed PCWP NESHAP was used to establish the limits for the final NESHAP ( except that non detect measurements were 3 treated as zero for the final analysis). The available " total HAP" test data were grouped according to the process unit groups with controlled MACT floors. The highest " total HAP" test value was identified for each process unit group, and the PBCO limit for the process unit group was established by multiplying the highest test value by 0.1 to reflect a 90 percent reduction from the highest test. Attachment B presents the data set used to establish the PBCO limits for each process unit group. The " total HAP" summations presented in Attachment B were developed using zero when all test runs were below the MDL. Table 1 summarizes the PBCO limits recommended for the final PCWP NESHAP. The differences in the proposed and final PBCO limits are: ( 1) a secondary tube dryer PBCO limit has been added, and ( 2) the reconstituted wood product board cooler PBCO limit decreased from 0.015 to 0.014 lb/ MSF 3/ 4" due to use of zero when all test runs were below the MDL.

TABLE 1. PBCO LIMITS FOR FINAL PCWP NESHAP Equipmenta PBCO limit units PBCO limit Primary tube dryers lb/ ODT 0.26 Secondary tube dryers lb/ ODT 0.010 Rotary strand dryers lb/ ODT 0.18 Green wood particle rotary dryers lb/ ODT 0.058 Softwood veneer dryer heated zones lb/ MSF 3/ 8" 0.022 Hardboard ovens lb/ MSF 1/ 8" 0.022 Reconstituted wood product presses lb/ MSF 3/ 4" 0.30 Pressurized refiners lb/ ODT 0.039 Press predryers ( new only) lb/ MSF 1/ 2" 0.037 Reconstituted wood product board coolers ( new only) lb/ MSF 3/ 4" 0.014 Fiberboard mat dryer heated zones ( new only) lb/ MSF 1/ 2" 0.022 a Applies to new and existing equipment unless otherwise noted. b There is no PBCO limit for conveyor strand dryers. References:

1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products; Proposed Rule. 68 FR1276. Washington, DC. U. S. Government Printing Office. January 9, 2003.

2. Memorandum from K. Hanks, MRI, to M. Kissell, EPA/ ESD. June 2, 2000. Development of Production Based Emission Limits for Plywood and Composite Wood Products Process Units 3. Memorandum from K. Hanks, B. Nicholson, and K. Parrish, RTI, to M. Kissell, EPA/ ESD. December 15, 2003. Determination of MACT floors and MACT for the Final Plywood and Composite Wood Products Industry NESHAP. Attachment A Analysis of Portion of Proposed PBCO Limit Consumed if One Half of the Method Detection Limit Is Used for Non detect Measurements Portion of Proposed PBCO Limit Consumed if One Half of the Method Detection Limit Is Used for Non detect Measurements Tables A1 and A2 present an analysis of the portion of the proposed PBCO limit consumed if one half of the method detection limit ( MDL) is used for non detect measurements. Table A1 contains typical process parameters for each type of process units with a proposed PBCO limit. The upper end of the typical MDL range for the test methods most likely to be used to demonstrate compliance with the PBCO ( i. e., the NCASI Impinger/ cannister method ( NCASI Method IM/ CAN/ WP 99.01) or EPA Method 320 ( Appendix A to 40 CFR part 63) is 1 part per million ( ppm). The process parameters in Table A1 were combined with one half of 1 ppm ( i. e., 0.5 ppm) to calculate the percentage of the PBCO limit that would be consumed if all of the six HAP were not detected and one half of MDL was used to calculate " total HAP."

Table A2 presents the calculations of the percent of the PBCO limit consumed by nondetect measurements. For five process units, use of one half the MDL for all six HAP consumed all of the PBCO limit. Because formaldehyde, methanol, and acetaldehyde are the most commonly detected HAP from PCWP process units, these pollutants were eliminated from the analysis. However, using one half of the MDL for acrolein, phenol, and propionaldehyde still resulted in consumption of the entire PBCO limit for five process units. Based on the analysis presented in Tables A1 and A2, it appears to be reasonable to allow facilities to assume zero for non detect measurements when determining compliance with the PBCO, provided that the MDL is not set at an unreasonably high level such that pollutants cannot be detected. TABLE A1. TYPICAL PROCESS PARAMETERS FOR PROCESS UNITS WITH PROPOSED PBCO Process Unit Proposed PBCO limit PBCO limit units Typical annual throughput* Throughput Units Typical hourly throughput Typical flow ( dscfm)

Presses 0.3 lb/ MSF 3/ 4 100,000 MSF 3/ 4 12.5 75,000 Strand Dryers 0.18 lb/ ODT 65,000 ODT 8.1 32,478 Softwood Veneer Dryers 0.022 lb/ MSF 3/ 8 71,000 MSF 3/ 8 8.9 12,062 Tube Dryers 0.26 lb/ ODT 87,000 ODT 10.9 79,173 Green Rotary Dryers 0.058 lb/ ODT 70,000 ODT 8.8 35,731 Fiberboard Mat Dryer 0.022 lb/ MSF 1/ 2 165,000 MSF 1/ 2 20.6 49,389 Hardboard Ovens 0.022 lb/ MSF 1/ 8 163,000 MSF 1/ 8 20.4 4,742 Press Pre dryers 0.037 lb/ MSF 1/ 2 40,750 MSF 1/ 2 5.1 21,812 Pressurized Refiners 0.039 lb/ ODT 87,000 ODT 10.9 1,000 Board Coolers 0.015 lb/ MSF 3/ 4 100,000 MSF 3/ 4 12.5 60,000 TABLE A2. PERCENTAGE OF PBCO LIMIT CONSUMED BY USING ONE HALF OF THE MDL FOR NON DETECT TEST RUNS Process unit PBCO units HAP emissionsa ( lb / unit throughput) Percent of PBCO limit consumed by ½  MDL calculation if all 6 HAP are non detectb Percent of PBCO limit consumed by ½  MDL calculation if only acrolein, propionaldehyde, and phenol are non detectb Acrolein Acetaldehyde Formaldehyde Methanol Propionaldehyde Phenol Presses lb/ MSF 3/ 4 0.0262 0.0206 0.0140 0.0149 0.0271 0.0439 49% 32%

Strand Dryers lb/ ODT 0.0174 0.0137 0.0093 0.0100 0.0181 0.0293 54% 36%

Softwood Veneer Dryers lb/ MSF 3/ 8 0.0059 0.0047 0.0032 0.0034 0.0061 0.0099 151% 100%

Tube Dryers lb/ ODT 0.0317 0.0249 0.0170 0.0181 0.0329 0.0533 68% 45%

Green Rotary Dryers lb/ ODT 0.0178 0.0140 0.0095 0.0102 0.0184 0.0299 172% 114%

Fiberboard Mat Dryer lb/ MSF 1/ 2 0.0104 0.0082 0.0056 0.0060 0.0108 0.0175 266% 176%

Hareboard Ovens lb/ MSF 1/ 8 0.0010 0.0008 0.0005 0.0006 0.0011 0.0017 26% 17%

Press Pre dryers lb/ MSF 1/ 2 0.0187 0.0147 0.0100 0.0107 0.0193 0.0313 283% 187%

Pressurized Refiners lb/ ODT 0.0004 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0004 0.0007 6% 4%

Board Coolers lb/ MSF 3/ 4 0.0209 0.0164 0.0112 0.0120 0.0217 0.0351 782% 518%

a The emissions of each HAP ( X) was calculated as follows:

lbx/ throughput = ( ppmx) / ( 106) x ( lb X/ lbmol X) x ( dscfm) x ( 60 min/ hr) / ( 385.3 ft3/ lbmol ideal gas at 528oR) / hourly throughput b The percent of the PBCO consumed is the sum of the emissions of each pollutant divided by the proposed PBCO limit. Attachment B Summary of Total HAP Test Averages Used to Develop PBCO Limits Summary of Total HAP Test Averages Used to Develop PBCO Limits Uncontrolled emissions tests including all six of the HAP that comprise " total HAP" were used in developing the PBCO. In summing emissions of the six HAP, zero was used for pollutants with non detects for all emission test runs. Emissions tests for process units with control devices that alter HAP emissions ( e. g., RTO, RCO, WESP, etc) were not used in development of the PBCO limits. The PBCO limits were developed based on a 90 percent reduction from the highest uncontrolled emission test result. Table B1 presents the " total HAP" test data used to develop the PBCO limits. Table B2 presents the " total HAP" data that were not used in developing the PBCO limits, and the reason that data were not used ( generally because the data represented controlled emissions). TABLE B1. TOTAL HAP EMISSION TESTS USED TO DEVELOP THE PBCO Process Unit ( count) MRI code Unit code Test date Product Total HAP test average Units Highest test average ( H) Emission limit (= H x 0.1)

Reconstituted Wood Product Press ( 17) 234 1PB2 HB press 6/ 25/ 98 HB 2.1 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

072 1PB1 HB press ( high resin/ high wax) 5/ 14/ 98 HB 1.7 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

072 1PB1 HB press ( high resin/ low wax) 5/ 13/ 98 HB 3.0 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

072 1PB1 HB press ( low resin/ low wax) 5/ 12/ 98 HB 2.1 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

053 2PB1 HB press 10/ 29/ 97 HB 1.1 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

404 1PT2 Continuous press and BC 1/ 13/ 98 MDF 0.59 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

100 1PB4 Hot press 8/ 25/ 97 MDF 1.2 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

142 1PB2 Hot press 3/ 12/ 98 MDF 0.76 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

118 1PB2 OSB hot press 6/ 9/ 98 OSB 1.2 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

083 1PB2 OSB hot press, No. 1 5/ 6/ 98 OSB 0.36 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

083 2PB2 OSB hot press, No. 2 5/ 5/ 98 OSB 0.56 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

145 1PB2 OSB hot press 1/ 18/ 98 OSB 1.1 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

410 1PB2 OSB hot press 4/ 3/ 98 OSB 0.57 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

010 1PB2 PB hot press 10/ 23/ 97 PB 1.3 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

039 1PB1 PB hot press 6/ 5/ 98 PB 0.51 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

156 1PB2 PB hot press 9/ 19/ 97 PB 0.47 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

183 1PXX PB hot press 4/ 29/ 97 PB 0.89 lb/ MSF 3/ 4" 3.0 0.30 Hardboard oven ( 1) 234 1OT2 HB tempering oven 6/ 26/ 98 HB 0.22 lb/ MSF 1/ 8" 0.22 0.022 Fiberboard mat dryer ( heated zones) ( 4) 053 2DF3 HB dryer 10/ 30/ 97 HB 0.22 lb/ MSF 1/ 2"

062 1DF1 FB dryer ( hushboard) 6/ 24/ 97 FB 0.03 lb/ MSF 1/ 2"

062 1DF1 FB dryer ( high density roofing) 6/ 25/ 97 FB 0.029 lb/ MSF 1/ 2"

062 1DF1 FB dryer ( structural sheathing) 6/ 27/ 97 FB 0.057 lb/ MSF 1/ 2" 0.22 0.022 Board coolers ( 3) 142 1CW1 No. 1 Press Board cooler vent 3/ 12/ 98 MDF 0.027 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

156 1CS1 PB cooler & kicker 9/ 18/ 97 PB 0.059 lb/ MSF 3/ 4"

183 1CW4 PB primary cooler 4/ 29/ 97 PB 0.14 lb/ MSF 3/ 4" 0.14 0.014 Pressurized refiner ( 1) 072 3RP1 HB pressurized digester/ refiner 5/ 11/ 98 HB 0.39 lb/ ODT 0.39 0.039 Press predryer ( 1) 053 PPH HB press preheater 10/ 30/ 97 HB 0.37 lb/ MSF 1/ 2" 0.37 0.037 TABLE B1, CONTINUED Process Unit ( count) MRI code Unit code Test date Product Total HAP test average Units Highest test average ( H) Emission limit (= H x 0.1)

Softwood veneer dryer ( heated zones) ( 11) 194 1DV2 Dryer No. 1 heated zones 11/ 12/ 97 SPW 0.18 lb/ MSF 3/ 8"

194 XDV2 Dryer No. 1 and 2 heated zones 7/ 15/ 98 SPW 0.22 lb/ MSF 3/ 8"

112 XDV2 Dryer No. 2 and 3 heated zones 7/ 29/ 97 SPW 0.057 lb/ MSF 3/ 8"

112 XDV2 Dryer No. 2 and 3 heated zones 8/ 1/ 97 SPW 0.17 lb/ MSF 3/ 8"

115 XDV2 Dryer 1, 2, 3 heated zones 7/ 24/ 97 SPW 0.17 lb/ MSF 3/ 8"

155 XDV2 Dryer 1,2,3 heated zones 9/ 17/ 97 SPW 0.059 lb/ MSF 3/ 8"

165 XDV2 Dryer 1,2,3,4 heated zones 11/ 17/ 97 SPW 0.058 lb/ MSF 3/ 8"

170 XDV2 Dryer No. 1,2,3 heated zones 12/ 9/ 97 SPW 0.066 lb/ MSF 3/ 8"

188 XDV2 Dryer No. 1,2,3,4 heated zones 5/ 19/ 98 SPW 0.030 lb/ MSF 3/ 8"

188 XDV2 Dryer No. 1,2,3,4 heated zones 5/ 20/ 98 SPW 0.12 lb/ MSF 3/ 8"

194 2DV2 Dryer No. 2 heated zones 11/ 12/ 97 SPW 0.067 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" 0.22 0.022 Rotary strand dryers ( 4) 145 3DR4 OSB rotary dryer No. 3 1/ 17/ 98 OSB 0.4 lb/ ODT 145 4DR4 OSB rotary dryer No. 4 1/ 17/ 98 OSB 0.51 lb/ ODT 410 XDR3 OSB rotary dryers ( 5) 4/ 1/ 98 OSB 0.65 lb/ ODT 083 XDR2 OSB rotary dryers ( 2) 5/ 7/ 98 OSB 1.8 lb/ ODT 1.8 0.18 Green furnish rotary dryers ( 5) 039 1DR3 PB final rotary dryer 6/ 4/ 98 PB 0.39 lb/ ODT 156 2DR2 PB rotary dryer ( 2) 9/ 22/ 97 PB 0.22 lb/ ODT 039 6DR3 PB rotary predryer 6/ 3/ 98 PB 0.027 lb/ ODT 183 3DR2 PB rotary dryer ( face) 5/ 1/ 97 PB 0.58 lb/ ODT 156 1DR2 PB rotary dryer ( 2) 9/ 22/ 1997 PB 0.24 lb/ ODT 0.58 0.058 Primary tube dryers ( 8) 100 2DT2 Core tube dryer ( inlet prior to quench) 8/ 23/ 97 MDF 0.87 lb/ ODT 142 2DT2 No. 2 Tube dryer ( Scrubber inlet) 3/ 9/ 98 MDF 1.2 lb/ ODT 100 1DT2 Face tube dryer ( Wet Scrubber Inlet, before quench) 8/ 24/ 97 MDF 1.9 lb/ ODT 132 2DT2 Face primary tube dryer ( Sum of 2 cyclone outlets) 2/ 4/ 98 MDF 1.9 lb/ ODT 132 4DT2 Core primary tube dryer ( Sum of 2 cyclone outlets) 2/ 5/ 98 MDF 2.4 lb/ ODT 404 1DT2 Tube dryer ( Product cyclone outlet) 1/ 13/ 98 MDF 2.5 lb/ ODT 109 D T1 1/ 17/ 95 HB 2.6 lb/ ODT 234 XDT4 HB 1st stage tube dryers 6/ 22/ 98 HB 1.5 lb/ ODT 2.6 0.26 TABLE B1, CONTINUED Process Unit ( count) MRI code Unit code Test date Product Total HAP test average Units Highest test average ( H) Emission limit (= H x 0.1)

Secondary tube dryers ( 4) 132 XDT1 Face secondary tube dryer ( Baghouse Outlet) 2/ 4/ 98 MDF 0.027 lb/ ODT 132 YDT1 Core secondary tube dryer ( Baghouse Outlet) 2/ 5/ 98 MDF 0.051 lb/ ODT 234 3DT2 HB 2nd stage tube dryer # 3 6/ 24/ 98 HB 0.091 lb/ ODT 234 4DT2 HB 2nd stage tube dryer # 4 6/ 24/ 98 HB 0.098 lb/ ODT 0.098 0.010 TABLE B2. TOTAL HAP EMISSION TESTS NOT USED FOR PBCO LIMIT DEVELOPMENT Process Unit MRI code Unit code Test date Product MACT Control Total HAP test average Units Reason not used for PBCO development Reconstituted wood product press 234 1PB1 HB press 6/ 25/ 98 HB 0.96 lb/ MSF 3/ 4" After wet controls 118 1PB1 OSB hot press 6/ 9/ 98 OSB BIO 0.23 lb/ MSF 3/ 4" After MACT control device 083 1PB1 OSB hot press, No. 1 5/ 6/ 98 OSB RCO 0.14 lb/ MSF 3/ 4" After MACT control device 083 2PB1 OSB hot press, No. 2 5/ 5/ 98 OSB RTO 0.059 lb/ MSF 3/ 4" After MACT control device 145 1PB1 OSB hot press 1/ 18/ 98 OSB RTO 0.027 lb/ MSF 3/ 4" After MACT control device 410 1PB1 OSB hot press 4/ 3/ 98 OSB RTO 0 lb/ MSF 3/ 4" After MACT control device 039 1PB2 PB hot press 6/ 5/ 98 PB 0.64 lb/ MSF 3/ 4" After WESP 010 1PB1 PB hot press 10/ 23/ 97 PB RTO 0.0082 lb/ MSF 3/ 4" After MACT control device Hardboard oven 234 1OT1 HB tempering oven 6/ 26/ 98 HB RTO 0.0029 lb/ MSF 1/ 8" After MACT control device Softwood veneer dryer ( heated zones) 194 XDV1 Dryer No. 1 and 2 heated zones 7/ 15/ 98 SPW RCO 0.11 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" After MACT control device 112 2DV6 Dryer No. 2 heated zones 7/ 29/ 97 SPW 0.054 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" Only 1 section of dryer 112 2DV6 Dryer No. 2 heated zones 8/ 1/ 97 SPW 0.062 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" Only 1 section of dryer 112 XDV1 Dryer No. 2 and 3 heated zones 7/ 29/ 97 SPW 0.028 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" After WESP 112 XDV1 Dryer No. 2 and 3 heated zones 8/ 1/ 97 SPW 0.04 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" After WESP 115 XDV1 Dryer 1, 2, 3 heated zones 7/ 24/ 97 SPW 0.14 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" After ESP 155 XDV1 Dryer 1,2,3 heated zones 9/ 17/ 97 SPW 0.056 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" After EFB 170 2DV3 Dryer No. 2 heated zones 12/ 9/ 97 SPW 0.046 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" Only 1 of 3 dryers 170 3DV3 Dryer No. 3 heated zones 12/ 9/ 97 SPW 0.083 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" Only 1 of 3 dryers 188 XDV1 Dryer No. 1,2,3,4 heated zones 5/ 19/ 98 SPW 0.043 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" After WESP 188 XDV1 Dryer No. 1,2,3,4 heated zones 5/ 20/ 98 SPW 0.12 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" After WESP 165 XDV1 Dryer 1,2,3,4 heated zones 11/ 17/ 97 SPW RTO 0.0084 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" After MACT control device 170 XDV1 Dryer No. 1,2,3 heated zones 12/ 9/ 97 SPW RTO 0.014 lb/ MSF 3/ 8" After MACT control device Rotary strand dryers 145 3DR3 OSB rotary dryer No. 3 1/ 17/ 98 OSB 0.41 lb/ ODT After WESP 145 4DR3 OSB rotary dryer No. 4 1/ 17/ 98 OSB 0.58 lb/ ODT After WESP 145 XDR3 OSB rotary dryers ( 5) 1/ 15/ 98 OSB 0.63 lb/ ODT After WESP 145 XDR2 OSB rotary dryers ( 5) 1/ 15/ 98 OSB RTO 0.031 lb/ ODT After MACT control device 410 XDR2 OSB rotary dryers ( 5) 4/ 1/ 98 OSB RTO 0.071 lb/ ODT After MACT control device 083 XDR1 OSB rotary dryers ( 2) 5/ 7/ 98 OSB RTO 0.44 lb/ ODT After MACT control device TABLE B2, CONTINUED Process Unit MRI code Unit code Test date Product MACT Control Total HAP test average Units Reason not used for PBCO development Green furnish rotary dryers 039 1DR2 PB final rotary dryer 6/ 4/ 98 PB 0.46 lb/ ODT After WESP 039 XDR1 PB final rotary dryers ( 5) 6/ 4/ 98 PB 0.39 lb/ ODT After WESP 156 XDR1 PB rotary dryer ( 2) 9/ 22/ 97 PB 0.14 lb/ ODT After wet scrubber 039 6DR2 PB rotary predryer 6/ 3/ 98 PB 0.037 lb/ ODT After WESP 039 6DR1 PB rotary predryer 6/ 3/ 98 PB RTO 0.0025 lb/ ODT After MACT control device Primary tube dryers 100 2DT1 Core tube dryer ( scrubber outlet) 8/ 23/ 97 MDF 0.78 lb/ ODT After wet scrubber 142 2DT1 No. 2 Tube dryer ( Scrubber outlet) 3/ 9/ 98 MDF 0.75 lb/ ODT After scrubber 100 1DT1 Face tube dryer ( Wet Scrubber Outlet) 8/ 24/ 97 MDF 1 lb/ ODT After wet scrubbed 234 XDT3 HB 1st stage tube dryers 6/ 22/ 98 HB 1.4 lb/ ODT After Ducon scrubber