[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13938-13944]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05435]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0142; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-161-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2008-17-
02, AD 2012-08-03, and AD 2012-15-14, for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-
2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-
600R series airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant F airplanes
(collectively called A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series
airplanes. AD 2008-17-02, AD 2012-08-03, and AD 2012-15-14 currently
require repetitive inspections of the forward lugs of the aft bearing
at rib 5 of the main landing gear (MLG) on the left-hand (LH) and
right-hand (RH) wings, and repair if necessary; and installation of new
bushes with increased interference fit in the forward lug of the aft
bearing at rib 5 of the MLG on the LH and RH wings. Since we issued AD
2008-17-02, AD 2012-08-03, and AD 2012-15-14, we have received two
reports of ruptured MLG rib 5 forward lugs that had been modified
(bushes with increased interference fit). This proposed AD would add
airplanes to the applicability; and would add, for certain airplanes,
repetitive inspections of the MLG rib 5 aft bearing forward lugs, and
repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct
cracking of the forward lugs of the aft bearing at rib 5 of the MLG on
the LH and RH wings, which could affect the structural integrity of the
MLG attachment, resulting in possible MLG collapse during landing or
rollout.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61
93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0142; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0142;
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-161-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On July 31, 2008, we issued AD 2008-17-02, Amendment 39-15640 (73
FR 47032, August 13, 2008), for certain Model A310 airplanes.
    On April 5, 2012, we issued AD 2012-08-03, Amendment 39-17019 (77
FR 24367, April 24, 2012), for certain Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, B4-
203, B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-
622R, C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, 221, -222,
-304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes.
    On July 23, 2012, we issued AD 2012-15-14, Amendment 39-17143 (77
FR 46937, August 7, 2012), for certain Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, B4-
203, B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, and F4-
622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
    AD 2008-17-02, Amendment 39-15640 (73 FR 47032, August 13, 2008);
AD 2012-08-03, Amendment 39-17019 (77 FR 24367, April 24, 2012); and AD
2012-15-14, Amendment 39-17143 (77 FR 46937, August 7, 2012); require
actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the products listed
above.
    Since we issued AD 2008-17-02, Amendment 39-15640 (73 FR 47032,
August 13, 2008); AD 2012-08-03, Amendment 39-17019 (77 FR 24367, April
24, 2012); and AD 2012-15-14, Amendment 39-17143 (77 FR 46937, August
7, 2012); the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has
issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0176, dated September 7, 2012,
corrected September 20, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information,

or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    Several cases of corrosion of the Main Landing Gear (MLG) Rib 5
aft fitting forward lug have been reported on A310 family
aeroplanes. In some instances, corrosion pits caused the cracking of
the forward lug.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to the
complete failure of the fitting and thus could affect the structural
integrity of the MLG installation.
    EASA ADs 2006-0372R1 (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2006_0372_R1_superseeded.pdf/AD_2006-0372R1_1), 2007-0195
(http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2007_0195_superseded.pdf/AD_2007-0195_1) [which corresponds with FAA AD 2008-17-02,
Amendment 39-15640 (73 FR 47032, August 13, 2008), 2010-0250 (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2010_0250_superseded.pdf/AD_2010-0250_1) [which corresponds with FAA AD 2012-15-14, Amendment
39-17143 (77 FR 46937, August 7, 2012)] and 2010-0251 (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2010_0251_superseded.pdf/AD_2010-0251_1) [which corresponds with FAA AD 2012-08-03, Amendment
39-17019 (77 FR 24367, April 24, 2012)] were issued to address this
condition and required a repetitive inspection programme of the MLG
Rib 5 fitting forward lugs and, as terminating action, the
embodiment of mandatory design change (bushes with increased
interference fit).
    MLG Rib 5 forward lug on A320 family aeroplanes is a similar
design to the A300/A300-600/A310 family. Since those [EASA] ADs were
issued, on two A321 aeroplanes, post modification (bushes with
increased interference fit) MLG Rib 5 forward lugs were reportedly
found ruptured.
    One other case was due to a sealant discrepancy that led to
water ingress and consequently corrosion initiation, leading to
cracking. Subsequent investigation results have shown that a
remaining defect, not removed during the repair, had propagated,
resulting in rupture of the lug.
    For the reasons stated above, this new [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA ADs 2006-0372R1, 2007-0195, 2010-0250 and 2010-
0251, which are superseded, expands the applicability to all models
and series of A300, A310, A300-600 and A300-600ST aeroplanes, and
requires:

--for aeroplanes not yet modified or repaired, implementation of
Modification Service Bulletin (SB) A300-57-0249, A310-57-2090, A300-
57-6106, or A300-57-9019, all at Revision 3, and
--for aeroplanes which already embody that modifications, at
original issue or revision 01 or 02 of the applicable SB, or have
MLG Ribs already repaired in accordance with Airbus repair
instruction R57240221 or R57249121, implementation of an additional
inspection programme [repetitive detailed inspection for cracking or
ultrasonic inspections for any crack indication] and associated
corrective action(s) [detailed inspection for cracking if any crack
indication found, and repair].

The unsafe condition is cracking of the forward lugs of the aft bearing
at rib 5 of the MLG on the LH and RH wings, which could affect the
structural integrity of the MLG attachment, resulting in possible MLG
collapse during landing or rollout. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0142.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued the following service information.
     Airbus Alert Service Bulletin A300-57A0248, dated December
12, 2006;
     Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0255, dated January 13,
2012;
     Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6112, dated January 13,
2012;
     Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2101, dated January 13,
2012.

The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    In many FAA transport ADs, when the service information specifies
to contact the manufacturer for further instructions if certain
discrepancies are found, we typically include in the AD a requirement
to accomplish the action using a method approved by either the FAA or
the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent).
    We have recently been notified that certain laws in other countries
do not allow such delegation of authority, but some countries do
recognize design approval organizations. In addition, we have become
aware that some U.S. operators have used repair instructions that were
previously approved by a State of Design Authority or a Design Approval
Holder (DAH) as a method of compliance with this provision in FAA ADs.
Frequently, in these cases, the previously approved repair instructions
come from the airplane structural repair manual or the DAH repair
approval statements that were not specifically developed to address the
unsafe condition corrected by the AD. Using repair instructions that
were not specifically approved for a particular AD creates the
potential for doing repairs that were not developed to address the
unsafe condition identified by the MCAI AD, the FAA AD, or the
applicable service information, which could result in the unsafe
condition not being fully corrected.
    To prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed
to correct the unsafe condition, certain requirements of this proposed
AD specify that the repair approval specifically refer to the FAA AD.
This change is intended to clarify the method of compliance and to
provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are
specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In
addition, we use the phrase ``its delegated agent, or the DAH with
State of Design Authority design organization approval, as applicable''
in this proposed AD to refer to a DAH authorized to approve certain
required repairs for this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 194 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2008-17-02, Amendment 39-15640
(73 FR 47032, August 13, 2008), and retained in this proposed AD take
about 5 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions
that were required by AD 2008-17-02 is $425 per product.
    The actions that are required by AD 2012-08-03, Amendment 39-17019
(77 FR 24367, April 24, 2012), and retained in this proposed AD take
about 38 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Required parts cost about $4,590 per product. Based on these
figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD
2012-08-03 is $7,820 per product.
    The actions that are required by AD 2012-15-14, Amendment 39-17143
(77 FR 46937, August 7, 2012), and retained in this proposed AD take
about 3 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions
that were required by AD 2012-15-14 is $255 per product.
    We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $49,470, or $255
per product.

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need
these actions.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our 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 AD is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this 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 AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directives (AD) 2008-17-02, Amendment 39-
15640 (73 FR 47032, August 13, 2008); AD 2012-08-03, Amendment 39-17019
(77 FR 24367, April 24, 2012); and AD 2012-15-14, Amendment 39-17143
(77 FR 46937, August 7, 2012); and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2013-0142; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
161-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 28, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD supersedes the ADs specified in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(1)(iii) of this AD.
    (i) AD 2008-17-02, Amendment 39-15640 (73 FR 47032, August 13,
2008).
    (ii) AD 2012-08-03, Amendment 39-17019 (77 FR 24367, April 24,
2012).
    (iii) AD 2012-15-14, Amendment 39-17143 (77 FR 46937, August 7,
2012).
    (2) This AD affects AD 2007-03-18, Amendment 39-14929 (72 FR
5919, February 8, 2007).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category, all
manufacturer serial numbers.
    (1) Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, and B2-203
airplanes; Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; Model
A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, and
F4-622R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
    (2) Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324,
and -325 airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the forward lug
of the main landing gear (MLG) rib 5 aft bearing attachment. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the forward lugs
of the aft bearing at rib 5 of the MLG on the left-hand (LH) and
right-hand (RH) wings, which could affect the structural integrity
of the MLG attachment, resulting in possible MLG collapse during
landing or rollout.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Repetitive Detailed Inspection and Corrective Actions

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD
2008-17-02, Amendment 39-15640 (73 FR 47032, August 13, 2008). For
Model A310 airplanes, except for those where LH and RH wing MLG rib
5 forward lugs have been repaired by installation of oversized
interference fit bushes as per Airbus A310 Repair Instruction R572-
49121, or which have had Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2090
(Airbus Modification 13329) embodied in service: Do the actions
specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-57A2088, dated November 6, 2006.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles, or
within 14 days after February 6, 2007 (the effective date of AD
2007-02-09, Amendment 39-14896 (72 FR 2612, January 22, 2007)),
whichever occurs later: Perform a detailed visual inspection of the
LH and RH wing MLG rib 5 aft bearing forward lugs.
    (2) If any crack is detected at LH and/or RH aft bearing forward
lug, contact Airbus and proceed with the replacement before next
flight.
    (3) Repeat the inspection at intervals not exceeding 100 flight
cycles.

(h) Retained Actions and Compliance

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2008-17-02, Amendment 39-15640 (73 FR 47032, August 13, 2008), with
new service information for paragraphs (h)(2), (h)(3), and
(h)(4)(ii) of this

AD. For Model A310 airplanes, except for those where LH and RH wing
MLG rib 5 forward lugs have been repaired by installation of
oversized interference fit bushes as per Airbus A310 Repair
Instruction R572-49121, or which have had Airbus Service Bulletin
A310-57-2090 (Airbus Modification 13329) embodied in service: Before
the accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles or before the
accumulation of 12,000 flight cycles on MLG rib 5, or within 14 days
after September 17, 2008 (the effective date of AD 2008-17-02),
whichever occurs latest, perform either a detailed visual inspection
(DVI) or an ultrasonic inspection of the LH and RH MLG rib 5 aft
bearing forward lug for cracks, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2091,
excluding Appendix 01, dated May 22, 2007. If a MLG rib 5 has been
replaced on one side only, then the LH and RH must be considered
separately. Doing this inspection ends the requirements of paragraph
(g) for that MLG rib 5 only.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD: The ultrasonic inspection
will detect any crack at an early stage and will limit the risk of
extensive repairs. This earlier crack detection is not possible with
the DVI.

    (1) If no crack is detected during any inspection required by
paragraph (h) of this AD: Repeat the applicable inspection at the
time specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Repeat the DVI thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100
flight cycles.
    (ii) Repeat the ultrasonic inspection thereafter at intervals
not to exceed 825 flight cycles.
    (2) Replacement of the MLG rib 5 bushes with new bushes with
high interference fit in the aft bearing forward lugs of MLG rib 5,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of a service
bulletin specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i), (h)(2)(ii), or
(h)(2)(iii) of this AD, ends the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (h)(1) of this AD for that MLG rib 5 only. As of the
effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-
2090, Revision 03, dated January 23, 2012, for the actions specified
in this paragraph.
    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2090, Revision 01, dated
December 19, 2007.
    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2090, Revision 02, dated
June 18, 2010.
    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2090, Revision 03, dated
January 23, 2012.
    (3) If any crack is detected during the DVI required by
paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight, contact Airbus for
replacement instructions and replace the MLG rib 5 bushes before
further flight. Repeat the applicable inspection in paragraph (h) of
this AD at the time specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii)
of this AD. Accomplishing the replacement of the MLG rib 5 bushes
with new bushes with high interference fit in the aft bearing
forward lugs of MLG rib 5, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of a service bulletin specified in paragraph (h)(2)(i),
(h)(2)(ii), or (h)(2)(iii) of this AD, ends the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD for that MLG rib
5 only. As of the effective date of this AD, use only Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-57-2090, Revision 03, dated January 23, 2012, for the
actions specified in this paragraph.
    (4) If any crack is detected during the ultrasonic inspection
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight,
accomplish the actions specified in paragraph (h)(4)(i) or
(h)(4)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
    (i) If any crack is not visible on MLG rib 5: Before further
flight, repair MLG rib 5 using Airbus A310 Repair Instruction R572-
49121, Issue C, dated May 2007. After embodiment of the repair
instruction, no further actions are necessary as required by
paragraph (g) and (h) of this AD and specified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A310-57-2091, excluding Appendix 01, dated May 22, 2007,
for that MLG rib 5 only.
    (ii) If any crack is visible on MLG rib 5: Before further
flight, contact Airbus for rib replacement instructions, and replace
before further flight. Repeat the applicable inspection in paragraph
(h) of this AD at the time specified in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or
(h)(1)(ii) of this AD. Accomplishing the replacement of the MLG rib
5 bushes with new bushes with high interference fit in the aft
bearing forward lugs of MLG rib 5, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of a service bulletin specified in
paragraph (h)(2)(i), (h)(2)(ii), or (h)(2)(iii) of this AD, ends the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD for that
MLG rib 5 only.

(i) Retained Installation

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2012-08-03, Amendment 39-17019 (77 FR 24367, April 24, 2012), and
applies to the airplanes identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Within 30 months after May 29, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-
08-03), install new bushes with increased interference fit in the
gear rib 5 aft bearing forward lug on the LH and RH wings, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable
service bulletin specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of
this AD; except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0249, Revision 03,
dated January 18, 2012 (for Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203
airplanes).
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6106, Revision 03,
dated January 26, 2012 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes).
    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-57-2090, Revision 03,
dated January 23, 2012 (for Model A310 series airplanes).

(j) Affected Airplanes for the Actions Required by Paragraph (i) of
This AD

    For airplanes identified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and
(j)(3) of this AD: Do the actions required by paragraph (i) of this
AD.
    (1) Airbus Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; all
serial numbers; except airplanes on which the MLG rib 5 forward lugs
of the LH and RH wings have been repaired by installation of
oversized interference fit bushes specified in Airbus Repair
Instruction R57240221, or those on which the LH and RH wings have
had Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0249 embodied in
service.
    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622
airplanes; Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes; Airbus
Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes; and Airbus Model A300 C4-
605R Variant F airplanes; all serial numbers; except airplanes on
which the MLG rib 5 forward lugs of the LH and RH wings have been
repaired by installation of oversized interference fit bushes
specified in Airbus Repair Instruction R57240221, or those on which
the LH and RH wings have had Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6106
embodied in service.
    (3) Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324,
and -325 airplanes; all serial numbers; except airplanes on which
the MLG rib 5 forward lugs of the LH and RH wings have been repaired
by installation of oversized interference fit bushes specified in
Airbus Repair Instruction R57249121, or those on which the LH and RH
wings have had Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-57-2090
embodied in service.

(k) Retained Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2012-08-03, Amendment 39-17019 (77 FR 24367, April 24, 2012), and
applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2),
and (j)(3) of this AD. If one wing had rib 5 forward lugs of the MLG
repaired by installing oversized interference fit bushes, as
specified in Airbus Repair Instruction R57240221 or Airbus Repair
Instruction R57249121, as applicable to the airplane model, then
installing new bushes with increased interference fit in the aft
bearing forward lug of the gear rib, as specified in paragraph (i)
of this AD, is required for the opposite wing only.

(l) Retained Terminating Action for Certain Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2012-08-03, Amendment 39-17019 (77 FR 24367, April 24, 2012), and
applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2),
and (j)(3) of this AD. Installation of new bushes, as specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD, is terminating action for the repetitive
inspections required by AD 2007-03-18, Amendment 39-14929 (72 FR
5919, February 8, 2007); and by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

(m) Retained Repetitive Inspections

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2012-15-14, Amendment 39-17143 (77 FR 46937, August 7, 2012), and
applies to the airplanes identified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
Except as provided by paragraph (o) of this AD: Before the
accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles since new, or within
12,000 flight cycles since the most recent MLG rib 5 replacement, if
applicable, or within 10 days after September 11, 2012 (the
effective date of AD 2012-15-14, Amendment 39-17143 (77 FR 46937,
August 7, 2012)), whichever occurs latest, do a detailed inspection
or an ultrasonic inspection for cracking of the LH and RH MLG rib 5
aft bearing forward lugs,

in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0251, including Appendix 01,
dated August 8, 2007 (for Model A300 B4-103, B4-203, and B4-2C
airplanes); or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6107,
including Appendix 01, dated August 8, 2007 (for Model A300-600
series airplanes). Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at
the applicable interval specified in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of
this AD, until the modification specified in paragraph (q) of this
AD is accomplished.
    (1) Repeat the detailed inspections at intervals not to exceed
100 flight cycles.
    (2) Repeat the ultrasonic inspections at intervals not to exceed
675 flight cycles.

(n) Affected Airplanes for the Actions Required by Paragraph (m) of
This AD

    For Airbus Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; Model
A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, and
F4-622R airplanes; and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes; all
serial numbers; except for airplanes identified in paragraphs
(n)(1), (n)(2), and (n)(3) of this AD: Do the actions required by
paragraph (m) of this AD, except as provided by paragraph (o) of
this AD.
    (1) Airplanes on which LH and RH wing MLG rib 5 forward lugs
have oversized interference fit bushings installed per Airbus Repair
Instruction R57240221.
    (2) Model A300 B4-103, B4-203, and B4-2C airplanes on which
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0249 has been done in
service on the LH and RH wings.
    (3) Model A300-600 series airplanes on which Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A300-57-6106 has been done in service on the LH and
RH wings.

(o) Retained Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2012-15-14, Amendment 39-17143 (77 FR 46937, August 7, 2012), and
applies to the airplanes identified in paragraph (n) of this AD on
which an inspection required by AD 2007-03-18, Amendment 39-14929
(72 FR 5919, February 8, 2007), has been done as of September 11,
2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-15-14, Amendment 39-17143 (77 FR
46937, August 7, 2012)): Within 100 flight cycles after doing the
most recent inspection required by AD 2007-03-18, or within 10 days
after September 11, 2012, whichever occurs later, do a detailed or
ultrasonic inspection as specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.
Repeat the applicable inspection thereafter at the times specified
in paragraph (m) of this AD.

(p) Retained Repair

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2012-15-14, Amendment 39-17143 (77 FR 46937, August 7, 2012). If any
cracking is detected during any detailed or ultrasonic inspection of
the LH and RH MLG rib 5 aft bearing forward lugs required by
paragraph (m) of this AD, before further flight, repair using a
method approved by Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) (or its delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with
EASA's design organization approval, as applicable).

(q) Retained Optional Terminating Modification

    This paragraph restates the optional terminating modification of
paragraph (j) of AD 2012-15-14, Amendment 39-17143 (77 FR 46937,
August 7, 2012), and applies to the airplanes identified in
paragraph (n) of this AD. Performing the applicable actions
specified in paragraphs (q)(1), (q)(2), (q)(3), and (q)(4) of this
AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0249, Revision 02, dated June 18,
2010 (for Model A300 B4-103, B4-203, and B4-2C airplanes); or Airbus
Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6106, Revision 03, dated January
26, 2012 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes); terminates the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (m) of this AD.
    (1) Perform a general visual inspection and dye penetrant flaw
detection inspection for corrosion and damage of the bore and
spotfaces of the lug.
    (2) Determine that the diameter of the bore of the lug
(dimension Y) is within the tolerance specified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A300-57-0249, Revision 02, dated June 18, 2010 (for Model A300 B4-
103, B4-203, and B4-2C airplanes); or Airbus Mandatory Service
Bulletin A300-57-6106, Revision 03, dated January 26, 2012 (for
Model A300-600 series airplanes).
    (3) If damage or corrosion is detected during any inspection
specified in paragraph (q)(1) of this AD, or if dimension Y is
outside the tolerance specified in the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0249, Revision 02,
dated June 18, 2010 (for Model A300 B4-103, B4-203, and B4-2C
airplanes); or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6106,
Revision 03, dated January 26, 2012 (for Model A300-600 series
airplanes); repair using a method approved by either the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or the EASA (or its delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder
with EASA's design organization approval, as applicable).
    (4) Install bushings with an increased interference fit in the
aft bearing forward lugs, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0249,
Revision 02, dated June 18, 2010 (for Model A300 B4-103, B4-203, and
B4-2C airplanes); or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6106,
Revision 03, dated January 26, 2012 (for Model A300-600 series
airplanes).

(r) Retained Terminating Action for AD 2007-03-18, Amendment 39-14929
(72 FR 5919, February 8, 2007)

    This paragraph restates the terminating action statement of
paragraph (k) of AD 2012-15-14, Amendment 39-17143 (77 FR 46937,
August 7, 2012), and applies to the airplanes identified in
paragraph (n) of this AD. Doing the actions required by paragraph
(q) of this AD terminates the inspections required by AD 2007-03-18,
Amendment 39-14929 (72 FR 5919, February 8, 2007), for that
airplane.

(s) Retained Reporting

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD
2012-15-14, Amendment 39-17143 (77 FR 46937, August 7, 2012), and
applies to the airplanes identified in paragraph (n) of this AD.
Submit a report (including both positive and negative findings),
using the applicable report sheet attached to Airbus Mandatory
Service Bulletin A300-57-0251, including Appendix 01, dated August
8, 2007 (for Model A300 B4-103, B4-203, and B4-2C airplanes); or
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6107, including Appendix
01, August 8, 2007 (for Model A300-600 series airplanes); of the
first inspection required by paragraph (m) of this AD. Submit the
report to Airbus, Customer Services Directorate, 1 Rond Point
Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex France, Attn: SEDCC1 Technical
Data and Documentation Services; fax: (+33) 5 61 93 28 06; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>at the applicable time specified in
paragraph (s)(1) or (s)(2) of this AD.
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after September 11, 2012
(the effective date of AD 2012-15-14, Amendment 39-17143 (77 FR
46937, August 7, 2012)): Submit the report within 30 days after the
inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before September 11, 2012 (the
effective date of AD 2012-15-14, Amendment 39-17143 (77 FR 46937,
August 7, 2012)): Submit the report within 30 days after September
11, 2012.

(t) New Repetitive Inspections

    For airplanes identified in paragraph (u) of this AD: At the
applicable time specified in paragraph (v)(1) or (v)(2) of this AD,
do a detailed inspection for cracking, or an ultrasonic inspection
for any crack indications of the LH and RH MLG rib 5 aft bearing
forward lugs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
the applicable service bulletin specified in paragraph (t)(1),
(t)(2), or (t)(3) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed the applicable time specified in paragraph
(v)(3) or (v)(4) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0255, dated
January 13, 2012 (for Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, and B2-203
airplanes).
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6112, dated
January 13, 2012 (for Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-
605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, and F4-622R airplanes).
    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-57-2101, dated
January 13, 2012 (for Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322,
-324, and -325 airplanes).

(u) Affected Airplanes for the Actions Required by Paragraph (t) of
This AD

    For airplanes on which any modification or repair described in
the service bulletins identified in paragraph (u)(1), (u)(2), or
(u)(3) of this AD, as applicable, has been accomplished in service;
and for airplanes with MLG rib 5 already repaired as specified in
Airbus Repair Instruction R57240221 or R57249121, including any
airplane with the MLG rib 5 forward lugs repaired on one wing; by
installation of oversized interference fit bushes, as specified in
Airbus

Repair Instruction R57240221 or R57249121, as applicable: Do the
actions required by paragraph (t) of this AD.
    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0249, dated May 22, 2007;
Revision 01, dated December 19, 2007; or Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-57-0249, Revision 02, dated June 18, 2010 (for Model A300 B4-
2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes).
    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6106, dated May 22, 2007;
Revision 01, dated January 28, 2008; or Airbus Service Bulletin
A300-57-6106 Revision 02, dated June 18, 2010 (for Model A300 B4-
601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and
C4-605R Variant F airplanes).
    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2090, dated May 22, 2007;
Revision 01, dated December 19, 2007; or Airbus Service Bulletin
A310-57-2090 Revision 02, dated June 18, 2010 (for Model A310 series
airplanes).

(v) Compliance Times for Paragraph (t) of This AD

    This paragraph specifies the compliance times for the actions
specified in paragraph (t) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD: Do
the initial inspection required by paragraph (t) of this AD within
2,500 flight cycles after any modification or repair specified in
paragraph (u) of this AD was done, or within 550 flight cycles after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: Do
the initial inspection required by paragraph (t) of this AD within
2,500 flight cycles after any modification or repair specified in
paragraph (u) of this AD was done, or within 775 flight cycles after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (3) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD: For
the repetitive inspection required by paragraph (t) of this AD,
repeat the inspection within 550 flight cycles after any detailed
inspection, and within 1,000 flight cycles after any ultrasonic
inspection, as applicable.
    (4) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD: For
the repetitive inspection required by paragraph (t) of this AD,
repeat the inspection within 775 flight cycles after any detailed
inspection, and within 1,300 flight cycles after any ultrasonic
inspection, as applicable.

(w) New Requirement of This AD: Report and Detailed Inspection

    If, during any ultrasonic inspection required by paragraph (t)
of this AD, any crack indication is detected: Before further flight,
report to Airbus using the applicable report sheet attached to the
applicable Airbus service bulletin specified in paragraph (t)(1),
(t)(2), or (t)(3) of this AD, and concurrently accomplish a detailed
inspection for cracking of the affected MLG rib 5 aft bearing
forward lug, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
the applicable Airbus service bulletin specified in paragraph
(t)(1), (t)(2), or (t)(3) of this AD. Repeat the detailed inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 flight cycles.

(x) New Requirement of This AD: Cracking Repair

    If any cracking is detected during any detailed inspection
required by paragraph (t) or (w) of this AD: Before further flight,
repair the cracking using a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or the EASA (or its delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder
with the EASA design organization approval, as applicable). For a
repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically
refer to this AD.

(y) New Requirement of This AD: Reporting

    Submit a report (including both positive and negative findings),
using the reporting sheet attached to the applicable Airbus service
bulletin specified in paragraph (y)(1), (y)(2), or (y)(3) of this
AD, of the first inspection required by paragraph (t) of this AD.
Submit the report to Airbus, Customer Services Directorate, 1 Rond
Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex France, Attn: SEDCC1
Technical Data and Documentation Services; fax: (+33) 5 61 93 28 06;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Submit the report within 30 days
after the inspection or within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0255, dated
January 13, 2012 (for Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, and B2-203
airplanes).
    (2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-6112, dated
January 13, 2012 (for Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, B4-
605R, B4-622R, F4-605R, and F4-622R airplanes).
    (3) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-57-2101, dated
January 13, 2012 (for Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322,
-324, and -325 airplanes).

(z) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before May
29, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-08-03, Amendment 39-17019
(77 FR 24367, April 24, 2012)), using an applicable service bulletin
specified in paragraph (z)(1)(i), (z)(1)(ii), or (z)(1)(iii) of this
AD.
    (i) For Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes: The
service bulletins are specified in paragraphs (z)(1)(i)(A),
(z)(1)(i)(B), and (z)(1)(i)(C) of this AD.
    (A) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0249, dated May 22, 2007,
which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (B) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0249, Revision 01, dated
December 19, 2007, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD.
    (C) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-57-0249, Revision 02,
dated June 18, 2010.
    (ii) For Model A300-600 series airplanes: The service bulletins
are specified in paragraphs (z)(1)(ii)(A), (z)(1)(ii)(B), and
(z)(1)(ii)(C) of this AD.
    (A) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6106, May 22, 2007, which is
not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (B) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6106, Revision 01, January
28, 2008, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (C) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6106, Revision 02, dated
June 18, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (iii) For Model A310 series airplanes: The service bulletins are
specified in paragraphs (z)(1)(iii)(A), (z)(1)(iii)(B), and
(z)(1)(iii)(C) of this AD.
    (A) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2090, dated May 22, 2007,
which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (B) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2090, Revision 01, dated
December 19, 2007.
    (C) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-57-2090, Revision 02, dated
June 18, 2010, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (q) of this AD, if those actions were performed before
September 11, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-15-14, Amendment
39-17143 (77 FR 46937, August 7, 2012)), using an applicable service
bulletin specified in paragraphs (z)(2)(i), (z)(2)(ii), (z)(2)(iii),
(z)(2)(iv), and (z)(2)(v) of this AD.
    (i) For Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203: Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-0249, dated May 22, 2007, which is not incorporated
by reference in this AD.
    (ii) For Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203: Airbus Service
Bulletin A300-57-0249, Revision 01, dated December 19, 2007, which
is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (iii) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622,
B4-622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes: Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-57-6106, dated May 22, 2007, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (iv) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, B4-
622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes: Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-57-6106, Revision 01, dated January 28, 2008,
which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (v) For Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-605R, B4-620, B4-622, B4-
622R, F4-605R, F4-622R, and C4-605R Variant F airplanes: Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-57-6106, Revision 02, dated June 18, 2010
which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(aa) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch. ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight

standards district office/certificate holding district office. The
AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (i) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2008-17-02, Amendment 39-
15640 (73 FR 47032, August 13, 2008), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-08-03, Amendment 39-
17019 (77 FR 24367, April 24, 2012), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of this AD.
    (iii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-15-14, Amendment 39-
17143 (77 FR 46937, August 7, 2012), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of paragraphs (l), (m), (n), and (o) of
this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they
are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if
they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its
delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with a State of
Design Authority's design organization approval, as applicable). You
are required to ensure the product is airworthy before it is
returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: 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 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(bb) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2012-
0176, dated September 7, 2012, corrected September 20, 2012, for
related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2014-0142.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS--Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 4, 2014.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-05435 Filed 3-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


SUPPORTING STATEMENT

	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NESHAP for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart MMM) (Renewal)

1.  Identification of the Information Collection

1(a)  Title of the Information Collection

NESHAP for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart MMM) (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1807.05, OMB Control Number
2060-0370

1(b)  Short Characterization/Abstract

The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production were proposed on November 10,
1997, (62 FR 60579), promulgated on June 23, 1999, (64 FR 33550), and
amended on August 20, 2002.  This standard applies to all owners and
operators of new and existing facilities engaged in the production of
pesticide active ingredients that emit hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).

Owners or operators of a pesticide active ingredient (PAI) production
facility to which this regulation applies, must choose one of the
compliance options described in the rule or install and monitor a
specific control system that reduces HAP emissions to the compliance
level.  The respondents are subject to sections of subpart A of 40 CFR
part 63 relating to NESHAP.  These requirements include: those
associated with the applicability determination; the notification that
the facility is subject to the rule; the notification of testing
(control device performance test and continuous monitoring system (CMS)
performance evaluation); the results of performance testing and CMS
performance evaluations; startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports;
semiannual or quarterly summary reports and/or excess emissions; and CMS
performance reports.  In addition to the requirements of subpart A, many
respondents are required to submit a pre-compliance plan and leak
detention and repair (LDAR) reports; and plants that wish to implement
emissions averaging provisions must submit an emission-averaging plan.

Respondents electing to comply with the emission limit or emission
reduction requirement for process vents, storage tanks, or wastewater
must record the values of equipment operating parameters as specified in
section 63.1367 of the rule.  Owners or operators are required to
install, operate, and maintain a continuous monitoring system.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part will
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
three years following the date of such measurements, maintenance
reports, and records.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or
local authority.  In the event that there is no such delegated
authority, the reports are sent directly to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency regional office.

If the owner or operator identifies any deviation resulting from a known
cause for which no federally approved or promulgated exemption from an
emission limitation or standard applies, the compliance report will also
include all records that the source is required to maintain that pertain
to the periods during which such deviation occurred, as well as the
following: the magnitude of each deviation; the reason for each
deviation; a description of the corrective action taken for each
deviation, including action taken to minimize each deviation and action
taken to prevent recurrence; and a copy of all quality assurance
activities performed on any element of the monitoring protocol.

Owners or operators of pesticide active ingredient (PAI) production
facilities subject to the rule must maintain a copy of all monitored
equipment operating parameter values that demonstrate compliance with
the standards.  Those records must be maintained for a minimum of five
years.  All reports are sent to the delegated state or local authority.
In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are
sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regional office.  The information is used to determine whether or not
all sources subject to the NESHAP are achieving the standards.

Approximately 15 sources are currently subject to the regulation, and it
is estimated that no additional respondents per year will become subject
to the regulation in the next three years.

There are approximately 15 pesticide active ingredient production
facilities in the United States, which are owned and operated by the
pesticide active ingredient production industry.  None of the 15
facilities in the United States are owned by state, local, tribal or the
Federal government.  They are owned and operated by privately owned
for-profit businesses.  You can find the burden to the “Affected
Public” listed below in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden and Cost -
NESHAP for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart MMM).  The Federal government burden does not include work
performed by Federal employees.  The burden refers only to work
performed by contractors, which could be found listed below in Table 2:
Average Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP for Pesticide Active Ingredient
Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMM).

In the development of the ICR, we addressed the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) “Terms of Clearance (TOC)” on the active ICR.  The TOC
are as follows:

When this ICR is renewed, EPA should review the respondent burden
universe, labor rates, and capital costs and ensure these estimates have
been updated.

EPA has addressed each item of concern in the TOC.  The respondent
burden, universe, labor rates, and capital cost, have been thoroughly
checked and all estimates updated.

2.  Need for and Use of the Collection

2(a)  Need/Authority for the Collection

The EPA is charged under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended,
to establish standards of performance for each category or subcategory
of major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP).
These standards are applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and
shall require the maximum degree of emission reduction.  In addition,
section 114(a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or
operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

(A) Establish and maintain such records; (B) make such reports; (C)
install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit
procedures, or methods; (D) sample such emissions (in accordance with
such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during
such periods, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe);
(E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables
or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is
impractical; (F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with
Section 114(a)(3); and (G) provide such other information as the
Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, HAP emissions from PAI cause or
contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare.  Therefore, the NESHAP was
promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMM.

2(b)  Practical Utility/Users of the Data

The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the standard ensure
compliance with the applicable regulations which where promulgated in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.  The collected information is also
used for targeting inspections and as evidence in legal proceedings.

Performance tests are required in order to determine an affected
facility’s initial capability to comply with the emission standard.
Continuous emission monitors are used to ensure compliance with the
standard at all times.  During the performance tests, a record of the
operating parameters under which compliance was achieved may be recorded
and used to determine compliance in place of a continuous emission
monitor.

The notifications required in the standard are used to inform the Agency
or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the requirements
of the regulations.  The reviewing authority may then inspect the source
to ensure that the pollution control devices are properly installed and
operated, that leaks are being detected and repaired, and that the
standards are being met.  The performance test may also be observed.

The information generated by the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the agency to
ensure that facilities affected by the NESHAP continue to operate the
control equipment in compliance with the regulation.

3.  Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria

The requested recordkeeping and reporting are required under 40 CFR part
63, subpart MMM.

3(a)  Nonduplication

If the subject standards have not been delegated, the information is
sent directly to the appropriate EPA regional office.  Otherwise, the
information is sent directly to the delegated state or local agency.  If
a state or local agency has adopted their own similar standards to
implement the Federal standards, a copy of the report submitted to the
state or local agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the
report required by the Federal standards.  Therefore, no duplication
exists.

3(b)  Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR
was published in the Federal Register (76 FR 26900) on May 9, 2011.  No
comments were received on the burden published in the Federal Register.

3(c)  Consultations

The Agency’s industry experts have been consulted, and the Agency’s
internal data sources and projections of industry growth over the next
three years have been considered.  The primary source of information as
reported by industry, in compliance with the recordkeeping and reporting
provisions in the standard, is the Online Tracking Information System
(OTIS) which is operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.
 OTIS is the EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval
of all compliance data.  The growth rate for the industry is based on
our consultations with the Agency’s internal industry experts.

Industry trade associations and other interested parties were provided
an opportunity to comment on the burden associated with the standard as
it was being developed.  In developing this ICR, we contacted the
American Chemistry Council (ACC) at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the Society of
Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA) at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

It is our policy to respond after a thorough review of comments received
since the last ICR renewal as well as those submitted in response to the
First Federal Register Notice.

3(d)  Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of
assurance that facilities are continuing to meet the standards.
Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful
techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are
applied and emission limitations are met.  If the information required
by these standards was collected less frequently, the proper operation
and maintenance of control equipment and the possibility of detecting
violations would be less likely.

3(e)  General Guidelines

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the
regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

These standards require the respondents to maintain all records,
including reports and notifications for at least five years.  This is
consistent with the General Provisions as applied to the standards.  EPA
believes that the five-year records retention requirement is consistent
with the Part 70 permit program and the five-year statute of limitations
on which the permit program is based.  The retention of records for five
years allows EPA to establish the compliance history of a source, any
pattern of non-compliance and to determine the appropriate level of
enforcement action.  EPA has found that the most flagrant violators have
violations extending beyond the five years.  In addition, EPA would be
prevented from pursuing the violators due to the destruction or
nonexistence of essential records.

3(f)  Confidentiality

Any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B -
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902,
September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR
42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

3(g)  Sensitive Questions

None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive
questions.

4.  The Respondents and the Information Requested

4(a)  Respondents/SIC Codes

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
pesticide active ingredient production facilities.  The United States
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes for the respondents
affected by the standards, which corresponds to The North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, are listed below for
source category description.

Standard (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMM)	SIC Codes	NAICS Codes

Petrochemical Manufacturing	2869	325110

All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing	2869	325188

Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Manufacturing	2869	325192

Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing	2869	325193

All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing	2869	325199

Industrial Gas Manufacturing	2869	325120

All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Production and Preparation
Manufacturing	2869	325998

Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing	2879	325320

4(b)  Information Requested

None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the
regulations established by OMB at 5 CFR part 1320, section 1320.5.

(i)  Data Items

In this ICR, all the data recorded or reported is required by National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Pesticide Active
Ingredient Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMM).

A source must make the following reports:

Notification Reports

Notification and application of construction and reconstruction	63.5(d),
63.1368(c)

Initial notification	63.9, 63.1368(b)

Notification of CMS performance evaluation	63.8(e)(2), 63.1368(d)

Notification of performance test and test plan	63.7(c), 63.1368(m)

Request for extension of compliance	63.1364(a)(2), 63.1368(n)

Pre-compliance report	63.1368(e)

Request for approval to use alternative monitoring parameters	63.8(f),
63.1366(b)(4), 63.1368(e)(1)

Notification of compliance status report	63.9(h), 63.1368(f)

Periodic reports of excess emissions and noncompliance	63.10(e)(3),
63.1368(g)

Notification of process change	63.1368(h)

Notification Reports	Standard Citation by Section

Notification and application of construction and reconstruction	63.5(d),
63.1368(c)

Reports

Startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports	63.10(d)(5), 63.1368(i)

Equipment leaks reports	63.1363(h), 63.1368(j)

Emissions averaging reports	63.1368(k)

Heat exchange system reports	63.1368(l)

A source must keep the following records:

Recordkeeping

Control device operating parameters to monitor and record	63.1366(b)(1),
63.1367(b)(1), 63.1367(b)(5)

Monitoring and records for process vent annual emission

limits standard	63.10(c), 63.1366(b)(5), 63.1367(a)(4), 63.1367(b)(3)

Monitoring and records for process vent annual emission

limits standard	63.1366(c), 63.1367(b)(4)

Monitor and record for equipment leaks	63.1366(d), 63.1367(c)

Monitoring and records for heat exchanger systems	63.1362(f),
63.1366(e), 63.1367(e)

Monitoring and records for pollution prevention	63.1366(f)
,6363.1367(b)(2)

Monitoring and records for emissions averaging	63.1366(g), 63.1367(d)

Records of process operating parameters	63.1367(b)(6), 63.1367(b)(7)

Applicability determinations	63.10(b)(3), 63.1367(a)(2)

Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan	63.6(e)(3), 63.1367(a)(3)

Application for approval of construction or reconstruction	63.5(d),
63.1367(a)(5)

Records for vapor collection systems and closed-vent systems	63.1367(f)

Electronic Reporting

Some of the respondents are using monitoring equipment that
automatically records parameter data.  Although personnel at the
affected facility must still evaluate the data, internal automation has
significantly reduced the burden associated with monitoring and
recordkeeping at a plant site.

Also, regulatory agencies in cooperation with the respondents continue
to create reporting systems to transmit data electronically.  However,
electronic reporting systems are still not widely used.  At this time,
it is estimated that approximately 20 percent of the respondents use
electronic reporting.

Respondent Activities

Read instructions.

Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate CMS

Perform initial performance test, Reference Method 18, 25A, 301, and
1818 test, and repeat performance tests if necessary.

Write the notification and reports listed above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and
utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting,
validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information.

	Currently, sources are using monitoring equipment that provides
parameter data in an automated way e.g., continuous parameter monitoring
system.  Although personnel at the source still need to evaluate the
data, this type of monitoring equipment has significantly reduced the
burden associated with monitoring and recordkeeping.

5.  The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection
Methodology, and Information Management

5(a)  Agency Activities

EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the
acquisition, analysis, storage, and distribution of the required
information.

Agency Activities

Observe initial performance tests and repeat performance tests if
necessary.

Review notifications and reports, including performance test reports,
excess emissions reports, required to be submitted by industry.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Online Tracking Information
System (OTIS).

5(b)  Collection Methodology and Management

Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect
the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are
properly installed and operational.  Performance test reports are used
by the Agency to discern a source’s initial capability to comply with
the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which
compliance was achieved.  Data and records maintained by the respondents
are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement
programs.

Information contained in the reports is entered into OTIS which is
operated and maintained by the EPA Office of Compliance.  OTIS is the
EPA database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of
compliance data for approximately 125,000 industrial and
government-owned facilities.  EPA uses OTIS for tracking air pollution
compliance and enforcement by local and state regulatory agencies, EPA
regional offices, and EPA headquarters.  EPA delegated Authorities can
edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or
operator for five years.

5(c)  Small Entity Flexibility

The majority of the respondents are large entities (i.e., large
businesses).  However, the impact on small entities (i.e., small
businesses) was taken into consideration during the development of the
regulation.  Due to technical considerations involving the process
operations and the types of control equipment employed, the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for both small and
large entities.  The Agency considers these to be the minimum
requirements needed to ensure compliance and, therefore, cannot reduce
them further for small entities.  To the extent that larger businesses
can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden
will be reduced.

5(d)  Collection Schedule

The specific frequency for each information collection activity within
this request is shown in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden for NESHAP for
Pesticide Active Ingredient Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMM)
(Renewal).

6.  Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection

Table 1 documents the computation of individual burdens for the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for
the subpart included in this ICR.  The individual burdens are expressed
under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept
of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  Wherever appropriate,
specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified.  Responses to
this information collection are mandatory.

The 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.

6(a)  Estimating Respondent Burden

The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from
these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated to be 3,666
(Total Labor Hours from Table 1).  These hours are based on Agency
studies and background documents from the development of the regulation,
Agency knowledge and experience with the NESHAP program, the previously
approved ICR, and any comments received.

6(b)  Estimating Respondent Costs

This ICR uses the following labor rates:

Managerial	$118.92 ($56.63 + 110%)

Technical	$97.78 ($46.56 + 110%)

Clerical	$48.76 ($23.22 + 110%)

These rates are from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, December 2010, "Table 2. Civilian Workers, by
Occupational and Industry group."  The rates are from column 1, "Total
Compensation."  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account
for the benefit packages available to those employed by private
industry.

(ii)  Estimating Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs

	The type of industry costs associated with the information collection
activities in the subject standard are both labor costs which are
addressed elsewhere in this ICR and the costs associated with continuous
monitoring.  The capital/startup costs are one-time costs when a
facility becomes subject to the regulation.  The annual operation and
maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the monitor and
other costs such as photocopying and postage.

(iii)  Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

(A)

Continuous Monitoring Device	(B)

Capital/Startup Cost for One Respondent	(C)

Number of New Respondents 	(D)

Total Capital/Startup Cost,

(B X C)	(E)

Annual O&M Costs for One Respondent	(F)

Number of Respondents with O&M	(G)

Total O&M,

(E X F)

Performance tests	$52,2001	0	$0	$1,325	15	$19,875

Wastewater CMS	$10,690	0	$0

	CMS cost for process vents	$15,920	0	$0

	Total

	$0

	$19,875

 	1 Owners and operators are required to run two tests to complete the
process vent performance test for each facility.  Each run will cost
$26,100 for a total of $52,200 per test.

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are $0.  This is the total
of column D in the above table.

The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs which consist of
photocopying and postage are $19,875.  This is the total of column G.

The average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and
maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $19,875.

6(c)  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with analysis of
the reported information.  The EPA compliance and enforcement program
includes activities such as: the examination of records maintained by
the respondents, periodic inspection of sources of emissions, and the
publication and distribution of collected information.

The average annual Agency cost during the three years of the ICR is
estimated to be $6,012.

This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate as follows:

		Managerial	$62.27 (GS-13, Step 5, $38.92 + 60%)

		Technical	$46.21 (GS-12, Step 1, $28.88 + 60%)

		Clerical	$25.01 (GS-6, Step 3, $15.63 + 60%)

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2011
General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay.  The rates
have been increased by 60 percent to account for the benefit packages
available to government employees.  Details upon which this estimate is
based appear in Table 2: Average Annual EPA Burden, NESHAP for Pesticide
Active Ingredient Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMM) (Renewal).

6(d)  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

	Based on our research for this ICR, on average over the next three
years, approximately 15 respondents will be subject to the standard.  It
is estimated that no additional new sources will become subject to the
rule.  The overall average number of respondents, as shown in the table
below, is 15 per year.

	The number of respondents is calculated using the following table which
addresses the three years covered by this ICR.

Number of Respondents

Year	(A)

Number of New Respondents 1	(B)

Number of Existing Respondents	(C)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Are Also New Respondents	(E)

Number of Respondents

(E=A+B+C-D)

1	0	15	0	0	15

2	0	15	0	0	15

3	0	15	0	0	15

Average	0	15	0	0	15

1 New respondent include sources with constructed, reconstructed, and
modified affected facilities.

To avoid double-counting respondents, column D is subtracted.  As shown
above, the average Number of Respondents over the three-year period of
this ICR is 15.

The total number of annual responses per year is calculated using the
following table:

Total Annual Responses

(A)

Information Collection Activity	(B)

Number of Respondents	(C)

Number of Responses	(D)

Number of Existing Respondents That Keep Records But Do Not Submit
Reports	(E)

Total Annual Responses

E=(BxC)+D

Notification of construction/reconstruction	0	1	N/A	0

Notification of process changes	1	1	N/A	1

Notification of anticipated startup	0	1	N/A	0

Notification of actual startup	0	1	N/A	0

Notification of initial performance test	0	1	N/A	0

Notification of initial CMS performance evaluation	0	1	N/A	0

Quarterly reporting	1	4	N/A	4

Semiannual reporting	14	2	N/A	28

Leak detention and repair (LDAR) report	15	2	N/A	30

Emissions averaging plan	1	1	N/A	1

	Total	64

The number of Total Annual Responses is 64.

The total annual labor costs are $346,223.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1: Annual Industry Burden and Cost -
NESHAP for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart MMM) (Renewal).

6(e)  Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours and Cost Tables

The detailed bottom line burden hours and cost calculations for the
respondents and the Agency are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively,
and summarized below.

(i)  Respondent Tally

The total annual labor costs are $346,223.  Details regarding these
estimates may be found in Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost:
NESHAP for Pesticide Active Ingredient Production (40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart MMM) (Renewal).

Furthermore, the annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for
this collection of information is estimated to average 57 hours per
response.

The total annual capital/startup and operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs to the regulated entity are $19,875.

(ii)  The Agency Tally

The average annual Agency burden and cost over next three years is
estimated to be 133 labor hours at a cost of $6,012.  See Table 2.
Annual Agency Burden and Cost: NESHAP for Pesticide Active Ingredient
Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMM) (Renewal).

6(f)  Reasons for Change in Burden

The adjustment decrease in burden from the most recently approved ICR is
due to a more accurate estimate of existing and anticipated new sources.
 After consulting with the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) and a number of trade associations, our data indicates that
there are approximately fifteen sources subject to the rule, as compared
with the active ICR that shows eighty-eight sources.  There are no new
facilities expected to be constructed over the next three years of this
ICR.  The decline in the number of sources is partially due to: 1) plant
closures: the cost to retrofit aging facilities increased due to the
down turn in the economy; 2) corporate mergers; and 3) foreign
competition.  Therefore, there is a net decrease in the burden to
industry.

Because there are no new sources with reporting requirements, no
capital/startup costs are incurred.  The only cost that is incurred is
for the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the monitoring equipment.

6(g)  Burden Statement

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection
of information is estimated to average 57 hours per response.  Burden
means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB
Control Number.  The OMB Control Numbers for EPA(s regulations are
listed at 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0207.  An electronic version of the public docket is
available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov/"
http://www.regulations.gov/  which may be used to obtain a copy of the
draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access
the index listing of the content of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When
in the system, select “search” than key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.  The documents are also available for
public viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information
Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC.  The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Enforcement and
Compliance Docket and Information Center Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include
the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2011-0207 and OMB Control Number
2060-0370 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement

This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in
collecting this information.

Table 1:  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost – NESHAP for Pesticide
Active Ingredient Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMM)

Burden item

(A)

Person

hours per occurrence

(B)

No. of occurrences per respondent per year

(C)

Person hours per respondent per year

(C=AxB)

(D)

Respondents per year  a

(E)

Technical person- hours per year

(E=CxD)

(F)

Management person hours per year

(Ex0.05)

(G)

Clerical person hours per year

(Ex0.1)

(H)

Cost, $  b

1.  Applications	N/A

	2.  Survey and Studies	N/A

	3.  Reporting requirements

     A.  Read instructions c	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

  B.  Required activities

          Performance evaluation test (certification

         of CMS) c, d
                                                                   	13	6
78	0	0	0	0	$0

  C.  Create information	See 3B

	  D.  Gather existing information	 See 3E,

	  E.  Write Report

           Notification of construction/

           reconstruction c, d
2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

           Notification of process changes e	8	1	8	1	8	0.4	0.8	$868.82

           Notification of anticipated startup c, d	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

           Notification of actual startup c, d	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

           Notification of applicability of the

           Standard

               -  Existing source f	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

               -  New source c, d	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

           Pre-compliance plan c, g	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

           Notification of initial performance test c, h	2	1	2	0	0	0	0
$0

           Notification of initial CMS performance

           evaluation  c
             	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

               -  With performance test i	80	1	80	0	0	0	0	$0

               -  Without performance test j	120	1	120	0	0	0	0	$0

  F.  Write periodic report

               -  Quarterly reporting k	24	4	96	1	96	4.8	9.6	$10,425.80

               -  Semiannual reporting l	8	2	16	14	224	11.2	22.4
$24,326.84

               -  LDAR reporting m	94	2	188	15	2,820	141	282	$306,257.64

               -  Emissions averaging plan n	40	1	40	1	40	2	4	$4,344.08

Subtotal for Reporting Requirements

3,666.2

4.  Recordkeeping requirements

     A.  Read instructions 	See 3A

	     B.  Plan activities	N/A

	     C.  Implement Activities 	N/A

	     D.  Develop record system o	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

     E.  Develop startup, shutdown, and

           malfunction plans p     	100	1	100	0	0	0	0	$0

     F.  Develop QA/QC plan for CMS q	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

     G.  Time to enter information

            -  Records of startup, shutdown, and

                malfunction r	1.5	52	78	0	0	0	0	$0

          Records of CMS data

-  Record continuously monitored

    parameters s     	1	320	320	0	0	0	0	$0

-  Enter/verify information for

    semiannual report t	16	2	32	0	0	0	0	$0

    H.  Calibration of CMS u	48	1	48	0	0	0	0	$0

     I.  Time to train personnel v	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

     J.  Time for audits	N/A

	Subtotal for Recordkeeping Requirements

0

Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	3,188	159.4	318.8	$346,223.18

TOTAL LABOR BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	3,666.2

3,666 (rounded)	$346,223

Assumptions:

a  We have assumed that the average number of existing sources subject
to the rule will be 15.  There will be no additional new sources per
year that will become subject to

    the rule over the three-year period of this ICR.

b  This ICR uses the following labor rates:  $118.92 per hour for
Executive, Administrative, and Managerial labor; $97.78 per hour for
Technical labor, and $48.76 per hour

   for Clerical labor.  These rates are from the United States
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December, 2010, Table
2. Civilian Workers, by Occupational

   and Industry groups.  The rates are from column 1, Total
Compensation.  The rates have been increased by 110 percent to account
for the benefit packages available to

    those employed by private industry.

c  We have assumed that there will be no new facilities that will be
constructed over the three-year period of this ICR.

d  We have assumed that only new sources are required to report the
performance evaluation test (continuous monitoring system
certification).

e  We have assumed that 10 percent of existing facilities will implement
process changes.

f  We have assumed that the rule only applies to new and reconstructed
facilities.

g  We have assumed that 50 percent of new and reconstructed facilities
will submit a pre-compliance report with their notification of
construction/reconstruction.

h  We have assumed that 90 percent of new and reconstructed facilities
will conduct a performance test.

i  We assume that 90 percent of facilities will conduct a performance
test.  The notification of compliance status includes the report of the
performance test and the continuous

    monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation.

j   We assume that 10 percent of facilities will comply by submitting
engineering calculations, designing calculations, and reporting of the
CMS performance evaluation.

k  We assume that 10 percent of facilities will have exceedances and
periods of noncompliance and will submit periodic report on a quarterly
basis.

l   We assume that 90 percent of facilities will have no exceedances and
will submit periodic report on a semiannual basis.

m  We have assumed that each respondent will take ninety-four hours two
times per year to write a leak detention and repair (LDAR) report.

n  We have assumed that 10 percent of existing facilities will comply
with emissions averaging requirements.  New sources are not allowed to
use emissions averaging.

o  We have assumed that it will take forty hours for each new respondent
to develop a record system for recording parameter monitoring
information.

p  We have assumed that each new respondent would require 80 hours to
draft the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, and another twenty
hours to review/revisions for a

    total of 100 hours.

q  We have assumed that each respondent will take 40 hours to develop
the Quality Assurance(QA) / Quality Control (QC) plan for CMS.

r   We have assumed that it will take 1.5 hours once per week for each
new respondent to enter records of startup, shutdown, and malfunction
information.

s  We have assumed that it will take one hour 320 times per year to
record continuously monitored parameters data.

t  We have assumed that it will take sixteen hours for each new
respondent to enter/verify information for semiannual report.

u  We have assumed that it will take 48 hours for each new respondents
to complete the calibration of the CMS.

v  We have assumed that it will take 40 hours once per year for each new
respondent to train personnel.

Table 2:  Average Annual EPA Burden - NESHAP for Pesticide Active
Ingredient Production (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart MMM)

Activity

(A)

EPA person-

hours per

occurrence

(B)

No. of

occurrences

per plant

 per year

(C)

EPA person

hours per

plant per year

(C=AxB)

(D)

Plants per year b

(E)

Technical

person-

hours

per year

(E=CxD)

(F)

Management

person-hours

per year

(Ex0.05)

(G)

Clerical

person-

hours per year

(Ex0.1)

(H)

Cost, $ a

Activity

Initial performance test 	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

Repeat performance test c	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

Performance evaluation test (certification of

CMS) d	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

Report review

     Notification of applicability 	2	2	4	0	0	0	0	$0

     Notification of construction/reconstruction	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

     Notification of anticipated startup 	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

     Notification of actual startup 	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

     Notification of process changes e	8	1	8	1	8	0.4	0.8	$414.60

     Review of pre-compliance report f	4	1	4	0	0	0	0	40

     Notification of performance test 	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	40

     Notification of CMS performance

     evaluation 	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	$0

     Review of notification of compliance status

        -  With performance test g	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

        -  Without performance test h	40	1	40	0	0	0	0	$0

     Review of emission averaging plan i	20	1	20	1	20	1	2	$1,036.49

     Review of semiannual report j	2	2	4	14	56	2.8	5.6	$2,902.18

     Review of quarterly reports k	8	4	32	1	32	1.6	3.2	$1,658.38

     Review of NESHAP waiver application	N/A

	Subtotals Labor Burden and cost

	116	5.8	11.6	$6,011.65

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN AND COST (rounded)

	133

	$6,012

 	Assumptions:

a  This cost is based on the following labor rates which incorporate a
1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead
expenses: $62.27

Managerial rate (GS-13, Step 5, $38.92 x 1.6), $46.21 Technical rate
(GS-12, Step 1, $28.99 x 1.6), and $25.01 Clerical rate (GS-6, Step 3,
$15.63 x 1.6).  These rates are

from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 2011 General Schedule
which excludes locality rates of pay.

b  We have assumed that the average number of existing sources subject
to the rule will be 15.  There will be no additional new sources per
year that will become subject

to the rule over the three-year period of this ICR

c  We have assumed that 5 percent of new facilities will repeat
performance test.

d  We have assumed that EPA personnel will attend 10 percent of these
performance evaluation tests.

e  We have assumed that 10 percent of existing facilities will take two
hours each once per year to review process changes report.

f  We have assumed that 50 percent of new facilities will take four
hours once per year to review the pre-compliance report.

g  We have assumed that 90 percent of all new sources will conduct a
performance test that covers the reviewing of compliance status report.

h  We have assumed that 10 percent of facilities will comply by
submitting engineering calculations, designing calculations, and
reporting of the CMS performance    evaluation.

i  We have assumed that 10 percent of existing facilities will each take
20 hours once per year to review emission-averaging plan.

j  We have assumed that 90 percent of existing facilities will each take
two hours twice per year to review the semiannual report.

k  We have assumed that 10 percent of existing facilities will each take
eight hours four times per year to review the quarterly reports.

 PAGE

 PAGE   19

 PAGE


[Federal Register: September 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 57050]
[DOCID:fr17se10-116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1930-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Iowa; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1930-DR), dated July 29, 2010, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 7, 2010.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael R.
Scott, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Thomas A. Hall as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-23274 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P