[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 149 (Thursday, August 4, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47666-47669]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16492]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0609; FRL-10025-01-R9]

Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Maricopa County; Reasonably Available
Control Technology--Combustion Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a

revision to the Maricopa County Air Quality Department's (MCAQD or
County) portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This
revision concerns emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and
particulate matter (PM) from combustion equipment and internal
combustion (IC) engines. We are proposing to approve local rules to
regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the
Act) and to determine that the County's control measures implement
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for major sources of
NOX under the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action. Elsewhere in thi's Federal Register, we are
making an interim final determination to defer CAA sanctions associated
with our previous disapproval action concerning the County's RACT
demonstration for major sources of NOX.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0609 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Gong, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of these rules?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating these rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules proposed for approval with the date they
were revised by Maricopa County and the date they were submitted by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

                                            TABLE 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Rule No.                  Rule title                    Revised                      Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
323.......................  Fuel Burning Equipment    June 23, 2021...............  June 30, 2021.
                             from Industrial/
                             Commercial/
                             Institutional (ICI)
                             Sources.
324.......................  Stationary Reciprocating  June 23, 2021...............  June 30, 2021.
                             Internal Combustion
                             Engines (RICE).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2021, the EPA determined that the submittal for
the rules in Table 1 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We conditionally approved previous versions of Rule 323 and Rule
324 (locally revised on November 2, 2016 and submitted to EPA in 2017
\1\) into the Arizona SIP on July 20, 2020 (85 FR 43692). If we take
final action to approve the June 23, 2021 versions of Rule 323 and Rule
324, these versions will replace the previously approved versions of
the rules in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The original date of submittal for this SIP revision was
December 19, 2016. However, due to an administrative error, the
submittal lacked adequate documentation that demonstrated the
County's SIP revision had met the public notice requirements
required for completeness under 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. The
County subsequently addressed the public notice requirement and the
State resubmitted the submittal on June 22, 2017, and withdrew the
December 19, 2016 submittal on May 17, 2019. As such, we will refer
to the 2017 submittal when discussing the previously submitted
version of Rule 323.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of these rules?

    Emissions of NOX contribute to the production of ground-
level ozone, smog and particulate matter (PM), which harm human health
and the environment. Emissions of PM, including PM equal to or less
than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) and PM equal to or less
than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), contribute to effects
that are harmful to human health and the environment, including
premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to
vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to
submit regulations that control NOX and PM emissions. Any
stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 100
tons per year (tpy) of VOCs or NOX is a major stationary
source in a Moderate ozone nonattainment area (CAA section 182(b)(2),
(f) and 302(j)).
    Section III.D of the preamble to the EPA's final rule to implement
the 2008 ozone NAAQS \2\ discusses RACT requirements. It states, in
part, that in order to meet the RACT requirements, SIP revisions
implementing these requirements (RACT SIPs) must contain adopted RACT
regulations, certifications where appropriate that existing provisions
are RACT, and/or negative declarations that no sources in the
nonattainment area are covered by a specific control techniques
guidelines (CTG).\3\ It also provides that states must submit
appropriate supporting information for their RACT submissions as
described in the EPA's

implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
    \3\ Id. at 12278.
    \4\ See id. and 70 FR 71612, 71652 (November 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 323 regulates combustion equipment at non-power plant
facilities and Rule 324 regulates stationary reciprocating internal
combustion engines. The EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have
more information about these rules.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating these rules?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each major source of
NOX in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or
above (see CAA sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f)). The MCAQD regulates a
portion of the Phoenix-Mesa ozone nonattainment area which is
classified as Moderate for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (40 CFR 81.303). Maricopa County's ``Analysis of
Reasonably Available Control Technology For The 2008 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) State Implementation Plan
(RACT SIP),'' adopted December 5, 2016, submitted June 22, 2017 (the
``2016 RACT SIP''), found that there were major sources of
NOX within the Maricopa County portion of the Phoenix-Mesa
nonattainment area subject to the County's regulations. Accordingly,
these rules must establish RACT levels of control for applicable major
sources of NOX.
    The EPA's previous rulemaking on the 2017 versions of Rule 323 and
Rule 324 found several deficiencies, which precluded full approval of
these SIP revisions. Commitments from Maricopa County and ADEQ to
resolve the approvability issues allowed the EPA to issue conditional
approvals of these revisions to the Arizona SIP as provided under
section 110(k)(4) of the CAA. The deficiencies in the 2017 submittal
that Maricopa County and ADEQ committed to resolve are listed below. We
further explain the deficient provisions in these rules in the TSDs.
Rule 323 Deficiencies
    a. Emergency fuel use exemptions in Section 104 were not adequately
constrained, and had unclear language that could result in unintended
emissions.
    b. Burner maintenance requirements in section 304.1.a did not meet
RACT, as other jurisdictions regulating units in this size category are
able to achieve numeric limits or have more stringent tuning
requirements.
    c. The NOX limits of 42 ppmv for gas fuel-fired
operations and 65 ppmv for liquid fuel-fired operations for non-turbine
combustion equipment in this rule were not consistent with limits found
in other jurisdictions and did not meet RACT.
    d. Section 306 allowed for operators to comply with the emission
limits in this rule by installing an Emission Control System (ECS), but
the effectiveness of such a system in meeting the applicable emission
standards was unknown without a compliance determination requirement
(which in Section 503 only applies to Sections 301-304, and only for
units larger than 100 million Btu/hr).
    e. The operations and maintenance plan requirements were only
approved by the Control Officer in Section 306.3. This constituted
unacceptable director's discretion.
    f. Section 503.2 specified that boilers larger than 100 MMBtu/hr
must source test triennially, but did not describe a testing frequency
for other units.
    g. Section 200 did not include a definition for ``boiler,'' which
is used throughout this rule and in the context of definitions for
``annual capacity factor,'' ``steam generating unit,'' and others, nor
is the term defined in Maricopa's Rule 100 General Provisions and
Definitions. Section 200 also did not include a definition for
``continuous emissions monitoring system.''
Rule 324 Deficiencies
    a. The Rule's structure for applicability and emission limits did
not clearly outline RACT limits for all applicable IC engines. Engines
that were subject to similar Federal requirements in the NSPS and
NESHAP could be exempt from this rule's RACT limits.
    b. The Rule only applied to engines rated greater than 250 bhp, and
to engines greater than 50 bhp only when aggregated at a facility
operating engines with a combined bhp rating of greater than 250 bhp.
    c. The Rule allowed for excessive flexibility in the treatment of
replacement engines. Emergency engines that serve as backups to replace
non-emergency engines may do so until the non-emergency engine is
repaired, but this time span was unbounded, and such engines may
operate above RACT limits. Rule provisions also allowed for engines
that are deemed equivalent or identical to replace existing engines to
be treated the same as the engine being replaced, but there were no
requirements for replacement engines to quantify emissions equivalency
or reductions.
    d. The Rule did not specify a compliance determination interval for
engines, beyond the Control Officer's discretion.
    In our July 20, 2020 (85 FR 43692) final rule promulgating our
conditional approval of Rules 323 and 324, the EPA also finalized
disapproval of the 2017 revision to Rule 322 regulating power plant
combustion sources which also must implement RACT for major sources of
NOX. Our conditional approvals and disapproval of these
rules led to our subsequent disapproval of the County's demonstration
for the County's 2008 8-hour ozone RACT SIP on January 7, 2021 (86 FR
971), which initiated offset sanctions to commence 18 months after the
effective date of that rulemaking (February 8, 2021), and highway
sanctions and a Federal Implementation Plan to be due 24 months after
the effective date, under CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a). The MCAQD
must resolve the identified deficiencies in all of the associated rules
in order for the EPA to determine that that the RACT requirement is
met, and to turn off these penalty clocks.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX
Emissions from Stationary Gas Turbines,'' EPA 453/R-93-007, January
1993.
    4. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX
Emissions from Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Boilers,'' EPA
453/R-94-022, March 1994.
    5. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX
Emissions from Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines,''
EPA 453/R-93-032, July 1993.

    6. ``De Minimis Values for NOX RACT,'' Memorandum from
G. T. Helms, Group Leader, Ozone Policy and Strategies Group, U.S. EPA,
January 1, 1995.
    7. ``Cost-Effective Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT),'' Memorandum from D. Ken Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, U.S. EPA, March 16,
1994.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe that these revisions to Rules 323 and 324 meet CAA
requirements, and address the conditional approval deficiencies we
identified in our 2020 rulemaking. Our TSDs contain more information
about how the revised rules meet the commitments.
    The revisions are otherwise consistent with relevant guidance
regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP revisions. The TSDs have more
information on our evaluations on these factors for each rule. On
February 8, 2022 (87 FR 7069) we proposed approval for MCAQD Rule 322
to replace the SIP-approved version of that rule, and which would
address our previous disapproval. Therefore, we find that all three
rules regulating major sources of NOX in Maricopa County
meet the applicable CAA requirements and include requirements that are
consistent with RACT for NOX sources. Based on this finding,
the EPA concludes that the submitted rules satisfy CAA section 182 RACT
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for major sources of
NOX.

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
fully approve the submitted Rules 323 and 324 because they fulfill all
relevant requirements. In addition, we propose to convert the partial
conditional approval of RACT demonstrations for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS with respect to Rules 323 and 324 as found in 40 CFR
52.119(c)(2), to full approval. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal until September 6, 2022. If we take final action to
approve the submitted rules, our final action would correct the
deficiencies identified in our January 7, 2021 partial approval,
partial disapproval, and partial conditional approval of the RACT
demonstration as they relate to major sources of NOX in
MCAQD's RACT SIP submittal for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (86 FR 971).

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the rules identified above in sections I.A, I.B. and I.C of
this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of
nitrogen, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: July 27, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-16492 Filed 8-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 63)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16696-16698]
[DOCID:fr02ap10-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0278; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-255-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-223, -321, -322, and
-323 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as: During accomplishment of Damage Tolerant--Airworthiness
Limitation Item task 712106-01-01 from A330 ALS Part 2, an A330
operator found a Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection (FPI) indication in
the head of the shank filet radius in one of the Pratt & Whitney (PW)
forward (FWD) engine mount pylon bolts. Dual-bolt fractures could lead
to inability for mount assembly to sustain loads which may lead to an
engine mount failure and consequently to engine separation from the
aeroplane during flight, which would constitute an unsafe condition.
    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 17, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
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; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.airbus.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1138; 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-2010-0278; Directorate
Identifier 2009-NM-255-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 have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that
address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to
provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The
comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which
is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0240, dated November 5, 2009 (referred to
after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    During accomplishment of Damage Tolerant--Airworthiness
Limitation Item task 712106-01-01 from A330 ALS Part 2, an A330
operator found a Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection (FPI) indication
in the head of the shank filet radius in one of the Pratt & Whitney
(PW) forward (FWD) engine mount pylon bolts.
    Investigation has confirmed that this FPI indication was due to
a quality manufacturing process issue which led to a bolt non-
conformance and is also applicable to aft ward (AFT) mount pylon
bolts.
    Dual-bolt fractures could lead to inability for mount assembly
to sustain loads which may lead to an engine mount failure and
consequently to engine separation from the aeroplane during flight,
which would constitute an unsafe condition.
    This AD requires a one time detailed visual inspection of the
FWD and AFT mount pylon bolts on all A330 aeroplanes fitted with PW
engines (8 bolts per engine) and replacement of any affected bolt.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Airbus has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3020,
including Appendix 1, dated June 10, 2009. The actions described in
this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 41 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 7 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $16,672 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $707,947, or $17,267 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2010-0278; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-
255-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by May 17, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Airbus Model A330-223, -321, -322, and -
323 airplanes; certificated in any category; all manufacturer serial
numbers.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71:
Powerplant.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    During accomplishment of Damage Tolerant--Airworthiness
Limitation Item task 712106-01-01 from A330 ALS Part 2, an A330
operator found a Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection (FPI) indication
in the head of the shank filet radius in one of the Pratt & Whitney
(PW) forward (FWD) engine mount pylon bolts.
    Investigation has confirmed that this FPI indication was due to
a quality manufacturing process issue which led to a bolt non-
conformance and is also applicable to aft ward (AFT) mount pylon
bolts.
    Dual-bolt fractures could lead to inability for mount assembly
to sustain loads which may lead to an engine mount failure and
consequently to engine separation from the aeroplane during flight,
which would constitute an unsafe condition.
    This AD requires a one time detailed visual inspection of the
FWD and AFT mount pylon bolts on all A330 aeroplanes fitted with PW
engines (8 bolts per engine) and replacement of any affected bolt.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Do a detailed inspection to determine the part number,
serial number, and lot number of the forward and aft mount pylon
bolts on both engines, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3020,
dated June 10, 2009. Inspect at the later of the times specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 8,000 total flight cycles or
24,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (h) If the identified part number, serial number, or lot number
corresponds to a suspect bolt number identified in Pratt & Whitney
Service Bulletin PW4G-100-71-35, dated March 14, 2008, before
further flight remove the affected bolt and replace with a
serviceable bolt, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3020, dated June 10,
2009.
    (i) If the bolt part number, serial number, or lot number is
unreadable, before further flight remove the affected bolt and
replace with a serviceable bolt, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A330-71-3020, dated June 10, 2009.
    (j) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install
any forward or aft mount pylon bolt on any airplane, unless this
bolt has been identified as a non-suspect bolt, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin
A330-71-3020, dated June 10, 2009.
    (k) Although Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3020,
dated June 10, 2009, specifies to submit certain information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: Although the MCAI or service information
tells you to submit information to the manufacturer, paragraph (k)
of this AD specifies that such submittal is not required.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (l) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN:
Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

Related Information

    (m) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0240, dated November 5, 2009; and
Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A330-71-3020, dated June 10, 2009;
for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 25, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-7460 Filed 4-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P