1 Date: May 29, 2003 Subject: Meeting Summary  EPA and representatives from U. S. Steel From: Chris Sarsony, Alpha Gamma Technologies, Inc To: Docket OAR 2002   0039 I. Purpose The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss U. S. Steel's technical comments regarding operating limits for venturi rod deck scrubbers used to control emissions from the indurating furnace.

II. Date May 29, 2003 III. Attendees U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Conrad Chin, OAQPS/ ESD/ MG Peter Westlin, OAQPS/ EMD U. S. Steel Representatives Bill Kubiak, U. S. Steel Larry Salmela, U. S. Steel Tom Moe, U. S. Steel Alpha Gamma Technologies Chris Sarsony IV. Discussion A. Operating Limits for Venturi Rod Deck Scrubbers ° Issue: U. S. Steel representatives stated that for the venturi rod deck scrubbers, they can measure the pressure drop, but they cannot directly control it ( see OAR 2002 0039 IV E 8 2 background discussion below). Therefore, they believed that they could not establish a " not to go below" pressure drop value for these scrubbers.

° U. S. Steel's Suggested Operating Requirements: They requested that EPA require the following for venturi rod deck scrubbers controlling emissions from indurating furnaces:

S Must establish a scrubber water flow limit during the initial compliance test and maintain a rate at or above that limit. Any drop below the established limit would be an exceedance.

S Must establish a scrubber pressure drop level during the initial compliance test. Any drop below the established level and they will do investigation within 1 hour to see if process and scrubber are functioning normally. This would not be considered an exceedance or a violation.

° Alternative Operating Requirements Explored:

S Option 1: Must establish a scrubber water flow limit during the initial compliance test and maintain a rate at or above that limit. Any drop below the established limit would be an exceedance.

Must establish a scrubber pressure drop limit during the initial compliance test. Compliance with this limit would be determined on a 7 day rollingaverage basis. After the first time and second time they are below the limit they would have to perform corrective action. After the third time they are below the limit in any semiannual period it would be considered to be an exceedance.

S Option 2: Determine the critical flow below which the scrubber no longer functions as a venturi. We called Hal Taylor of STS consulting ( 847 279 2541). Mr. Taylor indicated that there were informal studies conducted in the early ` 70' s that showed that, for a multiple throat venturi, below 2" of pressure drop the efficiency dropped sharply. He indicated that in practice it is hard to identify this point and it was not determined when engineering the controls for U. S. Steel.

° Background Discussion: They cannot directly control the pressure drop across the venturi rod deck scrubbers because:

S the scrubbers are of a fixed throat design,

S the fan operates at a fixed speed and fixed diameter, and S the damper prior to the scrubber is used to control the overall flow of air 3 through the system, therefore, it cannot be used to control the pressure drop to the scrubber without affecting the entire process.

° To illustrate their point they presented a flow diagram of one of their indurating furnace lines at Minntac. They showed how the damper leading to the scrubber controls the flow of air through the entire indurating system. This damper is opened more or closed more, as necessary, to modulate the air flow as changes occur in the process. Examples of process changes included production rate changes, changes in the thickness of the bed of pellets, or malfunction conditions, such as the release of fines onto the traveling grate. As production rate increases the damper is opened more, and therefore, the pressure drop across the scrubber increases.

° They characterized the change in pressure in the system with the following equation:

  P Fan =   P Scrubber +   P Bed +   P Damper The fan is a fixed speed and fixed diameter fan, therefore, they cannot control pressure drop via the fan. The scrubber is a fixed throat scrubber, therefore, they cannot control pressure drip via the scrubber. The pressure drop through the bed of pellets is variable and depends on the process changes mentioned above. The damper controls the pressure drop to compensate for changes in the pressure drop through the bed of pellets. For process lines 4 and 5 the damper is typically 100% open, for process lines 6 and 7 the damper is typically 85% open.

° In a previous meeting, representatives from U. S. Steel indicated that if the damper was open 100% it was a malfunction. EPA asked for U. S. Steel representatives to clarify the apparent contradiction of this statement and the fact that some of the furnaces operate normally with the damper open 100%. Representatives from U. S. Steel indicated that a 100% open damper could indicate a malfunction, but not always. It would be a malfunction if the damper were open 100% but the flow of air through the scrubber is still low. This can occur when the bed of pellets on the travel grate gets clogged and does not allow the air to flow through as it should.

B. Gouping of Similar Emission Units ° U. S. Steel provided comments and changes on the way we grouped their units. Overall, they stated that their groupings are very similar to our groupings. 4 C. Action Items ° U. S. Steel to provide pressure drop data for the rod deck scrubbers on indurating furnaces, for all production rates, excluding malfunctions. The data will be provided as daily average pressure drop and 7 day average pressure drop.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57821-57822]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22729]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Filing Taking Effect by Operation of Law

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Docket Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Power Company.................  ER21-1111-002
Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc...  ER21-1112-002
Louisville Gas and Electric Company...  ER21-1114-002
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC............  ER21-1116-002
Duke Energy Progress, LLC.............  ER21-1117-002
Georgia Power Company.................  ER21-1119-002
Kentucky Utilities Company............  ER21-1120-002
Mississippi Power Company.............  ER21-1121-002
                                        (Not Consolidated)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 12, 2021, as amended on June 7, 2021, and August 11,
2021, Southern Company Services, Inc., as agent for Alabama Power
Company, filed, pursuant to section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA)
\1\ and section 35.12 of the Commission's regulations,\2\ the Southeast
Energy Exchange Market (Southeast EEM) Agreement on behalf of itself
and the other prospective Members (collectively, Filing Parties) of the
Southeast EEM.\3\ Additionally, on February 12, 2021, as amended on
June 7, 2021, and August 11, 2021, seven prospective Southeast EEM
Members submitted certificates of concurrence to the Southeast EEM
Agreement.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824d (2018).
    \2\ 18 CFR 35.12 (2020).
    \3\ According to Filing Parties, the following entities
constitute the prospective Members of the Southeast EEM: Alabama
Power Company, Georgia Power Company, and Mississippi Power Company
(collectively, Southern Companies); Associated Electric Cooperative,
Inc.; Dalton Utilities; Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc.
(Dominion Energy SC); Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (DEC) and Duke
Energy Progress, LLC (DEP); Louisville Gas and Electric Company
(LG&E) and Kentucky Utilities Company (KU); North Carolina Municipal
Power Agency Number 1; PowerSouth Energy Cooperative; North Carolina
Electric Membership Corporation; and Tennessee Valley Authority
(each a Member and collectively, the Members).
    \4\ See Dominion Energy SC, Tariff Filing, Docket No. ER21-1112-
002 (filed Aug. 11, 2021); LG&E, Tariff Filing, Docket No. ER21-
1114-002 (filed Aug. 11, 2021); DEC, Tariff Filing, Docket No. ER21-
1116-002 (filed Aug. 11, 2021); DEP, Tariff Filing, Docket No. ER21-
1117-002 (filed Aug. 11, 2021); Georgia Power Company, Tariff
Filing, Docket No. ER21-1119-002 (filed Aug. 11, 2021); KU, Tariff
Filing, Docket No. ER21-1120-002 (filed Aug. 11, 2021); Mississippi
Power Company, Tariff Filing, Docket No. ER21-1121-002 (filed Aug.
11, 2021). Where two or more public utilities are parties to the
same rate schedule or tariff, the Commission permits one public
utility to file such rate schedule or tariff and all other parties
obligated to file such rate schedule or tariff to file a certificate
of concurrence adopting the filed rate schedule or tariff in lieu of
filing a duplicative rate schedule or tariff. 18 CFR 35.1(a) (2020).

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

    Pursuant to section 205 of the FPA, in the absence of Commission
action on or before October 11, 2021, the proposed Southeast EEM
Agreement and concurrences thereto became effective by operation of
law. Accordingly, the effective date of the proposed tariff sheets is
October 12, 2021, as reflected in these tariff sheets.
    The Commission did not act on the proposed Southeast EEM Agreement
and concurrences thereto because the Commissioners are divided two
against two as to the lawfulness of the change. Consistent with section
205(g)(1)(B) of the FPA, any written statement explaining the views of
a Commissioner with respect to Filing Parties' proposal will be added
to the record of the Commission in the captioned proceedings.

    Dated: October 13, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-22729 Filed 10-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56734-56736]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24740]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0222; FRL-9986-31-Region 9]

Approval of Arizona Air Plan; Hayden Lead Nonattainment Area Plan
for the 2008 Lead Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Arizona to
meet Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements applicable to the
Hayden lead nonattainment area (``Hayden Lead NAA''). The EPA is
approving the base year emissions inventory, the attainment
demonstration, the control strategy, including reasonably available
control technology and reasonably available control measures
demonstrations, the reasonable further progress demonstration, and the
contingency measure as meeting the requirements of the CAA and the
EPA's implementing regulations for the 2008 lead national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS). We also find that the State has demonstrated
that the Arizona SIP meets the new source review (NSR) requirements of
CAA section 172(c)(5) for the Hayden Lead NAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0222. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 415-
972-3964, [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Lead is generally emitted in the form of particles that are
deposited in water, soil, and dust. People may be exposed to lead by
inhaling it or by ingesting lead-contaminated food, water, soil, or
dust. Once in the body, lead is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream
and can result in a broad range of adverse health effects including
damage to the central nervous system, cardiovascular function, kidneys,
immune system, and red blood cells. Children are particularly
vulnerable to lead exposure, in part because they are more likely to
ingest lead and in part because their still-developing bodies are more
sensitive to the effects of lead. The harmful effects to children's
developing nervous systems (including their brains) arising from lead
exposure may include IQ \1\ loss, poor academic achievement, long-term
learning disabilities, and an increased risk of delinquent behavior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ IQ (intelligence quotient) is a score created by dividing a
person's mental age score, obtained by administering an intelligence
test, by the person's chronological age, both expressed in terms of
years and months. ``Glossary of Important Assessment and Measurement
Terms,'' Philadelphia, PA: National Council on Measurement in
Education. 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA first established a lead standard in 1978 at 1.5 micrograms
per meter cubed ([micro]g/m\3\) as a quarterly average.\2\ Based on new
health and scientific data, the EPA revised the federal lead standard
to 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ and revised the averaging time for the standard
on October 15, 2008.\3\ A violation of the standard occurs when ambient
lead concentrations exceed 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ averaged over a 3-month
rolling period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 43 FR 46246 (October 5, 1978).
    \3\ 73 FR 66964 (November 12, 2008) (``lead NAAQS rule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the United States as
attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. This process is set forth in
section 107(d)(1) of the Act. After initially being designated
unclassifiable due to insufficient monitoring data, the Hayden area was
redesignated nonattainment on September 3, 2014, effective October 3,
2014.4 5 The designation of the Hayden area as nonattainment
for the 2008 lead NAAQS triggered requirements under section 191(a) of
the CAA requiring Arizona to submit a SIP revision with a plan to
attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
October 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 79 FR 52205.
    \5\ For an exact description of the Hayden Lead NAA, see 40 CFR
81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is the air
quality agency that develops SIP revisions for the Hayden area. The SIP
revision for the Hayden Lead NAA, entitled ``SIP Revision: Hayden Lead
Nonattainment Area'' (``2017 Hayden Lead Plan'' or ``Plan'') was
adopted by ADEQ on March 3, 2017, and submitted to the EPA on the same
day.\6\ The Plan includes a 2012 base year emissions inventory, a
demonstration that controls required under the Plan are sufficient to
bring the area into attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS, an analysis that
demonstrates reasonably available control measures/reasonably available
control technology (RACM/RACT) levels of control are required to be
implemented, a demonstration that the Plan provides for reasonable
further progress (RFP) towards attainment, and a contingency measure
that will be implemented if the area fails to make

RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the applicable deadlines. The Plan also
describes ADEQ's NSR program and its intention to submit revisions to
its NSR rules to address deficiencies identified by the EPA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Letter dated March 3, 2017, from Timothy S. Franquist,
Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Alexis Strauss, Acting
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
    \7\ ADEQ subsequently submitted the changes and, on May 4, 2018,
the EPA approved the revision into the SIP (83 FR 19631). The SIP
revision ensures that ADEQ's rules provide for appropriate NSR for
lead sources undergoing construction or major modification in the
Hayden Lead NAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    On July 3, 2018, the EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
in which we proposed to approve the Plan as a revision to the Arizona
SIP.8 9 The rationale for our proposed action is included in
the proposal, and will not be restated here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 83 FR 31087.
    \9\ ADEQ has determined that the cause of the nonattainment
status in the Hayden area is the primary copper smelter owned and
operated by ASARCO, which accounts for over 99 percent of lead
emissions, and that the emissions generally come from the hot-metal
smelting process and lead-bearing fugitive dust. Plan, 38. ADEQ's
control strategy for the Hayden Lead NAA relies on the
implementation of two source-specific regulations in the Arizona
Administrative Code: Rule R18-2-B1301 (limits on Lead Emissions from
the Hayden Smelter) and Rule R-18-2-B1301.01 (Limits on Lead-Bearing
Fugitive Dust from the Hayden Smelter), and two associated
appendices. We approved Rule R-18-B1301.01 and Appendix 15 into the
Arizona SIP on February 22, 2018 (83 FR 7614) and, in a notice
signed on October 30, 2018, we approved Rule R18-2-B1301 and
Appendix 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received six anonymous comments. After reviewing
the comments, we determined that two were ``test comments'' that did
not include any text and therefore do not necessitate a response. Three
comments were outside the scope of our proposed action and failed to
identify any material issue necessitating a response.
    The sixth comment included the observation that the EPA had used
the term ``off-road'' when describing a portion of mobile source
inventory, but the term ``non-road'' was used in the table summarizing
ADEQ's base year emissions inventory. The commenter asked if, to make
it consistent, would ``off-road'' be used throughout the proposal?
    In the proposal, we explained that emissions can be grouped into
two general categories: Stationary and mobile. We further noted that
stationary source category can be subdivided into point and area
sources and that the mobile source category can be subdivided into on-
road and off-road categories.\10\ In tables 1 and 3, which immediately
follow that discussion, we listed emissions for point, area, mobile
source (non-road) and mobile source (on-road) categories.\11\ In our
proposed action, we used the terms interchangeably and believe their
equivalent meaning is apparent from the context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 83 FR 31087, 31090.
    \11\ Id. Note that the terms off-road and non-road do not appear
elsewhere in the notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments have been added to the docket for this action and are
accessible at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0222.

III. Final Action

    For the reasons discussed in the proposal, the EPA is approving
under CAA section 110(k)(3) the 2017 Hayden Lead Plan as a revision to
the Arizona SIP. Specifically, we are approving:
    (1) The SIP's base year emissions inventory as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.117(e)(1);
    (2) the attainment demonstration, including air quality modeling,
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1);
    (3) the RACM/RACT demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(1);
    (4) the RFP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(2); and
    (5) the contingency measure as meeting the requirements of the CAA
section 172(c)(9);
    We also find that the State has demonstrated that the Arizona SIP
meets the NSR requirements of CAA section 172(c)(5) for the Hayden Lead
NAA.

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
action merely approves State law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this 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);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 (Public Law 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). We offered to consult with San Carlos Apache Tribe, which has
lands adjacent to the Hayden lead nonattainment area. The tribe did not
respond to the EPA's offer to consult.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to

publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 14, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, and Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: October 31, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 in paragraph (e), Table 1 is amended by adding, under
the table heading ``Part D Elements and Plans (Other than for the
Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas),'' an entry for ``SIP Revision:
Hayden Lead Nonattainment Area, excluding Appendix C.'' after the entry
for ``Maintenance Plan Renewal, 1971 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, Douglas Maintenance Area.'' The addition reads
as follows:

Sec.  52.120   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       Table 1--EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
       [Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable
                                     geographic or      State submittal
      Name of SIP provision       nonattainment area         date          EPA approval date      Explanation
                                   or title/subject
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
SIP Revision: Hayden Lead         Hayden, AZ Lead     March 3, 2017.....  [INSERT Federal     Adopted by the
 Nonattainment Area, excluding     Nonattainment                           Register            Arizona
 Appendix C.                       Area.                                   CITATION],          Department of
                                                                           November 14, 2018.  Environmental
                                                                                Quality on March
                                                                                3, 2017.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements
  (excluding Part D Elements and Plans), Part D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or
  Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-24740 Filed 11-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 241 (Monday, December 20, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71823-71825]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27408]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1069; Project Identifier 2018-CE-039-AD; Amendment
39-21854; AD 2021-25-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Daher Aerospace (Type Certificate
Previously Held by SOCATA) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Daher Aerospace (type certificate previously held by SOCATA)
(Daher) Model TBM 700 airplanes. This 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 unsafe condition that is the
subject of the MCAI is ice accumulation on the oil cooler air inlet
duct fin. This AD requires modifying the oil cooler air induction duct.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 24, 2022.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 24,
2022.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Daher Aerospace Inc., Pompano Beach Airpark, 601 NE 10 Street,
Pompano Beach, FL 33060; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; website: https://www.tbm.aero. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-1069.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1069; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
MCAI, any comments received, and other information. The address for
Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Johnson, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; phone:
(720) 626-5462; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Daher Model TBM 700
airplanes with certain oil cooler air induction ducts installed. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2021 (86 FR
46160). The NPRM was based on MCAI from the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of
the European Union. EASA issued AD 2018-0133, dated June 22, 2018, and
corrected June 25, 2018 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to
address the unsafe condition on certain Daher Model TBM 700 airplanes.
The MCAI states:

    During flight testing in icing conditions, oil temperature
increase was observed. Subsequent investigation determined that the
loss of efficiency of the oil cooler system was due to ice
accumulation on the engine air induction duct fins.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to uncommanded
engine in-flight shut-down and reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, DAHER AEROSPACE
developed MOD 70-0616-79 for aeroplanes in production, removing the
4 upper fins of the oil cooler air induction duct to avoid ice
accumulation, available for in-service aeroplanes through the SB
[Daher Aerospace Service Bulletin 70-254, dated April 18, 2018].
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires
modification of the oil cooler air induction duct.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
1069.
    Although the unsafe condition statement in the MCAI identifies the
cause as ice accumulation on the engine air induction fin, the FAA has
determined that this does not accurately identify the affected air
path. The affected area is the oil cooler air inlet duct fin.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require modifying the oil cooler
air

induction duct. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent ice from
accumulating on the oil cooler air induction duct fins, which could
lead to an increase in oil temperature, uncommanded engine inflight
shutdown, and reduced airplane control.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined
that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the
FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Daher Aerospace Service Bulletin SB 70-254, dated
April 2018. The service information specifies procedures for removing
the four upper fins of the oil cooler air induction duct and for re-
identifying the oil cooler air induction duct with a new part number.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA also reviewed Daher Aerospace Service Bulletin SB 70-231,
Revision 1, dated July 2018; and Daher Aerospace Service Bulletin SB
70-219, Revision 2, dated July 2018. The service information identifies
the kit number and installation procedures for replacing the oil cooler
air induction duct.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD will affect up to 807 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it would take about 3 work-
hours per airplane to comply with the requirements of this AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about
$50 per airplane.
    Based on these figures, the FAA estimates the total cost of this AD
on U.S. operators to be $246,135 or $305 per airplane.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2021-25-10 Daher Aerospace (Type Certificate Previously Held by
SOCATA): Amendment 39-21854; Docket No. FAA-2020-1069; Project
Identifier 2018-CE-039-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 24, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Daher Aerospace (type certificate previously
held by SOCATA) Model TBM 700 airplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category, with an oil cooler air induction duct
part number (P/N) T700A7920040001, T700H792000900000,
T700H792001900000, T700H792001900200, T700H792001900400, or
T700H792001900600 installed.
    Note 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD: The applicable oil cooler
air induction duct P/Ns may be installed in accordance with
modification 70-0435-79; Daher Aerospace Service Bulletin SB 70-231,
Revision 1, dated July 2018; or Daher Aerospace Service Bulletin SB
70-219, Revision 2, dated July 18, 2018.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7900, Engine Oil
System (Airframe).

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by 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 unsafe condition that is the subject of the MCAI is ice
accumulation on the oil cooler air inlet duct fin. The FAA is
issuing this AD to prevent ice from accumulating on the oil cooler
air induction duct fins, which could lead to an increase in oil
temperature, uncommanded engine inflight shutdown, and reduced
airplane control.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modify the Oil Cooler Air Induction Duct

    (1) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, remove
the four upper fins of the oil cooler air induction duct and re-
identify the oil cooler air induction duct in accordance with the
Description of Accomplishment Instructions in Daher Aerospace
Service Bulletin SB 70-254, dated April 2018.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install an oil
cooler air induction duct P/N T700A7920040001, T700H792000900000,
T700H792001900000, T700H792001900200, T700H792001900400, or
T700H792001900600 on any airplane.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD
and email to: [email protected].
    (2) 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.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Greg Johnson,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, General Aviation & Rotorcraft
Section, International Validation Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301,
Kansas City, MO 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2018-
0133, dated June 22, 2018, and corrected June 25, 2018, for more
information. You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2020-1069.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Daher Aerospace Service Bulletin SB 70-254, dated April
2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Daher Aerospace service information identified in this
AD, contact Daher Aerospace Inc., Pompano Beach Airpark, 601 NE 10
Street, Pompano Beach, FL 33060; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; website:
https://www.tbm.aero.
    (4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email: [email protected], or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on December 3, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-27408 Filed 12-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P