annual PM10 NAAQS, if such a budget exists.

* * * * *

(i)  1997 PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas.   * * *

 (j) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment and maintenance areas without 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS motor vehicle emissions budgets for any portion of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS area.  In addition to the criteria listed in Table 1 in
paragraph (b) of this section that are required to be satisfied at all
times, in such 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas conformity
determinations must include a demonstration that the budget and/or
interim emissions tests are satisfied as described in the following:

(1)  FHWA/FTA projects in such PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas
must satisfy the appropriate hot-spot test required by §93.116(a).

(2)  In such PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas the budget test
must be satisfied as required by (93.118 for conformity determinations
made on or after:

(i) The effective date of EPA’s finding that a motor vehicle emissions
budget in a submitted control strategy implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is adequate for transportation
conformity purposes;

(ii) The publication date of EPA’s approval of such a budget in the
Federal Register; or

(iii) The effective date of EPA’s approval of such a budget in the
Federal Register, if such approval is completed through direct final
rulemaking.

(3)  In such PM2.5 nonattainment areas the interim emissions tests must
be satisfied as required by (93.119 for conformity determinations made
if there is no approved motor vehicle emissions budget from an
applicable implementation plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and no adequate
motor vehicle emissions budget from a submitted control strategy
implementation plan revision or maintenance plan for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.

	(k) 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment and maintenance areas with motor
vehicle emissions budgets for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS that cover all or a
portion of the 2006  PM2.5 nonattainment area.  In addition to the
criteria listed in Table 1 in paragraph (b) of this section that are
required to be satisfied at all times, in such 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
and maintenance areas conformity determinations must include a
demonstration that the budget and/or interim emissions tests are
satisfied as described in the following:

	(1)  FHWA/FTA projects in such PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance
areas must satisfy the appropriate hot-spot test required by
§93.116(a).

	(2) In such PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas the budget test
must be satisfied as required by §93.118 for conformity determinations
made on or after:

	(i) The effective date of EPA’s finding that a motor vehicle
emissions budget in a submitted control strategy implementation plan
revision or maintenance plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes;

	(ii) The publication date of EPA’s approval of such a budget in the
Federal Register; or

	(iii) The effective date of EPA’s approval of such a budget in the
Federal Register, if such approval is completed through direct final
rulemaking.

	(3) Prior to paragraph (k)(2) of this section applying, the following
test(s) must be satisfied:

	(i) If the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area covers the same geographic
area as the 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment or maintenance area(s), the budget
test as required by §93.118 using the approved or adequate motor
vehicle emissions budgets in the 1997 PM2.5 applicable implementation
plan or implementation plan submission;

	(ii) If the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area covers a smaller geographic
area within the 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment or maintenance area(s), the
budget test as required by §93.118 for either:

	(A) The 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area using corresponding portion(s) of
the approved or adequate motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 1997
PM2.5 applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submission
where such portion(s) can reasonably be identified through the
interagency consultation process required by §93.105; or

	(B) The 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment area using the approved or adequate
motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 1997 PM2.5 applicable
implementation plan or implementation plan submission. If additional
emissions reductions are necessary to meet the budget test for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in such cases, these emissions reductions must come from
within the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area;

	(iii) If the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area covers a larger geographic
area and encompasses the entire 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment or maintenance
area(s):

	(A) The budget test as required by §93.118 for the portion of the 2006
PM2.5 nonattainment area covered by the approved or adequate motor
vehicle emissions budgets in the 1997 PM2.5 applicable implementation
plan or implementation plan submission; and the interim emissions tests
as required by §93.119 for either: the portion of the 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment area not covered by the approved or adequate budgets in
the 1997 PM2.5 implementation plan, the entire 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment
area, or the entire portion of the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area within
an individual state, in the case where separate 1997 PM2.5 SIP budgets
are established for each state of a multi-state 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment
or maintenance area; or

	(B)  The budget test as required by §93.118 for the entire 2006 PM2.5
nonattainment area using the approved or adequate motor vehicle
emissions budgets in the applicable 1997 PM2.5 implementation plan or
implementation plan submission.

	(iv) If the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area partially covers a 1997 PM2.5
nonattainment or maintenance area(s):

	(A) The budget test as required by §93.118 for the portion of the 2006
PM2.5 nonattainment area covered by the corresponding portion of the
approved or adequate motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 1997 PM2.5
applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submission where
they can be reasonably identified through the interagency consultation
process required by §93.105; and

	(B) The interim emissions tests as required by §93.119, when
applicable, for either: the portion of the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area
not covered by the approved or adequate budgets in the 1997 PM2.5
implementation plan, the entire 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area, or the
entire portion of the 2006 PM2.5 nonattainment area within an individual
state, in the case where separate 1997 PM2.5 SIP budgets are established
for each state in a multi-state 1997 PM2.5 nonattainment or maintenance
area.

* * * * *

5.  Section 93.116 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

§93.116  Criteria and procedures:  Localized CO, PM10, and PM2.5
violations (hot-spots).

	(a)  This paragraph applies at all times.  The FHWA/FTA project must
not cause or contribute to any new localized CO, PM10, and/or PM2.5
violations, increase the frequency or severity of any existing CO, PM10,
and/or PM2.5 violations, or delay timely attainment of any standard or
any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in CO,
PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas.  This criterion is
satisfied without a hot-spot analysis in PM10 and PM2.5 nonattainment
and maintenance areas for FHWA/FTA projects that are not identified in
§93.123(b)(1).  This criterion is satisfied for all other FHWA/FTA
projects in CO, PM10 and PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance areas if it
is demonstrated that during the time frame of the transportation plan no
new local violations will be created and the severity or number of
existing violations will not be increased as a result of the project,
and the project has been included in a regional emissions analysis that
meets applicable §§93.118 and/or 93.119 requirements.  The
demonstration must be performed according to the consultation
requirements of §93.105(c)(1)(i) and the methodology requirements of
§93.123.

§93.118 [Amended]

6.  Section 93.118 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing the citation
“§93.109(c) through (l)” and adding in its place “§93.109(c)
through (n)”.

7.  Section 93.119 is amended as follows:

	a. In paragraph (a), by removing the citation “§93.109(c) through
(l)” and adding in its place “§93.109(c) through (n)”; and

	b. By revising paragraph (e)(2).

§93.119 Criteria and procedures:  Interim emissions in areas without
motor vehicle emissions budgets.

* * * * *

	(e) * * *

Option 1 for paragraph (e)(2):

	(2) The emissions predicted in the “Action” scenario are not
greater than:

	(A) 2002 emissions, in areas designated nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS as described in §93.109(i); or

	(B) 2008 emissions, in areas designated nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS as described in §93.109(j) and (k).

Option 2 for paragraph (e)(2):

	(2) The emissions predicted in the “Action” scenario are not
greater than:

	(A) 2002 emissions, in areas designated nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS; or

	(B) Emissions in the most recent year for which EPA’s Air Emissions
Reporting Requirements (40 CFR Part 51, Subpart A) requires submission
of on-road mobile source emissions inventories, as of the effective date
of nonattainment designations for any PM2.5 NAAQS other than the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.

* * * * *

§93.121 [Amended]

8.  Section 93.121 is amended:

	a. In paragraph (b) introductory text by removing the citation
“§93.109(l)” and adding in its place “§93.109(n)”;

	b. In paragraph (c) introductory text by removing the citation
“§93.109(j) and (k)” and adding in its place “§93.109(l) and
(m)”.

 40 CFR 93.102(b)(1) defines PM2.5 and PM10 as particles with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 and 10
micrometers, respectively.

 At this website, click on “Regulations” to find all of EPA’s
proposed and final rules as well the current transportation conformity
regulations.

 EPA began the process of notifying state and local agencies, via the
EPA regional offices, of the timing of conformity under the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in its April 16, 2007 memorandum entitled, “Transportation
Conformity and the Revised 24-hour PM2.5 Standard,” from Merrylin
Zaw-Mon, Director, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, EPA
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, to EPA Regional Air Directors,
Regions I-X.

 “Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-spot Analyses
in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas,”
EPA420-B-06-902, March 2006.

 EPA notes that today’s proposal does not address project requirements
for the National Environmental Policy Act or other environmental
programs.

 Also, the AERR requires submission of point, nonpoint, and mobile
source emissions inventories every three years, and 2002 was one of
those required years for such updates.

 Petitioners challenged several aspects of the conformity regulations.
In its decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit upheld EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 93.119(b)(2), (d), and (e)
“because the Act does not require that activities involving
transportation actually reduce pollutants, but merely not frustrate an
implementation plan’s purpose to reduce overall emissions.” The
court also upheld EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 93.118(b), (d), and
(e)(6).  The court vacated a narrow provision at 40 CFR 93.109(e)(2)(v)
which had allowed 8-hour ozone areas to avoid using their existing
1-hour budgets under certain circumstances.  This provision was removed
from the transportation conformity regulation in the January 24, 2008
final rule.

 That is, ozone areas classified as moderate and above, and CO areas
classified as moderate with design value greater than 12.7 ppm and
serious.

  “Companion Guidance for the July 1, 2004, Final Transportation
Conformity Rule:  Conformity Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional
Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for Existing and New Air Quality
Standard,” EPA40-B-04-012, July 2004, found on EPA’s web-site at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/420b04012.pdf

 Although all four scenarios are included in this proposal, most of the
2006 PM2.5 areas that have 1997 PM2.5 budgets will be Scenario 1 areas.

 While the existing regulation for 8-hour ozone areas does not
explicitly contain this option, it was addressed in the preamble to the
final rule addressing 8-hour ozone areas (July 1, 2004, 69 FR 40027).

 This section of the guidance covers how 8-hour ozone areas that have
1-hour ozone budgets would proceed with developing their regional
emissions analyses and making conformity determinations, which is
analogous to any 2006 PM2.5 areas that have 1997 budgets in the interim.

 Transportation Conformity in PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas
and the Revocation of the Annual PM10 Standard, September 25, 2008,
found on EPA’s website at:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm

 Note that it would not be necessary to remove budgets established for
the annual PM10 NAAQS from a SIP for conformity purposes; they do not
apply if an area has budgets for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS.  However,
states can choose to revise such SIPs to remove any annual PM10 budgets,
since this standard has been revoked and remaining 24-hour PM10 budgets
would ensure that anti-backsliding SIP requirements are met.

 The March 10, 2006 rule constituted final action on EPA’s original
proposal from November 5, 2003 (68 FR 62690, 62712) and a supplemental
proposal from December 13, 2004 (69 FR 72140, 72144-45, and 72149-50).

 Section 93.123(b) contains the types of projects for which a hot-spot
analysis applies in PM2.5 and PM10 areas.  For additional discussion,
please refer to “V. Projects of Air Quality Concern and General
Requirements for PM2.5 and PM10 Hot-spot Analyses” in the preamble of
the March 10, 2006 final rule at 71 FR 12490 -12498.

 EPA and petitioners settled a third issue that was not raised to the
court.  The settlement was finalized on June 22, 2007 (72 FR 34460), and
described a stakeholder process that EPA will use to develop its future
PM2.5 and PM10 quantitative hot-spot modeling guidance.

&

-

K

M

u

w

z

ƒ

³

á

ç

è

[

b

c

d

m

u

†

¤

è

\

&

&

਀&䘋옍

＀摧㰬ø

&

&

&

萑ː搒Ǡ葠ː摧㹁ê

&

&

`„Ðgd`

gd`

`„Ðgd`

gd`

&

h`

h`

h`

h`

h`

h`

h`

h`

h`

h`

h

h`

h`

h`

h

摧ĉå

摧亐s

h|

h|

h|

hŒh

Q

Å

>

h#

h#

h#

h#

hÜS

L

M

P

Q

s

{

Ž

—

Ÿ

«

®

Â

Æ

Ú

Ý

1

4

5

:

?

S

V

–

™

£

¤

¥

¾

Á

$>

 hg

h#

h#

 h#

h#

h#

h

hl

h9

h

h9

h

h9

h9

h9

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

!

h

h

h

옍)

옍)

·

º

;

>

”

—

Â

Ã

§

&

¾

옍)

 hc

 hc

 hc

 93.109(b), 93.111, and 93.123, and therefore any growth in other
emissions sources or the impact of new or existing emissions controls
(including those in any required SIP) would always be considered in a
hot-spot analysis prior to approving a project.

 This requirement is included in section 93.116(b) of the existing
conformity rule.

  PAGE  110


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 162 (Thursday, August 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 51426]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18282]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL20-63-000]

City of Alameda, California v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company;
Notice of Complaint and Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on August 10, 2020, City of Alameda, California
(Complainant) filed a formal complaint and petition for declaratory
order against Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Respondent) pursuant to
sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act \1\ and Rules 206 and 207
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure,\2\ requesting the Commission's intervention in
order to terminate a controversy concerning the interpretation of an
interconnection agreement between Complainant and Respondent and an
operating agreement entered into pursuant to that interconnection
agreement, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e.
    \2\ 18 CFR 385.206 and 385.207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Complainant certifies that a copy of the complaint was served on
Respondent's corporate representative designated on the Commission's
list of Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainant.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 9, 2020.

    Dated: August 14, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18282 Filed 8-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42106-42109]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15024]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2022 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0875; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00640-R]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
(AHD) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD) Model MBB-BK 117 C-2
helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of excessively
worn bolts that connect the cardan-pivot joint with the piston rod of
the tail rotor actuator (TRA) assembly. This proposed AD would require
repetitively inspecting certain TRA assemblies, and depending on the
results, replacing or repairing parts, or accomplishing additional
inspections. This proposed AD would also prohibit installing an
affected TRA assembly unless it passes required inspections. Lastly,
this proposed AD would provide terminating actions for certain
inspections, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The
FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD August 29,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For EASA material that is proposed for IBR in this NPRM, contact
EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email [email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find the EASA material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. For Airbus Helicopters service information
identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 North Forum
Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or (800) 232-
0323; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at https://www.airbus.com/helicopters/services/technical-support.html. You may view this material at the FAA,
Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. The EASA material is
also available at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0875.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0875; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the EASA AD,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hal Jensen, Aerospace Engineer,
Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA,
950 L'Enfant Plaza N SW, Washington, DC 20024; telephone (202) 267-
9167; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0875; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-00640-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Hal
Jensen, Aerospace Engineer, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 950 L'Enfant Plaza N SW, Washington, DC
20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]. Any
commentary that the FAA receives that is not specifically designated as
CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued a series of EASA ADs, with the most recent
being EASA AD 2022-0086, dated May 13, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0086), to
correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters

Deutschland GmbH (AHD), formerly Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH; and
Airbus Helicopters Inc., formerly American Eurocopter LLC, Model MBB-
BK117 C-2 helicopters. EASA issued EASA AD 2022-0086 to supersede EASA
AD 2019-0313, dated December 20, 2019.
    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of excessively worn bolts
that connect the cardan-pivot joint with the piston rod of the TRA
assembly. According to Airbus Helicopters, manufacturer investigations
of affected TRAs have revealed improperly assembled cardan-pivot joints
as the main cause of the excessively worn bolts. Additionally,
incorrect washers as well as improperly shimmed laminated washers
contribute to axial play and increased wear of the bolt. The FAA is
proposing this AD to detect and prevent worn bolts. The unsafe
condition, if not addressed, could result in helicopter oscillations on
the yaw axis during flight, failure of a bolt resulting in loss of
control of the tail rotor, and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter. See EASA AD 2022-0086 for additional background
information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2022-0086 requires, for certain TRAs with a steel or
aluminum cardan-pivot joint, repetitively measuring the minimum
diameter of the cardan-pivot joint assembly bolt. Depending on the
results, EASA AD 2022-0086 requires replacing the bolt and laminated
washers of the affected TRA or repetitively measuring the minimum
diameter of the cardan-pivot joint assembly bolt at a reduced
compliance time; or contacting AHD for approved repair instructions and
compliance time or measuring the maximum diameter of the TRA piston rod
bore hole. Depending on the results of measuring the maximum diameter
of the TRA piston rod bore hole, EASA AD 2022-0086 requires replacing
the bolt and laminated washers of the affected TRA; or contacting AHD
for approved repair instructions and compliance time or repetitively
measuring the maximum diameter of the TRA piston rod bore hole at a
reduced compliance time. EASA AD 2022-0086 also prohibits installing an
affected TRA assembly unless it passes its required inspections.
Lastly, EASA AD 2022-0086 specifies certain terminating actions for
repetitively measuring the minimum diameter of the cardan-pivot joint
assembly bolt.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin MBB-
BK117 C-2-67A-027, Revision 2, dated December 15, 2021. This service
information specifies, for TRAs with a steel or aluminum cardan-pivot
joint, procedures for measuring the minimum diameter of the cardan-
pivot joint assembly bolt, measuring the maximum diameter of the TRA
piston rod bore hole, replacing the bolt and laminated washers, and
reassembling the TRA.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD
after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other helicopters of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2022-0086, described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this proposed AD and except as discussed under
``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the EASA AD.''

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2022-0086 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2022-0086 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2022-0086 does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2022-
0086. Service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0086 for
compliance will be available at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0875 after the FAA final
rule is published.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    EASA AD 2022-0086 requires discarding certain parts, whereas this
proposed AD would require removing those parts from service instead.
EASA AD 2022-0086 requires maintaining a removed bolt for possible
investigation purposes for four weeks, whereas this proposed AD would
not require that action. EASA AD 2022-0086 requires contacting AHD for
approved repair instructions and accomplishing those instructions
within the compliance time specified therein, whereas this proposed AD
would require accomplishing a repair in accordance with certain
approved methods before further flight.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 142 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at
$85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the
following costs to comply with this proposed AD.
    Measuring the cardan-pivot joint assembly bolt would take about 2
work-hours and have a nominal parts cost for an estimated cost of $170
per helicopter and $24,140 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle. If
required, measuring the TRA piston rod bore hole following the cardan-
pivot joint assembly bolt inspection would take about an additional 0.5
work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter, per inspection
cycle. Replacing a bolt and the laminated washers following an
inspection would take about an additional 0.25 work-hour and parts
would cost about $586 for an estimated cost of $607 per replacement.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD): Docket No. FAA-2022-0875;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00640-R.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by August 29, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (AHD)
Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, certificated in any category.
    Note 1 to paragraph (c): Helicopters with an MBB-BK 117 C-2(e)
designation are Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6720, Tail Rotor
Control System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of excessively worn bolts that
connect the cardan-pivot joint with the piston rod of the tail rotor
actuator assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect and prevent
worn bolts. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
helicopter oscillations on the yaw axis during flight, failure of a
bolt resulting in loss of control of the tail rotor, and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply
with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2022-0086, dated May 13, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0086).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2022-0086

    (1) Where EASA AD 2022-0086 requires compliance in terms of
flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service (TIS).
    (2) Where EASA AD 2022-0086 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Where Note 1 of EASA AD 2022-0086 allows a non-cumulative
tolerance of 10% to the repetitive inspection intervals specified in
its paragraphs (1), (2.2), and (5.2), this AD requires the
repetitive inspection intervals specified in paragraphs (h)(3)(i)
through (iii) of this AD.
    (i) For the repetitive inspection interval specified in
paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2022-0086, within intervals not to exceed
330 hours TIS.
    (ii) For the repetitive inspection interval specified in
paragraph (2.2) of EASA AD 2022-0086, within intervals not to exceed
165 hours TIS.
    (iii) For the repetitive inspection interval specified in
paragraph (5.2) of EASA AD 2022-0086, within intervals not to exceed
55 hours TIS.
    (4) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-
0086 specifies discarding parts, this AD requires removing those
parts from service.
    (5) Where the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-
0086 specifies maintaining a removed bolt for possible investigation
purposes for four weeks, this AD does not require that action.
    (6) Where paragraphs (3.1) and (5.1) of EASA AD 2022-0086
specify contacting AHD for approved repair instructions and
accomplishing those instructions within the compliance time
specified therein, this AD requires, before further flight, repair
done in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, General
Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA;
EASA; or Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (7) This AD does not mandate compliance with the ``Remarks''
section of EASA AD 2022-0086.

(i) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2022-0086
specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD
does not include that requirement.

(j) Special Flight Permit

    A special flight permit may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199, provided that there are no passengers onboard.

(k) 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 International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of
this AD. Information may be emailed 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.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For EASA AD 2022-0086, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find the
EASA material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You
may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2022-0875.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Hal Jensen,
Aerospace Engineer, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 950 L'Enfant Plaza N SW, Washington, DC
20024; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

    Issued on July 8, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-15024 Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P